Cubs acquire Daniel Murphy from the Nationals

[MrTPlush]

The Cubs have made mistakes but with Rizzo/Bryan/Baez/Contreras effectively controlled for years and in their prime there is no reason the Cubs won't be a contender for the next 5 years.

 

That is four hitters...nice, but not a powerhouse core. Heck that core isn't even helping their offense be great right now. They just went and got another hitter because they have struggled offensively.

 

Darvish just ended a terrible year with an injury, Lester is getting really old, Hendricks doesn't appear to be super special anymore, Jose Quintana doesn't seem to be the ace the were hoping for...quite far from it.

 

Their rotation is an ticking time bomb, ready to blow up. Next year it will technically be led by 35 year old Jon Lester. I am waiting for a 2018 Nationals type disappointment in the next few years.

[coolhandluke121]

The Cubs have made mistakes but with Rizzo/Bryan/Baez/Contreras effectively controlled for years and in their prime there is no reason the Cubs won't be a contender for the next 5 years.

 

Is that much better than Braun, Fielder, Weeks, Hart, Hardy, and Gallardo? I personally don't think so. Sure, the Cubs can spend much more money than those Brewers teams... but they've already spent a lot of it, and look what they have to show for it. I obviously don't have a crystal ball, but I'd be pretty disappointed in their decisions if I was a fan. I felt very much cheated out of a very promising future as a Brewer fan when they made similar moves around the Braun/Fielder core, and I think the Cubs are doing a lot of the same stupid stuff, only with more money to light on fire.

 

Again, I overreacted to this trade before I knew the prospect cost, so maybe it was a weird time to bring it up... but I stand my assertion that the Cubs are likely squandering a chance at a long run of contention for an only slightly better chance at a title this year and next.

[502 to Right]

Do we know how much money the Cubs were sending the Nationals in the deal? Is there a league rule on how much cash can go in a trade (that isn't part of paying for a players contract)?

 

I don't know the dollars involved but I know the commissioner's office has the authority to reject a trade if it appears to be one team buying players from another. This happened in 1976 when the Oakland A's owner Charlie Finley tried to sell Rollie Fingers, Joe Rudi, and Vida Blue to other teams for cash. The deals were voided.

 

That said, the commissioner's office has been pretty lax with regard to using this power. If any "prospect" is involved they normally will not blink an eye. Or if the cash considerations are quite modest they will not block.

[tmwiese55]

The Cubs have made mistakes but with Rizzo/Bryan/Baez/Contreras effectively controlled for years and in their prime there is no reason the Cubs won't be a contender for the next 5 years.

 

That is four hitters...nice, but not a powerhouse core. Heck that core isn't even helping their offense be great right now. They just went and got another hitter because they have struggled offensively.

 

Darvish just ended a terrible year with an injury, Lester is getting really old, Hendricks doesn't appear to be super special anymore, Jose Quintana doesn't seem to be the ace the were hoping for...quite far from it.

 

Their rotation is an ticking time bomb, ready to blow up. Next year it will technically be led by 35 year old Jon Lester. I am waiting for a 2018 Nationals type disappointment in the next few years.

 

I get that but it's just a building block to go from that is darn solid. It'll be very hard for them not be above .500 with that core to start from when factoring in their financial resources. That's all I'm saying. And beyond those four you have Schwarber who improved a lot this year and is competent, Russell is a solid player, the new CF Alamora or whatever is fine, Happ is solid. All these guys are young and controlled for several years. And they have the money to keep them, unlike MKE who had ticking clock on Fielder the whole time. And note that Bryant has been hurt all year.

 

You're spot on that P is their issue from here out. Especially after Darvish looks like a sunk cost and the other FA this year has been bad, but I'd guess they at least get something out of Yu in the next few years. I think I noted that in the original that they have to hit on their next couple P moves. Lester is still good but aging and Quintana seems just mediocre at this point. Again this is where the $$ comes in, they'll keep doing something every to fix it and once Lester's contract is up there is more money. But yes they can't miss again or they're in a bad spot in regards to pitching.

 

To CHL comparing to old MKE. That is very accurate. Again, they have the $$ to fix this pitching where as MKE did not. Will they blow the moves or not, that's the question. I totally agree with the overall theme that their moves the last two years have turned them from what should have been a juggernaut mega team for several years into a ok/good team that is very beatable. I'm just saying in the next 5 years there's really no reason they should have a losing season, that's it.

 

Also, not of this to say we can't win in the next few years. Just that if I was forced to bet I'd go Cubs.

[MrTPlush]

I think I noted that in the original that they have to hit on their next couple P moves.

 

That's a dangerous "if" in my opinion. I think they are fairly comparable to us if their aging pitching can hold it together. They have more financial resources, but we also have a stronger farm system...especially when we talk about pitching.

[tmwiese55]

Yup sure is, and our big IF is that our young pitchers have to pan out. Plus one of our near MVP level guys in Cain should regress from here. Their two are right in their prime.

[illiniguy]

The Cubs have made mistakes but with Rizzo/Bryan/Baez/Contreras effectively controlled for years and in their prime there is no reason the Cubs won't be a contender for the next 5 years.

 

That is four hitters...nice, but not a powerhouse core. Heck that core isn't even helping their offense be great right now. They just went and got another hitter because they have struggled offensively.

 

Darvish just ended a terrible year with an injury, Lester is getting really old, Hendricks doesn't appear to be super special anymore, Jose Quintana doesn't seem to be the ace the were hoping for...quite far from it.

 

Their rotation is an ticking time bomb, ready to blow up. Next year it will technically be led by 35 year old Jon Lester. I am waiting for a 2018 Nationals type disappointment in the next few years.

The Cubs have had a disaster season with injuries and missed Bryant for most of the year. Yet they are 3rd in runs scored and 8 out of being the top scoring team in the National League, so yes. I guess that core does make them a power house. Their pitching is poopy and they have the best record in the NL. There is no sense pretending like a recent streak is the real story of the Cubs offense.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

The Cubs have made mistakes but with Rizzo/Bryan/Baez/Contreras effectively controlled for years and in their prime there is no reason the Cubs won't be a contender for the next 5 years.

 

That is four hitters...nice, but not a powerhouse core. Heck that core isn't even helping their offense be great right now. They just went and got another hitter because they have struggled offensively.

 

Darvish just ended a terrible year with an injury, Lester is getting really old, Hendricks doesn't appear to be super special anymore, Jose Quintana doesn't seem to be the ace the were hoping for...quite far from it.

 

Their rotation is an ticking time bomb, ready to blow up. Next year it will technically be led by 35 year old Jon Lester. I am waiting for a 2018 Nationals type disappointment in the next few years.

The Cubs have had a disaster season with injuries and missed Bryant for most of the year. Yet they are 3rd in runs scored and 8 out of being the top scoring team in the National League, so yes. I guess that core does make them a power house. Their pitching is **** and they have the best record in the NL. There is no sense pretending like a recent streak is the real story of the Cubs offense.

 

Most of us are realistic, but this is a board of Brewer fans, so showing up here as a Cub fan to defend them every time someone here bashes the Cubs is probably fighting a losing battle. I give you credit for not resorting to trollish behavior, though.

[monty57]

Since this thread has kind of jumped from Daniel Murphy to the future state of the Brewers vs Cubs, I'll give it a shot:

 

Both of the teams have had injuries this year, and with that they are within 3 games of each other and have had two of the best records in the NL all season. At this time, while the Cubs players are much more well known, the MLB talent isn't that far off. They're fairly evenly matched, and both teams have most of their current roster returning next year.

 

Both of the teams made significant off-season deals to the point that neither should have that much salary room to make big, expensive offseason acquisitions. The Cubs did structure a few contracts (Heyward, Darvish, Zobrist) to lower after this season, probably in preparation of some big arby increases. That may give them some room to add salary, while the Brewers may not have a lot of room to add, especially if they retain Schoop. Note that the Cubs' limits are mainly due to the luxury tax. They could always go over the salary cap, but most teams seem to be doing what they can to keep below the tax level due to stricter penalties including potentially losing draft position.

 

The Brewers have more firepower coming up from the farm. Many of their better prospects are at or near the MLB level, while the Cubs have traded away a lot of talent in the last couple of seasons.

 

The Cubs' biggest risk is probably that their starting pitching is getting old, and they don't have in-house replacements if they falter. The Brewers' biggest question is probably whether their young pitching will step up.

 

I expect that the two teams will be competing for the NL Central title (along with the always competitive Cardinals) for the next few seasons. I'm glad that the Cubs traded away a lot of talent because they probably could have dominated the Central for a long time and now I don't think they'll be dominant, but they'll still be strong competition. I think the Cubs have been and will continue to get a little weaker every year as some players under contract get beyond "useful baseball age", while the Brewers are on the rise and should continue to get better as their prospects hit the majors to replace some of the holes in the current roster.

 

If that plays out, the Brewers could be the favorite going into 2020-21. But a lot can happen by then.

[Devinep]

The Cubs have made mistakes but with Rizzo/Bryan/Baez/Contreras effectively controlled for years and in their prime there is no reason the Cubs won't be a contender for the next 5 years.

 

That is four hitters...nice, but not a powerhouse core. Heck that core isn't even helping their offense be great right now. They just went and got another hitter because they have struggled offensively.

 

Darvish just ended a terrible year with an injury, Lester is getting really old, Hendricks doesn't appear to be super special anymore, Jose Quintana doesn't seem to be the ace the were hoping for...quite far from it.

 

Their rotation is an ticking time bomb, ready to blow up. Next year it will technically be led by 35 year old Jon Lester. I am waiting for a 2018 Nationals type disappointment in the next few years.

The Cubs have had a disaster season with injuries and missed Bryant for most of the year. Yet they are 3rd in runs scored and 8 out of being the top scoring team in the National League, so yes. I guess that core does make them a power house. Their pitching is **** and they have the best record in the NL. There is no sense pretending like a recent streak is the real story of the Cubs offense.

 

Bryant’s played in about 60% if the cubs games. Not exactly out did most of the year

[lowblow]

Since this thread has kind of jumped from Daniel Murphy to the future state of the Brewers vs Cubs, I'll give it a shot:

 

Both of the teams have had injuries this year, and with that they are within 3 games of each other and have had two of the best records in the NL all season. At this time, while the Cubs players are much more well known, the MLB talent isn't that far off. They're fairly evenly matched, and both teams have most of their current roster returning next year.

 

Both of the teams made significant off-season deals to the point that neither should have that much salary room to make big, expensive offseason acquisitions. The Cubs did structure a few contracts (Heyward, Darvish, Zobrist) to lower after this season, probably in preparation of some big arby increases. That may give them some room to add salary, while the Brewers may not have a lot of room to add, especially if they retain Schoop. Note that the Cubs' limits are mainly due to the luxury tax. They could always go over the salary cap, but most teams seem to be doing what they can to keep below the tax level due to stricter penalties including potentially losing draft position.

 

The Brewers have more firepower coming up from the farm. Many of their better prospects are at or near the MLB level, while the Cubs have traded away a lot of talent in the last couple of seasons.

 

The Cubs' biggest risk is probably that their starting pitching is getting old, and they don't have in-house replacements if they falter. The Brewers' biggest question is probably whether their young pitching will step up.

 

I expect that the two teams will be competing for the NL Central title (along with the always competitive Cardinals) for the next few seasons. I'm glad that the Cubs traded away a lot of talent because they probably could have dominated the Central for a long time and now I don't think they'll be dominant, but they'll still be strong competition. I think the Cubs have been and will continue to get a little weaker every year as some players under contract get beyond "useful baseball age", while the Brewers are on the rise and should continue to get better as their prospects hit the majors to replace some of the holes in the current roster.

 

If that plays out, the Brewers could be the favorite going into 2020-21. But a lot can happen by then.

 

I believe that you're making the same mistake that many on this board seem to when looking at "small market teams" (Brewers) vs. "large market teams". Each of the big market teams has very carefully maneuvered themselves under the 'Luxury Tax" threshold for 2018 because of the large ticket free agents that maybe coming on line this off season. Please don't be surprised when the Cubs/Dodgers/RedSox/Yankees, etch fly way past the Luxury Tax line for next year. You're kidding yourself if you don't understand that the Cubs will be trying big time to sign Bryant's pal Harper (or for that matter Almora's boyhood friend Machado).

 

Going over the Luxury Tax line only costs money until the third year in a row over it when draft choices and international draft money get involved - writing a check is something they can do. It's not a hard cap and don't forget that with TV and licensing deals, etc their (big market teams) revenue may well be close totwice what a small market team may make. ...and by the time the third year comes around, MLB and the Player's Association will be negotiating a new CBA. Between you and me, I'd bet that the Luxury Tax line goes up dramatically in that agreement.

 

It's not "fair" to the small market teams, but don't expect it to change. As more avenues of revenue open up, it's likely to get worse for the smaller market teams in terms of comparative revenue. The rich will get richer.

 

None of that makes it impossible for small market teams to win occasionally but without long term sources to comparable revenue, the chances for sustained success are small. Unless you have a complete cohort of terrific young players that arrive in the Majors within a couple year window, it's almost impossible for a small market club to develop sustained success.

 

A few weeks ago, I challenged Brewer fans to decide what kind of fan they were. Are they "take a chance - go for it" fans who want to win a world series (or at least participate in one) so badly they can taste it. This group will won't worry about "what prospects we're giving up" - they want to win now!

 

Or are you a "waiting for it all to come together" type of fan who doesn't want to "waste prospects" just trying to get better. Just think "how much better we'll be when those vaunted prospect help us take over the league - or at least the Central Division."

 

It would be nice to have both - and well-managed big market clubs do. But the reality of free agency will savage small market clubs.

[Ennder]

The Cubs have had a disaster season with injuries and missed Bryant for most of the year. Yet they are 3rd in runs scored and 8 out of being the top scoring team in the National League, so yes. I guess that core does make them a power house. Their pitching is **** and they have the best record in the NL. There is no sense pretending like a recent streak is the real story of the Cubs offense.

 

 

Hardly a disaster year, they have had a pretty average season for injuries. This site tracks how much each team has been hit by injuries and it lists the Brewers as the 8th most affected and the Cubs as one of the healthiest teams overall at 26th.

 

https://www.rosterresource.com/mlb-disabled-list-tracker/

[reillymcshane]

The Cubs have had a disaster season with injuries and missed Bryant for most of the year. Yet they are 3rd in runs scored and 8 out of being the top scoring team in the National League, so yes. I guess that core does make them a power house. Their pitching is **** and they have the best record in the NL. There is no sense pretending like a recent streak is the real story of the Cubs offense.

As a note to all users - if your post gets you the dreaded **** - you know you've activated the curse filter.

 

Please edit your post to something more appropriate. And please don't try and figure out clever ways to get around the curse filter. It may seem trivial, but those are the rules. We are simply asking people to adhere to them. We don't want to delete entire posts just because someone has to put a curse word in a text.

 

Thanks.

[coolhandluke121]

 

To CHL comparing to old MKE. That is very accurate. Again, they have the $$ to fix this pitching where as MKE did not. Will they blow the moves or not, that's the question. I totally agree with the overall theme that their moves the last two years have turned them from what should have been a juggernaut mega team for several years into a ok/good team that is very beatable. I'm just saying in the next 5 years there's really no reason they should have a losing season, that's it.

 

Also, not of this to say we can't win in the next few years. Just that if I was forced to bet I'd go Cubs.

 

Good post. I still say their extra money means nothing if they continue to misuse it though. The difference is $8m in dead weight Suppan vs. $20m in dead weight Darvish. And like I said, they've already spent quite a bit of their extra payroll potential with Rizzo and Bryant not even out of arbitration yet.

 

The only way I see Chicago being in a better situation than the Brewers moving forward is if they suddenly stop making such short-sighted moves while the Brewers stop being so shrewd. Put it this way - if I had to take over a team right now, I'd rather take over the Cubs. So I agree that they're in a better position in that sense. But I won't be taking over either team - it's Theo for the Cubs and Stearns for the Brewers, so there's ample reason to believe the Brewers will continue to get much better value on their transactions, and they're already pretty close in 5-year outlook anyway despite the lack of Bryant/Rizzo level superstars. Depth and balance is more important than superstars in baseball, except for ace starters which neither team has anyway.

[coolhandluke121]

The Cubs have had a disaster season with injuries and missed Bryant for most of the year. Yet they are 3rd in runs scored and 8 out of being the top scoring team in the National League, so yes. I guess that core does make them a power house. Their pitching is **** and they have the best record in the NL. There is no sense pretending like a recent streak is the real story of the Cubs offense.

 

It's not a debate about whether they're a potentially great team this year though. It's about the fact that they could have built a dynasty and instead made a bunch of impulsive moves for a very marginal uptick in their chances of winning a title now.

 

On paper, that's arguably one of the most talented teams this century. Raise your hand if you predicted Darvish, Quintana, Rizzo, and Bryant to combine for less than 5 WAR this year. They should have over 15. And yet they still have the best record in the NL. Nobody is (or should be) saying that they don't have a really talented roster right now. But that's just the thing - why pay so much salary and/or prospects for some of the guys they've gotten when you would have probably won the Central without them? It's mind-numbingly stupid.

[CrewFanBrewMan69]

The Cubs have had a disaster season with injuries and missed Bryant for most of the year. Yet they are 3rd in runs scored and 8 out of being the top scoring team in the National League, so yes. I guess that core does make them a power house. Their pitching is **** and they have the best record in the NL. There is no sense pretending like a recent streak is the real story of the Cubs offense.

 

It's not a debate about whether they're a potentially great team this year though. It's about the fact that they could have built a dynasty and instead made a bunch of impulsive moves for a very marginal uptick in their chances of winning a title now.

 

On paper, that's arguably one of the most talented teams this century. Raise your hand if you predicted Darvish, Quintana, Rizzo, and Bryant to combine for less than 5 WAR this year. They should have over 15. And yet they still have the best record in the NL. Nobody is (or should be) saying that they don't have a really talented roster right now. But that's just the thing - why pay so much salary and/or prospects for some of the guys they've gotten when you would have probably won the Central without them? It's mind-numbingly stupid.

They're going on their 4th consecutive playoff appearance, have made the last 3 NLCS's and won a World Series. That's basically a dynasty already by baseball standards. They will likely be the favorites to come out of the NL this year and they return their whole roster next year except Justin Wilson. I think they're set up just fine for the foreseeable future and have plenty of money to spend for Harper and then can trade some of their other guys that he bumps out of the positional player rotation for a starter. I don't know, I think they're set up pretty good for a while yet (they also just spent the most, or near most money on international free agents this last period so they likely will have a guy or two emerge from there). They get a new TV deal in the next 2 years I believe as well. At some point you have to give up worrying about prospect rankings and actually go and try to win baseball games.

[bill hAll Star]

The Cubs have had a disaster season with injuries and missed Bryant for most of the year. Yet they are 3rd in runs scored and 8 out of being the top scoring team in the National League, so yes. I guess that core does make them a power house. Their pitching is **** and they have the best record in the NL. There is no sense pretending like a recent streak is the real story of the Cubs offense.

 

It's not a debate about whether they're a potentially great team this year though. It's about the fact that they could have built a dynasty and instead made a bunch of impulsive moves for a very marginal uptick in their chances of winning a title now.

 

On paper, that's arguably one of the most talented teams this century. Raise your hand if you predicted Darvish, Quintana, Rizzo, and Bryant to combine for less than 5 WAR this year. They should have over 15. And yet they still have the best record in the NL. Nobody is (or should be) saying that they don't have a really talented roster right now. But that's just the thing - why pay so much salary and/or prospects for some of the guys they've gotten when you would have probably won the Central without them? It's mind-numbingly stupid.

They're going on their 4th consecutive playoff appearance, have made the last 3 NLCS's and won a World Series. That's basically a dynasty already by baseball standards. They will likely be the favorites to come out of the NL this year and they return their whole roster next year except Justin Wilson. I think they're set up just fine for the foreseeable future and have plenty of money to spend for Harper and then can trade some of their other guys that he bumps out of the positional player rotation for a starter. I don't know, I think they're set up pretty good for a while yet (they also just spent the most, or near most money on international free agents this last period so they likely will have a guy or two emerge from there). They get a new TV deal in the next 2 years I believe as well. At some point you have to give up worrying about prospect rankings and actually go and try to win baseball games.

 

 

I will add to this that, yes, the Chapman and Quintana moves (as well as several smaller ones) will be seen as losses very likely. The Chapman one was obviously motivated by desperation to win a World Series for the first time in over a century.

 

So maybe there is an alternate where the Cubs make neither move, still win in 2016, and look like they may have a run of 12 division titles in 15 years and 5 World Series with Torres and Eloy also in their core.

 

There might also be an alternate one where they lose the 2016 WS by not making that trade and maybe still 1 or even 0 later but have a very good regular season team for 10-15 years.

 

Now, of course ideally you'd probably take Eloy, Cease, and Torres back among a few other shortsighted moves and just pray that you get 1 WS (or probably a lot more) if you're a Cubs fan but the Cubs may be able to buy several high profile players in 4-5 years anyways. That doesn't make up for those potential losses but it helps.

 

There's obviously also the real life impact here. Ownership and Theo both probably want to win now given lifespan of ownership and career span of Theo.

 

It's somewhat akin to Bears fans in thinking that Packers fans are going to take them down (let's not let this go down the path of Packers moves, they arguably took the patient/future road and that is what actually kinda burned them) but in the end, the Packers still had Rodgers. In the end, the Cubs still have Bryant/Rizzo/Baez/etc. for 5+ more years probably (yes, they have varying contract control and prime ages left) and the Cubs also still have way more resources even with $25 million/year lit on fire right now...but even if the Brewers do it right, they have to do everything right to be better than the Cubs...even 4 or 5 years from now.

 

I definitely see some paths to the Cubs beginning to really crumble in 2 years and fully collapsing in 4 but I think realistically they've got 3-4 more good/great years and then a handful that they can patch together for 2-3 if they so choose.

[xisxisxis]

I will add to this that, yes, the Chapman and Quintana moves (as well as several smaller ones) will be seen as losses very likely. The Chapman one was obviously motivated by desperation to win a World Series for the first time in over a century.

 

So maybe there is an alternate where the Cubs make neither move, still win in 2016, and look like they may have a run of 12 division titles in 15 years and 5 World Series with Torres and Eloy also in their core.

 

There might also be an alternate one where they lose the 2016 WS by not making that trade and maybe still 1 or even 0 later but have a very good regular season team for 10-15 years.

This is an important point. As several posters on this board who take issue with the Cubs decisions, are basing their conclusions with the knowledge of hindsight, not based on the circumstances at the time and how outcomes change when you change the past. I get the same unease when people are thankful we never signed Yu Darvish, as if he was destined to have an injury no matter what team he signed with (if that was a given no matter what situations he pitches under then it should be a trait that can be estimated or predicted and I don't see any GM having a injury predictor in their toolset). Just because we know now that these trades didn't turn out as intended when they were done, it doesn't mean that if they were never made, the same outcomes would have occurred (i.e. without Chapman the Cubs would still win). The Cubs didn't go against the grain and trade for Quintana. He was pretty much the universal best SP option on the market at the trade deadline last year. The fact he didn't turn out went against what many expected. Same as the minor league draft. Most players don't work out, but does that mean every GM is stupid for participating in the draft? Is it smarter to not invest in a system where the return is so poor (I've not seen a team yet skip the draft)? Were the Devil Rays and Brewers stupid to draft Delmon Young and Rickie Weeks #1/#2 when neither developed into a superstar? Every scouting sight had them #1/#2 that year. There's a lot that goes into the outcomes from a transaction, much of which is only relevant in hindsight and not at the time. It would be good to adjust our criticism to incorporate some understanding of the impact of hindsight.

[illiniguy]

The Cubs have had a disaster season with injuries and missed Bryant for most of the year. Yet they are 3rd in runs scored and 8 out of being the top scoring team in the National League, so yes. I guess that core does make them a power house. Their pitching is **** and they have the best record in the NL. There is no sense pretending like a recent streak is the real story of the Cubs offense.

 

 

Hardly a disaster year, they have had a pretty average season for injuries. This site tracks how much each team has been hit by injuries and it lists the Brewers as the 8th most affected and the Cubs as one of the healthiest teams overall at 26th.

 

https://www.rosterresource.com/mlb-disabled-list-tracker/

A disaster year doesn't just mean injuries. It also means underperformance by several of the guys that have regressed a bit. Rizzo, Contreras, Hendricks, Russell(although maybe this is him)Quintana, and Bryant all were having down years. Yet, they have weathered the storm well enough and are probably the favorites in the NL. It's not picture perfect, but I will take it.

[illiniguy]

They're going on their 4th consecutive playoff appearance, have made the last 3 NLCS's and won a World Series. That's basically a dynasty already by baseball standards. They will likely be the favorites to come out of the NL this year and they return their whole roster next year except Justin Wilson. I think they're set up just fine for the foreseeable future and have plenty of money to spend for Harper and then can trade some of their other guys that he bumps out of the positional player rotation for a starter. I don't know, I think they're set up pretty good for a while yet (they also just spent the most, or near most money on international free agents this last period so they likely will have a guy or two emerge from there). They get a new TV deal in the next 2 years I believe as well. At some point you have to give up worrying about prospect rankings and actually go and try to win baseball games.

 

 

I will add to this that, yes, the Chapman and Quintana moves (as well as several smaller ones) will be seen as losses very likely. The Chapman one was obviously motivated by desperation to win a World Series for the first time in over a century.

 

So maybe there is an alternate where the Cubs make neither move, still win in 2016, and look like they may have a run of 12 division titles in 15 years and 5 World Series with Torres and Eloy also in their core.

 

There might also be an alternate one where they lose the 2016 WS by not making that trade and maybe still 1 or even 0 later but have a very good regular season team for 10-15 years.

 

Now, of course ideally you'd probably take Eloy, Cease, and Torres back among a few other shortsighted moves and just pray that you get 1 WS (or probably a lot more) if you're a Cubs fan but the Cubs may be able to buy several high profile players in 4-5 years anyways. That doesn't make up for those potential losses but it helps.

 

There's obviously also the real life impact here. Ownership and Theo both probably want to win now given lifespan of ownership and career span of Theo.

 

It's somewhat akin to Bears fans in thinking that Packers fans are going to take them down (let's not let this go down the path of Packers moves, they arguably took the patient/future road and that is what actually kinda burned them) but in the end, the Packers still had Rodgers. In the end, the Cubs still have Bryant/Rizzo/Baez/etc. for 5+ more years probably (yes, they have varying contract control and prime ages left) and the Cubs also still have way more resources even with $25 million/year lit on fire right now...but even if the Brewers do it right, they have to do everything right to be better than the Cubs...even 4 or 5 years from now.

 

I definitely see some paths to the Cubs beginning to really crumble in 2 years and fully collapsing in 4 but I think realistically they've got 3-4 more good/great years and then a handful that they can patch together for 2-3 if they so choose.

I dont't have any issue with the Chapman trade. They won the world series. in 2016 the cubs have to make that move.

 

The Quintana trade was awful, yes.

 

The trades this year for Murphy and Hamels are nothings. Don't get why anyone would think those hurt the Cubs going forward.

[Ennder]

A disaster year doesn't just mean injuries. It also means underperformance by several of the guys that have regressed a bit. Rizzo, Contreras, Hendricks, Russell(although maybe this is him)Quintana, and Bryant all were having down years. Yet, they have weathered the storm well enough and are probably the favorites in the NL. It's not picture perfect, but I will take it.

 

Down years are just baseball though. Every single team can point to 4 or 5 guys having bad years. If you had told me Arcia was going to have a sub .600 OPS, Knebel was going to be a disaster, Davis and Nelson were going to mostly miss the season, the team would get nothing out of C and 2B etc I could say the same exact things. This has just been the Cubs being the Cubs, not any sort of particularly down season for them. I doubt there is a single team in baseball that can't point to the same things you just did.

 

Also a lot of the guys you mentioned may just be the players they are showing this year. Contreras still has a 2.8 WAR. Hendricks has put up these peripherals for a while now. Quintana has been getting worse every year for like 5 years now by peripherals.

 

The Cubs, Pirates and Reds are just about where their talent suggests they should be accounting for normal player variance year to year. The Cardinals and Brewers have probably overperformed by a few games each.

[illiniguy]

A disaster year doesn't just mean injuries. It also means underperformance by several of the guys that have regressed a bit. Rizzo, Contreras, Hendricks, Russell(although maybe this is him)Quintana, and Bryant all were having down years. Yet, they have weathered the storm well enough and are probably the favorites in the NL. It's not picture perfect, but I will take it.

 

Down years are just baseball though. Every single team can point to 4 or 5 guys having bad years. If you had told me Arcia was going to have a sub .600 OPS, Knebel was going to be a disaster, Davis and Nelson were going to mostly miss the season, the team would get nothing out of C and 2B etc I could say the same exact things. This has just been the Cubs being the Cubs, not any sort of particularly down season for them. I doubt there is a single team in baseball that can't point to the same things you just did.

 

Also a lot of the guys you mentioned may just be the players they are showing this year. Contreras still has a 2.8 WAR. Hendricks has put up these peripherals for a while now. Quintana has been getting worse every year for like 5 years now by peripherals.

 

It could be, although I think the pitching problems are Jim Hickey, but we can't do anything about Joe's boy.

[xisxisxis]

And of course he's on a tear to start off his Cubs career... Hit a HR in his 13th plate appearance (6/14 so far)... Our wizard took >55 PA to get his first HR, but maybe he remembers how to hit em now and we'll see a bucket of HR coming...

[lowblow]

The Cubs have had a disaster season with injuries and missed Bryant for most of the year. Yet they are 3rd in runs scored and 8 out of being the top scoring team in the National League, so yes. I guess that core does make them a power house. Their pitching is **** and they have the best record in the NL. There is no sense pretending like a recent streak is the real story of the Cubs offense.

 

 

Hardly a disaster year, they have had a pretty average season for injuries. This site tracks how much each team has been hit by injuries and it lists the Brewers as the 8th most affected and the Cubs as one of the healthiest teams overall at 26th.

 

https://www.rosterresource.com/mlb-disabled-list-tracker/

 

As if all injuries were equal and all injuries were measured by time on the DL. In terms of the 'player days", the Cubs are somewhat better off than many teams, but their best player Kris Bryant has been injured since late May. Their biggest offseason acquisition Darvish has been injured for more than half the season (by the way, it appears that he probably suffered the underlying elbow injury in May). Their closer, Morrow has been out for over six weeks as well. Everyone has nagging injuries during the long season, but to rely on the above-mentioned "disabled list tracker" is to assume that a day of Mike Trout on the DL is valued the same as a day of a day of Stephen Vogt.

[Ennder]

That chart actually weighs the player value into the days missed. If those injuries hadn't happened or happened to lesser players the Cubs would be the healthiest team in baseball by a wide margin. The Cubs have been lucky with injuries compared to most teams this season.

 

The Angels have basically had their entire roster hit the DL. The Brewers have missed over 50% of the teams starts to the DL this year, had all 4 starting OF's end up on the DL, had most of the bullpen end up on the DL at one point or another. Lost their starting C and both backup catchers. Right before the all star break they had 10 players on the DL at the same time and that is when they had the 1-7 stretch that gave up their lead. That is what most teams are going through, the Cubs may have lost a few key guys but overall they have been extremely healthy.