How Badly Do the Cubs Need a Starting Pitcher?
I saw a reference not long ago to the White Sox and Padres, regarding how they tell us it doesn’t matter who wins the offseason. The reference was made in an article about the Cubs. Now, the Cubs’ offseason isn’t over. Nor are the rest of the offseasons, so, who knows how the landscape will look by the end? But there are some crucial differences here. For one, there was more criticism of what the White Sox and Padres did. For two, the Cubs have worked on a team that was already legitimately good. As I write this, I believe the Cubs are the best team in baseball. It’s not irrefutable, but there’s a hell of an argument for the opinion.
More moves will be made, and we’ll see improvements to other contenders. The Cubs’ projection is unlikely to budge very much. Still, there are active rumors, surrounding players like Jorge Soler and Javier Baez. Reports suggest the Cubs are most interested in strengthening their starting rotation. Reports aren’t the same as actual moves, and actions speak louder than words and all that, but it’s worth wondering: how badly do the Cubs need a starting pitcher? Consider this part 1 of our series: how badly do the Cubs need anything?
If you think back to the playoffs, which weren’t actually all that long ago, the Cubs’ starters got exposed. Kyle Hendricks ran an ERA over 5, and Jason Hammel wasn’t allowed to throw even 50 pitches in either of two starts. That wouldn’t have been such a big deal had Jon Lester not shown cracks, and had Jake Arrieta not shown cracks, and had the whole lineup not shown cracks. The last time we saw the Cubs, they got steamrolled by the Mets, but you don’t judge a team by four games. The Cubs were good, and the Cubs should be good.
Isolating just the rotation, last year, the Cubs finished first in baseball by WAR. Sure, the group was topheavy, but rotations frequently are. Switching to RA9-WAR, for a different opinion, the Cubs finished third in baseball. The numbers were inarguably terrific. Since then, little of note has been lost, and John Lackey has signed for a couple of years. So here’s how the Cubs’ rotation currently projects for 2016, by Steamer and our own playing-time guesses:
The Free Agents are loaded, but thankfully for everyone else, they’ll end up mostly disbanded by April. So right now, the Cubs project worse than the Dodgers, but better than the remaining 28 clubs. Obviously, the remaining 28 clubs will make more moves. Obviously, projections don’t predict the future with 100% accuracy. The point isn’t whether the Cubs are first, or second, or third. It’s that they look really good, rotation-wise. There’s not really any reason to believe this is a weakness.
What the Cubs have managed to assemble is both talent and depth. At the moment, this is the likely five:
- Arrieta
- Lester
- Lackey
- Hendricks
- Hammel
Yet nearly no team goes through a season with just the five original starting pitchers. The Cubs understand that, and this is much of what they have as rotation support:
Warren’s the newest, and he’s probably the most interesting. As a starter with the Yankees he ran a sub-4 FIP with four pitches he threw at least a tenth of the time. The others have their own attributes, and it doesn’t matter much if you don’t love Richard, because he’s ninth on the list. No one loves a team’s ninth starter.
The Cubs have the starters and the depth. Lester is under control five or six more seasons. Hendricks has another five. Arrieta and Lackey have another two. Hammel has another one or two. Of the depth guys, Warren’s got three seasons of control. This group isn’t coming apart next winter. The short- and medium-term outlooks are favorable.
So why the reports? They could just be wrong. That possibility can never be dismissed. But let’s give the reports some validity, because the front office has talked about this. On paper, it doesn’t look like the Cubs really have a need. Yet they’re acting as if they might, and this leads us to a nifty principle: if a smart team is trying to do something that doesn’t immediately make perfect sense, assume the smart team has some information. Sometimes this can lead you astray, but you should never assume you’ve considered something that Theo Epstein and Jed Hoyer haven’t.
Could be the Cubs just want more young, cost-controlled starters. They’ve been linked to names like Danny Salazar and Carlos Carrasco, and since they took a bat-first approach to organizational development, maybe they’re just looking for an exchange. Maybe it’s just about being proactive, although the current market for starting pitching could drive a sane team elsewhere. The Shelby Miller deal did nothing good for teams sniffing around effective young arms.
That would be the long-term view, yet teams this good tend to focus more on what’s ahead. The Cubs might have more questions about 2016 than the projections would let on. Take Hammel. His was a 2015 season of two very different halves, the second and worse one coming after a return from a hamstring injury. By the time the playoffs rolled around, Hammel had nobody’s trust, and the Cubs might not love his chances of bouncing back.
However, second-half Hammel still had solid peripherals, and the Cubs know that’s generally encouraging. And Hendricks, in the second half, saw his strikeout rate leap forward. There’s some chatter that Hendricks may yet be exposed, as a finesse arm without an out pitch, but at this point it would be fair to say he’s mostly proven, and these are back-of-the-rotation guys anyway. There’s insurance in case they struggle.
I’m left with a gut feeling that the Cubs might be nervous about Arrieta. He was dominant almost all season long, to a historic extent, but he threw just shy of 250 innings, and in his final start, he lost a mile off his average and top-velocity fastball. Sometimes that’s nothing, and the weather was cold, but it grabs your attention, and it’s not like an injury would’ve come out of nowhere. Arrieta was used heavily, and the last time he pitched in 2015, he looked like it. In 2014, he fell short of 180 innings. In 2013, he fell short of 160. Arrieta’s talent is almost irreplaceable, and if something were to happen to him, the Cubs would be left looking mortal.
It’s hardly worth writing that the Cubs would look worse without Jake Arrieta. Everyone would look worse without their No. 1, and an injury is never guaranteed. Madison Bumgarner, last year, wore his heavy 2014 usage just fine. But the Cubs could look at Arrieta and see a heightened risk. There’s already perhaps been a symptom, and when you have a winning opportunity this good, you’d like to have insurance in case something goes catastrophically wrong. If the Cubs added a cost-controlled, long-term starter, it would be good for the future, but it would also help support the present, a present that might be a little more risky in reality than it seems in the projections. The Cubs of April 2016 already look fantastic. They’re now perhaps thinking about a half-year later.
Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.
Can’t read the chart. It is cropped.
I think it’s just supposed to be an illustration of the top few numbers. You can click on “Projections” in the navigation at the top of the page to see SP projections and everything else.
What strikes me as the most likely reason for a move, if one ends up getting made, is money. Most estimates of the Cubs’ payroll limit were the low 140’s. As currently constructed, they’re likely in the mid 150’s. They may need to dump a salary, and Hammel and/or Wood’s production is the most easily replaceable among higher-salary players on the club.
I understand you ride your top guys to victory. But I also never understand the lengths people go. Why would you give Arrieta 70+ more innings than he had the previous two years? Wouldn’t you top him out at 200-225? It seems common sense to me that you shouldn’t use a guy that excessively. Regardless of all the reasons, thank goodness the Cubs are finally a team building and planning to win long-term. Starting pitching depth is always a plus.
Im also wondering, in regards to the trade rumors of Baez and/or Soler for young pitching, if they would package someone like Hendricks? Regardless, Soler and Baez for someone like Slazar seems to be lopsided in favor of the Indians. Thoughts?
Nice article Jeff!
because most proprosals being listed are soler or baez and not both, unless you are talking carrasco then it’s both.
I think cubs should trade unestablished for positional players for a cost controlled starter. Then trade arietta for high end mlb caliber player(s). Drop payroll, raise the talent floor (lower the ceiling), and stabilise the medium to long term outlook.
That’s an insanely vague statement. You think that the Cubs should trade for cheap, young pitching and high-end talent? Yeah, that’s what everyone wants.
I think the Cubs should get Trout, Kershaw, and Andrew Miller.
Who was equating the Cubs to the Padres and White Sox? That’s insane, regardless of the context.
They should trade for Fernandez. They have the pieces, enough depth to offset the loss of guys like Soler and Baez, plus they actually have a chance to retain him long term.
If they call the Marlins asking for Fernandez and Bryant or Russell aren’t being discussed … the Marlins hang up.
That’s fine. By the time Fernandez is a FA at 27, Jackson, Hammel, Montero, and others will be off the books. The Cubs can keep the cheaper, lower-risk talent and just get Fernandez for cash and a draft pick while trading with a reasonable GM now.
I love Fernandez as much as the next guy, but giving up as much as they would have to to acquire him wouldn’t be smart in my opinion. Jose’s had Tommy John already, and pitchers are predictable unpredictable. That’s why I’ve like the Cub’s bats first strategy.
“Everyone would look worse without their No. 1”
My team did all right.
“I saw a reference not long ago to the White Sox and Padres”
The reference, if done right, should have been to last offseason’s Red Sox.
Not in the playoffs, where an ace is more important. Starting Lackey on three days rest was the harbinger of death to the Cardinals’ postseason.
They sure did.
I thought so too for a second, but the Cubs current staff is worlds better than the 2015 Sox staff.
Boy, lots of people pretending that they weren’t on the Padres bandwagon last December.
My memory may be foggy, but I don’t remember a lot of SABR types being in love with the Padres’ offseason.
Everyone knew the Padres were going to fail. Horrible defense and no infield talent. Sure it was nice and shiny having Upton, Kemp, Kimbrel, etc., but when you have a 1B playing CF (and in that park!) you’re inviting disaster.
SABR types were not high on the Padres, but to say that everyone knew they were going to fail is a bit much.
It’s a fair point about Arrieta, but maybe offset a little by his training regimen and offseason habits. Hammel on the other hand, was pretty erratic down the stretch, coupled with his slightly elevated aggrieved at being removed early. It’s possible Joe was tired of that dynamic in the clubhouse. And by all reports it was more than just “he is a competitor rhetoric.” I think I’d like to see another option there, although as it stands Cahill,Warren and Wood are all more than capable (maybe eager ) to step into a rotation spot.
I think they’ll get Cobb or Archer from Tampa. Unless the TB front office holds some animosity towards him, which is something I don’t know about, but sounds like the kind of petty stuff that actually takes place.
There is no way Archer comes back to the Cubs unless the Rays are getting a Kris Bryant-caliber player. Archer is one of the best young in baseball and he’s just started a 6 year 25 mil deal, which is a great contract and value for a small market team like the rays. So the Rays would want a haul for him
I think the addition of Lackey + Heyward from the Cardinals give the Cubs a bit of a buffer, but losing a 5-7 win player like Arrieta would be quite damaging. The flexibility afforded by Heyward being able to play CF and RF really helps with Soler’s moveability. I’m not real sure where Baez is expected to play, with Russell and Zobrist pretty much solidified up the middle. Baez could be a super bench player, but is that wise for a 23 year old who’s proven just about all he can prove in AAA?
Frankly I’d sit on both of those players. The Cubs are still playing from a position of strength; they could move Soler, Baez, or both and still have a very strong farm system. I really like the idea of an additional insurance policy against Arrieta’s high inning count last year, though.
I’d say that having Baez as a bench player is a smart insurance policy when the new starting 2B is a 35 year old who had a knee injury last year.
Not just that, but he’ll PH every game he doesn’t start due to being in the NL.
He’s a great guy to have coming off the bench when you need a home run. When you need contact, not so much. But you manage the situation.
I’m not buying Baez as this 30+ home run, slick fielding shortstop that’s somehow going to stop swinging at everything, etc. But, I’ll be more than happy to take him as a bench/platoon player.
Seems that the aim of this article is way too specific. It’s, to me, just a general concern about pitching as a whole.
1. Those 7-9 guys aren’t option. Cahill, Wood, and Richard were horrendous in the recent-past. They aren’t good starters. They’re not bad ones. They’re disastrous. Wood and Richard shouldn’t even be rostered–Ramirez and Brothers can suck from the left side just fine, and if they wanted to replace Wood’s suck, they could re-sign Russell for a lot less than Wood.
2. Lackey is 37. His Ks and BBs have been slowly falling off. His FIP hasn’t been under 3.50 since 2006. He pitched more innings than in any season since 2007 last season. He could go at any time, so while he was a nice ERA pitcher last season, he needs a safety net.
3. Hendricks had numbers that made his production curious. That was his worst pro walk rate, his 2015 MLB one. He added more than 3 K/9, and was never seen as a strikeout guy on the way up. There’s just nothing he has done to say he’s a #3/4. 45 uneven starts, and the author says he pretty much proven? I disagree heartily.
4. Lester’s had great peripherals of late, but what do we make of 2011-2013? His FIP and/or xFIP was 3.80 or higher each time. He’s also days from hitting 32, and to what degree does one expect him to stay this good for long?
5. Hammel sucks. Two-straight years, his second-half was a turd. He was so bad by the end Dan Haren (who was a sorry excuse for a trade acquisition) was putting up better numbers. Haren should have, by those numbers, had Hammel’s playoff spot. That he was sent out in the final game was stupid. He can’t be trusted.
Honestly, I put all of those before Arrieta. The depth is a bunch of colossal failures and a 28-year-old “prospect.” The 3-5 slots have a lot to worry about. The rotation is old, with Hendricks as the only one who will reach Opening Day under 30. Lester and Hendricks are the only ones with more than 2 years of control. It’s a rotation with names and potential galore, but it’s a rotation with pitfalls and questions right there, too.
So, rather than worrying that Arrieta is worn (a reasonable concern), I think it’s just something where the Cubs have a lot going on that says they shouldn’t rest on the 2015 results, add Lackey, and consider things in a good spot. They need Hammel as the long man, Wood on the streets, and a better #4/5.
you lost all credibility when you said wood shouldn’t even be rostered. he had a 3.40 fip last year while striking out 10.55/9, in relief that rose to over 11 K/9 and 2.95 ERA and opponents slugged .279 off him. he was absolutely excellent. just based off your analysis on him alone, I chose not to read the rest of your comment.
I’m not left handed.
Neil just keep getting stronger , you may be the starter that they are looking for, I am serious.
The rotation is old. The best of the “depth” is Warren who is routinely described as a 6th starter/swingman. That’s fine if its for someone on the 15 day DL, not so much if one of the 30 plus year olds is gone for the season.
If they have to buy a pitcher at the deadline, their farm is going to get mighty thin. Theo wants to pawn off Soler rather than meet deadline prices.
Haha, pawn off Soler. As if he’s some sunk cost that the Cubs are trying to salvage
I find it astounding that there is conversation of the Cubs dealing an outfielder, and that person is NOT Kyle Schwarber, who is plainly not a major league level defensive player, certainly not in the outfield.
Schwarber had a bad game or two in the playoffs after a regular season of acceptably below average LF defense. The Cubs’ OF coaches have had quite a bit of success coaching up LF defense recently in Coghlan and Soriano; closing the book on Schwarber’s a year and a half after his professional debut would be foolish.
He also has a chance to be a starting / part-time catcher; with *that* bat, you simply can’t trade him away.
I always believed that pitching is 90% of the game. Good pitching beats good hitting. Go and get a good starter (ross)
The Cubs should have a very, very good rotation for the regular season. It projects to easily be in the upper-third of the league. The concern is for the postseason, I think. Hendricks and Lackey and Hammel are all fairly good pitchers, but they can get overmatched in a playoff series. I think that the Cubs would be MUCH more comfortable if they had to have a series where Arrieta and Lester started twice, Lackey started maybe one game, and someone else (Ross, Cobb, Carrasco, etc.) started the other two.
The trade deadline will bring SP options.
Probably. But then you’re generally paying for a rental. Why not give up prospects now and get a guy that can help you for a few years?
I believe the concern is more with the 4/5 starters than with Arrieta. He’s viewed as a workhorse that did have a heavily load this past year, but he’s still locked into the rotation. I suspect they would like to trade a Javier Baez and a Jason Hammel (plus cash) for something like a Danny Salazar.
To answer the question posed: How badly do the Cubs need a Starting Pitcher? Not badly, but it would certainly help to upgrade the back-end.