Organizational Rankings: Current Talent- Cubs
The Chicago Cubs are in a liminal state. The club’s farm system has shown considerable improvement recently, with the emergence of prospects like Starlin Castro, Josh Vitters, Hak-Ju Lee, Brett Jackson, Andrew Cashner and Jay Jackson. But outside of Cashner and perhaps Castro, those guys aren’t ready for prime time.
At the major league level, the Cubs could once again be expensive and ordinary in 2010. According to Cot’s Baseball Contracts, Chicago enters the season with a payroll topping $140 million. Despite spending big bucks, though, the North Siders have run-of-the-mill win totals from most projection systems. The FANS (78 wins), CHONE (79) and PECOTA (80) all call for a sub-.500 campaign. Oliver (86) is more optimistic, with a forecast that has the Cubs keeping pace with the Cardinals and staying in the Wild Card hunt.
The Cubs figure to be strong at the infield corners. Derrek Lee isn’t likely to eclipse 5 WAR again next year, but CHONE calls for a three win season. At third, Aramis Ramirez had a hard time staying on the field last year, suffering shoulder, back and calf injuries (he has been slowed by a triceps issue this spring, too). But if healthy, his potent bat should produce another 3+ WAR campaign. Both are very good players, but it’s hard to call either a huge bargain or a long-term asset: the 34 year-old Lee will pull down $13 million in 2010 and hits free agency after the season, and the 31 year-old Ramirez will earn $15.75 million this year, with a $14.6 million player option for 2011.
Up the middle, Ryan Theriot’s slick glove work and decent offense make him a good, if not breath-taking option at shortstop. He might slide over to second when Castro arrives, though he has some trade value as a guy with a few years of team control remaining. At the keystone, Jeff Baker and Mike Fontenot have the makings of an average duo.
Behind the dish, Geovany Soto looks like a great bet to bounce back in 2010. A plummeting BABIP obscured what was otherwise another season in which he displayed patience and pop at a premium position (and he’s skinny now!) CHONE forecasts a 3+ WAR season.
In the outfield, Kosuke Fukudome and Marlon Byrd are average to slightly above-average starters. And then, of course, there’s Alfonso Soriano in left, he of -0.7 WAR in 2009. The 34 year-old, hampered by calf and knee injuries in recent years, is owed $18 million annually over the 2010-2014 seasons. Even if there’s a dead cat bounce in Soriano’s performance, he’s going to be a drag on the bottom line for years to come. This is what happens when a team signs a free agent at or around his current market value, but then pays him that same rate years and years into the future, as if the player is a baseball version of Richard Alpert, impervious to the effects of aging.
On the bench, Xavier Nady is a fringe starter/good fourth outfielder, though a second Tommy John surgery that wiped away his 2009 season continues to give him problems. Manager Lou Pinella said that Nady might not be able to uncork a throw from the field until June, limiting him to pinch-hit duty. Sam Fuld, a 28 year-old with on-base chops and speed, could be the reserve outfielder called upon most often. Micah Hoffpauir will lace some extra-base hits, but limited defensive ability and so-so strike zone judgment curtail his value. Tyler Colvin, a 2006 first-rounder, could also enter the picture. A lack of plate discipline means he’s probably a long-term fourth outfielder. Koyie Hill will back up Soto at catcher.
Like Soriano, Carlos Zambrano is owed enough cash in the years to come to buy his own magical island. The 28 year-old will earn $17-18 million annually between 2010 and 2012, with a possible vesting option for 2013. He’s still a quality starter, but the mileage on Z’s arm belies his age, and shoulder, back and hamstring injuries over the past two years have kept him far from the 200 inning mark that he zipped by from 2003-2007.
Free agent-to-be Ted Lilly has been one of the better open market values over the past few seasons (providing $43.5 million in production from 2007-2009 while earning $24 million), but knee and shoulder injuries figure to sideline him in April. Ryan Dempster proved that his breakout 2008 was no fluke, providing another season of quality pitching. But, his salary ($12.5M in 2010, $13.5M in 2011, $14M player option for 2012) makes him more of a “get what you pay for” player than someone who provides cost savings. Randy Wells had a nifty rookie season, though his peripherals were more in line with a mid-to-low four’s ERA than the sparkling 3.05 mark that he posted. Former Pirate Tom Gorzelanny looks like the best bet of the back-end candidates, a group that also includes Jeff Samardzija, Sean Marshall and Carlos Silva.
In the bullpen, Carlos Marmol channeled Rick Vaughn last year, posting a sub-50 first-pitch strike percentage (58 percent MLB average). He’s absolutely filthy, but all of the free passes and plunked batters preclude him from relief ace status. Samardzija or Marshall could end up in the ‘pen, should they fall short of securing a rotation spot, and Cashner could arrive at some point this season. John Grabow is a slightly above replacement level reliever, yet he figures to occupy a late-inning role and earn a decent chunk of change ($7.5 million) over the next two years. Sadly, Angel Guzman (shoulder) has been dealt another career blow, and will miss the 2010 season. Keep an eye on Esmailin Caridad. The 26 year-old righty originally signed with the Hiroshima Carp of Japan’s Central League, but the Cubs nabbed him during the ’07 off-season. A starter in the minors, Caridad impressed in relief last season. He seems better suited for ‘pen duty, given his impressive fastball and fringy secondary stuff.
Even in the most sanguine scenario, Chicago figures to pay Rolls Royce prices for Honda Civic production. There just aren’t a lot of players that you can point to and say, “man, is that guy a steal.” There are a couple of ominous long-term deals and several market-value contracts, with a few players who provide production at below-market prices sprinkled in. The Cubs are lacking in young, cost-controlled talent, something that the next wave of well-regarded prospects could fix. To contend in 2010, the team needs Ramirez, Soto and Zambrano to stay healthy, while hoping that Soriano can rise from the ranks of the undead.
A recent graduate of Duquesne University, David Golebiewski is a contributing writer for Fangraphs, The Pittsburgh Sports Report and Baseball Analytics. His work for Inside Edge Scouting Services has appeared on ESPN.com and Yahoo.com, and he was a fantasy baseball columnist for Rotoworld from 2009-2010. He recently contributed an article on Mike Stanton's slugging to The Hardball Times Annual 2012. Contact David at david.golebiewski@gmail.com and check out his work at Journalist For Hire.
I had a feeling the Cubs would get dinged because of the infamously bad run of contracts they generously doled out. I do not believe this is the current direction for the club, however. I believe it was an anomalous time and we are unlikely to see that type of spending spree again in the near future. The Trib tried to maximize the perceived value of the franchise before selling it for just short of a gazillion dollars.
So, I’m having a tough time figuring out this ranking. New ownerships are said to be big fans of advanced statistical analysis, they have already set strict budget limits and have expressed a desire to grow from within. If it’s about the direction the club is heading than I disagree.
So is it current talent? For a team that’s had three straight winning seasons, including 2 division titles, and expects to contend again this year you can’t ding them too much on talent alone. Did they pay way too much for this talent? Absolutely. But they do have talent that is good enough to contend in and even win the NL Central. While not among baseball’s elite or worth their immense payroll, the current talent isn’t a big problem.
Is it future talent? Most reputable sites, including this one, recognize the Cubs system as one on the rise with several potential impact prospects and some intriguing names at the lower levels who are potential breakout prospects this year. It’s hard to say they’d rank this low based on their farm system.
The only answer I can come to is that the Cubs were penalized for spending too much for the talent they received during the Tribune’s desperate attempts to create a WS contender before dumping them off at an inflated price. Is this unfortunate period a factor as new ownership tries to restore sanity? Sure, it’s definitely a handicap and adversely affects the overall health of the organization but, in my opinion, far too much weight seems to have put on the past transgressions of a greedy corporate ownership trying to make a few dollars more.
The team’s not that good. Most projection systems have them right around 80 wins, as noted in the article.
That’s seems about right for 18th.
If projected wins were the sole criteria then maybe that’s justified, but they aren’t, not according to the guidelines set at the beginning of this series.
Sure. But if current talent (~80 Wins) is right for 18th, you have future talent, which maybe is a better than that, but you have their payroll issues (basically maxed out for the next 3 years), which knocks them back down a few notches.
The authors have already said that there are a big cluster of teams in the teens to low 20’s w/o a lot od difference between them. I don’t see how 18th is that far off.
“For a team that’s had three straight winning seasons, including 2 division titles, and expects to contend again this year you can’t ding them too much on talent alone.”
3 straight winning seasons isn’t “current”.
Who doesn’t “expect to contend” this year?
I personally expect them to finish 3rd.
My only qualm with this article is the adjective “slick” when used to describe Theriot’s defense. “Average” or “Solid, if unspectacular” would’ve been a better fit IMO.
So what exactly are future projections based on if not a prediction based on information from the recent past? Much of that projection is based on predicted regression from the poor performance from the past year alone. Last year Pecota projected the Cubs with 97 wins based on trends from the year before, and as we all know, those trends didn’t hold true. Forgive me if I don’t place such faith in a projection system that is subject to too many variables.
I do agree with you that slick is not a word I would describe Theriot’s defense either. Solid, heady, workmanlike…those are the types of adjectives I would use.
John: *PLAYER* stats are based on past performance. *TEAM* stats are not. So your error is in referencing the fact that the Cubs have had three straight winning seasons and two division titles. That speaks nothing to the current line-up of the players.
It’s the players that will drive this year’s performance, not the rosters and line-ups of the team three years ago.
Matt: Of course. But the Cubs main players (I’ll leave the unneeded starred/capped emphasis to you) are the same ones as they’ve from the teams of their past few years. And the team projection is based on those players’ individual projections…is it not? The core of the team is still the same, their best players now are the best players they’ve had for the past two years. As far as I’m concerned, it may as well be synomynous. It’s not like the Cubs acquired terrible players like Byrd (projected 2.6 WAR) to replace great ones(Milton Bradley’s 1.1 WAR from last year’s team). The projected win total has more to do with the regression of their core players than the value of the couple of pieces they’ve added or subracted this relatively uneventful offseason.
Let’s put aside that you are putting an inordinate emphasis on the dubious practice of projecting team wins, then what do we say of the Mets? They are projected for less wins, their farm system is not as strong, their payroll is just as bloated, and their ownership has no direction. It seems an inconsistency to me.
Anyway, it’s apparent you’ll probably defend the website until you’re blue in the face but I do have a different opinion than the authors here. Even the authors will tell you this is a subjective ranking and not so objective as you’re trying to make it be by equating projected with overall organizational health. I think the ranking is based on the long term expensive contracts the club recently doled out more than any projected win system and it’s my opinion that this shortcoming was given too much emphasis. The argument you’re trying to make, which has you putting much emphasis on projected wins makes far less sense to me.
The Mets should be coming up soon.
Their overall talent level is probably similar, but it’s distributed better.
They’ve got 3 or 4 guys who can be super-stars if healthy. The Cubs don’t have that. Also, their budget situation is better (they cut $25M this year which presumably is avaliable in the future). That said, their division is tougher.
But really, there’s no difference between ranking 16th and 20th. Why stress about it?
I’m just expressing an opinion that’s different than the authors while you’re expending an equal amount of energy trying to rationalize the author’s opinion. I don’t see one endeavor as more stressful than the other. It’s the author’s opinion and subjective rating, it’s meant to be up for discussion. You can choose to make your opinion or adopt the author’s. I chose to have a different opinion. Don’t make it out to be more than that.
The Cubs have 25MM coming off the books after 2010 (Lee 13M, Lilly 12M). Aramis Ramirez has a 14.5M player option. Ricketts has stated that he’ll keep the Cubs payroll in the top 3. The Cubs being restricted in the future by their payroll is overstated.
Does anyone else think it makes sense for the Cubs to call the Reds about Yonder Alonso after 2010? The performances of both he and Derrek Lee this season will dictate the practicality of such an proposal, but I think there’s some merit to this idea.
Derrek Lee is a good player, who may well be worth re-signing after this year, but there’s also a lot of merit in not wanting to sink years and dollars into a big, aging first baseman. You could argue that D-Lee is good enough of an athlete to perhaps stave off some of the effects of old age, but there are rumblings that new ownership wants to see some results out of the farm system, and there isn’t an obvious heir apparent to Lee, making the young, roadblocked Yonder Alonso a sensible alternative.
Cincinnati agreed to terms with Orlando Cabrera on a one year deal plus a mutual option this offseason, but there’s no guarantee that he’s the long-term answer at a position the Reds have been unable to stabilize since Barry Larkin retired. With Ryan Theriot progressively moving from extremely cost-effective asset to decent player being paid about market value, there’s a lot of reason to think the Reds would be willing to pay his increasing price tag for the sake of getting a slightly younger (albeit 30+ year old) shortstop who could still easily be a 2-2.5 win player in 2011 and 2012. The Cubs expect Starlin Castro to be ready next year, and they figure to have too many options at second base to pass up on the opportunity to cash in on a soon-to-decline veteran like Theriot.
Alonso was a first-round pick, and he would almost certainly cost more than just 2 years of Ryan Theriot, but the Cubs also have a veteran arm or two (Sean Marshall, Tom Gorzellany, maybe even Carlos Marmol) they could add to the mix, and I think there’s enough depth in their system to form a legitimate offer for the Reds. They’re a team on the cusp of contention, and adding a few solid veterans at reasonable cost would go a long way towards solidifying themselves as perennial playoff contenders. Meanwhile, the Cubs would add a young left-handed presence to an aging, predominantly right-handed roster.
There’s plenty of reason to doubt that an intradivison trade of this magnitude is all that feasible, but I think it a lot of ways it would be a mutually beneficial deal for the clubs involved.
Not a bad idea if it can be done. Unless you assume Vitters will move to first, the Cubs have no real prospect there and if they plan on shedding contracts next year, starting with Lee…it would be a good idea to have a low cost replacement waiting in the wings.
Makes some sense from need, but I’d think the Reds would want more upside in the 2nd player, a real B+ type prospect, if they’re giving up a former 1st rounder.
Also, the intradivision thing is tough. Do the Cubs and Reds trade?
Not really. Not unless you count the monumental Buck Coats for Marcus Mateo trade a couple of years ago. That’s a legitimate obstacle for this kind of trade. The second player would be another obstacle, especially when you consider the potential difficulties in trying to assess Alonso’s fair value. I’m going to have to agree with Norm in that there will be many first base options and the Cubs should really explore them all.
There are going to be WAY too many 1B options to really even broach this topic yet.
Yeah, but how many of the options are first base are really all that attracitve? Is there really any need for the Cubs to sink dollars and years into a player like Carlos Pena? Sure he’s left-handed, but he’s pretty much the exact kind of player you don’t want to invest too much in. Other than that, there are a few decent options, with Adam Dunn pretty much standing out amongst the rest (there’s no way that either of Pujols or Berkman will be available), but the opportunity to bring in a young, left-handed, cost-controlled, former first-rounder seems like a more desireable route to take.
The Reds don’t have room for Alonso, and the Cubs have the kind of players Cincinnati should be focused on surrounding guys like Votto and Bruce with.
Desirable, yes…but I’m not sure the Cubs and Reds would be so willing to help each other. The Cubs would immediately improve the Reds and the Reds would be giving the Cubs a potential star. Personally, I’d take that tradeoff (depending on the players involved, of course) but I’m not the one with anything to lose. When I said the Cubs should explore all options I wasn’t necessarily referring to free agents. There are other prospects and trades to be made, you could switch Vitters to 1st and find a low cost 3rd baseman, etc. I really like the Alonso idea. I’m just not sure it can actually happen.
Vitters’ OBP issues would only be exacerbated by a shift to first base, where a .330 OBP is borderline unacceptable. Vitters will never be a standout at third, but the consensus appears to be that he has what it takes to stick at the position for at least the early stages of his career.
Obviously, the fact that this trade would involve division rivals potentially making eachother better, that I don’t think that necessarily precludes such a deal from occuring. At the very least, I think it’s fair to say it would be foolish by both team to write offthe possibility of such a deal for the simple reason they share the same division.