The Cubs Aren’t a Dynasty and That’s Okay
The Chicago Cubs are a very good team, one that employs a good manager and features a good front office. They’ve won a bunch of games over the past four seasons and, notably, claimed a World Series to end a century-long drought. The Cubs will have a good team next season, as well, and probably the one after that. The franchise has young stars around which to build, a front office that understands the importance of developing talent, and an endless supply of cash to ensure the team will contend for years to come. Things are looking good in Chicago.
And yet, following a Wild Card loss to the Rockies, one could be excused for regarding the Cubs as a bit of a disappointment. After that World Series title in 2016, a dynasty seemed inevitable to some. Chicago fans were thinking about the ’90s Bulls. Perhaps expectations were too high, though. Maybe the ’85 Bears were the better comparison.
If the Cubs had won this season, that would have given them three consecutive playoff appearances and two world championships in three years. In the last 40 years, only two franchises have pulled that off: the Blue Jays of the early 90s and Yankees of the late 90s. The Giants accomplished something either more or less impressive, depending on one’s criteria. On the one hand, they won three titles between 2010 and -14. On the other, they also missed the playoffs in the intervening seasons. The Red Sox won two World Series in the span of four years but also failed to reach the postseason in 2006.
Do any of those represent examples of a dynasty? Just the Yankees, probably. While there is no widely accepted definition of what constitutes a dynasty, it might be a case where it’s best to adopt Justice Potter Stewart’s view on such matters and say, “I know it when I see it.”
Let’s review the most recent contenders for the honor before returning to the Cubs.
The Yankees clubs of the late 90s and aughts were built around a core of Roger Clemens, Derek Jeter, Andy Pettitte, and Mariano Rivera and Bernie Williams. The team later added Jason Giambi, Mike Mussina, Alex Rodriguez to try and sustain their run, but they couldn’t do so, winning only one more time (2009) despite a decade of success.
For 14 consecutive seasons, the Atlanta Braves won their division. During that period, they made the World Series five times but won just once. In the Cardinals’ run from 2000 to -15, they missed the playoffs four times, lost twice in the World Series, and missed the playoffs in three out of four seasons between their two titles in 2006 and 2011. The Phillies won their division five straight times and won an average of 95 games during that timeframe, but they claimed just one title.
Other clubs have featured sustained success without ever earning any hardware. Cleveland averaged 93 wins a season for seven years in the late ’90s and early 2000s and won six division titles. They reached the World Series twice but still didn’t win a championship. The Indians have also averaged 96 wins over the past three years but remain without a World Series win. AL Central rivals Detroit won the division four straight times earlier this decade and made one World Series but lost it. The Rangers lost two World Series in a row. The Blue Jays, Mets, Orioles, Pirates, Rays, Reds, and Twins have all seen windows open and close in the past decade without a title.
Now compare the Cubs to those most similar teams over the past few years in terms of talent and finances. The Washington Nationals have failed to make the playoffs twice in the last four seasons despite loads of talent. They’ve won at least 95 games in four of the past seven seasons but haven’t won a single round in the playoffs. The Los Angeles Dodgers just wrapped up their sixth straight division title. They’ve averaged 94 wins during that time, boast the greatest pitcher of this generation, and have advanced to the NLCS three times, but they have just one World Series appearance and no wins.
It’s important to acknowledge that, yes, the Cubs were constructed in about the most ideal way possible. That said, it’s also necessary to recognize that most franchises — even when produce a roster of young stars and have enough money to address whatever weaknesses remain — don’t end up with multiple titles and a resulting dynasty. What the Cubs have accomplished to this point is rare. Here are the teams that have won a title and made the playoffs in at least four consecutive seasons:
- Atlanta Braves – Title in 1995 and playoffs through 2005.
- Chicago Cubs – Title in 2016 and playoffs from 2015 to 2018.
- St. Louis Cardinals – Title in 2011 and playoffs through 2015.
- New York Yankees – Title in 2009 and playoffs through 2012. Titles in 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, and playoffs from 1995 through 2007. Titles in 1961 and 1962, and playoffs from 1960 to 1964. Titles in 1956 and 1958, and playoffs from 1955 to 1958. Titles from 1949 through 1953. Titles from 1936 through 1939.
- Philadelphia Phillies – Title in 2008 and playoffs from 2007 to 2011.
- Oakland A’s – Titles in 1972, 1973, and 1974, and playoffs from 1971 through 1975.
- New York Giants – Titles in 1921 and 1922, playoffs in 1923 and 1924.
In the Wild Card era, only three other franchises have pulled off what the Cubs just accomplished. It’s fair to say the Cubs earned and deserved a title in 2016, but it’s also fair to say they got lucky. The Houston Astros might have the makings of a dynasty right now, but our Playoff Odds give the club only a one-in-five shot at being the last team standing. It’s okay to be disappointed about the way the season ended this year. It’s okay to be upset about falling short a year ago. That’s what fandom is. Rooting for the victory necessarily translates to some sadness in defeat. What it doesn’t mean is that the Cubs have failed these last two years, that the club isn’t on the right track, or that wholesale changes are necessary.
Getting to the playoffs every season, earning a shot at a title: that should be the goal for every team. That wasn’t the Cubs’ goal back in 2013 and 2014, but the team is now on a path to sustained success. The team could roll out the ball in April without making a single change and compete for a title. A rotation featuring Cole Hamels, Kyle Hendricks, Jose Quintana, and a potentially declining Jon Lester is still a good one. If Yu Darvish is healthy, it could be dynamic. A healthy Kris Bryant would more than make up for some regression from Javier Baez or a decline from Ben Zobrist. The bullpen is better than it showed in the latter part of the season. Albert Almora, Willson Contreras, Jason Heyward, Anthony Rizzo, and Kyle Schwarber are all quality contributors. And that’s all without accounting for the kind of signing or trade which the organization’s resources allow.
Go ahead and be disappointed with this season and the dynasty that didn’t quite materialize. Look to the roster and speculate on what outside help might be necessary to get the team back over the top next year. But don’t forget the good fortune that brought the Cubs to this point and has them so well set up for the future. It’s still a really good time to be a fan of the Chicago Cubs.
Craig Edwards can be found on twitter @craigjedwards.
Yanks won in 2000 too!
Two obvious, if unspectacular, HOFers in Jeter and Rivera and two border-liners (at best) in Pettite and Bernie.
No one who ever won an MVP. Or even hit 30+ HRs during their runs (Tino did have 40+ in 1997 and 34 in 2001 non-Championship years).
Really not much bold ink on any of their cards really, and yet they were the most dominant team over a five year stretch this side of..err..the Yankees of the late 50s / early 60s. Bernie did manage a good for nothin Batting Title in 1998…
A rare dynasty, for any sport, without an obvious standout where the product really was greater than the sum of it’s parts
And to think, if Rivera hadn’t blown it in 1997 and 2001, they would’ve won six in six years!
what did Rivera blow in 1997? As I recall the Yankees lost in the ALDS that year
Rivera gave up a game-tying home run in the 8th inning of Game 4. If the Yankees hold on, they were off to the ALCS that evening to play the Orioles again.
Right. Sandy Alomar Jr. got him.
But also, I was kidding.
There’s… a lot wrong with this post.
First, assuming that we’re talking about the Yankees teams that won four World Series in 1996-2000, those teams already have two Hall of Famers — Wade Boggs and Tim Raines — with Rivera and Jeter to join them shortly. They also had Roger Clemens, which is its own ball of wax, and a bunch of other guys who could at least have Hall of Fame arguments tossed around about them, in Jorge Posada, Dwight Gooden, David Cone, David Wells, Daryll Strawberry, and maaaaayyyyybe Chili Davis.
But I think looking specifically at the 1998 Yankees — certainly there in the running for the greatest team of all time — is really instructive as to what made all of those teams so special.
Ten players got at least 300 PA’s for the 1998 Yankees. All of them — ALL OF THEM — had OBP’s of .350 or higher. The team’s OBP was .364. The Yankees were 2nd in the AL in stolen bases (six players had double digits, and both Jeter and Knoblauch topped 30). They were only 4th in the AL in HR’s, but it came from everywhere — they had 10 players in double-digts. The led the league in runs scored by a wide margin. They led the league in walks by a wide margin. Every single player on the team, top to bottom, could work counts, draw walks, and come around to score, and every player on the team could knock one out when the moment required it. Other than Posada and Tino, every player on the team was a threat to steal at any give moment. Everybody on the team, offensively, did the little things well. They had an OPS+ of 116, easily leading the A.L.
But, of course, it was the team’s pitching that really made them. The team ERA of 3.82 was more than a third of a run lower than anybody else in the A.L. Second-place Boston allowed 73 more runs than the Yankees did — the Yankees allowed more than 10% fewer runs than the next-closest team. The Yankees had 12 pitchers throw at least 40 innings in 1998. 10 of those pitchers had adjusted ERA’s better than league average (the exceptions being Mike Stanton, an excellent leftie setup guy who just happened to have a bad year, and Mike Buddie, whom I legitimately do not remember playing on the 1998 Yankees). David Wells was excellent. David Cone was excellent. Orlando Hernandez was amazing. Andy Pettitte was pretty good. Hideki Irabu wasn’t as bad as everyone remembers. Mariano Rivera was Mariano Rivera; Graeme Lloyd had a monster season out of the pen; so did Jeff Nelson. Ramiro Mendoza had one of the great swing-seasons of all time.
New York was above average at literally every single position, at every single rotation spot, and in every single bullpen spot except Stanton’s down year as the lefty setup guy. Derek Jeter was 3rd in the AL in bWAR, behind Clemens and A-Rod (fWAR is less kind). bWAR shows four different 5-win position players; fWAR drops Bernie to 4.9.
When literally every single player on your roster is above average, pitchers and hitters alike, you’re going to have a good team.
I didn’t consider Wade Boggs or Tim Raines significant contributors to that dynasty, which is why I didn’t include them, but point taken. It speaks to their depth that they had such greats acting as role players.
Boggs did play 132 games in 1996 and about 100 in 1997 before going to Tampa Bay in 1998. His OPS+ combined over those two years was ~100. Raines was a role player from 1996-1998 who got most of his burn in 1998 (109 games and 382 PAs).
The 3B who most would identify with that dynasty was Brosius, who played for three WS teams and was fantastic in 1998, even winning the ALCS MVP. LF was a revolving door of Raines, Mark Whiten, Chad Curtis, Ricky Ledee, Shane Spencer, David Justice, etc.
You could certainly have arguments about those other guys that you mentioned, but I don’t know if you’d get very far. Cone and Posada probably have the best cases and neither of them lasted more than a year on the ballot, so, there you go. Maybe Strawberry too, but again, more so for his years as a Met. He wasn’t a regular for any of those teams.
Otherwise, yeah, they were remarkably deep, well balanced and consistent.
Defining “dynasty” as multiple World Series winners over a few years makes it very difficult to qualify in baseball. Because as we all know, unlike the other major sports, being the better team in a playoff series in baseball only increases your odds a little. The fact that the playoffs are such a crapshoot in baseball is what made the turn of the century Yankees so amazing and unlikely to be duplicated under the present correlations of competition .
I think the odder thing about this article is its failure to mention the Giants winning 3 titles in 5 seasons and somehow not being considered a dynasty simply on the fact they missed the postseason the other 2 seasons.
“The Giants accomplished something either more or less impressive, depending upon one’s criteria. On the one hand they won three titles between 2010-14. On the other, they also missed the playoffs in the intervening seasons.”
That qualifies as faint praise.
The Giants averaged just 87 wins during that five-year stretch… yet somehow won ten consecutive postseason series.
[shrug emoji]
If you think the postseason is largely random then you have a team that over a much less random 162 game season only made the playoffs in 3 of 5 years. That doesn’t seem dynastic.
Maybe it’s okay that it’s very difficult to qualify? I think that’s part of what the writer is getting at. We don’t need to try and force the dynasty tag on everyone.
See if that type of logical approach takes hold… I will take the under!
That obviously ended badly for the Cubs but if you replay those last two weeks I think they’re through to the division series 3 times out of 4. Even the last two days were set up about as well for them as they could’ve hoped; single-game playoffs are really just a crapshoot and this just wasn’t their year.
That pitching staff could be good. It could also be not really that good. Hamels and Lester will both be 35. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of upside in Quintana or Hendricks though both should be solid. I think it is a high variance staff.
This is the key issue. They spent a lot of money and prospect capital to make that rotation good, and it just hasn’t been. Some of this was predictable and likely, like Jon Lester fading. Some it, like getting Quintana on the downslope of his career, was always a possibility (given that he wasn’t up to his usual stuff when they got him) but not necessarily a given. Some of it, like the Yu Darvish disaster, wasn’t really predictable at all. They really need to get better performances out of their staff, because there is no help coming soon and unless they sign Bryce Harper or Manny Machado, the lineup is already optimized so well with the switch-hitters and multi-position guys it’s going to be hard to improve it.
The Quintana trade is the real killer. Imagine if they had Eloy Jimenez waiting in the wings?
I think that they’re probably pretty happy with the Lester deal overall, and he was great the first couple of years of that deal, and the Yu Darvish thing was kind of unexpected (and may yet be salvageable? maybe?). The Quintana one is the only one where I think hindsight analysis might be fair, and yet, he was the absolute model of consistency until just last year, and even then he had a pretty good year overall last year. Quintana’s probably the guy most likely to bounce back into #2-starter territory, so it’s possible they may get a good return on investment after all.
Where would they have been in the last two years without Quintana though? They probably wouldn’t have made the playoffs in 2017 and 2018 without him.
The high price on the Chapman rental really hurts them. Torres could have brought back a front liner starter. Also the Darvish disaster wasn’t out of the blue. He sat on the market most of the offseason. The Cubs thought they could fix him.
I think they’d still make the Chapman trade 108/100.
There’s no way they make, much less win, the series in 2016 without Chapman. Without that trade we would probably be having a conversation about how the Cubs’ century-long misery is continuing despite their continued 90 win seasons.
I think the point is that the price was high, not that the Cubs shouldn’t have made the trade. It worked out, but now the Cubs are paying for it.
Theo should have traded for David Robertson instead. 80% of Chapman for a fraction of the price.
I disagree. Can’t look back after a WS and say they should have done something different with a key player.
@stan: one of the complaints about the Chapman trade is that it’s been reported that the Cubs turned down trading Schwarber (injured at the time in 2016) to the Yankees for 2.5 years of Andrew Miller and instead decided on the Torres plus others trade for 0.5 years of Chapman.
On the other hand, a team that depleted the farm system by focusing on pitching in two consecutive drafts has produced no homegrown pitching and came a David Ross single in the top of the 9th and a rain delay away from putting their fans through an ugly rebuild without breaking the curse fell flat for the second consecutive year. It also now looks like an organization that spent the season spitting in the face of its marginalized fans by grabbing Murphy off the trash pile to cover for failing to make offensive upgrades in the offseason or trade deadline and left Russell on the roster as a ticking time bomb is going to further fuck up that situation by offering Russell “support” instead of a swift non-tender. It may be the best time to be a Cubs fan but that’s only because the organization’s ownership spent most of the last century more focused on selling chewing gum and newspapers.
FTC
Look good sir I will not sit idly by while you besmirch the good name of the Federal Trade Commission
A table with the Cubs’ core players with their remaining years of control would have been nice. Maybe Szymborski will prepare one in his post-mortem.
It’s basically 2021 for literally anyone of importance on the offensive side (happ excluded, he’s even longer).
All this talk about the postseason being a crapshoot got me thinking about the Yankees domination from 1921-64. Isn’t a single 7-game series even more of a crapshoot? How did the Yankee manage to win so many World Series including winning four straight World Series (1936-39) and five straight (1949-53)?
2 team crapshoots are way easier to win than 8 team semi-crapshoots.
Really?
8 team leagues, no draft, no revenue sharing, using the KC A’s and others as farm teams.
Pre-Division baseball, at the team level, is as different from the modern game as the deadball era.
You can’t really compare the competitive environments.
My previous comment was about winning the World Series. The Yankees won all those AL pennants because the AL was garbage. That is obvious. What is not as obvious is how the Yankees kept beating the National League champions in the World Series year after year even well into the post integration era. The Yankees faced some powerhouse NL teams and usually beat them. Winning five straight World Series titles seems so implausible in ANY era from a probability standpoint.
Isn’t it obvious on the face that it would be easier to win a single 7-game series, than a 5-game series and 2 separate 7-game series? To do that now you’d have to win 15 series against pretty similarly tough competition to win 5 titles in a row. Then, they had to win … 5.
Yes, i agree it would be easier to win a single 7 game series. But that applies to the Yankees and their National League opponents as well who are in theory the best team the NL had to offer in a given year. Yet the Yankees kept beating the NL champions. Even if we assume the Yankees generally had the stronger team in a short 7 game series why didn’t the NL team win more? Not only did the Yankees win the World Series often but the Yankees World Series winning percentage was about .620 from 1921-64.
It’s easier, but you’re less likely to get the chance.
Ok, so I crunched the numbers. The Yankees had a .643 overall regular season winning percentage for their 1921-64 pennant winners. Their NL opponents had a combined .617 winning percentage. A .643 W% is 104 wins in a 162 game schedule and a .617 W% is 100 wins. The Yankees had a 99-65 W-L record (.604 W%) against these NL teams in the World Series. If the 2018 Astros (.623 W%) and 2018 Dodgers (.642 W%) played twenty-nine 7-game series what is the probability that the Dodgers would win 60.4% of those games?
no free agents, no rule 5 either. may as well be the premier league.
It wouldn’t be crazy to say they were a dynasty from the late 40’s all the way to the early 60’s.
When you consider that they transitioned from Ruth > Dimaggio > Mantle, with no point where they didn’t have at least one on the roster, you’re really not wrong.
The last year of Dimaggio (first year of Mantle), ’51, the team had 4 guys who would combine for 10 MVPs on their roster (all earned with the Yankees).
In ’63, the Yankees had 4 guys who together by that point in their career had earned 9 MVPs (or 8 if you don’t count the won earned that season) all with the Yankees.
(Also, a bit nitpicky of me, I know, but they had a few years without any of those three when Dimaggio was in the war).
Great point re WWII!
In that time it was customary to award the MVP to the best player on the best team. Thus it is not entirely clear whether the Yankees were a great team because they had so many MVPs, or whether they had so many MVPs because they were a great team.
Don’t forget the Iron Horse, Lou Gehrig! 🙂
Forgot the Big Red Machine – 4 WS appearances in 7 years (2-2) and made an additional NLCS. Averaged 97.5 wins, 3x over 100
Wouldn’t a dynasty require at a minimum consecutive WS appearances? Preferably a trio-plus.
The “classic” dynasties of times past managed that much but back to back wins were rare even then.
Not that back-to-back appearances alone should be sufficient but it should be required.
Other than early 21st century Yankees and the 90’s Jays the only clear dynasties of the Division era look to be the 70’s A’s, probably the 70 O’s and 80’s A’s, and maybe the 90’s Braves.
Free agency makes true Dynasties in the modern era really hard and that can be considered a feature, not a bug.
Other than the Yankees, winning back-to back World Series is rather rare.
1907-08 Chicago Cubs
1910-11 Philadelphia A’s
1915-16 Boston Red Sox
1921-22 New York Giants
1929-30 Philadelphia A’s
1972-74 Oakland A’s
1975-76 Cincinnati Reds
1992-93 Toronto Blue Jays
I’m talking making the WS, not winning.
And the Division era in particular.
Division play, the draft, free agency, revenue sharing, and wild cards all work against good teams’ ability to steamroll opponents the way the Yankees and Dodgers did in the olden days.h
The more competitive balance you have, the harder it is to sustain dominance.
That is true. Had the Yankees closed out the D-Backs in 2001 thus winning four straight World Series titles, that would have been IMO by far more impressive than the Yankees 1936-39 and 1949-53 title runs. The Yankees would have won 12 playoff series over four years.
What a waste of words
I’ll do you one better. The Rockies are a bunch of lying cheaters!!!
I guess my sarcasm missed the mark. I was just trying to take a higher road than pointing out the sour grapes of a Cubs fan.
The Dodgers from 1974 to 1981 are an interesting question. Four trips to the World Series in eight years, including back-to-back trips in 77 and 78. And they shared a division with the aforementioned Big Red Machine, so there are a lot of second-place finishes during that era. Still, four pennants and one world championship in eight years is not a bad showing. For fans of a certain age, just mention their decade-long starting infield of Garvey-Lopes-Russell-Cey, and they’ll recall, “Oh yeah, THOSE guys.”
If they can do what the Braves did for about 10 years there, then that’s pretty clearly a good outcome for them and the Cubs should be very happy. That team was ridiculously good for a very, very long time.
100% This. “Hey, who’s winning the Central this year? Oh, Cubs again. Boring”.
The Braves took 2 WS, but they were always competitive and you had to account for them when planning a playoff run.
2 WS?
That was a HUGE typo/mistake. Obviously the Braves only won in ’95 during that stretch. Sorry, I was fuming at so many people commenting on here I didn’t reread before submitting.
Giambi arrived after the title runs, and Clemens was only there for 2000, fwiw. That’s not the most accurate summary of the Yanks’ core.
Mussina won exactly ZERO championships btw fwiw
Clemens was there for 1999 and 2000 though.
rather be the giants, win, be shitty, win, be shitty, win, be shitty
Winning just once justifies a lot of losing.
“The Red Sox won two World Series in the span of four years but also failed to reach the postseason in 2006.”
It was a little more impressive than that. The Red Sox made the playoffs six out of seven years (2003-09), reaching the ALCS four times and going 2-0 in the World Series. I don’t know that it makes them a dynasty, but it was more than just 2004 and 2007, especially when you consider those seven-game ALCS losses in ’03 and ’08.
It was more the case of a split. 03 they came up on game short in the ALCS and won it all 04. 05 they didn’t win a single playoff game getting swept in 3 games by the WS and 06 they didn’t make to the playoffs. 07 they rebounded and won it all again. However by 07 they they had mostly turned over the roster from their 03-04 run. Youk, Papi, Manny, Tek and Curt being the few holdovers. Big contributors like Pedro, Foulke, Nixon, Damon, Lowe, Belhorn, Millar were on other teams by 07.
Before I get any further, it deserves clarification that neither Jason Giambi nor Mike Mussina were part of any of the Yankees World Series winning teams alluded to.
Mussina joined in 2001, and retired in 2008, with a Yankee career book-ended by championships that he didn’t win. Giambi joined in 2002 after his A’s relinquished a 2-0 ALDS lead over the Yankees the year prior in the series that included the famous Derek Jeter flip play (I believe Mussina was pitching, actually). Remember Moneyball?
Notable omissions include Paul O’Neill, David Cone and Tino Martinez who were integral parts of all four teams, and Jorge Posada, who joined the fold more significantly in 1997, among others. Chuck Knoblauch and Scott Brosius were part of three themselves.
Now that that’t out of my system, I can continue reading.
dynasties are best viewed in the rear view mirror, the media were the ones who decided that the cubs were going to be a “dynasty “. Much needed to be answered, by playing the game,rather than predictions. that is a very good team,but sustained excellence, WS titles etc, have too many variables to predict. injuries, age,etc need time to play out
Endless supply of cash.
Cubs and Dodgers.
Yankees,and Red Sox.
Congrats to the As,lowest payroll at the start.
97 wins,great job!
Find it fascinating that Ian Happ isn’t mentioned in this piece or in the comments …
I think certain people who saw how great Ian Happ was when he hit the majors in 2017 missed the fact that he’s been a mediocre player after his first six weeks in the league.
It’s fascinating when an article on a team doesn’t mention the 5th OF?
But they are a dynasty… and so are the Astros. I read it here!
I think that an article like this should mention somewhere that if there were complete parity in the league, we would expect a team to win on average 1 out of every 30 times (which, on average I guess is still the case anyway, but you know what I mean). A thirty year drought between titles should be (and is) the norm. I’m not sure quite where that plays in here, but I feel like it’s relevant.
Gaps between titles will be the norm for various reasons, but I take major issue with the “1 out of every 30” ideaa because a team’s odds of making the playoffs (and winning the World Series) have quite a bit of correlation within short timeframes.
It’s not perfectly correlated for a lot of reasons (player depatures and arrivals, injuries, overperformance and underperformance in particular seasons) but there’s a general correlation between a team’s likelihood of success in 2018 and 2019 (or even between likelihood of success in seasons that are two or three years apart).
Epstein definitely built a great team but people always acted like it was this super smart master plan to build around hitters because arms break.
This is true of course but you still need arms and free agent and traded arms break too, not just home grown arms. Is it really better if a 200m arm breaks than if a pitching prospect is broken?
The cubs still have a good team but the reason it worked so well 2016 is also they got two very good pitchers almost by coincidence in hendricks and arrieta. Now some say theo recognized undervalued pitchers but he couldn’t really replicate that.
I agree with that “free agent and traded arms break too”, but I think that you’re greatly overstating the degree to which Esptein’s drafts focused on hitters.
Where he did focus on hitters was in the Cubs’ top of the first round picks, with the idea (as I understand it) that highly touted pitchers taken at the top of the draft still break at an alarming rate. After that, however, the Cubs often drafted pitchers in bulk. The problem is that they’ve gotten very little from those large numbers of pitchers drafted after the first round.
Epstein’s first two drafts with the Cubs were 2012 and 2013.
In 2012, the Cubs took Almora in the first round (#6 overall) and then used 8 of their next 9 picks on pitchers.
In 2013, the Cubs took Bryant in the first round (#2 overall) and then used 7 of their next 9 picks on pitchers.
Out of those 15 pitchers, the Cubs did hit on one who has become a pretty good major league starter: Zack Godley, drafted in the 10th round in 2013. Unfortunately for the Cubs, he was one of the players that they traded for Miguel Montero in December 2014. I’m almost certain that the most innings that the Cubs have gotten from any of those 15 pitchers is the 34.2 innings (mainly relief) from Rob Zastryzny.
Words cannot describe the amount of cringe I get seeing teams, not just this year’s Cubs but any team since 2012, that lost in the wild card game being labeled as “playoff” teams.
The wild card game, functionally, is the same thing as tiebreaker games in the past. Tiebreaker games weren’t considered playoff games. Why to we buy into MLB’s propaganda and consider these to be playoff games?
By definition they are playoff teams — they are playing in the postseason. It is not their fault that the MLB forces them to play a single game rather than a full series. A tiebreaker game is still the regular season.
Call it semantics. Call it a technicality.
Point is that being a Wild Card team does not mean the same thing as it did 5-6 years ago, and division winners are conversely rewarded far more. The two deserve to be separated in conversation.
Why is that? Take for example this year’s Yankees. Won 100 games the third most in baseball but due to divisional structure they were forced to play in a 1 game elimination. Do they not deserve to be considered a playoff team regardless of the outcome? Yet the Indians 9 games behind the Yankees and 6 games behind Oakland in a division where no other team finished above .500 should be?
“The MLB forces them to play a single game”
“Due to divisional structure they were forced to play in a 1 game elimination”
First off, love hearing that my Yankees are being victimized by this injustice. Let me just take down the date and time here…
This is the whole point of the second wild card. They wanted to place a much greater emphasis on winning the division, and they have. Of course we’ve seen man examples of great teams who didn’t even have the opportunity to play in a single game elimination and were forced to go home instead.
For every example of teams that win 100 games, there will be examples like the Twins last year, who only won 85.
Totally agreed; they are technically playoff teams. And I don’t think the wild card game should be categorized the same as a game 163. You can call an NFL, NHL or NBA wild card team a playoff team, the same as their division winners, and they’re practically the same. They deal with seeding and home field disadvantages, of course, but that’s about it. Two teams per conference get a bye in the NFL, which some even label a disadvantage, but otherwise it’s all just about getting in.
That’s just not the case in the MLB’s current structure. Their wild card teams are at a severe disadvantage, and that shouldn’t be papered over in conversation by putting them in the same category as their division winning peers.
Not that hard to distinguish between “division winner” and “wild card winner” when speaking toward the results. But, hey, whatever serves an argument better is what people will go with, I guess.
What about the 69-74 Orioles? 98 win average, 3 world series, 1 win. Edit: they didn’t go to playoffs 4+ years in a row, my bad.
The Dodgers “boast the greatest pitcher of this generation”. When did Max Scherzer join the Dodgers?
When did Clayton Kershaw leave the Dodgers?
Scherzer’s career low single season ERA is higher than Kershaw’s CAREER ERA
One has to wonder if Joe Maddon/Chili Davis’ line drive singles philosophy had a negative effect on this year’s team:
2017: 223 HR, .182 ISO
2018: 167 HR, .152 ISO
Not even the Diamondbacks dropped that much, even after losing J.D. Martinez and gaining a humidor.
2018 payroll = $240M
They’ve won 92+ games 3 years running, including a championship. Every regular except Zobrist and Lester is under 30. That sounds like a dynasty in progress to me.
Hitters peak at 25 now and then slowly decline until 30 or so, and then they really fall apart (fangraphs has several articles on this subject), so while they figure to stay in the 90 win range for at least a couple more years, that doesn’t scream dynasty.
I didn’t and don’t see the Cubs as a dynasty for one simple reason: the farm. There wasn’t anything on the farm after the current crop came up and helped them win the world series in 2016. What there was (Torres and Jimenez) had to be dealt in order to win the series in 2016 (Chapman) or stay in contention in 2017 and 2018 (Quintana). Though a person could be forgiven for thinking they would have staying power after they won in 2016 with a fairly young core of players, the fact is they won one of the closest series ever after trailing in all three post-season series, so they weren’t exactly a great team as it was, and with the way players are aging in the drug testing era, they didn’t have the projection that people put on them. Without a farm system that continually churns out talent, you’re just not going to have a dynasty, and the Cubs’ system has been near the bottom for the last couple of years.
You’re forgetting about Ian Happ.
What about him? He’s a nice player to have around, but nothing special. 1.5 WAR this year in a full season’s worth of playing time. He’s only 24 so he could improve, but are you ever going to get anything but average starter production out of him even if he does improve? The best thing about him is his versatility.
I’m saying he was a top prospect who came up and contributed after 2016.
Was he a top prospect? I think you’d have to take a pretty expansive definition of top prospect to say that.
And sure, he’s a contributor, but even the worst farm systems have players who contribute. Its inevitable that the MLB teams will come up with someone halfway decent after using 40 draft picks and signing 10-20 international stars. Even if they don’t, they’ll still have to fill in the gaps with homegrown players from time to time anyway.
Yeah, he was a top prospect.
It seems to me the Yankees of the 50’s and 60’s shouldn’t be held to the “playoff” standard. For them, making the playoffs meant winning the pennant.
I don’t buy that the Cubs are in good shape for the future – they have a lot of money invested in players who aren’t giving them much, if any, value, not a whole lot in the minors, and with a competitive window that aligns with a lot of other deep pocketed teams (Yankees, Red Sox, Braves, Phillies, Dodgers, to name a few), they can’t expect to gobble up free agents even if they have a limitless budget.
Going into next season this looks like a team with question marks at every spot in the rotation, an outside the top 10 bullpen, and an excellent core (Baez, Bryant, Rizzo) surrounded by ‘ok’ or worse pieces. I just don’t buy them as enduring competitors.
Lester’s been one of the best free agent contracts in recent memory, but the Heyward, Darvish and Chatwood deals are some of the worst. The Cubs have basically limitless money but haven’t shown any inclination to spend like the Yankees, Dodgers and Red Sox , so it will be interesting to see if they let those bad contracts limit their actions in the near future. They really need to add pitching ASAP and since the farm system is barren, it would seem like they would need to buy it.
The Cubs do have the revenue that they can almost certainly support a higher payroll and go over the luxury tax line, but I wouldn’t overstate how much room they have over their current payroll.
They’ve been up against the luxury tax line both season and last season and went over in 2016.
Looking at their 2019 outlook in Cot’s, I’m getting up to a payroll (for luxury tax purposes) that’s close to the 2019 tax line ($206 million) just to bring back the current team less Cole Hamels and several relievers (Justin Wilson, Jesse Chavez, and Jorge de la Rosa). Cot’s has the Cubs at $145 million in luxury tax payroll committed for 2019. Picking up options for Quintana and Strop adds ~$15 million to put us at $160 million. I’m admittedly not great at arbitration estimates, but I get to almost $40 million by assuming 50% salary increases for the four arb 2 players (Bryant, Hendricks, Russell if the Cubs keep him, and La Stella) and approximately $10 million in total for the four arb 1 players (Baez, Schwarber, Montgomery, and Edwards). So that puts us already up to about $195 to $200 million.
The Cubs could go over the tax line in 2019, but if that money is spent on long-term deals then we need to work through the multi-year math of what that means in 2020 (or later) as the players above keep increasing salaries in arbitration, plus Contreras and Almora hitting arb 1 status after the 2019 season. Some fairly sizable contracts roll off after 2019 (Zobrist and Morrow) and 2020 (Lester if his contract isn’t picked up), but that money probably needs to go into a combination of free agent pitching (including Hendricks and Quintana both being free agents after 2020) and arb raises.
I don’t expect the Cubs to fall off a cliff in the near-term or anything, and there’s obviously upside between Bryant being healthy and improving a lot on his 2018 fWAR (2.3) and a chance of getting more than a total of the -.3 fWAR in 2018 from the combination of Darvish, Chatwood, and Drew Smyly. OTOH, the 2019 payroll calculation above also subtracts Hamels (1.5 fWAR this season) and the combined 2.1 fWAR of Chavez, Wilson, and de la Rosa.
Yea I think the problem is that it wasn’t a balanced rebuild. Their pitching staff alone is more expensive than most payrolls. They spent $100M more than the Brewers and still lost. Sure seems like they are going to have to spend way over $200M per season just to stay competitive. Is that really something we should be applauding? GMs of 26 other teams that aren’t in the Evil Empire Club would love the opportunity to spend $200M but they have rules they have to follow. The cubs don’t have spending limits and still barely made the playoffs. I don’t think what the cubs have done here should be applauded at all. What Billy Beane has done, now that’s skill. He’s not buying his World Series.
Good points, but um… which World Series did Billy Beane not buy?
Haha well played. What I meant was I bet Billy Beane would love to spend daddy’s money like Epstein & Hoyer but he has to rely on skill and cunning instead.
I’m not a cubs fan so i guess I don’t see what’s so impressive about spending more money than everybody else.
Hoyer didn’t actually buy a good team. His first great team in Chicago won 97 games with a payroll that was 11th in baseball and $169m less than the Dodgers. He just spent money to maintain that great team and stretch the championship window.
You mean cycle through talent trading your best assets as soon as they require fair market value and building mediocre playoff teams that get eliminated 14 out 15 elimination games? The As not only have never sniffed a WS in the Beane era they have only made it out of the DS once where they were promptly swept by the Tigers. If you want a true small budget genius look at Andrew Friedman’s work with the Rays.
If the Cubs would have won this year that would have been 4 consecutive playoff appearances and two world championships in 4 years*. Not to mention 4 straight NLCS appearances. 2015 seems to have been forgotten but it was an NLCS appearance and a 97 win season.
That’s an enormous IF.
What made the Cubs’ offense work in 2016 versus now was a higher OBP and stability at the lead-off position. Unless they can acquire a lead-off hitter with great OBP skills, they will probably continue to sputter offensively. They replaced Fowler with Almora, and, while that comes with a dramatic defensive improvement, the offense suffered. Zobrist performed admirably this year with a great OBP. He is a nice fit in the lead-off spot, but then you’re weakening the depth in the lineup if you hit him leadoff. Contreras struggled at times, Bryant was injured, and power was down across the board.
The pitching has still been okay. Perhaps people think it should be better, but most teams that lose their top FA pitching acquisition do not perform as well as the Cubs have. They added two starting pitchers, received almost nothing from them, and won 90+ games again. The bullpen was a mess at the end of the season, no doubt. Injuries to Morrow and Strop spelled doom before the playoffs even began. Cishek was overworked, there were no reliable lefties, Edwards was spent. Some of that is because the Cubs had to play to the finish line this year; there was no rest for anyone before the playoffs began.
I’m very curious to see what they do this offseason. I think the time is now to trade Baez. Despite his monster season, I think he is vastly overrated offensively. I would not be shocked to see a .260/.295/.450 season from him next year. Is there value in that with his defense? Of course. But if other teams view him as a middle of the lineup, superstar-in-waiting, I think it’s time to cash him in and supplement the roster. Or they could package a contract they don’t want with him to go after a big splash in free agency.
And to reply to the article, no, this team is not a dynasty. It is the most consistently great Cubs team of all-time, but dynasties are measured in championships and this team only has one. I hope they add to that soon; their moves this offseason will go a long way in deciding whether that happens or not.
I’m highly dubious that any other team is going to make an offer for Baez valuing him as the 131 wRC+, 5+ WAR player that he was in 2018. Even this season, he was still a less than 5% BB rate and greater than 25% K rate hitter, which is a very tough combination for sustaining really good hitting production.
I don’t think cashing in on a young talented up the middle player who’s under team control for several more years while you’re still in the middle of your window is really a common choice. I’m not saying it’s a terrible choice, but it seems unlikely since they would be weakening their team on the field for unknowns. You’re much more likely to suffer bad optics if you make a trade that flops than you are for saying “gee, this 25 year old guy just gave us 6 WAR last year, let’s keep him around next year and see what he does”.
Baez is a high variance player. You wouldn’t be shocked to see .260/.295/.450 but you’re also not allowed to be shocked if he goes .280/.310/.500 since that’s a slight regression of what he did this year. (FWIW, I would be surprised to see him go .260 in a season without an injury since he’s never done that in any full season, and he’s never on-based less than .315)
Moate makes good points. For Baez in particular, I don’t see how trading him makes a lot of sense for the Cubs’ roster construction or in finding a likely trade partner.
On the former, Baez has positional versatility including playing SS. Russell is suspended for the first 29 games of 2019 (his 11 games of administrative leave this year are credited as part of his 40 game suspension), and his hitting production has trended down over the past two seasons. The Cubs do have a lot of overall depth on their major league roster. I’d argue that they need it, however, because they lack the 50 FV or higher prospects in the high minors who are often a big part of the depth for teams with good farm systems.
Baez also isn’t an obvious trade target for a rebuilding team, because he has three years of team control left. The logical teams to want him in a trade are other teams that are also in a window of contention. There could still be trade possibilities with a contending team that’s dealing from its own depth (perhaps pitching), but it’s tougher to find a good match since the Cubs would presumably want back at least one player who is ready to contribute in 2019.
You make some very valid points, as does Dave T below. Probably the biggest impediment to a trade of Baez is the unknown surrounding Russell. They cannot afford to lose him if Russell is indeed done with the Cubs (as he should be, IMO).
I guess my argument is based on the idea of selling high. I don’t see Baez becoming a superstar in this league. I think he will be a very good player and probably will be a for a very long time. He has a high floor due to his defense. And I supposed you could do worse than a very powerful, slick-fielding shortstop. But if he’s going to get more expensive and not really improve from here, isn’t it better to get value for him now?
Fielding a good club year after year, going to the playoffs and winning a WS, that’s a pretty good run. As the article makes clear, repeating as champion is so very hard. Makes the 96, 98-00 run for the Yanks more special than people realize.
And the Giants were not a dynasty, got to at least repeat for that.
Cubs lack THE player that is ultimately accountable. Reggie Jackson was Mr. October and he was “ the straw that stirred the drink”. He embraced accountability. The Cubs are like the “Borg” from Star Trek, The Next Generation. They are a relentless collective with interchangeable parts but no individual accountability They are also confused and hamstrung when the opposition does not succumb to the power of their collective talent.
That certainly is quite a tale that you have affixed to them…
The Cubs are good but not within a mile of the best teams in baseball. You claim their rotation is good ?? Their rotation is average at best and on the decline. Lets be serious. Take a look at the pitching on the Cleveland Indians, the Houston Astros, the Dodgers, the Mets, even Washington and the Yankees. The Cubs are nowhere near that. And their bullpen ? Again, decent but not anywhere near the power bullpens of numerous teams. I bet good money that the Cubs would not make the playoffs this year and I will bet even more next year. Albert Almora ?? Just what is his strength ? Take a look at the cold hard facts. Kyle Schwarber and Jason Heyward ?? They get worse each year. There are guys saying Heyward rebounded. Are you kidding ? He shows even less power, no longer steals bases and walks a lot less than he used to. Very good defensively but he can’t hit. Schwarber has power and takes walks. But he has hit .211 and .238 the past 2 years. He strikes out way too often, he is a poor fielder, and he is weak against lefties. My point is the Cubs have Anthony Rizzo and Bryant (who is good but a bit overrated) They have Baez who is excellent (but he might hit .250 next year), and they have average pitching, with no one anywhere near Ace status. I understand most will disagree with me……but if you look up what each player actually did this year, you will see my point. The Cubs will be a .500 team next year and miss the playoffs again.
You’re wrong on a lot of things. Almora is a good contact hitter and defensive centerfielder who got tired during the second half of his first full season. Schwarber and Heyward both got better this year. Schwarber both upped his walk rate and cut his strikeout rate. Heyward’s walk rate was right about where its always been (8-11%) and his strikeout rate was the lowest of his career. Baez is a career .267 hitter who has hit .273, .273, and .290 the past three seasons. I don’t know where thinking he might hit .250 is coming from. Their pitching struggled through this year, but Hendricks/Quintana/Lester/Darvish all have long track records of success. The Cubs could be a .500 team next year, but a lot would have to go wrong. Also, they havent missed the playoffs since 2014.
Point of order: What defensive metrics are you using that pin “poor fielder” on Schwarber? He struggled in his first 2 seasons in the outfield, but was WELL above league average for his position this year (in part due to his outfield assists/cannon of an arm). His UZR this year was 9.8! If you think his total package isn’t that great (3.2 WAR?), you need to remember that real baseball teams need role players and he seems to be an above average one on a team friendly contract (he made about $600K this year, and is under team control until 2022)
The Cubs not being a dynasty is not okay with me. I had great hopes for them.
I recall Theo Epstein once saying the philosophy is if you’re in a 12 year period you want to make the postseason 7 times and hopefully win 2 World Series. Something along those lines. I think a lot of people jumped the gun after 2016 because they were so young, talented AND had the stacked farm system. That farm has since graduated to the Majors or been traded for assets (Quintana, not Wilson). It’s a very good team in good position for the long term. They got caught in the randomness of baseball this year.