The Cubs Need Yu Darvish
(Photo: Mike LaChance)
If Shohei Ohtani isn’t able to play in the major leagues next season, that would quickly make Yu Darvish the clear No. 1 free agent available this winter — and perhaps the only clear top-of-rotation arm. And even if Ohtani is cleared to migrate across the Pacific to play professional baseball, Darvish is likely to walk away as the highest-paid player from this free-agent class.
Yes, Darvish’s awful World Series performance is still fresh in the collective consciousness, but that shouldn’t negate his late-season work with the Dodgers. After some data-informed tweaks (documented here by Eno and also by Andy McCullough of the L.A. Times), Darvish was excellent. With the Dodgers in the second half, the right-hander struck out 61 and walked 13 in 49 innings.
Darvish doesn’t possess quite the track record of recent free-agent aces like Zack Greinke or David Price or Max Scherzer. He ranks 24th in pitching WAR (14.5) since 2013, whereas Greinke (20.8), Price (22.8), and Scherzer (29.8) all appear among the top eight. Nevertheless, Darvish could be in line to join them with a $200-million deal.
While Alex Cobb and Lance Lynn represent solid free-agent options, while Jake Arrieta rebounded with a strong second half, Darvish is the offseason’s clear top option.
He ranked 15th among qualified pitchers with a 19.6-point differential between his strikeout and walk rates (K-BB%) this past season and eighth in the second half. As a reference point, Arrieta posted a 15.3-point mark.
While Darvish is perhaps not an elite, elite ace, he’s a No. 1 on most staffs. As a result, just about every large-market club will be connected to him. Even the pitching-rich Dodgers traded for Darvish last summer. But no team could use Darvish more than the Cubs.
As you’re probably aware, Chicago is losing 40% of their rotation to free agency in Jake Arrieta and John Lackey.
Arrieta threw 594.2 innings for the Cubs over the last three seasons and was the NL Cy Young winner in 2015. Lackey, meanwhile, absorbed 359 innings the last two seasons. The Cubs are not only losing quality, they are losing a significant volume of innings. Their farm system isn’t exactly teeming with premium talent ready to fit in a major-league rotation.
It’s not that Cubs project to have a poor rotation: Jose Quintana, Kyle Hendricks, Jon Lester and company are projected at the moment to compose the 12th-best rotation (13.0 WAR) in baseball. But context matters here. Consider the teams rated above them: the Dodgers (No. 1), Nationals (No. 4), Cardinals (No. 8), Diamondbacks (No. 9), and Rockies (No. 11). Those, of course, are the other four NL playoff teams from 2017 and the division-rival Cardinals.
The Cubs ranked 11th in starting pitching WAR (11.8) in 2017 and third in 2016 (17.4). The latter was, of course, the year in which Chicago claimed a World Series title.
While starters account for a lower volume of work every year and while pitching roles are evolving, starting pitchers are still the highest paid and generally the most talented arms in the game. The teams that collected the best starting pitchers last year were the best teams in baseball. The Indians, Dodgers, Nationals, Red Sox, Dodgers, Astros and Yankees finished No. 1-7, respectively, in starting pitcher production last season. All of those seven teams finished in the top eight of regular-season wins.
The Cubs need to add more starting-pitcher firepower, less to make the playoffs — in the very early projections, only six NL teams project to have winning records and one of those is the 82-80 forecast of the Pirates — but the need is more for when they arrive there. Chicago is tasked with keeping up with the sport’s other super teams, to remain competitive with the Dodgers and Nationals and Diamondbacks in what appears to be a very unbalanced National League. Darvish is the only obvious candidate to fill that void at the moment.
The Cubs are designed to fill such a void with such an arm. After all, they’ve done it before. The club, of course, implemented a strategy of spending their premium picks on position players and they hit on many of those selections. They used their financial might to fill voids in the rotation with Lackey and Lester. They traded for Quintana. It’s a model they ought to follow again this offseason amid what figures to be intense bidding for Darvish. Note: Darivsh did have the Cubs on his no-trade list which could complicate matters. They’ll have to overpay, perhaps, but it might be a necessary move to compete in the NL, in what is increasingly becoming a neighborhood of Haves and Have Nots. Keeping up with the Joneses requires luxury items.
A Cleveland native, FanGraphs writer Travis Sawchik is the author of the New York Times bestselling book, Big Data Baseball. He also contributes to The Athletic Cleveland, and has written for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, among other outlets. Follow him on Twitter @Travis_Sawchik.
The Cubs are capped at a max bonus of $300K (some teams can go as high as $7-8M), and don’t have DH PAs to offer Otani. They seem a highly unlikely landing place.
Cubs could pitch Ohtani with a “Madden likes to be unorthodox, so while you won’t get regular DH ABs, you’ll get your share of random games in LF”.
But it might be the question of the Cubs wanting him way more than he wanting to go there. I could see them being one of the rare teams to move him to LF for a couple batters here or there to bring in a LOOGY, and then move him back to the mound.
Perhaps, but I’m skeptical that a team would send Ohtani to play OF once or twice per week on his non-pitching days with the potential for multiple max effort throws. I think that if he gets playing time on days when he’s not pitching, it will be as some combination of DH, 1B, and pinch hitter.
I don’t know about this. If you have 3/5ths of a rotation that is projected for 10.5 WAR, you could still reach the Nationals’ unbelievably awesome rotation projection with one great starter or two good ones.
Here’s something I would keep an eye on–Alex Cobb is a lot cheaper than Darvish, a year younger (which matters a lot to the Cubs), and in his first year back from serious injury. Going after him wouldn’t necessarily knock them out of the Darvish sweepstakes, but could be one half of their solution if they don’t get him.
Plus the Cubs have Maddon and now Hickey – Cobb would seem like a great fit.
https://www.draysbay.com/2017/10/5/16417124/tampa-bay-rays-jim-hickey-pitching-coach-retrospective ^ great article on hickey and changeup use. looking at cobb’s pv/100 over the years, it’s been his changeup that flipped from sizable net positive to sizable net negative. the velocity is back–he just lost his changeup feel and turned–to the tune of 35ish%–to the curve.
considering the match between cobb and hickey, and, even more so, the direct history between them, i would almost be floored if cobb wasn’t chi bound.
Don’t forget something like 3 years of reports that the Cubs were interested in trading for Cobb, including at seemingly crazy times, like when he was a year away from returning from TJ.
FWIW the depth chart link is broken.
Any staff where Darvish is a #1 is not a good staff.
While his regular season was good with LA- it was still on a 27 start base a 3.3 WAR year. Good, but hardly elite. And then you have the postseason. His career postseason ERA is 5.81 and his career postseason FIP is 5.99. Considering a lot of what you’re saying is based on the postseason- that’s got to be at least some consideration.
Also you still wonder about his health…
1st 3 years- 39-25 3.27 ERA 3.17 FIP 545.1 ip in 83 starts 1.196 WHIP. 7.2 h/9, 0.9 hr/9, 3.6 bb/9, 11.2 k/9
last 2 years- 17-17 3.70 ERA 3.57 FIP 287 ip in 48 starts. 1.146 WHIP. 7.5 h/9 1.2 hr/9, 2.8 bb/9, 10.7 k/9
Also would say for the Cubs- 2nd half of the year- after they had acquired Quintana- they were #7 in starting pitching WAR. 3 spots ahead of the Dodgers. And Quintana, Hendricks, and Lester were 3 of the top 4. Montgomery was 6th in 8 starts. Quintana was #8 starter the 2nd half in the NL, Hendricks was #10.
Personally I’d like to see them take a look at Cobb & Chatwood and fix the bullpen.
Cobb or Lynn + Chatwood is what i want as a Cubs fan. Pass on Darvish. Just checked his game log with Dodgers and late season work. Regardless of the tweaks resulting in walk/k improvement, not sure how much stock i would put into 3 game sample size against Padres, Phils and Giants. That was proceeded by getting blown up World Series style by the Rookies and Padres.
“Nevertheless, Darvish could be in line to join them with a $200-million deal.”
I don’t see a combination of years and annual salary that gets Darvish to this level. Greinke, who was better than Darvish is now, got $206.5 million. Even allowing for the passage of time, how does Darvish come close to that?
I certainly don’t think the Cubs are going to plunk down $206.5 million for a 31-year old coming off his worst season.
I think we’re more likely to see a Jordan Zimmermann, Johnny Cueto, or Jon Lester type of contract.
I’d project Darvish at 6/$145 million.
So Jon Lester. I think that’s probably about right. Darvish is older, but $/WAR has gone up a bit.
I’d much rather have Cobb + Lynn.
Or trade Schwarber for Salazar.
It’s not that I dislike Darvish, I just think the monies can be distributed more widely to lessen the risk.
A lot of people have mentioned Lynn alongside Cobb. I’m curious…do people think he will bounce back to his pre-injury form? Because while I think that it’s equally likely that either Cobb or Lynn will bounce back, I don’t think Lynn’s BABIP of .244 is repeatable if neither one does.
I’m pretty sure there’s a history of pitchers generally underperforming during their first year back from TJ-surgery and then subsequently improving after that first year. I don’t know if that means we should expect all the way back to pre-injury form for a soon to be 31 years old Lance Lynn, but (IIRC) his 2017 performance shouldn’t be seen as any sort of new and lower baseline.
I absolutely agree with you that Lynn’s combination of 3.43 ERA and 4.82 FIP in 2017 doesn’t look sustainable, but the good news would be that we should expect his FIP to improve.
Yeah, I just keep thinking that no matter what we say about Lynn, Cobb comes out looking like a better case scenario. But maybe there’s something in Lynn’s history I’m not aware of (I actually don’t know much about him) that gives greater hope for him than it looks at first glance.
I don’t have a super strong analytical argument for signing Lynn, I simply liked him as a divisional opponent. Pre-TJ, he ate innings and threw up 3 wins a year. He’s always been a high BABIP guy, but like others have said, we are losing 400+ IP and need guys to eat innings. One of the main reasons I don’t think Darvish is the answer is because he cannot be–we need at least twice the innings Darvish can provide.
With Cueto and Tanaka off the market, Lynn is what, the fourth or fifth best SP FA?
Yeah. Darvish, Arrieta, Cobb, Lynn, and you can bump some down if Otani comes over. I’d probably be willing to take a flyer on Chris Tillman over Lynn but that’s mostly because he’s going to be cheaper.
BTW, the link in the last paragraph is broken.
Darvish makes sense. He doesn’t have a QO hanging over him like many of the other options. No idea what they do about the other vacancy in the rotation though…
I see less need for Darvish than for rotation depth.
Whether or not the Cubs sign Darvish, they should still want to add at least one other starter, leaving Montgomery as a swingman option for depth beyond the top 5 starters. Then they’d probably like at least one other reclamation project type, if they can sign one without a guaranteed rotation spot, for starting pitching depth beyond Montgomery. Tseng’s around but I think really just injury depth at this point. Eddie Butler with his 5.08 K/9, 4.73 BB/9, and 5.59 xFIP as a starter in 2017 shouldn’t be more than an emergency 8th or 9th starting pitching option for a contending team.
While the 2017 Cubs didn’t repeat the absolutely amazing starting pitching health of 2016, they did still get 86 starts and about 490 innings from the trio of Lester, Hendricks, and Arrieta, plus an additional 14 starts and 86 innings from Quintana post-trade. Lackey also provided a lot of innings (30 starts, 169.2 IP) of not great quality (0.5 fWAR) but with more useful results by runs allowed (1.6 RA-9 WAR). They still got what has to be considered above average health from the starting rotation.
Maybe Darvish is part of the 2018 mix for the Cubs, but I think that their first concern has to be not the post-season but the chance that a couple of extended absences due to injury leave them with a rotation that’s not only poorly performing but also struggles to cover many innings. They have money to spend – currently at about $137 million of payroll for 2018 including estimated arb awards – but money can go quickly in free agency for multiple starting pitchers plus multiple bullpen additions, including a closer. Also, their young position player core will only keep getting more expensive in arbitration after 2018.
Trading to fill some of their pitching need is an option, but the farm system is depleted so the main trade assets would have to be from the major league roster.
Dave Cameron did a good job of spelling out these issues just a few weeks ago – https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-cubs-already-need-to-retool/
Add it all up, and I agree with the comment that two out of three of Lynn, Cobb, and Chatwood looks like it’s probably a better option than Darvish.
I liked them to get Cobb and Lynn before QOs were added in. Now I’m not so sure. Signing 2 of those guys will cost a 1st and a 2nd round pick. They’ll get something back for Arrieta, but will it be a 1st rounder? That’s hard to tell. At the end of the day I think Darvish and a trade for another arm make a decent amount of sense with all things considered. After the QOs I really see the Cubs being after Addison Reed.
Good point about QO’s, but the system changed in the last CBA.
First round picks aren’t involved any more –
http://m.mlb.com/glossary/transactions/qualifying-offer
I think that the Cubs ended up under the luxury tax threshold this year, which means that they’d lose their 2nd highest pick and $500,000 of international bonus pool money for signing a player with a QO. I don’t think that the pool money is much of an issue this year because the Cubs have the penalty of not being able to sign any individual international player for more than $300,000 due to going over the pool limit in the 2015-16 signing period. With that individual bonus limit, $4.25 million of total money vs. $4.75 million doesn’t seem that important.
For Arrieta and Davis, the Cubs would receive a pick after Competitive Balance Round B, which is between the 2nd and 3rd round (again assuming that they didn’t finish 2017 over the luxury tax).
If the Cubs ended this year over the luxury tax, the penalty is higher (lose second- and fifth-highest draft picks as well $1 million from international bonus pool) and the draft picks received back for Arrieta and Davis are lower (draft picks after the 4th round).
There’s also an argument that, once a team has signed at least one player with a QO, it might as well as go ahead and sign more than one because each successive draft pick lost is less valuable than the first one lost.
One thing of note: You are going to see a lot of teams try to get free agents for $49 million in guaranteed money and large playing time incentives to avoid losing draft picks. This won’t work for the Yu Darvish’s of the world, and may not work for the Alex Cobb’s of the world, but it might for some. And it also effectively ends the penalty on pillow deals.
“You are going to see a lot of teams try to get free agents for $49 million in guaranteed money and large playing time incentives to avoid losing draft picks.”
It appears that the $50 million threshold is about the team receiving compensatory picks. If the team receives revenue sharing and a player they offered a QO to signs a deal of $50 million or more the compensatory pick moves to the end of round 1. wish I would’ve known all these changes were coming to the QO system.
I agree with brood550. The $50 million contract threshold applies only to one narrow point, per the explanation that I linked at MLB.com: specifically, the round of pick that a team gets if it loses a free agent offered a QO and also receives revenue sharing.
I recall some inaccurate reporting on this point when the new CBA was signed in late 2016, presumably both because the new QO system is more complicated than the old one and likely because some of the reporters at the time were transcribing conversations with sources before reporters could read the full document.
“There’s also an argument that, once a team has signed at least one player with a QO, it might as well as go ahead and sign more than one because each successive draft pick lost is less valuable than the first one lost.”
Yeah, I totally agree with that. I guess it really comes down to the FAs available and the perceived value of the draft class.
I would love to see Cobb & Lynn on the Cubs next year. If it is Cobb & Chatwood I would be good with that, too. And as for bullpen Jake McGee would be a nice addition that may not be super expensive..
“He ranks 24th in pitching WAR (14.5) since 2013”
For completeness, if you look at WAR/200 IP, Darvish ranks… 24th, at 4.52 WAR/200 IP.
The top 5 in WAR/200 IP over the same time frame are:
Jansen at 7.85
Kershaw at 6.94
Kimbrel at 6.77
Betances at 6.3
Syndergaard at 6.0
Should probably filter out the relievers though. I like that this shows how great Betances has been. I’d definitely be targeting him as a buy low trade acquisition.
He’s 16th without relievers (don’t know why the hell you would include relievers in this sort of list). 10th with minimum 500 innings.
Cubs cannot bring Ohtani cuz of the international youth policy. Last year, Cubs and Dodgers used more money than the limited amount which makes the club unable to sign a contract with international players younger than 25 for this season or maybe a limited amount of money is allowed now. I’m sorry im not an expert. But this made the Yankees the only and the best team for Ohtani as masahiro will help him with adjusting to the city and the yankees clubhouse
Darvish feels like a guy who is about to/just did fall off a ledge. As much as fangraphs advanced stats do not like Lynn, he has always put up better numbers than advanced stats think he would.
The Dodgers finished second AND fifth in SP production last season? Jesus Christ. I knew their rotation was deep, but I didn’t know it was THAT deep. Andrew Friedman is earning his money.
I’m a Cubs fan, so my bias is a thing.
I certainly agree that the Cubs need another frontish of the rotation starter to keep up with the other “super teams.” Darvish and Arrieta make me nervous though.
I am dubious that the Cubs have enough in trade depth to bring in a top tier starter. That said, I have seen suggestions that Ian Happ could be a centerpiece in a deal to bring in someone like Chris Archer.
I’d love to here from others on there thoughts on the plausibility of such a deal. How much more would the Cubs have to kick in?
We Cubs fans are always a bit obsessed with the ones who get away (Lou Brock, Gred Maddux…), so that is certainly part of the question. My gut says that Archer is WAY more valuable than Happ but I don’t know (self-doubt is also a Cubs fan thing… hey, does anyone know who won the World Series in 2016?)
Huh. Is Darvish even an average pitcher with the new ball? Is there going to be another new ball? Or are they going to keep with the new new ball? Or are they going to go back to the old new ball? That is, the ball they used in the regular season. Or are they going back to the old ball? Do teams get to test the 2018 ball before free agency?
These are very important questions before you drop 100,000,000.00$ on a pitcher whose primary secondary pitch is a slider.
Oh, right, they never changed the ball. Screw Manfred.
On behalf of Twins,Brewers,Pirates,Rays,etc……fans.
We could care less,what the Yankees,Dodgers,Cubs,etc…..
Ultra rich teams need.
Try winning without a trillion dollar budget.