This Is How Dynasties Begin

The Chicago Cubs just won the World Series, their first in 108 years. The way this team is constructed, though, they might not have to wait long for another one.

A few facts about this team, and why they’re going to be tough to take down over the next few years.

Chicago Playing Time Allocations
Hitters PA MLB Rank OPS Rank
25 and Under 2,434 3 0.807 3
26-30 2,411 21 0.763 7
31-35 1215 19 0.746 12
36 and Over 275 13 0.641 13
Pitchers TBF MLB Rank OPS Rank
25 and Under 214 30 0.484 1
26-30 3129 14 0.621 1
31-35 1813 10 0.659 1
36 and Over 777 4 0.663 6

It’s no secret that the Cubs have some of the best young hitters in baseball, but it is exceptionally rare for teams with this many young hitters to win it all. The last World Series winner with to give at least 2,400 plate appearances to players in the 25 and under category was the 1971 Pirates; unsurprisingly, the Pirates won 57% of their games in the 1970s, finishing first or second in their division in seven of the next eight years.

But even that Pirates team wasn’t really this Cubs team. The star players on that team were 31 year old Willie Stargell and 36 year old Roberto Clemente. The ’71 Pirates had some really good young position players, but as a group, they got +17.1 WAR from their young hitters; the 2016 Cubs got +18.4 WAR from their young hitters, despite using 400 fewer plate appearances.

To put that +18.4 WAR from 25 and under hitters into comparison, let’s look at the last 70 years of baseball, which takes us back to 1947, avoiding the years World War 2 messed with the game’s demographics. During that span, only seven teams have gotten more production from their young hitters than this year’s Cubs team.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.

But even that undersells how good this group is. 25 and under is an arbitrary bucket I just used because that’s how the Play Index splits their age groups, but the Cubs actually didn’t have any 25 year old hitters this year, so using that bin compares them to other teams with older hitters included. Using our leaderboards, you can dial in more specific age brackets, and if you go 24 and under, you’ll see the Cubs still have +18.4 WAR, you’ll see only three teams have gotten more production from that group in the last 70 years than this Cubs team.

This is an historically great group of young hitters. Having some great young hitters doesn’t guarantee anything — for instance, the 1978 Expos rank atop the young hitter WAR leaderboard, and then had a two year run of 90 win teams that didn’t reach the World Series, before fading — but it’s the best place to start building a franchise. The 2015 Mets were exciting because of their young arms, but as 2016 showed, arms break, sometimes all at the same time.

As the table above shows, this Cubs team was extraordinarily reliant on young hitting, but not at all reliant on young pitching. And while the age of the pitching staff is the likely weak spot in any dynasty talk, the fact that this team doesn’t have a lot of expected value tied up in the most fragile asset you can have speaks to the solid base they have in place. The Cubs middle-aged and older pitchers aren’t going to keep pitching this well forever, but there’s a lot less risk in this kind of pitching staff than in one that is heavy on young arms.

And while Kris Bryant and Anthony Rizzo are obviously the cornerstones, it’s the depth of young positional talent that really makes the Cubs scary. With any group of players, you’re going to have some guys who go the wrong direction, or never develop as expected, but there are just so many reinforcements here. The team only got a half season out of Willson Contreras this year, and he’ll almost certainly play a bigger role on the 2017 Cubs team. Kyle Schwarber missed the whole season, essentially. Javier Baez was still a part-time player. Jorge Soler is still around and still talented. Albert Almora is around as an interesting outfield option for the future, especially if he ever learns how to take a pitch.

It’s not just Bryzzo and Russell, and because of that depth, the Cubs should be able to field high-quality athletic line-ups capable of sustaining something like this level of performance for a while. We can’t hand wave away the contributions of older players like Dexter Fowler and Ben Zobrist, but by and large, there isn’t much reason to expect the Cubs offense or defense to take a big step back any time soon.

The pitching staff is where the questions lie. John Lackey isn’t going to be this good for much longer. Jon Lester is aging. Jake Arrieta is a year away from free agency, and based on his reported asking price, is probably only going to spend one more year with the Cubs. The bullpen, as we just saw, has some question marks surrounding the health of their best regular season arms, and the group looks a lot weaker if Pedro Strop and Hector Rondon aren’t 100% next year.

But the Cubs are a high-revenue franchise that just set themselves up for a significant windfall, thanks to the revenue boost that comes from winning a World Series. This is a team that can afford to spend money on free agent pitching to supplement their young core. It’s the kind of team that can afford to take on contracts if need be, because the cheap young hitters give them plenty of budget room to add quality veterans at market prices.

This roster is something close to the ideal way you’d want to build a team for the long-term, and we may not have even seen the Cubs at their best yet. They won 103 games and the World Series, but there’s enough guys on this team that can still get better that this might just be the start of the run, not the very top of the mountain.

Of course, baseball can happen. The Cubs should be thrilled they got one when they had a chance, because they might not get another one. Baseball can be fickle. But looking at how this Cubs team is structured, there’s a real chance that this was just year one of the kind of dynasty we haven’t seen in baseball since the Yankees owned baseball at the end of the 1990s.





Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.

78 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
mattyjames1
9 years ago

step one: win a championship. Check.

Mahoney
9 years ago
Reply to  mattyjames1

Winning a championship check is probably the biggest check a lot of these kids have gotten so far.

descender
9 years ago
Reply to  mattyjames1

Step Two: Win again within 2 years.

The word dynasty doesn’t belong in any conversation that starts with “we won once”.

SpiggyMember since 2025
9 years ago
Reply to  descender

Atlanta c. 1991-2005 says hi.

YKnotDisco
9 years ago
Reply to  Spiggy

What about the Buffalo Bills? 4 straight SB appearances but no wins. Is that a dynasty? No snark, just curious what qualifies as a dynasty.

Johnston
9 years ago
Reply to  YKnotDisco

Like football even matters.

bunslow
9 years ago

Cubs fans are of course trained (in a rather Pavlovian way) to be cautious, wary and skeptical of hype, this season or next… but for once they lived up to the hype.

Mahoney
9 years ago
Reply to  bunslow

As a Red Sox fan, I can tell you that nothing beats the curse-breaking championship. And one of the side effects is that you lose a lot of that paranoia about Murphy’s Law.

CosmoMember since 2024
9 years ago
Reply to  Mahoney

As someone who experienced 2003 in Wrigleyville, I never quite got over it and haven’t been as excited about anything since… it really did break me… I felt pretty calm about this whole run. I keep saying it over again to my friends, but this team is different. I’m sure the Blackhawks’ recent success has helped as well that these things can happen in Chicago. But you’re totally right. I was rooting for you guys in 04… hopefully our teams can match up in a WS in the near future!

As an aside, I promise to behave myself as much as I can today, but I ask my fellow FG readers to please be patient with us Cubs fans today!

jmsdean477
9 years ago

I was a lot more down with either winning until I found out that the Ricketts gave millions to Trump, so BOOOOO Cubs. May the curse of the Donald get you for the next 108 years, or till the Ricketts dont own you…

374285942768
9 years ago
Reply to  jmsdean477

so you were rooting for the franchise that has adult men painting their face in offensive caricatures of native americans in 2016? that’s the liberal way!

Johnston
9 years ago
Reply to  374285942768

Better what the Rickets did than Chief Wahoo.

bunslow
9 years ago
Reply to  jmsdean477

I thought they gave millions to the superPACs that opposed trump, thus earning Trump’s ire against them and the Cubs?

CosmoMember since 2024
9 years ago
Reply to  bunslow

Both… they were strongly against Trump for a long time… but once he got the nomination, they hesitantly got on board with their party’s candidate. He’s not the guy that they wanted, but Tom and his father are Republicans.

output gap
9 years ago
Reply to  jmsdean477

The Ricketts daughter is a major fundraiser for democrats.

Baller McCheeseMember since 2016
9 years ago
Reply to  output gap

It’s a complete false equivalence to compare what Laura Rickets has done for the Democrats to what Joe, Pete & Todd have done for the Republicans.

victorvran
9 years ago
Reply to  jmsdean477

No politics @ fangraphs plz

AlabamaShake
9 years ago
Reply to  jmsdean477

Larry Dolan – the Cleveland baseball team owner – said that he doesn’t think that Chief Wahoo is racist. So you’ve got that going for you.

jmsdean477
9 years ago
Reply to  AlabamaShake

There just wasnt a good way for both teams to lose 😛 and ill take the offensive threat over the clear and present danger to my well being threat if its me…

Dave TMember since 2025
9 years ago

Congrats to the Cubs, who are of course a very good team that looks to be well-positioned for years to come.

I am curious how much the World Series revenue bump will be for the Cubs, in light of their unique historical situation. Since 1998, attendance has been in a relatively narrow range of 2.6 million to 3.3 million whether the team is good or bad ( http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/attend.shtml ). Their TV contracts are reportedly in place until 2019, although the Ricketts/Cubs do own 20% of CSN Chicago so presumably benefit some from any bump in cable carriage fees and TV ad revenue.

jimbo22s
9 years ago
Reply to  Dave T

I have the same questions. I certainly can see how a WS championship would provide a significant revenue boost to a team like KC or CLE, but the CHC revenue streams seem to already be pretty optimized.

Dominikk85Member since 2020
9 years ago

The cubs will definitely become a dynasty although that doesn’t mean they will win every year. Postseason involves a lot of luck too but it can’t get much better than that Team. I have predicted that the cubs offense will eve improve next year, they lose some production and second and CF but gain at SS (Russell reaches his prime), C (Contreras instead of ross/montero) and LF (schwarber back although I read that their LF platoon produced a excellent 120 wRC+ or so). Heywad will bounce back some too.

I have predicted a 3-4 Point Team wRC+ raise next season.

pitching will Regress some but a good chunk of the low BABIP is probably sustainable due to defense (but more like .280 instead of .260) but with the improved hitting the Team should stay about similar Quality (maybe tad weaker but still had and shoulders above anyone else in MLB).

Everything is working well for the Cubs:

1) They probably have the best GM in Baseball. It helped that epstein was allowed to tank a few seasons (tough in a big market) but most rebuilding Teams don’t build such a juggernaut

2) they have tons of Money so they can buy the pitching they haven’t developed yet

3) they had great prospect scouting and devlopement and yes – some luck was involved too as basically all of the real top prospects worked out (bryant, Russell, schwarber). they had soler and baez not becoming as good as advertised but still usable Players, not real cases like buxton so far (buxton still has a Chance just talking about his Initial struggles)

4) they got unexpected star production: arrieta, hendricks and Contreras weren’t considered to go anywhere and they have turned into stars (arrieta, hendricks) or potential stars(Contreras). those are the Kind of breaks that make a very good Team a great one

5) they got production and health from most free agents they signed: zobrist, lackey, fowler and lester stayed healthy and produced above their Age considering projections. they could even afford their most expensive Player in heyward to be terrible in year one and still got plus value on their Dollar in free agency.

6) they have the depth and prospects to fill holes if someting goes wrong). they lost schwarber and didn’t lose any production in LF (considering defense) they were able to trade for the best closer in Baseball. if one of the Starters should get down they would be able to get a star replacement in a trade. not Team is equipped better against injuries.

There is definitely no Team equipped better for the future. the dodgers are doing an awesome Job acquiring Young Talent too but they don’t have the same positional depth, for example they currenly don’t have a MIF prospect t replace turner if he walks and obviously they don’t have as much payroll flexibility (not to be blamed on Friedman of course as he inherited a 300M payroll and didn’t get to draft 2nd, 4th and 10th)

DCE
9 years ago

I think there are 3 teams that are well positioned to go on a ‘dynastic’ run. The Cubs, Dodgers and Red Sox. The Cubbies look to be the pick of the bunch right now, but the Dodgers have something they don’t: young, controlled pitchers, and that’s the most expensive commodity in the market. It’s something the Cubs will have to pay for if Arrieta/Lackey leave and Lester enters his decline.

And spare a thought for the Indians. Between Lindor, Kipnis, Brantley, Naquin, Jose Ramirez, Kluber, Carrasco, Salazar, and the relievers, that team should have a chance to challenge for a title a couple more times

Dominikk85Member since 2020
9 years ago
Reply to  DCE

I agree red sox should be included too.

regarding cleveland they have a good core but they they are poor as dirt, actually poorer than dirt, more like as poor as the As and Rays:). when Players reach Arbitration or at latest free agency they wont be able to retain them und unlike th cubs they also can’t buy expensive FAs to stuff holes.

Keep in mind that the cubs have a great home grown core but without buying lester, lackey, zobrist and fowler they wouldn’t have won the WS last night.

for the dodgers and red sox that is even more true, also homegrown core but strong assets bought to help them.

BTW I don’t mean buying negatively. Free agents deserve to be paid (because MILB and pe Arb Players are severely underpaid by the billon Dollar industry it is a fair compensation) and naturally big market Teams have an Advantage there.

thus Teams like oakland, Tampa, cleveland usually have only a 2-3 year window and they have to hope that everyone is healthy and has a career year.

maybe cleveland has 1-2 more years (maybe they even have a Little more luck with carrasco/salazar) but one or two injuries and they could be a 78 win Team too.

snowybeard
9 years ago
Reply to  DCE

I’d agree with your assessment that all three teams are indeed in a good position to become dynasties but for two things: 1) Dombrowski . It’s reasonable to assume that Friedman and Epstein will stay the course and refrain from trading away excess young talent. But will Dombrowski? His track record with the Tigers and a fan base that will exert tremendous pressure on him to field championship teams now that their curse has been broken makes me wonder. (This is after all the franchise that let an exceptional manager like Tito Francona go because they needed a scapegoat after the 2011 collapse.) And that Yankees/Red Sox rivalry is so intense it leads GMs/TPs to do things they later regret. Soon the Yankees will have a lot more money to play with when the contracts of ARod and C.C. are off the books. And they’ve done a great job of building up their farm system recently. That proves that Cashman, when his moves aren’t dictated by old man Steinbrenner, is still one of the best GMs in the game. By 2018 and certainly later I expect them to compete strongly with the Red Sox on a yearly basis. ( Btw: I’m a neutral observer on this; I’m an Orioles fan.)
2) That perilous 5 game ALDS and NLDS that all great teams (remember the 2010 Phillies?) have to navigate through before they can get the opportunity to even get to the World Series. There’s little margin for error in a 7 game series, but there’s none in a 5 game series. Just a short burst of over-performance by the opposing team or a little bit of under-performance by the better overall team and you’re gone. That short series has derailed a lot of very good teams since it was first introduced in 1969 and it will continue to do that to other great teams too. As Dave said: “Baseball can be fickle.” And I won’t even get into injuries—there’s no symmetry to them. Some years you’re slammed by them and other years you’re relatively healthy.

Brock244
9 years ago
Reply to  snowybeard

Regarding trading young talent: mind you, the redsox have already built a sustainable contender. With players like Bogaerts, Betts, JBJ, Porcello, Price, Kimbrel, Pedroia, Hanley, Benintendi, Erod ect controllable for many seasons it is hard to see the Redsox failing to contend over the next 3-4 years. So, depending on how you view a dynasty, the Redsox may have built a 5 or 6 year window where they make they playoffs almost every year.

So sure, DD COULD trade guys like Devers, Kopech, and even Moncada but he’s probably going to get a ton in return for trading them and they have already built what looks like a suasion able contender. This isn’t say, 2014 where the redsox had to decide whether they would trade their younger players for guys like Cole Hamels to keep the “ortiz/Pedroia” window alive. They have already opened a window and if they should be good for a whiles even if they trade some prospects for proven talent like the cubs did with Torres and Chapman.

Dave TMember since 2025
9 years ago
Reply to  snowybeard

Think you mean the 2011 Phillies, who lost to the Cardinals in the NLDS. The 2010 Phillies lost to the Giants in the NLCS.

Mahoney
9 years ago

Switch the 24-and-under leaderboard to just the 21st century, and you see the Angels 4 times in the top 30:

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2016&month=0&season1=2000&ind=1&team=0,ts&rost=0&age=14,24&filter=&players=0

Dominikk85Member since 2020
9 years ago
Reply to  Mahoney

Isn’t 99% of the 24U WAR of the angels in those years from trout?:)

drewcorbMember since 2026
9 years ago
Reply to  Dominikk85

By my arithmetic, Trout provided 39.2 of the 39 WAR from those years.

Johnston
9 years ago
Reply to  Mahoney

Take Trout out and the total goes negative.

RedsManRickMember since 2020
9 years ago

As a Reds fan, this makes me sad. As an analyst, I’d like to see WAR-weighted team age and how the Cubs stack up.

southie
9 years ago

But now the Cubs are just another franchise.

mando3b
9 years ago
Reply to  southie

You know, that’s all I’ve ever really wanted as a Cubs fan: just to be a normal franchise–win sometimes, lose sometimes, win our share of WS’s, not have everyone laugh or offer their sympathies when you tell them you’re a fan. If it turns out they become one of the sports’s juggernauts, though, that would be nice, too.

southie
9 years ago
Reply to  mando3b

Well said sir

Johnston
9 years ago
Reply to  southie

The Cubs, like the Dodgers and the Yankees, will never be “just another franchise.”

Some baseball franchises are more equal than others.

Baller McCheeseMember since 2016
9 years ago

Maybe this was mentioned and I just missed it, but won’t Fowler be gone? There’s no way he picks up his end of the mutual option. He’ll be one of the top free agents, and he’s going to get paid big time – and while it could be by Cubs, that shouldn’t really be assumed.

snowybeard
9 years ago

Fowler will most likely be gone—the Cubs don’t really need him and coming off a very good season he should be able to get the three years and a nice pay raise that he was seeking last year. (And no, it won’t be with the Orioles, lol.)
Dave just said you can’t ignore the contributions that he and Zobrist—their two relatively old position players—made to the team this year.

CosmoMember since 2024
9 years ago
Reply to  snowybeard

I’d like to see him back. I’m a bit scared of Baez, Russell, and Almora potentially having low OBPs with major playing time.

JediHoyer
9 years ago
Reply to  Cosmo

Pretty simple solution… Soler for Lorenzo cain or Jarrod Dyson. Defense makes up for obp.

CosmoMember since 2024
9 years ago
Reply to  JediHoyer

I’d be happy with Cain.

jpgMember since 2020
9 years ago
Reply to  JediHoyer

I know Cain is down to his final year of control but I can’t see KC trading him straight up for Soler.

JediHoyer
9 years ago
Reply to  jpg

Cain is 11 mil, they want to save money and just lost Morales bat. Soler is like 4 mil with 4 years of control and still has huge potential with the bat, getting half his plate appearances as a dh prolly help him stay healthy and realize that potential.

Baller McCheeseMember since 2016
9 years ago
Reply to  snowybeard

No, Dave wasn’t just talking about this year when he mentioned Fowler and Zobrist. He literally says in the sentence before mentioning them that he is talking about the team sustaining something like this level of performance for a while. He follows that up with there isn’t much reason to expect the Cubs offense or defense to take a big step back any time soon, hence the future.

The Cubs have enough talent that they will be fine, but losing their 3rd most valuable player by WAR will still be a step back. Just my opinion, but I’d rather a Zobrist-Fowler-Heyward outfield than a Schwarber-Heyward-Zobrist outfield.

snowybeard
9 years ago

I’m sure that a lot of Cubs fans would prefer the former to the latter for defensive purposes. But lots of teams have successfully hidden poor defensive OFs in LF and were not punished. Still, if you look at the components of Fowler’s WAR, it was his high OBP and his base running skills that earned him a 4. It wasn’t his defense—that was only slightly above average.
There is one thing that Schwarber can do that Fowler cannot: he can knock the snot out of a baseball. He’ll sit against lefties but when in the lineup he’ll hit for a higher average and greater power than Fowler and based on his 2015 numbers, he’ll give you a walk rate similar to Fowler’s. Add to that Schwarber has plenty of arb years ahead of him, Arrieta is likely gone after 2017 and Lester probably shows age-related decline, and the Cubs will have to pay a lot for a free agent starter. (Or give up more prospects for a starter then they’d like to. ) For those reasons—along with how Soler, Almora, Happ and Jimenez complicate the long term picture—IMO they won’t keep Fowler; they’ll allocate the money elsewhere. Of course, Fowler could give them a discount but how likely is that to happen?

Dave TMember since 2025
9 years ago
Reply to  snowybeard

I agree with most of these points, but I doubt that Schwarber will hit for a higher average than Fowler unless something changes significantly in Schwarber’s hitting profile. He’s a left handed pull hitter who isn’t very fast and so far has struck out in 28% of PA’s. Schwarber also hits more fly balls than Fowler. Unless Schwarber lowers his K rate or hits to the opposite field more, he looks like a lower batting average hitter than Fowler.

JediHoyer
9 years ago
Reply to  Dave T

Same obp with more power is by all intensive purposes a better hitter. Don’t care about the average to be honest.

Dave TMember since 2025
9 years ago
Reply to  JediHoyer

Sure – but similar walk rate and higher batting average implies a higher OBP for Fowler than Schwarber. Also depends a bit what we’re comparing. The original reference is to 2016 Fowler, which is a more valuable hitter than Fowler’s projection or prior seasons.

Lou BrownMember since 2017
9 years ago

The average team produces +19 WAR from their position players, and this number has held stable +/- 0.0 for decades. The fact that the Cubs’ young core produces enough +WAR alone to be an average group of position players certainly also shows what this team is capable of producing for the next several years. (As an aside it shows how incredibly valuable Trout is, but we already knew that)

BROD
9 years ago

One prediction for the next season: Bryant finally runs out of BABIP-luck.

http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/the-2015-hitter-xbabip-overachievers-a-review/

I think, considering his batted ball velocity, fly-ball rate, pull rate, etc., even that .332 BABIP is still too high.

Dominikk85Member since 2020
9 years ago
Reply to  BROD

on the other Hand bryant has produced high BABIPs during all of his minor stints too, It is interesting that he produces such high BABIPs because he has high FB rates and not really low IFFB rates either but he hits the ball hard and is not a pure pull hitter.

I think he might sustain around .330.

I expect his K rate to get a Little higher though. he improved a lot but still swings and misses quite a bit. won’t be at 30 again but I could see 24-25% again. power should be repeatable.

BROD
9 years ago
Reply to  Dominikk85

No, he doesn’t hit the ball all that hard and his pull rate is over one STD above league average.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2015-positional-ball-in-play-retrospective-3b/

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-2016-chicago-cubs-a-ball-in-play-snapshot/

ChippersJonesing
9 years ago
Reply to  BROD

His BABIP did regress this year, and he was a better hitter. Even if he has an exactly league average BABIP he’s still going to be a well-above average hitter, because of his power and BB%.

Dooduh
9 years ago

I don’t want to just say shut up, but didn’t people say the same thing about the Sawx a couple of times..?

JediHoyer
9 years ago
Reply to  Dooduh

Did you mean the 2004 red Sox whose youngest everyday position player was 28 year old david Ortiz?
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2004.shtml

Or the 2007 red sox who only had 3 players under 29 get 200 Plate appearances?
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2007.shtml

This cubs team is so young offensively there is no reason to think they can’t keep getting better.

channelclemente
9 years ago

Dynasty, that’s a high limb and a long fall. You can’t in one breath lament the unpredictably of baseball, and then rub a crystal ball to predict a dynasty. Mr. Cameron, maybe it’s time for some equivocating weasel words in order the craft a CYA backdoor.

Rational FanMember since 2025
9 years ago

Have to wonder about the rotation. Lester isn’t getting younger; Arrieta is on his way out. Hammell is terrible and Lackey is at the end of his career. At some point the Cubs need to develop some pitching to become a dynasty, no?

JediHoyer
9 years ago
Reply to  Rational Fan

Mike montgomery says hello. But seriously the whole rotation comes back next year. You don’t have to worry about it until 2018. 2018 would still have lester, hendricks, montgomery and by then a couple guys might be worthy of a look, like stinnett, williams, cease. Underwood.

Dave TMember since 2025
9 years ago
Reply to  JediHoyer

Yes, but you can’t count on getting through every year with the opening day 5 man rotation.

One of the very helpful benefits of high minors pitching prospects – or a swingman like Montgomery in the bullpen – is that those guys are the reserves for dealing with starting pitcher injuries and not having to pay in-season trade prices to patch a rotation.

Rational FanMember since 2025
9 years ago
Reply to  Dave T

The thing they have going for them is they have the pieces to trade for another arm. Arms are just so risky. I certainly don’t think signing high priced free agents is the path to success with a rotation. Theo is exceptional at doing a lot of things, but drafting and developing arms does not top his list. Maybe Hoyer is better at it. Who’s the best arm he’s drafted in the past decade? Clay Bucholz? I could be missing someone but…. I don’t think I am.

Rational FanMember since 2025
9 years ago
Reply to  JediHoyer

Montgomery was dreadful as a starter, and there’s not exactly a long list of guys who were relievers for 3 seasons before converting back to a starter.

As for Hammel – he’s 34 years old, and had a dreadful second half. He’s a serviceable 5th starter but even he’s gone next year.

I am not talking about next year; I’m talking about a dynasty. The cubs have done a brilliant job developing and drafting position players. They are set there. The thing is, their rotation is Hendricks, and then a bunch of guys approaching or exceeding 35 years old. Lester has 2100 innings on his arm. You have to figure he’s going to start his downturn sooner rather than later. Arrieta is gone next year – unless Theo signs a dreadful long-term deal.

In reality they have Hendricks, and an aging Lester after next season. They have to rebuild an entire rotation, for the most part, and free agent pitching is the riskiest commodity on the market.

JediHoyer
9 years ago
Reply to  Rational Fan

Montgomery had a 3.60 xfip as a starter, 3.59 as a reliever this year, dreadful is extremely biased.

Yes I expect lester to show age not fall off a cliff however. Even if he goes down to a 3-3.5 war guy in 2 years that’s a number 2.

So basically you have hendricks, lester, and Montgomery in 2 years where 10 war from the trio isn’t crazy. Supplementing that with 2 average starters is 14 war. 14 war would have been the 7th best staff in baseball… And best of all, they should still have an excellent run prevention unit.

Rational FanMember since 2025
9 years ago
Reply to  JediHoyer

Definitely enjoy the discussions we have, but I just don’t understand your optimism for Montgomery at all. He’ll be 29 years old moving back to the rotation after 3 seasons in relief? He had a 4.67 FIP as a starter and a 1.433 WHIP. He walked 20 guys in 38.1 innings out of the bullpen for the Cubs.

He was a nice acquisition, but penciling him in as some legitimate starter after years in the bullpen and absolutely no success as a starter is optimistic at best.

I never said Lester would fall off a cliff either, but regression has already started and he’s not maintaining a .256 BABIP when his career mark is .297. He’s also not maintaining a 85% strand rate with a career mark 10% lower. He had a lot go right for him this year. He wasn’t the pitcher he was even last year. Lackey had a nice year, but I don’t think that’s a regret comp for Lester’s downturn.

I praise Theo’s work with position players. It’s remarkable what he does. I think Hendricks is really good and I think Maddon should trust the guy more. I just don’t see much after him and Theo’s track record is not that of a guy who drafts and develops pitching and his FA signing track record isn’t exactly stellar. The Cubs are going to be very good for a long time, but I think their pitching may hold the team back in a couple years – perhaps even next year if they suffer an injury or two.

Dave TMember since 2025
9 years ago
Reply to  JediHoyer

Rational Fan wasn’t ignoring the 90 innings that Montgomery pitched as a starter in 2015 (4.67 FIP, 4.44 xFIP). And Montgomery pitched all of 36 innings as a starter in 2016.

JediHoyer
9 years ago
Reply to  Dave T

36 innings is why I used xfip and not fip. Pitchers can run negative fips for 20 innings… Are they really taking runs off the board? I ignored 2015 due to pitch usage, he made a conscious decision to use the curveball more this year.

E L
9 years ago
Reply to  Rational Fan

If you think Hammel is terrible, you don’t have any conception of what a typical fifth starter looks like, even on playoff teams.

While it’s true that after 2017, 3/5ths of the rotation are free agents, two of them are backend starters and Montgomery is a ready-made pre-arb replacement for one of those spots. Paying peanuts to Rizzo Bryant Russell Baez Contreras Soler Almora Schwarber creates quite a bit of payroll room to throw around.

If the biggest question for the 2018 (!) team is whether they can find a single top-end starter with a ton of money to spend, it sure seems like the team is set up for success.

Rational FanMember since 2025
9 years ago
Reply to  E L

The article is about a dynasty; that is beyond next year.

If you think losing 3/5th of your rotation, and having one guy entering his age 35 season with 2300ish+ innings on his arm isn’t a problem i don’t know what to tell you.

How do they need one arm? Lester had a 3.41 FIP this year. He has a ton of innings on his arm. If he follows a similar path of regression he will be a 3ish WAR pitcher in two years. So they would have two 3-4 WAR arms and nothing after that. Pitching is kind of important, and it’s pretty hard to find.

As I said, Theo hasn’t drafted a legit starter in over a decade.

JediHoyer
9 years ago
Reply to  Rational Fan

John lackey just played out his age 37 season with over 2500 innings on his arm and was worth over 3 war. Your assumption that lesters arm will need to be amputated is outdated. Also 2018 is only his age 34 season not 35.

Dave TMember since 2025
9 years ago
Reply to  JediHoyer

And Roy Halladay was 34 years old in 2011, coming off an 8.3 fWAR season and 4 straight seasons each over 230 innings with at least 6 fWAR per year. He pitched a bit over 200 more innings over two injury plagued seasons and then retired.

Halladay is an extreme example, and we could each throw more examples back and forth. (I could find some more just by looking at the Phillies 2011 starting rotation.) I’m pretty sure that I can find more examples, though. Maybe Lester will be like Lackey, but there aren’t a lot of John Lackey’s out there.

Here’s a post with an interesting chart (in the middle) that shows the total number of starters by age who made 20+ starts in a season from 1988-2013 – http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2014/2/25/5437902/pitching-aging-curves . It’s about 125 (average of 5 per year) at age 33 and steps down to about half of that (a bit over 2 per year) by age 36.

Using Fangraphs leaderboards and looking at 2016, I found 9 pitchers 35 or older who pitched at least 100 innings. Four of those totaled 1 WAR or less for this season. Lackey and Rich Hill were the only ones over 3 WAR.

In 2015, the total count for that search was a little higher – 12 pitchers – but 6 totaled 1 WAR or less with 2 of those 6 below replacement level. Lackey was the only one over 3 WAR.

Dave TMember since 2025
9 years ago
Reply to  Dave T

Note: dropping the age to 34 (Lester’s age in 2018) lengthens the list to 11 pitchers in 2016 and 19 pitchers in 2015, but doesn’t add any other 3+ WAR names.

JediHoyer
9 years ago
Reply to  Dave T

There is less quantity of older pitchers is really all that says. Which makes sense, as 35 year old projecting for 1.7 war would be ~ 13 mil on the open market, while a 25 year old option can get 1 war for the league minimum. Do you think teams will use 12 mil in resources for a projected .7 war upgrade?

If we see losses in velo, that’s a tell take sign, but there has been no loss in velo imo.

Dave TMember since 2025
9 years ago
Reply to  JediHoyer

The claim in your first paragraph doesn’t make sense. Find me an example of a starting pitcher with a 1.7 WAR projection who couldn’t find a contract. To provide some context, there were only 95 starting pitchers (i.e., just over 3 per team) who totaled 1.5 WAR or more during the 2016 season.

Maybe an older pitcher won’t get the full $13 million that’s implied by a WAR projection and free agency cost, but there are always teams out there that need at least one starter and would offer a 1 year, $5 to $10 million contract. These days that’s not much money for a team if it doesn’t entail any long-term commitment. That’s especially true with over half of the league entering the season thinking that they have at least a chance at a wild card. And even some of the rebuilding teams will sign a pitcher like that with the idea that he can be traded mid-season to a contender dealing with injuries, maybe even for a decent prospect return if it’s a sellers’ market and/or if he’s outperforming his projection.

Here are some examples from last offseason of older pitchers who must have projected for 2 WAR or less. R.A. Dickey’s $12 million option was picked up coming off a 2 WAR season. Colby Lewis got a 1 year / $6 million contract as a free agent after 2015 (2.4 WAR season that was better than any of his prior 3 seasons). Chris Young got a 2 year / $11.5 million free agent contract coming off a 0.9 fWAR season as a swingman (that was much better by RA9-WAR).

The point is that there is less quantity of older pitchers because there aren’t very many of them who are still MLB quality pitchers. A fair number of the ones who are useful aren’t “normal” MLB starters: Rich Hill, Bartolo Colon, R.A. Dickey. It’s not because there’s some horde of unemployed 1.5 – 2 WAR older starters who teams simply refuse to sign for monetary reasons.

And talking about pitchers with a 1.7 WAR projection doesn’t address the dearth of older, 3+ WAR pitchers.

Dave TMember since 2025
9 years ago
Reply to  E L

I agree that Hammels isn’t “terrible”. He’s been a 2ish WAR starter per season over the past two years.

But nor was Lackey just a “backend” starter this year. He totaled 3.1 fWAR this year and 4.3 RA9-WAR. That’s not easy production to find in free agency or trade. There were 34 pitchers in the majors who totaled 3 or more fWAR this year. The Cubs had 4 of them, because they had 4 good starters who all stayed healthy enough to throw at least 188 innings. Only two of those four are under team control past 2017, and one of those under team control turns 33 in January.

xeifrank
9 years ago

Cubs are in great shape except for the pitching, but the most recent team to put up a dynasty title run (SF Giants) sure did it differently.
vr, Xei

AnonMember since 2025
9 years ago

I would think the thing that will prevent a long-term dynasty is simply money. Yes they have good young position players (plus a couple good young pitchers) but those players are all cheap right now. Eventually you have to pay those guys.
Key Free Agents:
16-17: Chapman, Fowler(probably), Hammel (maybe though you’d think they’ll pick up the $10M option)
17-18: Montero, Lackey, Hammel (for sure), Arrietta, Strop. Also Bryant, Russell and Hendricks will hit arbitration in 2018 and suddenly start costing actual money rather than league minimum
18-19: Rondon. Plus Schwarber, Baez and Montgomery all hit arbitration
19-20: Zobrist
20-21: Lester (possibly, $25M team option here), Hendricks
21-22: Bryant, Russell, Baez, Montgomery, Lester (for sure), Rizzo (20 and 21 are actually team options for Rizzo but there is 0% chance the Cubs don’t exercise them barring injury)

and that doesn’t include Contreras or Almora for whom I don’t see good info on when they hit arbitration or FA. I also didn’t include Heyward and his opt-outs since based on theis year it seems unlikely he will opt-out though you never know.

Who knows, maybe the Cubs pull in enough revenue that they can afford to keep that core relatively together but that team is going to get expensive in a hurry in a few years I think,

OtterMember since 2016
9 years ago
Reply to  Anon

The more I look at the payroll situation, the harder it is to figure out how they’ll pay for pitching unless they trade for young pitching. That’s why I’m figuring either Baez or Schwarber is dealt this year or next for a cost controlled arm. [edit: obviously they’re more than half way there with the bats and defense they can trot out there, but there isn’t a ton of room for error considering the contracts on the books and the salary that their young stars will start commanding. Of course, they also have probably the best FO in the business… so they’ve got a TON going for them.]

They also might have to rebuild the bullpen, this is a short term issue obviously and can be done, but it was a real weak link in the playoffs (Game 4 in the NLDS, Game 1 in the NLCS, Game 7 in the WS come to mind, and there were a few others irrc) that was bailed out by the bats in each of those games.

JediHoyer
9 years ago
Reply to  Anon

Early arb and late arb are big difference. For instance lackey coming off the books should cover all or close to all of bryant, russell, and Hendricks first year arb. I mean some combo of candelario, soler, hammel, zagunis, dewees will be on the move for a cost controlled pitching upgrade because they are redundant on the cubs but offer a lot of upside to other teams.

OtterMember since 2016
9 years ago

If you figure they’ll hit at around the level they hit this year moving forward even with whatever changes are made, then as Dave points out, it comes down to pitching, and to a certain degree, defense.

They’re not going to have a .255 BABIP and 77.5% LOB% going forward, there is some sort of regression coming next year to the pitching staff. And that’s assuming the pitching staff stays healthy. Lester’s going to be 33 with over 2,100 innings in the majors. Arrieta’s BB% went the wrong way this year. Lackey’s getting older. I figure Hendricks will be fine, and settle into as a 3-4 WAR pitcher.

And how good can this defense continue to be? Considering everyone’s age, it seems like it should continue to be very good to great. That will continue to help the pitching staff.

Considering the logjam at 2nd and the outfield, it would seem that a trade this winter, probably for a pitcher, will happen. I have no clue who would be dealt, Schwarber makes some sense because of his defensive liabilities and the return they’d get, same goes with Soler, but he looks like a limited player. I’m sure what to do with Baez.

Next question is payroll. Even figuring they’ll carry somewhere close to $200m in the years to come, they have $84m already dedicated to 2018. And that’s when Bryant, Hendricks, and Schwarber (if he’s not traded) all will enter arbitration next year. And while they’ll all be on great contracts still, budgets are budgets, and as of right now, the Cubs will need three starting pitchers and it’s unclear if the farm system will have anyone ready (maybe Dylan Cease?).

OtterMember since 2016
9 years ago
Reply to  Otter

I misread Cot’s, Schwarber won’t be arb eligible until 2019, but Russell might in 2018.

JediHoyer
9 years ago
Reply to  Otter

Trevor clifton was phenomal this year, Ryan Williams with a good defense can be similar to hammel in a solid number 5, oscar de la cruz has a great fastball to build off, Underwood was touching 100 as a starter when he came back from injury. Cease had the highest upside so he gets the most love, but they got other guys who can potentially full 3-5 spots in the rotation in a few years.

Chili Davis Eyes
9 years ago

As a long-suffering Cubs fan, let me just say: I do not care about a dynasty right now. This is all I ever wanted from the Cubs and it will be enough for a long, long time.

Great article, though.

Johnston
9 years ago

Well put. They finally did it. Let tomorrow worry about tomorrow.