Author Archive

Friday Nuggets

Friday, October 25th, 2013

  • Bloomberg put together an awesome interactive article related to the value of major league baseball franchises. The Cubs are in fifth place in overall value behind, in order, the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, and Mets, and ahead of the Giants (the Orioles are listed as the seventh most valuable franchise – I would have NEVER guessed that). This is a great piece that lets you explore how teams compare to each other on a variety of metrics, including all sources of incoming and outgoing revenue. The area in which the Cubs fall short in relation to other incoming revenue areas is in “sponsorship” – which may make it easier to understand why the Cubs are busy trying to maximize the value of signage and other ad potential at Wrigley Field.
  • Cubs farmhand (acquired in the Matt Garza trade) C.J. Edwards was named MiLB.com’s Pitcher of the Year (that’s considering all pitchers at all levels in the minors – pretty awesome). If you don’t know much about Edwards, you’ll probably find yourself rooting hard for the kid after reading this profile on him.
  • Someone is suing the City of Chicago and Cubs-affiliated entities over the proposed hotel-on-Wrigley-property construction.
  • The Cardinals lost Game 1 of the World Series, and of course they’re complaining that Red Sox starting pitcher Jon Lester cheated. You can judge the evidence in question for yourself over at Hardball Talk.
Like what you see here? Never miss new content. Follow Us:

Friday News & Notes

Friday, October 18th, 2013

Friday Notes

  • “Asia’s Heartbeat,” Arirang News (“Arirang,” by the way, is the title of a traditional Korean folk song) reports that the Cubs could be one of the favorites to land Korean RHP Suk-Min Yoon, a 27-year-old who probably projects to be a reliever in MLB. He’s young and has had some success in Korea, so he would be an intriguing target for the Cubs. He doesn’t appear to be the caliber of pitcher that the Dodgers’ Hyun-Jin Ryu is, though.
  • Dave Martinez interviewed for the Cubs’ managerial gig yesterday. His work with Joe Maddon in Tampa Bay seems to be his strongest résumé bullet. I won’t go into the rumors regarding the situation with Martinez and Ryne Sandberg’s wife, because you can read it on virtually every other page on the internet. It looks like the next Cubs manager is going to be one of Martinez, Renteria, Acta, or Hinch.
  • Daniel Bard – the once-awesome reliever that the Cubs picked up off waivers from the Red Sox – will pitch for the Puerto Rican Winter League. If he can reclaim even 80% of his old form, it will be a great pickup for the Cubs.
  • WGN Radio is taking the option to renegotiate their deal with the Cubs. Like many Cubs fans, I have a special, nostalgic place in my heart for WGN (both radio and TV). Apparently, WGN Radio is losing money on Cubs games, so they’d like to start paying less for them. Maybe this opens the door for other stations.

Discuss

Like what you see here? Never miss new content. Follow Us:

Do Managers Matter?

Friday, October 11th, 2013

Happy Friday, fellow Viewers!

I wrote in August about the concept of team “chemistry,” and whether that nebulous concept had in bearing on baseball team performance. In this post, I’m going to look at a separate but related issue that’s a hot topic of late: the manager’s effect on the W/L record.

A few studies have examined the effect of the manager on team performance, and the results have been mixed.  An analysis by Smart and Wolfe (2003) found that managers accounted for a little more than 1% of the variance in team wins, although their operationalization of “leadership” may have been too narrow. For a really thorough look at the managerial effect, check out Chris Jaffe’s (The Hardball Times) book, Evaluating Baseball’s Managers: A History and Analysis of Performance in the Major Leagues, 1876-2008. It’s worth a read, but essentially Jaffe’s analysis breaks-down to this: managers are very hard to evaluate on an isolated basis. Managers cannot be separated from their team environments, and it’s that interaction between person and environment that matters most. Context is key. In Jaffe’s words: “Managers are first and foremost managers of men.  Managing the game is only a secondary job function.” He believes that a manager, alone, accounts for maybe a couple of wins a year, although the effect of a manager could be more than that in a given situation – again, it’s all about environment.

Here’s an interesting bit from an SI.com article from Cliff Corcoran. “It’s interesting to note, however, that Cliff’s 2006 study did make one relatively firm conclusion regarding the impact of certain in-game decisions. ‘Only six times in thirty-three years has any manager used sacrifice attempts, stolen base attempts, and intentional walks to increase his team’s win expectation over an entire season. Even the best managers cost their team more than a game per season by employing these tactics. At worst they can cost a team three games per season.’ Over multiple seasons, no manager employed those tactics for a positive effect.” This seems to support the idea that the manager’s most important job is managing the players: the manager’s in-game strategy (the subject of rabid ire by fans on blogs) seems to have little impact on team record. As Cliff notes (pun not intended): “That supports the belief that the best baseball manager is one with a strong roster who is smart enough to let his players play and stay out of the way.” In football, a coach like Chip Kelly is directly involved with every one of his teams offense plays, since he calls each play in real time in reaction to the game context. Even in basketball, Phil Jackson could yell “Scottie” and position players and call plays and defenses during the game. If you’re a baseball manager, when your guy is in the box or on the mound, you’re a spectator just like the rest of us.

I think that’s the key thing to remember: successful managers tend to be those that have good players, and managers with poor records tend to have weak rosters.  Let’s be honest – if we could pencil-in the ’27 Yankees starting lineup every night, most of us could probably at least manage them to the playoffs. On the other hand, not even Joe McCarthy (who is, according to Jaffe, the undisputed best manager of all time) could have managed the 2013 Cubs to a winning record. I’m not saying that dropping Sveum was the wrong move – I’m just saying that we can’t blame him for the Cubs poor record this year. It was a bad roster.

I was in an annoying “conversation” earlier in the season with some folks on Twitter who insisted that we could have been a playoff team this season if only Ryno was the manager. Yes, I know, that’s absurd. The reason given was “I’ve never seen the Peoria Chiefs play better than when he was manager.” Um…yeah…I’m just going to leave that out there with no further comment.

So, what should the Cubs be looking for in the next manager? Well, as Bill James said,  “the only indispensable quality for a manager to have is the respect of the players.” Since managers tend to have more of an effect by allotting playing time properly, motivating players, creating a positive work environment, and generally staying out of the way, the Cubs should (and I trust will) look for a manager that manages “men” first – and whose philosophy of player development aligns with that of the front office. As we’ve seen, the in-game strategies of any given manager don’t seem to matter that much over the long haul.

So, to address the question, do managers matter? Well, it’s hard to say – it’s a complex issue, and it’s very difficult to tease out exactly what factors are due to one manager vs. another. If the players respect him and feel comfortable playing for him, he’s probably going to be as good as anyone else. In baseball, the general manager is greater than the manager, so I’m going to be much more interested in who’s actually on the field for the Cubs going forward.

Like what you see here? Never miss new content. Follow Us:

Racks on Racks on Racks? The Cubs Financial Sitch

Friday, September 6th, 2013

We heard from two of the Cubs’ leaders this week in regard to the team’s financial situation….well, it doesn’t sound too rosy. On Sunday, Theo Epstein gave an interview to WSCR in Chicago and, among many other things, gave his thoughts about the team’s ability to spend on free agents:

“We simply don’t have the payroll flexibility that we would need for a quicker talent infusion given some of the limitations and timing of our business plan and the realities of a lot of circumstances surrounding the ball club right now.”

That sounds bad, doesn’t it? Obviously, we don’t know just how much this is a bit of posturing to put pressure on the stakeholders involved in the renovation discussions – or how much is a hedge in case 2014 is as long a season as it appears it will be. Given the popularity of the Cubs – and how valuable the franchise is overall – it may seem obvious that the Cubs could have a top-end payroll if they wanted it.

Well, things may not be so bad. Cubs Chairman Tom Ricketts spoke to Gordon Wittenmyer on Wednesday, and he said that the long-term rebuilding strategy, not money, is the main reason that the Cubs won’t be going after high-priced free agents this winter. From the Wittenmyer piece:

“I know it’s not a money issue,’’ Ricketts said of the methods the baseball department is using to restock the farm system and overhaul the organization — and the consequent results at the big-league level. “You can’t just throw money at the problem. We have to build the organization from the ground up. And that’s what we’re doing right now.”

Despite these quotes from the front office (or perhaps because of them) we still don’t really have a clear picture of the team’s finances. For me, it actually doesn’t matter at this point, and here’s why: spending big on free agents this off-season isn’t going to do anything for the long-term development of this team into a consistent winner. First, I don’t see any young, big-time free agents becoming available this off-season that would really be the kind of player that could help turn a franchise around. Second, the timing isn’t right: it would be better to sign a major free agent or two to compliment the young “core” (whatever that winds-up being) so that the team is ready to compete top-to-bottom when they’re ready – we’re not there yet. Third, and this is a secondary concern, I don’t want to block any up-and-coming prospects before they have a chance to show what they can do in the big leagues.

The one free agent I wouldn’t mind seeing the Cubs pursue (in fact, I would love it) is Japanese right-hander Masahiro Tanaka. Tanaka is considered by most scouts to be the best Japanese pitching prospect since Yu Darvish, and he has top-of-the-rotation potential (some have said he may have the best splitter on the planet). He’s only 24, so Tanaka would fit the mold of a player who could be in his prime when the Cubs young “core” is ready for the bigs. I’d love to see the Cubs go all in on him (and if they don’t win the bid…please, please don’t let it be the Dodgers!).  John Arguello over at Cubs Den seems to think that the Cubs will be in on Tanaka, so we’ll see.

OK, Cubs fans, I have a question for you. All of us that read, and especially post (and especially write articles!), for Cubs blogs are obviously die hard fans who have stuck – and will stick – with this team through the tough times. However, even Job had a limit, so the question is this: when, if ever, will you throw your hands in the air and stop caring about this team? I’m not asking if any of you would ever stop being fans of the Cubs (I doubt any of you would say that), but will there come a time when you’re just going to refuse to put in any emotional investment? I know that I haven’t been watching all the games lately. My classes have started back, so I’m busier than I was most of the summer, but I’ve also grown a little weary. Moreover, I’ll have to admit that even though I root for the Cubs to win every game I watch, I’m actually hoping that they lose when I don’t watch. I want the better draft pick next summer (although I always hope that Castro and Rizzo have good games). So, when will it be for you? Middle of next season? 2015? Will you ever stop checking Cubs blogs or keeping up with the farm system? I’d love to hear what you think.

Like what you see here? Never miss new content. Follow Us:

Does Team “Chemistry” Really Matter?

Wednesday, August 21st, 2013

I’ve been thinking about this issue quite a bit lately. “Chemistry” is a word that one usually hears thrown around by fans of struggling teams. It seems, to me, like a convenient factor to point to when looking for reasons to blame for failures. What do we really know about “chemistry” as it relates to professional baseball?

Here’s a quote from Joe Torre, as quoted by Jim Caple “Winning creates chemistry more than the other way around. I’ve seen clubs that don’t necessarily like each other, but they respected each other once they got on the field, and that’s more important than being happy to go out to dinner with each other.” (Source) Ozzie Guillen (I know, I’m referencing Ozzie) said that chemistry follows winning, and clubhouse strife follows losing, not the other way around.

Caple, in the same article, references the 2002 National League Champion Giants – the team of Barry Bonds and Jeff Kent (who were never accused of being great team guys). Caple quotes Jason Schmidt, who played for the Giants that season, and he provided a few gems:

“I’ve been on teams where there was one guy — and it wasn’t Barry — who made everyone miserable. But you’re not thinking about that when you’re on the field. Not at all. It’s a nonissue. I don’t really see how it affects the team’s play. Will you throw 95 instead of 90 because you’re happier in the clubhouse? Will you throw strikes?”

Since I’m writing this article, I guess I’ll give you my personal opinion. Most of us are not professional athletes, but most of us are a professionals of some sort that work as part of a “team” (however you want to define it), and we all know, anecdotally, that one’s work environment can affect your job performance and morale. So, I think there is probably something to “chemistry,” even if it can’t be quantified – but the question is, how much does it actually affect the bottom line of wins and losses? Moreover, is there any evidence, beyond our own personal anecdotes (which can’t be generalized to other situations, especially situations as unique as a pro baseball clubhouse), that “chemistry” makes any real difference in the end?

It seems that whatever bad “mojo” Bonds and Kent brought to the 2002 Giants was far outweighed by their production on the field (Schmidt’s quote indicates that he agrees). So, as much as we romanticize the idea of “chemistry” – and as much as it makes intuitive sense to us – I don’t think the evidence is there for us to focus upon it as the main reason for any team’s struggles or success. If a team were better on the field, they’d probably have better chemistry, and that’s probably the most important interaction between the two concepts.

I think a better approach would be to be more precise in our language. In my day job, I do quantitative and qualitative research, so I’m not just a numbers geek – numbers can tell us what is happening, but not always why. Since we’re dealing with human beings, there really are factors at play that help determine why we’re seeing a particular quantitative result, and it can differ greatly from person to person (morale, motivation, comfort-level, etc.. are all legitimate concerns). Guessing blindly about the interpersonal factors that are affecting a player without evidence seems counterproductive, though.

One of the most important things for digging beneath the surface of numbers to examine qualitative factors is to define terms clearly and precisely. The term “chemistry” is just ill-defined. What does it mean? It’s impossible to determine the effect of something when we don’t have a precise definition of it in the first place. For me, “chemistry” is right up there with TWTW (Hawk Harrelson’s “The Will to Win”), “bellyfire” and “grit.” It’s the old-school “gut feeling” approach to analysis that doesn’t really get us anywhere, but it can make us sound like we vaguely know what we’re talking about. I think we’d be better served to be more precise: what is actually happening, and what are the exact factors that may be contributing to a team’s (or an individual’s) performance? Even if we are just guessing, I think we’ll advance the conversation – and gain more insight – if we stick to precise, knowable concepts. I could go on – and I’ll probably return to this topic in the future – but you don’t want to spend an hour reading this post (thank you if you’ve stuck with me this far).

Aside: Speaking of research, here’s a terrible example. I came across a Psychology Today article attempting to determine the effect of “chemistry” on team performance. One of the factors they examined was how much a good manager could mitigate bad team chemistry. As a measure of manager effectiveness, they defined good managers as those that had won or had been named a finalist for the Manager of the Year award. Well, you can probably see the problem here: MOY winners and finalists are always from good teams! Of course bad chemistry wasn’t hurting those teams. Ugh, bad research, it makes me angry. Anyway, they used the Uptons as a test case (it was written before this season). Following their premise (that the Uptons are bad chemistry guys), chemistry doesn’t matter at all, since the Braves are crushing.


Do we really want to relive this game? The Cubs offense returned to their usual form, with the only runs coming off solo shots from Brian Bogusevic and Donnie “Babe Ruth” Murphy. The game was actually close until the ninth, when the Nationals put up two runs to make the game all but out of reach. Chris Rusin was banged around a lot, although he only gave up two runs in 5.2 innings. On the other side, almost-Cub Dan Haren pitched really well for D.C.. I think we’re going to see a ton of games like this one from here on out. Bring on the race for a better draft pick.

Follow Sean Powell on Twitter @powell_sean

Like what you see here? Never miss new content. Follow Us:

Cuban Invasion Continues, Bryant Promoted, Tseng Signed

Tuesday, August 13th, 2013

In news that I think is only tangential to the Cubs, yet another Cuban über-prospect, 26-year-old Jose Abreu, has apparently escaped Cuba has plans to defect, and will subsequently break the bank of some MLB team. Check out his stats from the last three years:

2010-2011: .453/.597/.986 (37 HRs in 77 games)

2011-2012: .394/.542/.837

2012-2013: .382/.535/.735

Kids playing Wiffle Ball in the back yard think those numbers are ridiculous. Here’s a link to a Grantland story in which Jonah Keri says he “might be the best hitter in the world.”

He even compares Abreu to, gulp, Miguel Cabrera. Abreu is huge (6’2” 260 lbs.), and is, by all accounts, a 1B/DH-only type (his glove is apparently well below average). That’s the main reason that I don’t see the Cubs going all out for him (and going all out is going to be what it will take to sign him).  We have a good, young, 1B signed long-term, and I don’t think a team can afford to have a defensive liability at first base, even if he is a great hitter. If the FO had some insight that the NL was on the verge of adopting the DH, I think we’d have a different story. It would be an exiting move, though, and I wouldn’t be disappointed in the least if the Cubs made a serious run at the guy. Either way, with his numbers, and the recent success of fellow Cubans Puig and Cespedes, Abreu is going to demand HUGE dollars.

We’re in the deep doldrums period with the major league club right now, but there’s actually a few interesting things going on with the organization.

I was about to write a blurb about the rumors of the looming promotion of Kris Bryant. Well, as you’ve probably heard, Bryant was just promoted from Boise to Class High-A Daytona. Several writers had speculated that he would skip Low-A Kane County, and that turned out to be what occurred. Bryant was absolutely destroying the Northwest League, so I really like the move. However, I am concerned about the amount of rain-outs in Daytona. I really hope Bryant can get enough consistent at-bats to keep his rapid development rolling.

In news that has been rumored for a few weeks, the Cubs officially announced the signing of Taiwanese pitcher Jen-Ho Tseng ($1.625 million signing bonus). Tseng, a veteran of the World Baseball Classic, is 6’1”, 200 lbs. and features a 4-pitch mix with a 95-mph fastball. He was ranked 23rd on BAs international prospects list, making Tseng the 4th Cubs signee this year ranked in the top 23.

There’s not much to say here. Mat Latos dominated the Cubs, who were shutout for third straight game at home – the first time that has happened since 1924. Travis Wood pitched well again…but he might as well have given up 100 runs, since he got exactly zero run support. Also, Aroldis Chapman throws baseballs really fast.

STATE OF THE SYSTEM
Center Field

by Rob Willer

Top Prospect: Albert Almora

Bio: The Cubs number one pick in 2012, outfielder Albert Almora projects to be a Cubs star one day soon. Signed when he was only 18, he’s a couple of years away from full development, but he’s already got most scouts checking up on his progression from high school. Its crazy to think that Almora is only 19 years old but you wouldn’t notice it on the field for how well he shows leadership and poise. Almora was the Cubs’ first round draft pick going sixth overall in the 2012 draft becoming Theo Epstein’s first draft pick.

2012 Season: He’s a good athlete with off the charts instincts and mental makeup. Almora started off his Cubs career at Rookie Ball in 2012 where you guessed hit over .300. Almora hit .321/.331/.464 to be exact over 145 at bats across Rookie Ball and Short Season A Boise while scoring 27 runs. It seems the only thing in his development that hasn’t come is the power in relation to home-runs where he only had two homers on the season. For now we’ll take his production and ability to get on base over the home-runs and tendency to strikeout.

Projection: Almora has good pitch recognition skills, so that should eventually translate into an ability to grind out ABs and take walks. Most scouts have him pegged as hitting .300 as an everyday center-fielder in the major leagues. The projections of home-runs varies but in my mind I would say 15 home-runs would be a solid estimate when he finally gets the call to the big league club sometime in 2016.

2013 Season: Almora has played at Kane County for all of this year after recovering from his injury early on in the season. Through 61 games Almora has 82 hits in 249 at bats which is good for a .329 batting average. Some other key numbers to remember are his 17 doubles, four triples and his .842 OPS. Overall Almora has done everything the Cubs’ have asked since returning from injury. Recently Almora went on the seven day disabled list with a groin injury which is probably the only reason he is still at Kane County. In my mind I believe he gets the call-up to Daytona by the end of the month baring any setbacks from the groin injury.

Sleeper Prospect: Trey Martin

Bio: Trey Martin, 19, signed an over-slot contract in 2011 as a 13th round draft pick out of a Georgia high school. Martin played the 2011 campaign at Rookie Ball where he turned in a decent season .243/.289/.357 with only four extra base hits in 76 at bats. After playing the 2011 campaign at Rookie Ball he reported back there to start the 2012 season. Looking at his vast improvement at Rookie Ball in the 2012 season it looks like the Cubs did the right thing by sending him back there to start the season. He finished his Rookie Ball campaign with a line of .448/.515/.690 through seven games going 13 for 29 with six extra base hits. Finally Martin made the move to Boise Idaho to join the Boise Hawks where he would play the rest of the season (57 games) with a line of .270/.318/.377 including 12 extra base hits and six steals in 11 attempts.

2013 Season:  Martin batted .200 in 11 games with Class A Kane County this year, but the 13th-round pick in 2011 injured his left shoulder, and needed surgery. He began the year 20th on the top 20 in the MLB.com ratings of the Cubs system. Since Almora is due for a call-up very soon Martin should get the regular at bats in center unless the Cubs move Oliver Zapata there. Martin most definitely will start the season again at Kane County after playing in only 11 games this year. Hopefully his shoulder will heal in time for spring training and he can return to his pre-injury status of projecting to be a very solid major league outfielder with above average defense. Stay Tuned as the Outfield Projections conclude with Left Field tomorrow morning.

Like what you see here? Never miss new content. Follow Us:

The Newest Cub, the Science of Sports Performance, and Biogenesis

Tuesday, August 6th, 2013

Thomas Neal is the newest Cub. Neal is 25 years old, big (6’2’, 225 lbs.), and he throws and bats right-handed. He was recently DFA’d by the Yankees, and was hitting .325/.391/.411 over 297 plate appearances with AAA at Scranton Wilkes-Barre (a nice line, for sure, but he only hit 2 hr – that’s a little worrisome). He was a former top 10 prospect in the Giants system, but he’s had a few injuries. Hopefully, he’s healthy and can assume an upward trajectory. It would be nice if he could be the Cubs 4th outfielder or assume a platoon role in 2014 – although the fact that he’s been let go by three teams (Giants, Indians, Yankees) within the last two years is definitely a red flag. Rafael Dolis (remember him?) was added to the 60-day DL to make room for Neal on the 40-man roster.

I heard an intriguing interview with Sports Illustrated’s David Epstein today on NPR’s Fresh Air. He has a new book, The Sports Gene: Inside the Science of Extraordinary Athletic Performance, which sounds so good that I think I’m going to buy it. Anyway, Epstein has dug into the research on genetics as it relates to sports performance. He spends a good deal of the interview discussing how major league hitters are able to recognize a pitch, decide to swing, and finally make contact. A few of the highlights: 1) “reflexes” are largely mythical in this context – in fact, baseball players often don’t score that well on tests of reflexes, 2) visual pitch recognition out of the pitcher’s hand is the real key, 3) baseball players might as well close their eyes once the ball is halfway to the plate, because all of the mental processes and mechanical actions must be in motion by then, 4) the average pro baseball player has 20/12 vision – so, a good way to tell if a kid might be a good hitter one day is to get his/her vision tested (good vision won’t make him/her a good hitter, but poor vision would probably prevent it), 5) talent is being redefined as the genetic predisposition to respond well to training. Overall, it’s a highly interesting interview. Best of all, you can listen free here:

http://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-air/

Ugh, I suppose I should comment on the biggest story of the day, the Biogenesis scandal. I’m sure you’ve read about this from the 349382749837 sources covering the story today. The short version: 12 players were suspended 50 games (included the Rangers’ Nelson Cruz, the Padres’ Everth Cabrera, and the Tigers’ Jhonny Peralta) and suspending Alex Rodriguez through the end of the 2014 season. Apparently, A-Rod intends to appeal, blah, blah, blah. Does anyone care anymore? Is there anyone who isn’t completely sick of A-Rod’s act? Guys like A-Rod and Lance Armstrong just need to go away. We can debate on the actual effects of steroids on performance (considering the information from the interview above, Lasik surgery might be a more effective way to “cheat”) and the moral/ethical issues. That debate aside, it is against the rules of the sport, so these players knowingly did something they knew was wrong and hoped to get away with it. The great thing for all of us is that no Cubs players were involved (insert joke about how obvious that should have been).  Honestly, I see this as a failure of baseball: the sport turned a blind eye to the issue for years, and now this “harsh justice” seems disingenuous. I’m looking forward to the day when the most reported baseball stories are positive – it seems like we’re a long way from that point, though.

STATE OF THE SYSTEM
First Base

by Rob Willer

Top Prospect: Dan Vogelbach who was the second round pick by the Cubs in 2011. Vogelbach played in just six games after signing, hitting three doubles and bombing his first professional home run. Played in 24 games with the rookie-level Arizona Cubs, hitting .324/.391/.686 that season. After those 24 games he was promoted to rookie-level Boise and hit at a very similar line .329/.391/.696 in 20 games at that level. Vogelbach has the type of offensive tools in approach, hitting ability and legitimate power  but that set of skills has to fully mature for him to be an impact player at an offense-oriented position. For the 2013 season we have seen Vogelbach play at Kane County which is the Cubs Low A Minor League Affiliate. His stats continue to be great as he moves through the system which includes 16 home-runs and 68 runs batted while having a line of .283/.360/.450. Vogelbach seems to only project as a designated hitter/first baseman due to his lack of speed and defense which raises questions since Anthony Rizzo just signed a seven year contract who also plays 1st Base for the Cubs presently. Most scouts say that he has the potential to hit 30 home-runs in a season consistently and also hit for average as well. The problems that arise with Vogelbach are his defense which becomes limited with his lack of range and athleticism due to his size. His speed is below average which is what you would expect but even for first base his speed is way below average. I have personally seen Vogelbach at Kane County this summer and have seen him do wonders with the bat which makes him a very intriguing prospect over the next couple years. Considering that the Cubs are replenishing their system I definitely could see him being a throw in to a deal to acquire a Top Pitcher/ Impact Bat in the near future.

Sleeper: Justin Bour was highly touted in 2012 after completing the year at Double A Tennessee. In 506 at bats he clubbed 17 home-runs and 110 runs batted in while having a slash line of .283/360/455. After Anthony Rizzo got called up last year to the Cubs most people believe Bour would get a chance at Triple A after he proved through out the year he was ready. Bour didn’t get that chance and ended up back at Tennessee this spring where he has struggled hitting for average as his batting average has dropped 53 points since 2012. A positive to take away from this season is his slugging percentage went up 50 points to .493 and he has hit 15 home-runs in 300 less at bats than last year. He is a big first baseman at 6’4″, 250 lbs he finally seems to be harnessing that power that some what alluded him in 2012. If you take a look at Bour’s advanced stats on FanGraphs something that jumped out to me was that he lowered his strikeout rate while increasing his walk rate which is tremendous. Bour’s story relates to Rafael Lopez in yesterday’s post about how they have talent but are still stuck at Double A and they’re not getting any younger. As long as Bour get’s called up Triple A by the end of the summer I see no reason for him not to get called up in the summer time of 2014 barring any injuries

Like what you see here? Never miss new content. Follow Us:

Will the Cubs make any more trades this season?

Friday, August 2nd, 2013

Hello! It’s great to be back after a few weeks away.

Although the Cubs were inactive at the non-waiver trade deadline on Wednesday (making for an anti-climatic day), let’s not forget that they were quite active on the trade market last month. Reflecting on all the moves, it appears as though the front office was quite shrewd to jump on moves ahead of the deadline, since the market seemed to have cooled quite a bit at the end. Perhaps the new CBA (which removes some of the compensation for teams that lose big-time players (it’s too much to go into detail here)) has led to the trend of teams holding onto their young talent rather than making a risky trade for a veteran that could help them down the stretch (although, I still can’t believe the Pirates stood pat with a chance to end their 2347382468-year playoff drought staring them in the face).

Rumors always fly on non-waiver trade deadline day (Twitter is awesome/insane/infuriating), and a few Cubs players were mentioned by all the national media folks. Nate Schierholtz was most often mentioned as the most likely trade candidate, followed by David DeJesus, Kevin Gregg, and James Russell. Obviously, none of them were moved, but could the Cubs still make some trades this season?

Maybe. Although it’s typically referred to as the trade “deadline,” Wednesday was just the non-waiver trade deadline. Most of you, being baseball blog readers, probably know what this means, but in case you don’t, here’s a VERY brief overview:

Teams can still make trades this month, but in order to do so, they must place any players they wish to trade on waivers. Essentially, the waiver process works like this: every team (in reverse order of standings starting with the team with the worst record in the same league as the waived player – then moving to the other league) gets an opportunity to claim that player of waivers. If a team claims a player, one of three things can happen: 1) the two teams can work out a trade (obviously, with no other teams bidding, the return would be much weaker than in July), 2) the team that originally waived the player can just let the claiming team have them (and their contract), 3) the team that waived the player can simply pull that player off waivers and keep them. If a player “clears” waivers (e.g., no team claims him), the team that waived him is free to trade him to any team – just like before the non-waiver deadline. There are a few other details, but those are the basics. The Cubs will probably place almost all their players on waivers, but we won’t hear anything about it unless trade is worked out one way or another (if a player the Cubs don’t want to trade is claimed, they’ll just pull him off waivers and keep him).

So, the Cubs could still makes some trades this season, but will they?

Probably not.

In order to get any kind of value in return in a trade, the Cubs will want their potential trade candidates to clear waivers first (the return on a player traded as a result of a waiver claim will be super low, since no other teams could bid). Players that clear waivers typically have big contracts. Last year, Soriano and Marmol were guaranteed to clear waivers, because no other team would claim them with those contracts (remember, teams that claim a player must take on his contract and place him on the 25-man roster (if the waiving team takes that option)). Since the Cubs have shed all their big contracts (at least on players they don’t want to keep) – yay Jedstein – I don’t see any Cubs players that wouldn’t be claimed. The only player I can really see being traded at all is Kevin Gregg. Although he would probably be claimed, the Cubs might elect to try to work out a trade with the claiming team – even if it’s for a hot dog and a souvenir Coke Zero – just to try to squeeze some value out of him. Then again, they couldn’t get enough for him at the trade deadline, so maybe not. I suppose players like Julio Borbon could clear waivers and get traded, but who cares?

GAME NOTES

I was all ready to use the (what I thought was) clever line “Lake out-Puiged Puig,” but my dreams were crushed with Puig’s homerun in the ninth. In any case, Junior Lake and Anthony Rizzo each hit two homeruns, which was great (Rizzo is looking FANTASTIC lately, and seeing future pieces perform is one of the few reasons left to watch this team), but that was the only offense the Cubs could muster. Once again, Chris Rusin forgot that he was Chris Rusin, and hey, he actually pitched a nice game against a tough lineup.

The Dodgers are now the Yankees of the National League, and I’m going to have fun rooting against them for years to come.

Minor League Recap August 1st

by Rob Willer

Iowa Cubs

Loux struggles as Iowa gets bested by Salt Lake 9-3

Barret Loux struggled once again going 5 and 1/3 innings while allowing seven earned runs on eleven hits. Alberto Cabrera wasn’t much better giving up two earned runs in 1 and 2/3 innings. The final Iowa Cubs pitcher of the night Marcus Hatley rebounded from yesterday’s performance pitching a scoreless inning.

The Cubs’ offense had 10 hits but was only able to get three runs across. Donnie Murphy turned in a decent going 3 for 5 with a double. The Iowa Cubs left nine men on base and went 3 for 7 with runners in scoring position on the night. Another Iowa Cubs player who broke out was first baseman Edgar Gonzales. Gonazales went 2 for four with a two run homer driving in two of the Cubs three runs.

Tennessee Smokies

Tennessee clipped the Barons 2-1.

Kyle Hendricks pitched well once again going six strong innings only allowing one run. Hendricks struck out four and allowed seven hits also lowered his earned run average on the season to 1.85. His night got even better getting the callup to Iowa Cubs. He has really broken out this year and should be fun to watch at Iowa not sure what the corresponding move will be should be announced later on today. Hunter Cervenka took over for Hendricks pitching the final three innings only allowing a hit and a walk picking up the win which improved his record to 3-1.

The Smokies offense was kept in check for most of the night only mustering four hits over 29 at bats. Justin Bour homered again for his 15th of the season it was a solo shot in the seventh. John Andreoli knocked in the winning run in the ninth with a run scoring single to score Javy Baez from third.

Daytona Cubs

Corey Black was excited to get on the mound Thursday night but the Daytona Cubs were rained out so his debut will be pushed until Friday.

Like what you see here? Never miss new content. Follow Us:

Game 65: Edwin Jackson Solid Again, DeJesus Hurt

Saturday, June 15th, 2013

Box Score / Highlights

Star of the Game – Edwin Jackson – .145 (WPA)


This game featured two starting pitchers with similar beginnings to the 2013 campaign. Both Shaun “I spell my name wrong” Marcum and Edwin Jackson came into the game with bad records and high ERAs, but the peripherals suggested that they were pitching much better than the results (they came in with 3.38 and 2.90 FIPs, respectively). Also, they each had a nice start the last time out.

Edwin continued the trend. He pitched 6 innings, striking out 7 (he had a nasty slider tonight), and allowed only 1 earned run. James Russell came into the game in the 7th and made things interested by giving up 2 runs for the first time this year (his season ERA is still an excellent 2.03). Carlos Marmol and Kevin Gregg each pitched a scoreless inning to close out the game (I can’t believe I just typed that sentence). Speaking of unbelievable things, I actually think Gregg, packaged with another player (see below), could bring back a non-non-prospect in return. Who would have thought that…well, ever?

The Cubs offense got on the board early with a Nate Schierholtz solo blast in the top of the 1st (see, isn’t Dale a genius for knowing that Nate needed an at-bat in the 1st inning?). The bats really broke out in the 2nd, scoring 4 runs (such a rare thing these days). The inning was capped-off by a David DeJesus 3-run triple – a shot that would have left most ballparks.

It was nice to see Anthony Rizzo have a nice game at the plate. He had 3 hits, including a ringing double, and scored 2 runs. No, I don’t think his moving down in the order had anything to do with it, but it obviously didn’t hurt. I have a feeling that both Rizzo and Starlin Castro are due to break out soon. By the way, has anyone else noticed that Castro is alternating between 2 different types of bat every plate appearance?

Perhaps the biggest story from this game is the DeJesus injury. He injured his shoulder colliding with the center field wall as he attempted to catch a deep fly ball off the bat of Juan Lagares. The x-rays showed a shoulder sprain – which could mean a lot of things, I suppose. DeJesus will be placed on the 15-day DL. I don’t want to sound cynical, but the biggest impact this will have on the Cubs is whatever effect this injury has on DeJesus’ trade value. I could really see DeJesus, especially as part of a package (see above), netting a decent prospect or two in return.

Dale Sveum said after the game that the Cubs may bring up a bullpen arm immediately while they decide what outfielder to call up (the Cubs did play a 14-inning game, so they could probably use an extra arm for a day or so). Brooks Raley (who was just sent down to make room for Henry Rodriguez) and Chris Rusin are the two Iowa pitchers currently on the 40-man roster.

Things could get interesting when the Cubs bring up an outfielder to replace DeJesus, but I doubt that they will. If we’re assuming the Cubs will bring up someone already on the 40-man (which they don’t have to do, necessarily, but it would seem to make sense), here’s how I would rate the candidates:

Boring: Dave Sappelt

Intriguing: Brett Jackson (he’s still struggling, so I really can’t see the benefit of bringing him up).

Hype-inducing: Junior Lake. This would be the most fun for all of us, but there’s no need to rush him up now, and he’s just getting settled in AAA. There’s no way this is going to happen.

So, it will probably be good ol’ boring, Dave “I-defend-Ian-Stewart-on-Twitter” Sappelt. If the Cubs were going to make a 40-man move, Brian Bogusevic has had a really nice season, and it would be good to see what he could do with the major league club.

This will be my last post for a few weeks – I’m getting married next weekend, and I’ll be travelling all over for a few weeks. It’s been tons of fun writing for this site, and I look forward to returning later in the summer. Thanks for reading – see you soon!

Like what you see here? Never miss new content. Follow Us: