We all knew that the methods the Superfriends were employing to build up the overall strength of the entire Cubs organization was going to get ugly at the major league level. Theo and Jed came in and immediately started implementing a long term strategy, which in many cases, was very damaging to the short term quality of the team. We get it. We joke about guys like Jason Berkin and Brooks Raley going to the mound every fifth day because, frankly, what else can you do? But behind the snark, I think most of us get it. At least most of us in this corner of the interwebs.
So the Cubs lost 101 games, and even though most people were slightly surprised at reaching the 100 loss mark (I wasn't), at some point the difference between 95 losses and 100 really doesn't matter. We all knew it would be bad, the only question was exactly how bad they would be.
So now we are on to Year Two of the Superfriends. Organizationally, they are healthier. They now have a few impact level prospects floating around in the lower levels of the system from Hendry's last draft. Plus Jed & Theo added a few nice players through their own draft and trades of Maholm, Dempster and others. This will be a really good year to go check out some Kane County Cougars games. But on the major league roster, we're looking at 100 losses again.
I know that the roster as comprised now will be vastly different than the roster with which they break camp, but this team is bad and I have a hard time envisioning a scenario where they cobble together anything better than a 95 loss team without some serious luck. In reality, it might be worse than last year. Seriously.
The whole reason there was debate about whether the Cubs would reach 100 losses or not last year was due to a stretch from June 25 to July 30 where they went 18-10, mostly due to some pretty good pitching from their rotation. It is no accident that after the Cubs traded away Maholm and Dempster, plus lost Garza to injury that they ran off a record of 18-42 after the trade deadline. That's a .300 winning percentage. That's not even a great batting average. Now heading into 2013, what can we expect from the Cubs pitching staff?
Jeff Samardzija almost has to be considered the ace just because we're pretty sure he can stay healthy and now we have almost a whole season of him being pretty good at pitching to comfort our fears that he'll suddenly revert to the Jeff Samardzija we all laughed at for wanting to be a starter while walking everyone in the ballpark. So that right there doesn't bode real well. A former punchline (who we still aren't 100% certain isn't riding some flukey run of luck) is now the Cubs ace.
We have no damn idea what to expect from Matt Garza and neither does anybody else in the world. That means we can't really book him as the guy that Hendry traded for or anything even close, and it also means that if he's traded it will be for pennies on the dollar. If Jed can swing a trade for an impact level young arm in return for Garza this off-season, we should probably just start building his statue in the McDonald's parking lot right now.
So we get to the third spot and we're at Travis Wood. Travis Wood was barely worth the fifth starter spot last year and he is clearly the Cubs #3 at the moment. These are not good signs, people.
Maybe this wouldn't all sound so bad if we thought there was a chance in hell the Cubs could score runs occasionally, but they can't. Even with a full year of Rizzo, a rejuvenated Soriano (and who is actually taking bets that he continues at last year's pace?), and Castro, the lineup is a god-awful mess. When Ian Stewart is quickly becoming the Cubs best hope to produce anything at third base for the second year in a row, things are bad. When people float rumors of Shane Victorino as a potential option in centerfield and people get excited about it, things are bad.
The hope on the horizon in the minors is still Brett Jackson. There really isn't anybody of note behind him that can come in and make a difference. And forget Vitters. Just forget Vitters. He's so done that I think Gary Scott is actually a better solution after spending the last 20 years selling real estate than Josh Vitters is. My dead cat has just as much chance of being the Cubs' third baseman of the future as Josh Vitters does.
So have the Cubs hit rock bottom? Given the state of their roster and their seeming unwillingness to spend even a little short-term money to help prop up the collapse on the major league level, I just don't see how they can improve on last year's results. Maybe they spread the losing around a little more, that 18-10 stretch is going to be hard to duplicate. You'd think the 18-42 would be hard to duplicate and it will be, but not as tough as you'd think. The Cubs were 24-48 before June 25 for a .333 win percentage and that was with them at full strength. Without that 18-10 stretch, the Cubs played .320 baseball for 134 games. That is a 110 loss pace and probably closer to what this team's true capabilties were, especially at the end.
So I'm putting in my early prediction now. The Cubs will lose 105 games in 2013.
Don't forget to get your 10% non-refundable deposits for season tickets into the Cubs by the end of the day.
Comments
Don’t tell me what to do.
But it isn’t my turn in the waiting list anyway (dying laughing)
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Trout + Harper —> ROYs
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Good read.
I think the Cubs true talent will be worse than it was this season. I agree with you there, but I think they win more games. I don’t think the Cubs were a true 61-win team this past season. Factoring in the mid-season trades, they probably were, but overall I think they were a little better and that they got a little unlucky. I didn’t like betting on 100 losses last year though I think you and I were in agreement in about just how bad they were for the most part. I just think betting on 100 losses is kind of like betting on 100 wins. It’s damn tough to win 100 and it’s just as tough to lose 100. A lot of very good teams have failed to do that and a lot of very bad teams have won more than 62 games. But I do think they’ll be a worse team, but just a team that wins a few more games.
mb21Quote Reply
@ mb21:
That’s kind of what I was thinking initially, but holy hell is the pitching going to be bad. Imagine if Garza is done. if Garza is fine, I think you are absolutely right and they’ll somehow manage to lose only 97 or 98 games. But if Garza is truly broken, then they are screwed. There is no way they cobble together even a semi-useful rotation without spending money they seem unwilling to spend.
Aisle424Quote Reply
Plus, don’t forget that they will absolutely deal Soriano and Garza (if they can) so if those guys are any good at all, they’re gone by July 31. Plus anybody else they sign in the off-season will be gone. August 1 to the end of the season will be another death march. There is absolutely no getting around that. So the question is whether they can cobble together enough padding in the first half to avoid it. They did as well as anyone could have expected last year (in the first half) and they still lost 101. I don’t think they do as well early on this year and that’s going to cost them in the end.
Aisle424Quote Reply
@ Aisle424:
Yeah, if Garza is done then it changes things. 100 becomes a lot more unlikely because whoever they replace him with is going to be well below replacement level. I think he’ll be OK. I’m actually more worried about an injury to Samardzija considering his workload.
mb21Quote Reply
@ Aisle424:
I can see that happening. I guess I’ve accepted it and at this point I’m just wondering if they can pull 2.8 million tickets sold.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ Aisle424:
Good point. Not to mention, there’s obviously the possibility that Rizzo just isn’t anywhere near the hitter we’re hoping him to be. He wouldn’t be the first or second (or 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc) young player to have a decent rookie season and then suck.
Like you said in your post, the offense is what is really scary. Brett Jackson is the team’s 4th best hitter right now and he’ll open the year in AAA more than likely. It’s not like the ones who are better are awesome hitters either. Rizzo could be, but Castro is what he is.
mb21Quote Reply
mb21 wrote:
To drive this point home, Rizzo has a career .727 OPS.
2011: 153 PA, .533 OPS
2012 through July 30: 116 PA, .958 OPS
July 31-end of season 2012: 252 PA, .733 OPS
He’s probably nowhere near the hitter he was in 2011 and nowhere near the hitter he was in his first 116 Cubs PA. Is he closer to his career average? I don’t know, but if I was going to bet I’d put money on him being closer to a .760ish OPS hitter than anything else. He has age on his side though.
mb21Quote Reply
Like mb21, I still say it’s more likely than not that the Cubs lose fewer than 100 next year (and that their 100-loss 2012 season was a little improbable). It’s just hard to lose 100 games (regression to the mean and all that) and even last year, their win/loss% was a few wins worse than their pythag.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
There have been very few teams that have been so open about tanking seasons as the Cubs have. The Nationals come to mind and they did manage back-to-back 100 loss seasons.. I think there is a psychology involved as well. None of these players can have any delusions that they’ll be anywhere near the playoffs. That wears on players and they probably lose more than they probably should.
Aisle424Quote Reply
424 I think your analysis is overly optimistic. Typical for a Cubs fan in the off-season.
I’m placing my bets that the Cubs’ll be closer to 115 losses next season than 100, if there roster remains essentially as it is today. If they sign one decent starter like Edwin Jackson and one serviceable OF like David deJesus, then they get closer to 100.
Garza’s already been discussed in comments, but F7 is no more a sure thing either. He could easily go 5-15 and pushed to the bullpen. Last May there were lots of threads/comments about whether F7 had transformed. For one season he was. MB and others’ skepticism at that time should return in spades now.
Soriano is a trade or leg injury away from making Darwin Barney our third best hitter (Rizzo, Soriano, Castro, Barney), unless you really like Beef Castle.
This team will be EPIC.
Cubs 2013: Because we have to.
SVBQuote Reply
In the past election, Joe Ricketts’s super PAC, Ending Spending, spent >$15M supporting or opposing candidates, according to the Sunlight Foundation. 15% was spent on races where the candidate his PAC supported won, or opposed lost. 15%.
Hope the Cubs get a better return on investment than Joe Ricketts did.
SVBQuote Reply
I think it’s way too early. Roster isn’t going to look anything like this come spring training. No matter who the two free agent starting pitchers are that we pick up, they’re both gonna be better than Volstad. Castillo playing the whole year, hitting and throwing better than Soto. Stewart either healthy or gone. (Either way preferable to him injured.) Rizzo for the whole year. Another OFer who isn’t named Mather. Only way I think we even come close to being as bad as last year is if we trade Soriano and the hole that creates. Other than that, I don’t think we even hit 90 losses this year.
Carne HarrisQuote Reply
Air travel is the worst
BerseliusQuote Reply
Except maybe Nazis. Or Ryan Theriot.
BerseliusQuote Reply
Who the hell is that? I actually followed the Cubs this past season and never heard of this guy (dying laughing)
WaLiQuote Reply
@ WaLi:
Berken actually started 4 games (18 IP). I guess I blocked those from my memory.
WaLiQuote Reply
@ WaLi:
Picked him up off waivers from the Orioles. He made 4 starts at the end of the season.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/berkeja01-pitch.shtml
Aisle424Quote Reply
@ Carne Harris:
I’d be very surprised if the 2013 Cubs have a true talent win level of anything higher then 70 entering the season. A true 70-win team could team anywhere from 54 to 86 games by luck alone, but in terms of true talent, this is almost certainly going to be a 90+ loss team.
Even if they add two pitchers, they probably won’t be as good as Dempster and Maholm. The Cubs do have Rizzo for a whole season, but how good is Rizzo? His projections show him to be almost exactly what the Cubs expected (and got) from Bryan LaHair entering last season.
Unless this team spends considerable money, they’re going to suck balls next year. They might be a little better than last year depending on how much money they spend, but in terms of true talent, I doubt they will be. The Cubs have so far shown no inclination to go after the kind of players who will prevent the Cubs from being total shit again next season. Maybe they do go after someone like Anibal Sanchez, which would obviously help. Perhaps they even go after another marquee free agent. But filling the holes the Cubs have with guys like David DeJesus isn’t much of an improvement over the hole.
I don’t know how many games they’ll end up winning, but I’m guessing the average projection system will have the Cubs at about 67 wins entering next season. The first projection right now has them at 61 wins. You’re arguing that they’ll get to 73 wins or better. To purchase 12 wins on the free agent market would cost $60+ million for 2013 alone. So unless they go after a couple marquee free agents it’s going to be damn near impossible for this team to be a 73 win or better true talent team entering next year.
mb21Quote Reply
@ mb21:
Don’t you like anything?
WaLiQuote Reply
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
http://americablog.com/2012/11/abc-denver-reportedly-misnames-petraeus-biography-all-up-in-my-snatch.html
GBTSQuote Reply
@ WaLi:
I like the Dallas Mavericks Dancers new uniforms.
mb21Quote Reply
@ GBTS:
(dying laughing)o(dying laughing)o(dying laughing)o(dying laughing)o(dying laughing)o(dying laughing)o(dying laughing)o(dying laughing)ol
mb21Quote Reply
@ mb21:
I blaim the recent legalization of marijuana in Colorado (dying laughing)
WaLiQuote Reply
@ WaLi:
(dying laughing)
mb21Quote Reply
Scott Baker —–> one year deal with Cubs
Aisle424Quote Reply
Amended loss prediction ——-> 104
Aisle424Quote Reply
@ mb21:
That’s got to be some kind of planted joke, right?
iLuld.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ Aisle424:
I kind of that like that assuming the price isn’t that high. Any link?
mb21Quote Reply
Can we at least wait until we know Baker isn’t blindsided?
GBTSQuote Reply
Baker is a lot better pitcher than I thought, but that injury history is scary. Hope it’s not a ton of money. Seems like the kind of guy that Thoyer would be targeting.
BerseliusQuote Reply
Baker’s last five (pre-TJ) seasons were all better than Haren’s 2012.
GBTSQuote Reply
My friend who is a big Twins fan has affectionately dubbed Baker “Moonshot Scott,” after his apparent penchant for allowing home runs at the most inopportune times.
GBTSQuote Reply
@ mb21:
Time will tell. It won’t cost $60 mil when you have guys like Castillo as an upgrade over Soto, Sappelt as an upgrade over Mather, Rizzo for a full year, etc. Plus trades and free agent signings make it way too early to talk about our talent level for next year. Be like talking about the talent level last year before the Rizzo trade.
Carne HarrisQuote Reply
Aisle424Quote Reply
@ Aisle424:
Love it.
GBTSQuote Reply
new shit: http://obstructedview.net/news-and-rumors/cubs-sign-scott-baker.html
mb21Quote Reply