The Cubs should re-sign Dexter Fowler

In Uncategorized by myles52 Comments

I was on BP Wrigleyville the other day, looking at this fine article written by Isaac Bennett, about the 25th man on the roster. You should read the whole thing, but the relevant bit follows:

Matt Szczur

Path to the Roster: The case for Szczur is trickier than some may realize, as the Cubs don’t currently have another option to replace Heyward in center field. Carrying each of Schwarber, Soler and Coghlan on the roster means that the team has a fairly serious dearth of legitimate late-inning quality defensive options in the outfield. After Baez, Szczur is likely the next man up. It’s also a bit of a myth that he adds nothing offensively, as in a limited sample he has slugged .476 against left-handed pitching, making him a reasonable pinch-hit option against a tough southpaw. Further complicating his case is the lack of minor-league options remaining, meaning he either makes the squad, or likely finds a home elsewhere. His surest path would be Maddon choosing to carry just seven relievers, which would allow Szczur the opportunity to then grab the 25th spot. The odds here are lower—far lower—than those for La Stella.

I agree with Isaac here. Heyward is probably the only player on the roster that can play CF that I'd actually want to play CF more than 10 games a season (sorry, Matt). For as rock-solid as our corners might be, we have a surprising dearth of CF, at least for 2016. We assume that since Heyward is an elite defensive RF that he can just magically slot into center with no issues.

I'm not so certain that's true. The positives are there: Heyward is a well above-average offensive centerfielder, and center field is pretty small in Wrigley. That being said, the Cubs only play half their games in Wrigley, and the smaller outfield is counteracted somewhat by the fact that Soler and Schwarber are the corners. Neither figure to have average range on their BEST days. It's a huge ask for a guy who hasn't played meaningful center in half a decade to slot in there.

Dexter Fowler isn't just the best remaining CF on the market, he's pretty much the only one. He's proven he can play a decent CF; he'd only get better with Heyward to his right. I'm much happier about the defensive capabilities of a Schwarber/Fowler/Heyward than a Schwarber/Heyward/Soler one. The upside to this is that you can also use Heyward as the backup CF instead of the primary: that allows Bryant and Baez to get the occasional spot start at a corner instead of at CF. 

Obviously, this leaves Soler as the odd man out. That brings me to the only real weakness I can see in this lineup: #4 starter. As it stands, an Arrieta/Lester/Lackey staff is a top-shelf start to a rotation. After that, you are leaning on Hammel or Hendricks to get you through the playoffs (and the regular season). I think the Cubs have an abundance of options for the 4 and 5 (add Trevor Cahill, Adam Warren, even Travis Wood or Clayton Richard could get another look with all of the lefties hanging around), but I'd be happier if we had a young, promising arm that we could mold into a cost-controlled #2 or #3. The problem with the Rays talks is that they just signed Steve Pearce and aren't really looking for Soler (they want Baez). That said, they are only one team among 29 possible trade partners. If the Cubs could spin Soler for even a cost-controlled #3 or #4, that would go a long way for young, affordable pitching in the future while also making the 2016 squad more competitive.

The counter-argument for re-signing Fowler has two main thrusts, far as I can see. The first is money. I think I've finally just decided to never care about money any more. I don't know how much they are willing to spend, and you probably don't either. I've been surprised year over year (both high and low), so I'm assuming that the Cubs will make their own determinations with respect to value (and they aren't reading this anyway). The second is blocking outfielders in the future. In all honesty, I don't care about that. You can't really operate under the assumption that you have to make room for Almora or McKinney in 2017. They might never make the majors. Someone might get hurt, or traded, or become bad. Even if you were assured of their success, that's a problem for 2017. Let's worry about 2016. Are we a better team in 2016 with Fowler? Almost certainly.

Signing Fowler allows us to have Coghlan and Baez back up the starting outfielders, with the ability to put Heyward in center whenever you want to give Fowler a day off. Playing Schwarber at catcher for 30 games opens up some time there for Baez and Cogs as well. The only piece you lose is potentially Soler, and you can probably extract value from him easily.

Last thing; signing Dexter Fowler means the St. Louis Cardinals can't. Honestly, I run on schadenfreude these days, so that's all the reason I need.

 

Share this Post

Comments

  1. Author
    myles

    Suburban kid: The process could speed up now the Cubs are good. The latest Sun-Times newspaper sports section article written by an employed writer says how two of their players are on the All-Good Looking team. As fans, I’m guessing our own attractiveness will rise accordingly. The female readership here should at least double in 2016.

    It could triple AND double in the same amount of time

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  2. Smokestack Lightning

    I concur with this piece. Fowler in CF, Heyward in RF, Soler for a young-ish cost-controlled starter seems like good offseason baseball to me.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  3. EnricoPallazzo

    dmick89: I also like the comments so maybe we should aim to post more regularly, but do so by linking to an article or two with a quote? I could probably handle that each day.

    hey jabronis, please only link to Rant Sports articles (preferably written by ChicagoBearJew)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  4. berselius

    The first is money. I think I’ve finally just decided to never care about money any more.

    If you could send me 10k, that would be great.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  5. berselius

    I wouldn’t be disappointed if the Cubs missed out on Fowler and picked up Jackson instead. But would much rather have Fowler. I can’t believe he’s only 29.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  6. Perkins

    Hoyer’s recent comments have made it sound like it’s been tough getting other teams to want to trade young SP, especially in the AL, where there looks to be more parity. You’d think that Cleveland would be a good match, though.

    I’d have a couple of mid-term concerns about trading Soler though, given his upside. First of which being that he’ll still be under team control in three years when Heyward probably opts out.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  7. Perkins

    It also doesn’t help that Dave Stewart set the market very high in acquiring Shelby Miller. If I’m Cleveland, Tampa, or San Diego, Soler and a couple of impact prospects is probably the start of negotiations, and that’s a tidy sum.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  8. Suburban kid

    Sign Fowler. Don’t trade Soler. Get rid of redundant Coghlan. Four man OF rotation keeps everyone fresh, Maddon style. GBTS is the jabroni behind this idea.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  9. Perkins

    The roster crunch would be less of an issue if they carried a seven man bullpen, but Maddon seems to like the extra arm at the expense of a bench bat.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  10. dmick89

    Muskat’s mailbag from the other day.

    Do you think the Cubs will expect more from Jake Arrieta because of his outstanding 2015 season?
    — Jacob K., Johnston, Iowa

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  11. Smokestack Lightning

    dmick89:
    Jake Arrieta is in the best shape of his career apparently. The “best shape in his career” stuff is getting an early start.

    So… he just didn’t take any days off once the season ended?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  12. Suburban kid

    dmick89:
    Jake Arrieta is in the best shape of his career apparently. The “best shape in his career” stuff is getting an early start.

    It may be early, but it’s a step down from the usual. What you usually hear is that they are in the best shape of their life. Arrieta is only in the best shape of his career.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  13. dmick89

    It’s almost like the Cardinals and Pirates said “fuck it, unless we get luckier than shit, the Cubs already have this thing won.” I’m surprised at the lack of moves by both of those teams this offseason.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  14. dmick89

    dmick89: “fuck it, unless we get luckier than shit, the Cubs already have this thing won.”

    Then again, perhaps this was the smartest thing they could have done once the Cubs landed Heyward.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  15. dmick89

    Suburban kid,

    Well, not Fowler, but there were some other moves that could probably have been made, but neither team showed any interest. I’m glad, but it’s just odd that the teams with the two best records let a team get so much better than them without much of a fight. Neither team is close to what the Cubs are. That’s awesome.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  16. Rice Cube

    The Cards did sign Leake for what I thought was an overpay, though, so they sorta made a panic move…but not really.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  17. dmick89

    Suburban kid,

    Thank god he lost. I don’t think I could have handled the media if he’d actually won. I also don’t think I could have handled it personally being that I’m from Iowa. Cruz blows too, but at least it’s a much clearer path now for someone (Rubio) who isn’t as fucked in the head.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  18. Millertime

    Rubio is still all kinds of messed up though. He bought a gun on Christmas Eve to protect his family from ISIS. It’s hard to take any of the Republican candidates seriously. The thing about Trump is, he’s basically what the Republican Party has worked on creating the past 7-8 years. In my opinion, the only big difference between Trump and the other candidates is that Trump is willing to say what the others want to say but don’t.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  19. dmick89

    GBTS: Sign Fowler. Don’t trade Soler. Get rid of redundant Coghlan. Four man OF rotation keeps everyone fresh, Maddon style. GBTS is the jabroni behind this idea.

    It’s a good idea in theory, but I doubt Heyward would be too thrilled to have his playing time cut down and I’m not sure Fowler would be willing to sign if he’s going to get less playing time. That leaves Schwarber and a true platoon between the two isn’t the worst idea in the world, but I’d rather not limit Schwarber’s chances to hit lefties like that.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  20. Millertime

    So, at BN Brett (I think he was the author) mentioned the topic of teams tanking, and how some baseball people think this might be a problem going forward. One of the points Brett made was that sometimes teams decide not to make moves because it just makes little sense for a team to try and be competative and go from a 70 win team to a 73 win team.

    To me, this raises an interesting question: How do you incentivise a team to want to win 73 games as opposed to 70? I was thinking that one way to accomplish this would be to order the draft by best non-divisional round record, instead of by having the worst teams pick first, and so on. This probably would never catch on, I’m just curious what people on this fair blog would think.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  21. dmick89

    Millertime,

    Just have it so that teams pick in alphabetical order in year 1. Then they take turns picking first over the next 29 years and do it again.

    Add another round after the first based on a team’s record.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  22. dmick89

    dmick89,

    Not that I favor this. I like how it is now even with teams tanking. The team that is tanking is presumably doing so in order to best strengthen their chances to win down the road. As long as having the best organization long-term is the goal, you are in a way going to incentivize losing so there’s no way out and that’s fine.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  23. dmick89

    You could add a salary floor too, but then you have to add a cap and I’m not in favor of that.

    To be honest, I like how it is now and don’t care if teams are tanking in order to get better down the road. So be it.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  24. Millertime

    I’m not sure tanking is even that good of a strategy. I just thought it would be a good way to reward a team that wins 80 games, instead of making a situation where you’d probably rather win 70 than 80, for the higher pick.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  25. JonKneeV

    Millertime,

    You could incentivize owners who would pass the message down to the GMs. If you incentivize the owners to win (namely, money), you can bet the owners will try harder to win.

    I have no clue how it’s currently split up, but let’s say the 7th best record in the NL gets 1.4% of MLB shared revenue and the 8th best record get 1.25%. The 9th best record gets 1.18%. 10th best 1.12% and so on.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  26. Perkins

    Millertime,

    It’s obviously not going to be very effective without a strong front office (scouting, player development, analytics) to support it. The Rockies are probably going to be pretty bad for a few years, but are unlikely to have the same results as the Cubs or Astros (or even the Natinals).

    Calcaterra posted something about this as well. The practical application of always trying to win more games in a given season without thought for the future seems to be the White Sox. They spend money and have a few good players in any given year, but are rarely good enough to be considered a real contender. And because they rarely seem to value the future over the present, their future never seems to get any brighter. As a fan, I don’t see how that’s any better than enduring a few lean years with a reasonable expectation of seeing some great ones in the future.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  27. dmick89

    Millertime,

    With the current system, it probably is for teams who see themselves as having to get lucky to win 80 games. Take the Cubs from a few years ago, without some extreme good luck, they were going to suck. There was no reason for them to do anything other than tank.

    JKV’s comment is interesting, but I’d have no idea where that breakeven point is. Probably somewhere around as much as the difference between a Kris Bryant pick and a middle of the first round pick. Quite a lot of money for sure.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

Leave a Comment