Theo Epstein Sploosh Thread

[PenFoe]

Scherzer has pitched 600 fewer innings than Hamels.

Mostly because he's had injuries.

I was actually looking for this online, because I believed it to be true.

Are there are sites that will tell you how many days a guy has spend on the DL in his career/season?

[InternetApex]

Scherzer has pitched 600 fewer innings than Hamels.

Mostly because he's had injuries.

He's averaged just under 200 inning for the past six years. I'm not super thrilled about him either. He started

2009: 30
2010: 31
2011: 33
2012: 32
2013: 32
2014: 33

games.

For an oft-injured guy he sure takes the ball a shit ton.

[ChuckD]

There's also a risk in only signing the Mastersons and McCarthys of the world and that risk is they suck and your team isn't very good.

There's always risk, but isn't the riskier option blowing your entire pitching budget on one guy on the hope that he doesn't suck, doesn't have an exploding rotator cuff, etc?

By pursuing undervalued pitchers you're able to procure more of them which minimizes your risk through diversification.

[Eli]

There's also a risk in only signing the Mastersons and McCarthys of the world and that risk is they suck and your team isn't very good.

There's always risk, but isn't the riskier option blowing your entire pitching budget on one guy on the hope that he doesn't suck, doesn't have an exploding rotator cuff, etc?

By pursuing undervalued pitchers you're able to procure more of them which minimizes your risk through diversification.

I'm all for surplus value, but I think people have tipped too far and we're now just talking about loss aversion.

[PenFoe]

There's also a risk in only signing the Mastersons and McCarthys of the world and that risk is they suck and your team isn't very good.

There's always risk, but isn't the riskier option blowing your entire pitching budget on one guy on the hope that he doesn't suck, doesn't have an exploding rotator cuff, etc?

By pursuing undervalued pitchers you're able to procure more of them which minimizes your risk through diversification.

But how many more guys do the Cubs need?

They currently have Arrieta, Hendricks, Wood, E-Jax, Doubront, Turner, Straily, Beeler and Jokisch in the mix.  

I'm not holding my breath on a few of those guys, but it doesn't seem like they need to bring in another handful of undervalued pitchers to add to that mix, versus just bringing in 1-2 guys that you can put into the rotation without concern.  

[ChuckD]

There's also a risk in only signing the Mastersons and McCarthys of the world and that risk is they suck and your team isn't very good.

There's always risk, but isn't the riskier option blowing your entire pitching budget on one guy on the hope that he doesn't suck, doesn't have an exploding rotator cuff, etc?

By pursuing undervalued pitchers you're able to procure more of them which minimizes your risk through diversification.

But how many more guys do the Cubs need?

They currently have Arrieta, Hendricks, Wood, E-Jax, Doubront, Turner, Straily, Beeler and Jokisch in the mix.  

I'm not holding my breath on a few of those guys, but it doesn't seem like they need to bring in another handful of undervalued pitchers to add to that mix, versus just bringing in 1-2 guys that you can put into the rotation without concern.  

Of those, only Arrieta, Hendricks, and Wood give me any sort of confidence at this point. So, two -- maybe three?

[Eli]

There's also a risk in only signing the Mastersons and McCarthys of the world and that risk is they suck and your team isn't very good.

There's always risk, but isn't the riskier option blowing your entire pitching budget on one guy on the hope that he doesn't suck, doesn't have an exploding rotator cuff, etc?

By pursuing undervalued pitchers you're able to procure more of them which minimizes your risk through diversification.

But how many more guys do the Cubs need?

They currently have Arrieta, Hendricks, Wood, E-Jax, Doubront, Turner, Straily, Beeler and Jokisch in the mix.  

I'm not holding my breath on a few of those guys, but it doesn't seem like they need to bring in another handful of undervalued pitchers to add to that mix, versus just bringing in 1-2 guys that you can put into the rotation without concern.  

Yup. It's nice to bring in undervalued assets in the hopes of a few working out long-term, but it's not a very good strategy when you need players to be good from the start of the season. You can't hope to compete by just shuffling through Strailys and Doubronts and Turners for the first 2-3 months until you figure out if any of them are going to work out.

[InternetApex]

There's also a risk in only signing the Mastersons and McCarthys of the world and that risk is they suck and your team isn't very good.

There's always risk, but isn't the riskier option blowing your entire pitching budget on one guy on the hope that he doesn't suck, doesn't have an exploding rotator cuff, etc?

By pursuing undervalued pitchers you're able to procure more of them which minimizes your risk through diversification.

But how many more guys do the Cubs need?

They currently have Arrieta, Hendricks, Wood, E-Jax, Doubront, Turner, Straily, Beeler and Jokisch in the mix.  

I'm not holding my breath on a few of those guys, but it doesn't seem like they need to bring in another handful of undervalued pitchers to add to that mix, versus just bringing in 1-2 guys that you can put into the rotation without concern.  

That's exactly what Oakland has done. They put leases on Hammel, Snork and Lester when it became prudent to do so. Now they have Snork they can flip for whatever value they can get to mitigate the loss of Russell and money freed up to get more undervalued arms such as the ones that have made up their rotation the past couple of (successful) seasons.

That plan cost them Cespedes and I'm not buying the offensive collapse being due to his absence as much as many people seem to. I think he's a guy. Otherwise, what did they lose?

[PenFoe]

There's also a risk in only signing the Mastersons and McCarthys of the world and that risk is they suck and your team isn't very good.

There's always risk, but isn't the riskier option blowing your entire pitching budget on one guy on the hope that he doesn't suck, doesn't have an exploding rotator cuff, etc?

By pursuing undervalued pitchers you're able to procure more of them which minimizes your risk through diversification.

But how many more guys do the Cubs need?

They currently have Arrieta, Hendricks, Wood, E-Jax, Doubront, Turner, Straily, Beeler and Jokisch in the mix.  

I'm not holding my breath on a few of those guys, but it doesn't seem like they need to bring in another handful of undervalued pitchers to add to that mix, versus just bringing in 1-2 guys that you can put into the rotation without concern.  

That's exactly what Oakland has done. They put leases on Hammel, Snork and Lester when it became prudent to do so. Now they have Snork they can flip for whatever value they can get to mitigate the loss of Russell and money freed up to get more undervalued arms such as the ones that have made up their rotation the past couple of (successful) seasons.

That plan cost them Cespedes and I'm not buying the offensive collapse being due to his absence as much as many people seem to. I think he's a guy. Otherwise, what did they lose?

The playoffs again?

[R-V]

Going after Hamels would be counter to the strategy Jepstink has shown thus far w/re to pitching. Masterson fits the mold of getting a discount on a guy who's been a bit unlucky.

Masterson ranks third in terms of ERA-xFIP and fifth in ERA-FIP (right below Jacob Turner -- and EJax, for that matter). Hamels ranks 17th/16th from last among qualifiers.

Name	W	L	ERA	IP	K/9	BB/9	K/BB	BABIP	GB%	HR/FB	FIP	xFIP	FIPdiff	xFIPdiff
Edwin Jackson	6	15	6.33	140.2	7.87	4	2	0.352	0.394	0.119	4.45	4.12	1.88	2.21
Jacob Turner	6	11	6.13	113	5.65	2.6	2.1	0.354	0.491	0.103	4.16	4.05	1.97	2.08
Justin Masterson	7	9	5.88	128.2	8.11	4.8	1.7	0.339	0.582	0.146	4.5	4.08	1.38	1.8
Trevor Cahill	3	12	5.61	110.2	8.54	4.5	1.9	0.35	0.485	0.101	3.89	3.83	1.72	1.78
Josh Tomlin	6	9	4.76	104	8.13	1.2	6.7	0.32	0.375	0.153	4.01	3.16	0.75	1.6
Ricky Nolasco	6	12	5.38	159	6.51	2.2	3	0.351	0.418	0.116	4.3	3.97	1.08	1.41
Clay Buchholz	8	11	5.34	170.1	6.97	2.9	2.4	0.315	0.466	0.092	4.01	4.04	1.33	1.3
Brandon McCarthy	10	15	4.05	200	7.88	1.5	5.3	0.328	0.526	0.163	3.55	2.87	0.5	1.18
Tim Lincecum	12	9	4.74	155.2	7.75	3.6	2.1	0.299	0.473	0.139	4.31	3.81	0.43	0.93
Mike Minor	6	12	4.77	145.1	7.43	2.7	2.7	0.323	0.406	0.129	4.39	3.9	0.38	0.87

I'm not sure what all that statfaggotry is, but all I see is a list of guys who suck and I don't want on the Cubs.

I'll happily go with Masterson on some discounted deal, knowing he's a bit of a project with a ton of upside, but I'm still hoping he's not the ace they're getting.

I'm guessing Hammel, Feldman and Maholm would've been on similar lists for the last few years. Those signings worked out all right. I think we all agree that signing a Lester or a Scherzer would be great, but to dismiss signing any of these guys (McCarthy in particular) as affordable rotation depth at worst, or buy-low #2 or 3 starters at best, seems notsmart.

[InternetApex]

There's also a risk in only signing the Mastersons and McCarthys of the world and that risk is they suck and your team isn't very good.

There's always risk, but isn't the riskier option blowing your entire pitching budget on one guy on the hope that he doesn't suck, doesn't have an exploding rotator cuff, etc?

By pursuing undervalued pitchers you're able to procure more of them which minimizes your risk through diversification.

But how many more guys do the Cubs need?

They currently have Arrieta, Hendricks, Wood, E-Jax, Doubront, Turner, Straily, Beeler and Jokisch in the mix.  

I'm not holding my breath on a few of those guys, but it doesn't seem like they need to bring in another handful of undervalued pitchers to add to that mix, versus just bringing in 1-2 guys that you can put into the rotation without concern.  

That's exactly what Oakland has done. They put leases on Hammel, Snork and Lester when it became prudent to do so. Now they have Snork they can flip for whatever value they can get to mitigate the loss of Russell and money freed up to get more undervalued arms such as the ones that have made up their rotation the past couple of (successful) seasons.

That plan cost them Cespedes and I'm not buying the offensive collapse being due to his absence as much as many people seem to. I think he's a guy. Otherwise, what did they lose?

The playoffs again?

Are you being facetious?

[PenFoe]

There's also a risk in only signing the Mastersons and McCarthys of the world and that risk is they suck and your team isn't very good.

There's always risk, but isn't the riskier option blowing your entire pitching budget on one guy on the hope that he doesn't suck, doesn't have an exploding rotator cuff, etc?

By pursuing undervalued pitchers you're able to procure more of them which minimizes your risk through diversification.

But how many more guys do the Cubs need?

They currently have Arrieta, Hendricks, Wood, E-Jax, Doubront, Turner, Straily, Beeler and Jokisch in the mix.  

I'm not holding my breath on a few of those guys, but it doesn't seem like they need to bring in another handful of undervalued pitchers to add to that mix, versus just bringing in 1-2 guys that you can put into the rotation without concern.  

That's exactly what Oakland has done. They put leases on Hammel, Snork and Lester when it became prudent to do so. Now they have Snork they can flip for whatever value they can get to mitigate the loss of Russell and money freed up to get more undervalued arms such as the ones that have made up their rotation the past couple of (successful) seasons.

That plan cost them Cespedes and I'm not buying the offensive collapse being due to his absence as much as many people seem to. I think he's a guy. Otherwise, what did they lose?

The playoffs again?

Are you being facetious?

My point is that the Cubs have shown a pretty good ability to keep taking low-risks on pitchers and cobbling together either rotation pieces or trade bait.  They've shown that ability and I don't expect them to stop doing that.  

But, the A's have never been even close to having the type of hitting prospects the Cubs have in the Beane Era.  Also (in theory) I don't expect the Cubs to have the same financial restraints that the A's do.  

So, in all those areas (smart baseball ops, great farm system of bats, money for free agents) I don't think the Cubs need to be looking at the A's at the model right now.  

They have more money and more prospects to utilize which allows them to take more chances.

Again, this all assumes that Ricketts is willing to spend money, which is admittedly debatable, but have to go off that assumption for now (unless you're Chuck.)

[Saul Goodman]

So let's assume they sign either Lester or Scherzer this offseason.  Which would it be?  Lester, because he's left-handed, they know him from Boston, he's a big-game starter (last night notwithstanding), and he doesn't cost a draft pick?  Or do they go with Scherzer, who has less mileage on his arm, he strikes out almost 10 chumps per nine for his career, and his career FIP is 3.39 compared to Lester's 3.58?

Or do they just sign both.

I also pretty much expect David Price to be a Cub after next season at this point.  I like setting myself up for disappoint.

[Tonker]

There's also a risk in only signing the Mastersons and McCarthys of the world and that risk is they suck and your team isn't very good.

There's always risk, but isn't the riskier option blowing your entire pitching budget on one guy on the hope that he doesn't suck, doesn't have an exploding rotator cuff, etc?

By pursuing undervalued pitchers you're able to procure more of them which minimizes your risk through diversification.

But how many more guys do the Cubs need?

They currently have Arrieta, Hendricks, Wood, E-Jax, Doubront, Turner, Straily, Beeler and Jokisch in the mix.  

I'm not holding my breath on a few of those guys, but it doesn't seem like they need to bring in another handful of undervalued pitchers to add to that mix, versus just bringing in 1-2 guys that you can put into the rotation without concern.  

Of those, only Arrieta, Hendricks, and Wood give me any sort of confidence at this point. So, two -- maybe three?

That's funny: only Arrieta and Hendricks give me any sort of Wood.

[Eli]

I'm guessing Hammel, Feldman and Maholm would've been on similar lists for the last few years. Those signings worked out all right. I think we all agree that signing a Lester or a Scherzer would be great, but to dismiss signing any of these guys (McCarthy in particular) as affordable rotation depth at worst, or buy-low #2 or 3 starters at best, seems notsmart.

I don't get all the McCarthy love. Is it because he's funny on Twitter? I see his value and I'm not entirely opposed to signing him because he's likely to be solid when he's on the mound. But this is the first year he's ever pitched 200 innings (and he hit that right on the nose). I think it's more likely he'll get hurt and pitch 115 mediocre innings than repeat what he did this year. He's not the kind of signing that moves the needle much closer to competing.

Again, racking up surplus value is great, but there are diminishing returns after a certain point.