2015 Cubs Offseason: Building a Winner Around David Ross

[SKO]

So who should make the 25 man roster?

I figure these are locks:

C Montero                               
C Ross                                     
1B Rizzo                                 
2B Zobrist
3B Bryant
SS Russell
UTIL Baez
UTIL La Stella
OF Heyward
OF Fowler
OF Schwarber
OF Soler

SP Arrieta
SP Lester
SP Lackey
SP Hammel
SP Hendricks
RP Warren
RP Wood
RP Richard
RP Cahill
RP Grimm
RP Strop
RP Rondon

So that's 12 positions players, 12 pitchers. One spot left.

Who gets the last spot? Trueblood says we need to stop being obsessed with Neil Ramirez. That roster spot should clearly go to Asian Johnny Buckets or whatever's left of Shane Victorino or Matt Murton, I guess. I don't really see anyone else that's more deserving of that spot than stashing Neil in the back of the pen and hoping his velocity comes back eventually, but Trueblood has spoken.

Does Mendy get another shot? The Artist Formerly Known As CJ Edwards?

LaStella's hurt, right?  Or, dead.  Whatever.  His spot should get taken by someone who can play...does it matter whether it's an OF or an IF?  Fork is all over Andreoli, so there's your grit right there.  Which team team clearly needs.
They should probably keep a 13th pitcher, if they really are going to limit the starters a bit.  Giving Ramirez the spot is perfectly fine for me but I've been known to tolerate bullshit, so...

They start off in the AL, so they don't need to come out with as many pitchers, right?

The first two games are against the Angels but the rest of the April schedule is NL. My guess is they'll just carry 13 pitchers and not make a roster move after just 2 games. They should need fewer bench options, too, given they have no need of a pinch hitter with the DH.

[SKO]

DPD, but I also agree with Oleg that La Stella shouldn't be handed anything. He seems to have been handed a fairly secure roster spot for a dude who has done nothing but get hurt a lot.

[Quality Start Machine]

So who should make the 25 man roster?

I figure these are locks:

C Montero                               
C Ross                                     
1B Rizzo                                 
2B Zobrist
3B Bryant
SS Russell
UTIL Baez
UTIL La Stella
OF Heyward
OF Fowler
OF Schwarber
OF Soler

SP Arrieta
SP Lester
SP Lackey
SP Hammel
SP Hendricks
RP Warren
RP Wood
RP Richard
RP Cahill
RP Grimm
RP Strop
RP Rondon

So that's 12 positions players, 12 pitchers. One spot left.

Who gets the last spot? Trueblood says we need to stop being obsessed with Neil Ramirez. That roster spot should clearly go to Asian Johnny Buckets or whatever's left of Shane Victorino or Matt Murton, I guess. I don't really see anyone else that's more deserving of that spot than stashing Neil in the back of the pen and hoping his velocity comes back eventually, but Trueblood has spoken.

Does Mendy get another shot? The Artist Formerly Known As CJ Edwards?

LaStella's hurt, right?  Or, dead.  Whatever.  His spot should get taken by someone who can play...does it matter whether it's an OF or an IF?  Fork is all over Andreoli, so there's your grit right there.  Which team team clearly needs.
They should probably keep a 13th pitcher, if they really are going to limit the starters a bit.  Giving Ramirez the spot is perfectly fine for me but I've been known to tolerate bullshit, so...

Mendy's already been cut, as has Edwards.

Andreoli is a guy who can play all 3 OF positions (although I have no idea to what degree of proficiency), and he's hit almost as many HRs this spring as he has in any of his minor league seasons. So he could get the 5OF spot until he shows he's in over his head with big league pitching (or until the Cubs leave Anaheim and don't need the extra bat), at which point they can get by with 8 position players in the field and 4 on the bench, since Baez covers every position but catcher, a position they have 3 guys for. Plus, all the guys who are in the pen who have been starters should get plenty of work early, since Maddon's not going to want the starters going 120 pitches a start in April.

I will now sit back and watch events unfold and prove me completely wrong.

[PenFoe]

3rd best rotation in baseball, per Fangraphs.

[SKO]

3rd best rotation in baseball, per Fangraphs.

I realize they're just taking projected WAR and ranking accordingly but I can't agree with the Dodgers at #2 while half of their pitching staff is injured already. I know Friedman just collected like 9 #3 starters to put behind Kershaw with the idea that they can't ALL get hurt, but that's not looking great so far, and I don't think constantly moving guys in and out of the rotation due to injury will work out that well.

[Eli]

3rd best rotation in baseball, per Fangraphs.

I realize they're just taking projected WAR and ranking accordingly but I can't agree with the Dodgers at #2 while half of their pitching staff is injured already. I know Friedman just collected like 9 #3 starters to put behind Kershaw with the idea that they can't ALL get hurt, but that's not looking great so far, and I don't think constantly moving guys in and out of the rotation due to injury will work out that well.

There's also an opportunity cost to depth, in terms of the time and starts used up while trying to figure out which of their 9 starters should form a rotation behind Kershaw. If someone gets hurt, they won't automatically know the next-best option to slot in.

[SKO]

3rd best rotation in baseball, per Fangraphs.

I realize they're just taking projected WAR and ranking accordingly but I can't agree with the Dodgers at #2 while half of their pitching staff is injured already. I know Friedman just collected like 9 #3 starters to put behind Kershaw with the idea that they can't ALL get hurt, but that's not looking great so far, and I don't think constantly moving guys in and out of the rotation due to injury will work out that well.

There's also an opportunity cost to depth, in terms of the time and starts used up while trying to figure out which of their 9 starters should form a rotation behind Kershaw. If someone gets hurt, they won't automatically know the next-best option to slot in.

Right, he literally took the approach a lot of Cubs fans wanted last season, which was "save the money, don't get Lester, sign Justin Masterson/Brandon McCarthy etc. etc, if you sign 5 of them, surely 2-3 will work out!"

The 2014 Cubs could do this, but a team trying to contend can't really afford having 3 or 4 guys turn out to be injury riddled husks who get shelled for 4-5 starts each before they get replaced by another group of guys with #3 starter upside and considerably low floors who might also get hurt/shelled for 4-5 starts etc. It was the right move for the Cubs to sign Lester and it would have been the right move for the Dodgers to just suck it up and pay Greinke what he wanted.

[Quality Start Machine]

3rd best rotation in baseball, per Fangraphs.

I realize they're just taking projected WAR and ranking accordingly but I can't agree with the Dodgers at #2 while half of their pitching staff is injured already. I know Friedman just collected like 9 #3 starters to put behind Kershaw with the idea that they can't ALL get hurt, but that's not looking great so far, and I don't think constantly moving guys in and out of the rotation due to injury will work out that well.

Considering how many guys the Cubs have that can take starts, you don't think they'll move guys in and out of the rotation?

[SKO]

3rd best rotation in baseball, per Fangraphs.

I realize they're just taking projected WAR and ranking accordingly but I can't agree with the Dodgers at #2 while half of their pitching staff is injured already. I know Friedman just collected like 9 #3 starters to put behind Kershaw with the idea that they can't ALL get hurt, but that's not looking great so far, and I don't think constantly moving guys in and out of the rotation due to injury will work out that well.

Considering how many guys the Cubs have that can take starts, you don't think they'll move guys in and out of the rotation?

I mean every team has spot starters and guys that get hurt, but that's a bug, not a feature. The Dodgers entire rotation is Kershaw and 8 interchangeable #3 starters who all have injury red flags, and no real idea of what their ideal rotation is. I don't think instability to that degree is a good thing.

I mean to put it in Cubs terms it'd be like if the Cubs rotation was just Arrieta, Lackey, and Hammel/Hendricks/Richard/Cahill/Pierce Johnson/Some other middling FA types, except Hendricks and Hammel both have had Tommy John disease in the past. There probably is 60% chance of finding 2-3 effective starters in that group, but there's also a 40% chance that you just have a really shitty rotation when you had ample resources to ensure you didn't.

[Oleg]

3rd best rotation in baseball, per Fangraphs.

I realize they're just taking projected WAR and ranking accordingly but I can't agree with the Dodgers at #2 while half of their pitching staff is injured already. I know Friedman just collected like 9 #3 starters to put behind Kershaw with the idea that they can't ALL get hurt, but that's not looking great so far, and I don't think constantly moving guys in and out of the rotation due to injury will work out that well.

Considering how many guys the Cubs have that can take starts, you don't think they'll move guys in and out of the rotation?

I mean every team has spot starters and guys that get hurt, but that's a bug, not a feature. The Dodgers entire rotation is Kershaw and 8 interchangeable #3 starters who all have injury red flags, and no real idea of what their ideal rotation is. I don't think instability to that degree is a good thing.

I mean to put it in Cubs terms it'd be like if the Cubs rotation was just Arrieta, Lackey, and Hammel/Hendricks/Richard/Cahill/Pierce Johnson/Some other middling FA types, except Hendricks and Hammel both have had Tommy John disease in the past. There probably is 60% chance of finding 2-3 effective starters in that group, but there's also a 40% chance that you just have a really shitty rotation when you had ample resources to ensure you didn't.

The whole thing is based on the notion that Kershaw is like having two aces.  My problem with that is that he's still not throwing 400 innings.  Even if he is as good as Arrieta and Lester combined he's still going to be that awesome for only 250 innings.  There's a max amount of tangible wins The Dodgers are getting out of him, even if it is 34 of his 35 starts or whatever.

Am I missing something?

[Saul Goodman]

3rd best rotation in baseball, per Fangraphs.

I realize they're just taking projected WAR and ranking accordingly but I can't agree with the Dodgers at #2 while half of their pitching staff is injured already. I know Friedman just collected like 9 #3 starters to put behind Kershaw with the idea that they can't ALL get hurt, but that's not looking great so far, and I don't think constantly moving guys in and out of the rotation due to injury will work out that well.

Considering how many guys the Cubs have that can take starts, you don't think they'll move guys in and out of the rotation?

I mean every team has spot starters and guys that get hurt, but that's a bug, not a feature. The Dodgers entire rotation is Kershaw and 8 interchangeable #3 starters who all have injury red flags, and no real idea of what their ideal rotation is. I don't think instability to that degree is a good thing.

I mean to put it in Cubs terms it'd be like if the Cubs rotation was just Arrieta, Lackey, and Hammel/Hendricks/Richard/Cahill/Pierce Johnson/Some other middling FA types, except Hendricks and Hammel both have had Tommy John disease in the past. There probably is 60% chance of finding 2-3 effective starters in that group, but there's also a 40% chance that you just have a really shitty rotation when you had ample resources to ensure you didn't.

The whole thing is based on the notion that Kershaw is like having two aces.  My problem with that is that he's still not throwing 400 innings.  Even if he is as good as Arrieta and Lester combined he's still going to be that awesome for only 250 innings.  There's a max amount of tangible wins The Dodgers are getting out of him, even if it is 34 of his 35 starts or whatever.

Am I missing something?

Maybe he's going to be both the #1 and #4 in their rotation. Outside-the-box stuff from the Dodgers.

[Eli]

3rd best rotation in baseball, per Fangraphs.

I realize they're just taking projected WAR and ranking accordingly but I can't agree with the Dodgers at #2 while half of their pitching staff is injured already. I know Friedman just collected like 9 #3 starters to put behind Kershaw with the idea that they can't ALL get hurt, but that's not looking great so far, and I don't think constantly moving guys in and out of the rotation due to injury will work out that well.

Considering how many guys the Cubs have that can take starts, you don't think they'll move guys in and out of the rotation?

I mean every team has spot starters and guys that get hurt, but that's a bug, not a feature. The Dodgers entire rotation is Kershaw and 8 interchangeable #3 starters who all have injury red flags, and no real idea of what their ideal rotation is. I don't think instability to that degree is a good thing.

I mean to put it in Cubs terms it'd be like if the Cubs rotation was just Arrieta, Lackey, and Hammel/Hendricks/Richard/Cahill/Pierce Johnson/Some other middling FA types, except Hendricks and Hammel both have had Tommy John disease in the past. There probably is 60% chance of finding 2-3 effective starters in that group, but there's also a 40% chance that you just have a really shitty rotation when you had ample resources to ensure you didn't.

The whole thing is based on the notion that Kershaw is like having two aces.  My problem with that is that he's still not throwing 400 innings.  Even if he is as good as Arrieta and Lester combined he's still going to be that awesome for only 250 innings.  There's a max amount of tangible wins The Dodgers are getting out of him, even if it is 34 of his 35 starts or whatever.

Am I missing something?

I think the point is that Kershaw doesn't throw 400 innings and still puts up 8 WAR a season. That means Kershaw + some replacement-level schlub throwing 150 innings is worth ~10 WAR a season, basically the value of two aces.

[Oleg]

3rd best rotation in baseball, per Fangraphs.

I realize they're just taking projected WAR and ranking accordingly but I can't agree with the Dodgers at #2 while half of their pitching staff is injured already. I know Friedman just collected like 9 #3 starters to put behind Kershaw with the idea that they can't ALL get hurt, but that's not looking great so far, and I don't think constantly moving guys in and out of the rotation due to injury will work out that well.

Considering how many guys the Cubs have that can take starts, you don't think they'll move guys in and out of the rotation?

I mean every team has spot starters and guys that get hurt, but that's a bug, not a feature. The Dodgers entire rotation is Kershaw and 8 interchangeable #3 starters who all have injury red flags, and no real idea of what their ideal rotation is. I don't think instability to that degree is a good thing.

I mean to put it in Cubs terms it'd be like if the Cubs rotation was just Arrieta, Lackey, and Hammel/Hendricks/Richard/Cahill/Pierce Johnson/Some other middling FA types, except Hendricks and Hammel both have had Tommy John disease in the past. There probably is 60% chance of finding 2-3 effective starters in that group, but there's also a 40% chance that you just have a really shitty rotation when you had ample resources to ensure you didn't.

The whole thing is based on the notion that Kershaw is like having two aces.  My problem with that is that he's still not throwing 400 innings.  Even if he is as good as Arrieta and Lester combined he's still going to be that awesome for only 250 innings.  There's a max amount of tangible wins The Dodgers are getting out of him, even if it is 34 of his 35 starts or whatever.

Am I missing something?

I think the point is that Kershaw doesn't throw 400 innings and still puts up 8 WAR a season. That means Kershaw + some replacement-level schlub throwing 150 innings is worth ~10 WAR a season, basically the value of two aces.

Ah.  That's reasonable.

[Tonker]

3rd best rotation in baseball, per Fangraphs.

I realize they're just taking projected WAR and ranking accordingly but I can't agree with the Dodgers at #2 while half of their pitching staff is injured already. I know Friedman just collected like 9 #3 starters to put behind Kershaw with the idea that they can't ALL get hurt, but that's not looking great so far, and I don't think constantly moving guys in and out of the rotation due to injury will work out that well.

Considering how many guys the Cubs have that can take starts, you don't think they'll move guys in and out of the rotation?

I mean every team has spot starters and guys that get hurt, but that's a bug, not a feature. The Dodgers entire rotation is Kershaw and 8 interchangeable #3 starters who all have injury red flags, and no real idea of what their ideal rotation is. I don't think instability to that degree is a good thing.

I mean to put it in Cubs terms it'd be like if the Cubs rotation was just Arrieta, Lackey, and Hammel/Hendricks/Richard/Cahill/Pierce Johnson/Some other middling FA types, except Hendricks and Hammel both have had Tommy John disease in the past. There probably is 60% chance of finding 2-3 effective starters in that group, but there's also a 40% chance that you just have a really shitty rotation when you had ample resources to ensure you didn't.

The whole thing is based on the notion that Kershaw is like having two aces.  My problem with that is that he's still not throwing 400 innings.  Even if he is as good as Arrieta and Lester combined he's still going to be that awesome for only 250 innings.  There's a max amount of tangible wins The Dodgers are getting out of him, even if it is 34 of his 35 starts or whatever.

Am I missing something?

I think the point is that Kershaw doesn't throw 400 innings and still puts up 8 WAR a season. That means Kershaw + some replacement-level schlub throwing 150 innings is worth ~10 WAR a season, basically the value of two aces.

Aren't you more likely to win two games out of two with two starters who give up three runs each, rather than with two starters who give up 1 run in one, and 5 in the other?  Do you swee what I'm getting at?  Am I missing the point?

[SKO]

3rd best rotation in baseball, per Fangraphs.

I realize they're just taking projected WAR and ranking accordingly but I can't agree with the Dodgers at #2 while half of their pitching staff is injured already. I know Friedman just collected like 9 #3 starters to put behind Kershaw with the idea that they can't ALL get hurt, but that's not looking great so far, and I don't think constantly moving guys in and out of the rotation due to injury will work out that well.

Considering how many guys the Cubs have that can take starts, you don't think they'll move guys in and out of the rotation?

I mean every team has spot starters and guys that get hurt, but that's a bug, not a feature. The Dodgers entire rotation is Kershaw and 8 interchangeable #3 starters who all have injury red flags, and no real idea of what their ideal rotation is. I don't think instability to that degree is a good thing.

I mean to put it in Cubs terms it'd be like if the Cubs rotation was just Arrieta, Lackey, and Hammel/Hendricks/Richard/Cahill/Pierce Johnson/Some other middling FA types, except Hendricks and Hammel both have had Tommy John disease in the past. There probably is 60% chance of finding 2-3 effective starters in that group, but there's also a 40% chance that you just have a really shitty rotation when you had ample resources to ensure you didn't.

The whole thing is based on the notion that Kershaw is like having two aces.  My problem with that is that he's still not throwing 400 innings.  Even if he is as good as Arrieta and Lester combined he's still going to be that awesome for only 250 innings.  There's a max amount of tangible wins The Dodgers are getting out of him, even if it is 34 of his 35 starts or whatever.

Am I missing something?

I think the point is that Kershaw doesn't throw 400 innings and still puts up 8 WAR a season. That means Kershaw + some replacement-level schlub throwing 150 innings is worth ~10 WAR a season, basically the value of two aces.

Aren't you more likely to win two games out of two with two starters who give up three runs each, rather than with two starters who give up 1 run in one, and 5 in the other?  Do you swee what I'm getting at?  Am I missing the point?

This is where I run into issues with WAR, even as much as I like it as tool for individual player evaluations. I can't buy that even if Clayton Kershaw is guaranteed to pitch 34 games with a  0.00 ERA, and his team is guaranteed to go 34-0 in those starts, but he's paired with 4 replacement level starting pitchers, that the Dodgers are still going to end up out performing a team that just has 1 or 2 lesser aces and 3 decent back of the rotation options.