Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 784: The Cubs Are Kinda Good

Episode Date: December 11, 2015

Ben and Sam discuss whether signing Jason Heyward makes the Cubs the best team in baseball.

Jason, you're the only one Jason, like a steady sun Like that, you're the only one Take that, when the runners come Hello and welcome to episode 784 of Effectively Wild, the daily podcast from Baseball Perspectus, presented by the Play Index at BaseballReference.com. I'm Ben Lindberg of FiveThirtyEight, joined by Sam Miller of Baseball Perspectus. Hello. Yo. Came very close to not doing a podcast today.

We announced that we were not doing a podcast today. It's kind of crunch time for the book right now. But in the end, we are still a daily podcast. We're doing a quick one on the Jason Hayward signing by the Cubs. We talked about Hayward some yesterday, but we will talk a little bit about how he fits in with his new team. We don't even know the terms yet as we are recording. The only thing we know is that the deal is supposedly for less than $200 million, which I guess based on our conversation, that alone is maybe enough to say that you like this deal?

Probably. What would be the, you know, I could envision ways I wouldn't if it were six years, probably. I wouldn't like it. Well, sure, yeah. If it were, I mean, if you imagine a opt-out where, say, Hayward gets $30 million for the for the first three like let's say it's eight years and 200 rounding rounding off eight years and 200 and the first i would imagine it will be something very close to that and like let's say hypothetically the first three were for 100 million dollars like that it's just heavily front loaded and then after that he gets an opt-out

where you really can't i mean hayward's gonna be let's say there was an opt-out after three again like who knows hypothetically i mean i'm giving hypotheticals because the only other way to say it is oh yeah jason hayward's good and adding him is good if you don't know any of the terms so all right so three years and an opt-out he'll be 29 when the opt-out would kick in. And so there'd be a lot of potential upside left. And if it were heavily front loaded so that you're really locking in a lot of expensive years at the front and giving up any hope of that at the end, I would readjust my opt-out math, I guess I'm saying. Otherwise, yeah, I mean, yeah, sure.

What did I say? What did I say? 220 yesterday? Yesterday you said 240. 240, yeah. So that's less than this. You also, and I hate to bring this up. I love to bring this up.

You took the over on the Odin nine years and 207. This is not the best one for me this is it is really striking how badly i've done on this one it's been a disaster it has been yeah might not it might not do that anymore um so there was a an article today at bp by matt trueblood about basically the things that we said about Hayward yesterday, about the Verducci article, all the baseball men expressing doubts about Hayward and Matt sort of defending Hayward. And we probably don't need to make that case again. We've said it in the past. Most people listening to this podcast probably appreciate Jason Hayward's merits.

So maybe the more interesting thing here is how he fits into the Cubs. The first tweet I got after this signing was from someone who said that maybe the Cubs will be the MLB Golden State Warriors that we were lamenting the non-existence of yesterday. I think that is probably a bit premature. On the other hand, when you look at the Cubs' depth chart right now, it's a pretty intimidating team, I would say. Right, so they take last year's team, but they replace Fowler basically with Hayward. I mean, in one way of swapping it out.

They replace Castroro with zobrist they replace and you get they have a full year full seasons of schwarber russell right full seasons of schwarber russell uh and even fuller season of bryant and you have uh all those guys a year older everybody moving toward uh the good ages rather than away from the good ages. And you have added John Lackey to the rotation. And there is not, there's still seems to me, there's absolutely nothing about the Cubs situation that you would look at this and prohibit them from making another move tomorrow. I mean, they have, they have pieces to give up. I mean, they could trade, they could trade top prospects. They could trade depth prospects without even noticing.

And, uh, I mean, certainly Javier Baez, Javi Baez is, looks like a redundant piece who would have tremendous, tremendous trade value right now if they wanted to do that. Uh, and I still contend that there's no reason to think that the cubs can't spend like if not quite infinite monies uh like you know top five top five payroll i mean they are they're the cubs why not yeah our our friend sahad of sharma from bp just tweeted that he's hearing that they are working on more significant moves that solaire is a possible person who could go and you're right by as makes sense too so yeah normally you can't just do the thing where you look at a 97 win team and you just say okay they're a 97 win team and oh everything real quick you can finish that but uh john marosi

just tweeted cubs have had trade dialogue with the ind, parentheses, Carlos Carrasco, Danny Salazar. So just imagine having Carlos Carrasco now in this rotation. And yeah, it's good. And they apparently can just, like, there's no shortage of lousy starters that they can turn into dominant relievers as well. That too, sure. Yeah, normally you can't just look at a 97-win team and say that whatever made them a 97-win team still exists and everything else is on top of

that. Like that's a trap that you can fall into because usually when you're a 97-win team, a lot of things had to go right and there were maybe some fluky performances and so you project some regression there or you're losing good players that sort of thing but you look at the cubs and i mean you wouldn't really project anyone to be that much worse than they were i mean arietta maybe will will not be cy young winner again yes he maybe will not he will not be exactly what he was in the second half but possibly allow a run in the second half next season exactly but other than that i mean you know rizzo was really good but rizzo is really good he was basically as good as he was the year before and hayward is going to be better than fowler was even though Fowler was good and right there's no reason not

to expect Bryant to be as good or better Russell to be as good or better Schwarber maybe might not be as good on a per plate appearance basis but he'll have many more plate appearances exactly I would be very surprised honestly if he were that good and yeah uh but he, you know, he'll be more valuable. Right. Yeah. Full season. And, uh, you, you might argue that Montero is both coming off a better year than he had shown and is at an age where you'd expect decline from a catcher and they don't have, uh, they don't enter the season with the same sort of depth that they did last year. And David Ross is also older

now on the other hand maybe you argue that schwarber can hang for 60 games at catcher and that changes everything i don't know yeah if you're i don't know if people are arguing that i i kind of buy it i don't know yeah that was one of the last things i wrote for grantland what do you do with schwarber and yeah and and lester was was lester-. He could be Lester-esque again, and now they have Lackey. And you would expect to get more out of Soler if Soler is still around. So there isn't a whole lot of... You can't really point to a whole lot of positions where they should be worse than they were last year,

and now you can point to a couple where they should be better. It's definitely one of those lineups that people will be like, this is the thousand run lineup and then it will score 800 because something always happens and no team scores that many runs. But it is pretty intimidating. There's no weak spot. If the weak spot is Addison Russell, there's no real weak spot. Yeah, I think the weak spot is probably catcher.

Yeah, I mean, Montero's fine. That's what I'm saying. Russell's fine. That's the worst you can say about any spot is that it's average. It's a good team it's a really good team and this is sort of similar to the the granky signing in a way and that by signing granky the diamondbacks deprived their division rivals of granky and the cubs have now done the same with hayward in that hayward was good for the Cardinals last year. And if the Cubs hadn't signed him, the Cardinals might have re-signed him.

So there's potential to steal some Hayward wins from St. Louis. And yeah, I mean, what would you even do to put the finishing touches on the Cubs right now? I mean, what could be better? I guess your fifth starter. right now i mean what what could be better i guess your your fifth starter uh well i would kind of sort of rephrase that as your second starter i mean i i i've i've always been kind of i think kind of the low guy on john lester just as a career uh and he's good but he's still uh you know if the dodgers had kershaw and Granke, the Cubs don't have that one-two.

Lester is not that guy who you write in the win in game two. He's a good guy. He can hang with anybody. He's a great player to have on your team and so on. It's just that he's not the sure win. And so, I don't know. I mean, if you could, go get jose fernandez then you have uh then you have your you know number four starter is john lackey uh and you can pretty much roll through the postseason without ever going to a starting pitcher who's not favored in that game

it's always nice yeah and i don't't know if BP has team level projections yet, or if that's something that comes next year, but the, based on the fan graphs, depth charts before this move, the Dodgers and the Cubs were kind of in their own little tier one and two, about four wins above anyone else. And the Cubs were about a win and a half behind the Dodgers. And that was with no Hayward. So projecting Hayward for whatever, four wins or something, you would expect them to leapfrog the Dodgers and be projected to be the best team in baseball. That probably doesn't take into account schedule and maybe they'll have a tougher schedule than most teams. But still, as we look at the roster right now, before they make other moves,

you could make a pretty good case that the Cubs are the best team in baseball. Yes. As they are now, I think that they are undeniably the best team in baseball. And they're only going to get better between now and opening day, barring injuries. Probably. That is probably true. It would not make much sense for them to start getting worse. Do you think that if you're, for instance, if you're the Pirates,

does this change what you're doing at all? Are there any teams that their strategy changes now because there is such a clear powerhouse in the division and or league for you know the next two or three years everyone is still good enough that you could envision all three teams making it again just like last year yeah so probably not i don't know if it affects things for the i mean the Brewers and Reds are already sort of just languishing or rebuilding as it is. And the other teams are still good enough to contend.

You could almost maybe argue, maybe that it's good news for the Pirates. Maybe because the Cubs winning the division and the cardinals being the wild card is much better for the other wild card team than the cardinals winning the division and the cubs winning the wild card you know the cardinals just don't have something like arietta that they can throw at you so if you have right yeah i mean if you're that if you're that i mean sure it could turn out that wayne wright comes back and is a top five pitcher, but it's less likely than that Arrieta will be. One game playoff is essentially having an entire series where you only face the best pitcher.

So if you are the Pirates and you're looking at having to go through Arrieta or go through Wainwright to get to the next round, Wainwright not knowing how Wainwright will be, not knowing anything about what Wainwright will be next year you but that's a stretch too i mean it does kind of uh does kind of lower the pirates aspirations to fourth straight wild card yes yes and also they probably it is it is overwhelmingly likely that the pirates and cardinals will not be the two wild cards somebody else will sneak in or one of those two will end up winning the division or one of those two will end up you know winning 78 games because baseball so it's not like anybody's planning around who the

likely wild card starter is going to be against them next next October like the Pirates I just imagine Neil Huntington seeing this news and like you know sort of clapping his hands together and going done we're good i mean that's not really likely all right well that's depressing yeah so um uh so what i guess the and home field by the way home field in all three of those so in a world with one wild card they would have been in the playoffs all three times. Yeah. So that's, that's depressing. That's really what's depressing.

So I don't know what the Cubs do in the outfield. They don't really have a true center fielder right now on their MLB depth charts.com depth chart. Jason Hayward is listed as the center fielder. Why do you think Hayward is it? Why? What is the story for why Hay is listed as the center fielder why do you think hayward is why what is the story for why hayward is not a center fielder i mean when he came up who did they have that in center field and did they have uh that guy uh who was always with the pirates and the braves uh 2010 2010 yeah they had nate mcleod they had Nate McLeod. Blocked by Nate McLeod, who batted 190 that year.

Yeah, but I mean, he was going to play and he had won a gold glove. He had won a quote gold glove and quote one year in 2008. So I mean, it's like it's not whether he was blocked as a player by Nate McLeod, but whether it was just if that's why if Nate McLeod, but whether it was just, if that's why, if, if Nate McLeod was seen as being a center fielder that Hayward and right fit better than McLeod than right. And that McLeod and center fit at least as well,

or better than a rookie Hayward. And so I don't know. I mean, I'm wondering if that's, if you can explain if I'm wondering if you can explain Hayward being in right field exclusively through the center fielders at the Braves have had through the years because they did go out they they went out and got born who was obviously a center fielder and not a right fielder they went out and got upped in who is and so then are they getting those center fielders because they don't

think Hayward could be a center fielder or is Hayward a right fielder just because they got those center fielders yeah well Hayward was never a center fielder in the minors i mean he played the occasional game there but he was a right fielder all the way through so it wasn't like he moved when he got to the majors to accommodate someone else good point and yeah i mean people have speculated about whether he could play center and and if you i mean if you think that he can play center if you if that's what the cubs think then he's a even bigger bargain i mean if everyone else sees him as a right fielder and you see him as a center fielder then you should sign jason hayward because he's going to be a better deal for you if he can actually do it if you're right about that and i don't know people always

talk about this with corner outfielders who have great defensive ratings, like Carl Crawford, who just didn't want to play center, wasn't comfortable playing center. Hayward has played the occasional game there. I don't know. I mean, I've read articles about why he isn't one, and it seems like it's because he's big. He's very tall, and he doesn't fit the center field profile. And maybe there are actual scouting reasons for it. But you would think, I mean, so he's played 233 innings in center. He hasn't committed an error.

And he's got pretty decent defensive ratings in that small sample so you know i mean how bad could he be like shinsu chu played center a couple years ago and he was he was bad but he did it you can do it hayward wouldn't be that bad so if you stick him in center and then you have schwarber and soler or whoever flanking you I mean it's still probably going to be a better defensive outfield because the Cubs had a lousy defensive outfield last year they ranked 27th in outfield defensive run saved at negative 26 so you would think just I mean just plugging Hayward in there even as a center fielder, how bad could he be?

And his bat would obviously be far above par at that position. So it's worth a shot. I'm trying to remember where. I think Matt Trueblood wrote this, and I'm trying to remember where he wrote it. And so now I'm looking at all the various places that Matt Trueblood has written in the last year. But I think that Matt made the case that the Cubs have, this regime has been comfortable punting center field defense, maybe because it's a Wrigley thing,

but that it has never been a priority for them and that they've put a lot of guys out there who are average or worse at center field. And so, yeah, this might be, that might be their plan. It'd be nice to know if we knew. It'd be nice if Theo were here. Yeah. Let me look up. I can, I have a list of the square footage of each stadium's outfield by field.

I can see where Wrigley ranks on that list. Center field, square footage, Wrigley ranks third fewest square feet in center at Wrigley. Goes Angel Stadium, 32,900 feet. Nationals Park, 33,200. Fenway Park, 33,200. And then fourth, I guessigley field 33 500 so it's a small center field so if that means that you can get away with a a less speedy rangy center fielder then they should be able to do that all right we'd love to keep talking about this for a long time but as we discussed we have another thing to do soon so let's yeah we should wrap it up it's a bonus podcast so every minute was a gift how how how much uh ben how much would uh how much lower than 200 million dollars would this have to be for you to be convinced that this fits the lackey zobrist conversation we had about

whether players are taking less to be part of Chicago's big historic moment. Yeah, well, Heyman said in his tweet, apparently taking less to be at Addison and Clark because there was a report that the Nationals had offered him $200 million. So if he is taking less, and you speculated about Zobris taking less to play for the Cubs, and he said it was because it's closer to his home mostly. So I don't know how much of it is Cubs factor. But yeah, I mean, why would you not want to be the final piece that makes a team into the best team in baseball? Yeah, I guess. Yeah, that's one way of putting it.

Yeah, okay. By the way, some late-breaking contract news that has come out while we've been talking. Bob Nightingale says it's an eight-year, $184 million deal. And Peter Gammons says that there are opt-outs. And I say plural, there's more than one opt-out. Jesse Rogers says that the first opt-out comes three years into the contract. So as we said earlier, he would be a free agent again after age 29. So obviously some significant value for Hayward there that makes the $184 million total somewhat deceptive, but still clearly a deal that makes the Cubs much better than they were without Hayward. Speaking of creative Cubs contract offers, so you can send us emails for the long-awaited

listener email show that we will get to next week at podcast at baseball perspectives.com. You can join our Facebook group at facebook.com slash groups slash effectively wild. And you can rate and review and subscribe to the show on iTunes, support our sponsor, the play index, go to baseball reference.com.

Use the coupon code BP and get the discounted price of $30 on a one-year subscription. If you'd like to buy our book for less than the list price, there is an Amazon sale going on right now. You can use the coupon code 25OFFBOOK to get a 25% discount on our book. The only rule is it has to work. Yeah, probably the last discount that Amazon will offer between now and then too. That's right. This is your last chance. So I think that's valid all weekend. So have a nice couple days off. We will talk to you next week. you'll ever have.