The Cubs already have 4 guys in their bullpen with better ERAs than Trevor Cahill and his 3.07. And Cahill will be coming back off the DL before the postseason to give them a 5th competent arm. Travis Wood is the only member of that group of 5 who doesn't have a double-digit K/9. Plus they just got Joe Nathan off the DL. That's not a great bullpen, but it's a very good bullpen. It's above average. They didn't need to add 3 arms. They should have skipped Chapman and just traded for Montgomery and Smith if they felt the need to add.

From another angle, if you're interested in dominance, aside from the K numbers (which trail only the Mets and Marlins among NL bullpens), the only team in the bigs whose bullpen allows a lower batting average is the Dodgers, and only the Dodgers and Cardinals hold opponents to a better OPS. So quite possibly the Cubs have been somewhat unlucky not to have a better bullpen ERA with the group they already had.

I agree it seems like overkill, but it's the Cubs. They haven't won in 110 years. Theo clearly wants to make sure they are as stacked as they possibly can be going into the postseason.

And the last significant thing is that only the Blue Jays have used their bullpen less than the Cubs this year. Makes even less sense to give up a top-25 type prospect for another bullpen arm to help bolster a bullpen that isn't called upon all that much.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/3/2016 4:27:00 PM (view original):
BL is being retarded again. Rivera was a HUGE factor for the Yanks for the exact reason you mention. A great reliever changes how both teams play. A good reliever doesn't.

I don't think it's true that a great reliever changes how both teams play. Rivera was great, but I'd be willing to bet that the Yankees would have won just as many championships with a guy who was just a good closer.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/3/2016 4:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/3/2016 4:27:00 PM (view original):
BL is being retarded again. Rivera was a HUGE factor for the Yanks for the exact reason you mention. A great reliever changes how both teams play. A good reliever doesn't.

I don't think it's true that a great reliever changes how both teams play. Rivera was great, but I'd be willing to bet that the Yankees would have won just as many championships with a guy who was just a good closer.

Actually, I might take that back. Looking at his postseason game log, he had a lot of 2 inning appearances. I think Rivera is just a different species.

He's beyond great and Chapman, at least right now, is not at Rivera's level.

I would say that, at least right now, Chapman absolutely is at Rivera's level. Mariano's thing was longevity, not peak. Since the beginning of 2012, Chapman has a 1.91 ERA. That's pretty darn Mariano-esque. Not equal to the best 4-year stretches in Mariano's career, but comfortably in line with his standards.

I just don't see it making sense since Rondon has already established himself as a top closer, and Strop is on pace to put up a sub-3 ERA yet again, as he has in each of his 3 previous seasons with the Cubs. And they already had a potentially very strong addition with Nathan coming off the DL.

The main difference between Rivera and Chapman is Rivera had many saves of over 1 inning. I can't remember the last time Chapman pitched more than 1 inning.

Posted by dahsdebater on 8/3/2016 5:19:00 PM (view original):
I would say that, at least right now, Chapman absolutely is at Rivera's level. Mariano's thing was longevity, not peak. Since the beginning of 2012, Chapman has a 1.91 ERA. That's pretty darn Mariano-esque. Not equal to the best 4-year stretches in Mariano's career, but comfortably in line with his standards.

I just don't see it making sense since Rondon has already established himself as a top closer, and Strop is on pace to put up a sub-3 ERA yet again, as he has in each of his 3 previous seasons with the Cubs. And they already had a potentially very strong addition with Nathan coming off the DL.

Not to quibble over a minor detail because, on the whole, we agree. But Rivera's thing was also peak dominance. Chapman's ERA+ this year is 214. Rivera had 12 seasons better than that.

Posted by dahsdebater on 8/3/2016 2:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 8/2/2016 8:33:00 PM (view original):
No surplus? Looking past the top 3, I see Basabe, Hernandez, Chavez, Dubon, Longhi, and that isn't including their pitchers. That's surplus, and those guys have value.

For Pedroia, Just when are you expecting Moncada to 'replace' Pedroia? He ain't going anywhere. I think he's signed til 2020. And isn't he like a top 5-7 2B in WAR?

I think Shaw has a .800+ OPS in .500+ career ABs. Thats not production I think they are in any rush to replace.

So for Moncana and Devers, I really don't see them getting a shot until either Pedroia gets traded or Shaw stumbles.

At this point you're looking fairly far into the future, it's hard to say what your team needs are going to be 3-4 years down the road.

I guess it's just a different philosophy. If I'm the GM of a young and talented team, I want to hang on to my future and not sell out for any one given season when I have many bright years coming. As I think I said earlier, in prospect-for-veteran trades, the team trading the prospects usually gives up a lot more than they get in return for the certainty of getting that known quantity. If my outlook for 2017, 18, 19, 20, etc. is as good as the Red Sox outlook is, I don't want to give up a ton of future value for less substantial current value.

From the same perspective, I felt the Cubs' Chapman trade was ridiculous. Even if they'd given up substantially less I wouldn't like it. They look like a team that has many more good seasons coming. No reason to trade huge future value for half a season of a closer. Especially when they already had a very solid bullpen. And to actually make multiple bullpen trades... feels ridiculous to me. ESPN gave the Cubs front office an A+ grade for their trade deadline activity. I couldn't disagree more. I think that's based on some very shallow thinking. It doesn't have to be "we're contending this year, we have to buy" if we're going to be at least as good for the foreseeable future. The Joe Smith trade was more reasonable. Give up a mediocre prospect for a mediocre arm. Nothing wrong with that. But giving up a prospect of the caliber of Torres + more for a half-season of any reliever is a bad deal for a team that's going to be good when Torres could be contributing. I really don't like Vogelbach for Montgomery, either, but if the Cubs didn't really buy into Vogelbach then it's not so bad. If they did buy into him, the truly bold move would have been to trade Rizzo and a prospect or 2 for a top starting pitcher in the offseason.

The Red Sox are built to win now. They have a great advantage over the other teams in their division in prospects. 'Hanging on to the future' doesn't help you win now.

"If my outlook for 2017, 18, 19, 20, etc. is as good as the Red Sox outlook is, I don't want to give up a ton of future value for less substantial current value."

They made all those signings including David Price to put themselves in a position to win in 2016. If they have a young and talented team, which they do now, why would they put off adding a piece that can help them win now so - maybe - those prospects - might - be major league players in 2 years. Moncana I can understand holding on to. The others?

How many years did they sign Price for?

Posted by bad_luck on 8/3/2016 6:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 8/3/2016 5:19:00 PM (view original):
I would say that, at least right now, Chapman absolutely is at Rivera's level. Mariano's thing was longevity, not peak. Since the beginning of 2012, Chapman has a 1.91 ERA. That's pretty darn Mariano-esque. Not equal to the best 4-year stretches in Mariano's career, but comfortably in line with his standards.

I just don't see it making sense since Rondon has already established himself as a top closer, and Strop is on pace to put up a sub-3 ERA yet again, as he has in each of his 3 previous seasons with the Cubs. And they already had a potentially very strong addition with Nathan coming off the DL.

Not to quibble over a minor detail because, on the whole, we agree. But Rivera's thing was also peak dominance. Chapman's ERA+ this year is 214. Rivera had 12 seasons better than that.

When your ERA is under 2 ERA+ is not really a very useful metric anymore.

Posted by wylie715 on 8/3/2016 6:04:00 PM (view original):
The main difference between Rivera and Chapman is Rivera had many saves of over 1 inning. I can't remember the last time Chapman pitched more than 1 inning.

This was mostly a postseason phenomenon, so we'll have to wait and see how Chapman is deployed in equivalent scenarios.

Once Rivera became a full-time closer, he averaged 1.07 innings game. Chapman is at 1.00. Pitching a 2nd inning 7% of the time is not a huge bonus.

Posted by dahsdebater on 8/3/2016 9:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/3/2016 6:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 8/3/2016 5:19:00 PM (view original):
I would say that, at least right now, Chapman absolutely is at Rivera's level. Mariano's thing was longevity, not peak. Since the beginning of 2012, Chapman has a 1.91 ERA. That's pretty darn Mariano-esque. Not equal to the best 4-year stretches in Mariano's career, but comfortably in line with his standards.

I just don't see it making sense since Rondon has already established himself as a top closer, and Strop is on pace to put up a sub-3 ERA yet again, as he has in each of his 3 previous seasons with the Cubs. And they already had a potentially very strong addition with Nathan coming off the DL.

Not to quibble over a minor detail because, on the whole, we agree. But Rivera's thing was also peak dominance. Chapman's ERA+ this year is 214. Rivera had 12 seasons better than that.

When your ERA is under 2 ERA+ is not really a very useful metric anymore.

I don't know if that's necessarily true. A 1.80 ERA in 1999 is a different accomplishment than a 1.80 ERA in 2015.

I would argue that the margin is pretty small between the 2.

Over his 7-year peak from 1997-2003, Pedro had a 2.20 ERA and a 213 ERA+. Over the past 7+ seasons, Kershaw has a 2.26 ERA and a 165 ERA+. Which do you think is a fairer representation of their relative quality, the similar ERA or the wildly different ERA+? Do you honestly believe, having watched both of these guys, that Kershaw is almost as close to an average pitcher as he is to Pedro in his prime? I don't buy that. Transport Pedro to the post-steroid era pitching home games in Dodger Stadium. Do you think he's closer to keeping his ERA of 2.20 or his ERA+ of 213, which would require an ERA of about 1.6-1.65? The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but for a 7-year sustained stretch, I'd be willing to bet he winds up quite a bit closer to the former. If you put him in Koufax's place pitching home games in Dodger in the mid-60s, to keep his ERA+ he'd need an ERA starting with 1.4. Over 7 seasons. I have a very hard time believing he could do that. I have a very hard time believing he was that much better than Koufax in his prime, when about 75% of the country thought Koufax was the greatest thing they'd ever seen. If you put 2003 Gagne into 2013, does his ERA really drop by 25% with the league run-scoring environment, down to 0.90? I doubt it. At the point that your ERA is that low, you're basically giving up runs when somebody guesses well or when you make a mistake. The frequency of those events doesn't change much with run-scoring environment.