What if the Cubs had stopped making trades in 2016?
ESPN PLUS ($ MATERIAL)
Fans of contending teams eventually come to rue some of the prospects their club traded away in pursuit of the championship they all desperately wanted. But all contending teams do it. The dynamic of win-now teams dealing with win-later teams is pretty much how parity exists in 21st-century baseball.
The Chicago Cubs have been no different, not in how they built up their talent pipeline, nor in how they leveraged that talent into a pretty wide window of contention. But there is often a crossroads moment that arrives for even a smartly built team, and the Cubs could be facing it. Chicago still has reasonable hopes for another playoff run in 2019, but there is also a disaster scenario that a shaky start might portend, one in which the pitching staff crumbles at the same time the front office lacks the payroll flexibility to patch it back together.
By most accounts, the Cubs' minor league pipeline has largely been emptied through attrition and trades the past few years. Chicago's system entered the season ranked No. 29 by Baseball America, one spot better than that of the defending champion Boston Red Sox, a club that currently can empathize with the Cubs' plight. Like Chicago, Boston emptied its once-fertile system in service of the present.
But what if they had not?
Imagine this: It's Opening Day 2015, a simpler time from a once mystical past. In Chicago, the Cubs are coming off five consecutive losing seasons, a stretch that included the franchise's third 100-loss season in 140 years of existence.
But things are looking up. According to Baseball America, the Cubs' plan to pump up the farm system like the organization had never done is paying off. The publication features Chicago's top prospect -- a powerhouse third baseman named Kris Bryant -- on its cover. Inside the book, BA ranks the Cubs' system No. 1. For a franchise that hadn't won a World Series in 106 years, landing atop a ranking of minor league talent is an inadequate solace, but it's a start.
Bryant isn't on the Opening Day roster because he needs a couple of more weeks of crucial development in the minor leagues, an organizational decision that totally has nothing to do with baseball's rickety service time rules. But some still familiar names are already on the scene at Wrigley Field: pitchers Jake Arrieta, Kyle Hendricks and Pedro Strop, along with free-agent signee Jon Lester. The lineup features Anthony Rizzo, Dexter Fowler, Starlin Castro and Jorge Soler. It's a small but promising core, and with Bryant and all those other touted prospects scheduled to fill in around that group, the future looks bright.
What actually happened after that is already in the history books. Bryant arrived and was perhaps even better than advertised. The Cubs got off to a good start, added veterans such as Austin Jackson, Fernando Rodney and Dan Haren during the season and finished as the hottest team in baseball. Chicago won its last eight games to finish with 97 victories. It then beat the Pirates in the NL wild-card game, knocked off the archrival Cardinals in the division series and finally ran out of steam against the Mets in the NLCS.
The breakthrough season accelerated the Cubs' plans heading into what became a historic 2016 campaign. Pricey free agents Ben Zobrist, John Lackey and Jason Heyward were among the winter additions. Castro was traded to the Yankees, mostly because the Cubs didn't have a spot for him any longer. But all of those prospects who populated BA's best rankings list the year before were still in the organization.
What follows is 100 percent unrealistic and 100 percent unfair. It's what we in the biz call a counterfactual. That's when you take something that happened, insert some sort of "what-if" into the progression of facts and evaluate something that did not in fact occur. The hope is that the process of doing so will reveal something useful. The what-if in play today is this: What if the Cubs never traded any of the prospects who dominated that best-in-the-game system back in 2015?
First, I want to acknowledge a similar but different piece by ace Tampa Bay Rays beat writer Marc Topkin that came out this week. In his case, Topkin was examining what a team would look like if it had never traded its established players for prospects, not the other way around. The idea for this Cubs counterfactual did not come from that piece, though I guess you'd have to subpoena the emails between me and my editor to verify that.
The key question that will hover over all of this is "What about 2016?" And it's more than a fair point. The Cubs won a World Series, their first since Theodore Roosevelt was in the White House. Any moves made to reach that pinnacle had to be worth it. Professional teams exist to win championships. Flags fly forever. You get the point.
Here's my thing: We don't know for a fact that the 2016 Cubs would not have won without the in-season moves made during that memorable campaign. The first prospect-thinning move was probably the one in which Chicago shipped Dan Vogelbach and Paul Blackburn to Seattle for Mike Montgomery on July 20, 2016. At that point, the Cubs were 57-37, with a seven-game lead in the NL Central but only a half-game lead in the race for top seed overall in the senior circuit. Their run differential was easily the best in baseball.
In other words, the Cubs were the best team in the majors before they started dealing prospects. Whether they could have navigated their way to a drought-snapping title without Montgomery or Aroldis Chapman or Joe Smith is impossible to know. What we do know is that if they had stood pat that season or the season after, when the team's brain trust dealt for Jose Quintana, the Cubs would have been pilloried in the media. They would not have, in the eyes of those in the clubhouse, appeared to be all-in. It's just not the way contending teams operate. That's why this is not a realistic exercise.
The parameters here are simply that the Cubs stopped making trades after Opening Day 2016, the year after the pinnacle of their prospect ratings. Not all of those prospects were far enough along on their developmental timelines to have helped the 2016, 2017 or 2018 clubs. Some of them still haven't arrived in the majors, in fact, though most have arrived or should arrive this season. Any holes on the roster, whether from an organizational shortage or a major injury such as the one that felled Kyle Schwarber for almost the entire 2016 season, would have been filled via free agency. Presumably, those would have been short-term deals since the team had already made lengthy commitments in the market to Ben Zobrist, Jason Heyward and Lester.
Beyond that, those who left as free agents (such as Arrieta) still left. Those who were lost on waivers were still lost on waivers. Free agents added since 2015 were still signed. But in this universe, there have been no trades. If we assume all of these things and jump ahead to right now, what would the Cubs look like? First base
Actually is: Anthony Rizzo Could have been: Anthony Rizzo Would the Cubs be better off? Certainly not. They'd be the same, and that's a good thing.
No alternate timeline would change the fact that Rizzo is and would remain a cornerstone of the Cubs' franchise turnaround. Vogelbach (the Cubs' No. 25 prospect in the 2015 Baseball America Prospect Handbook) might still be around but probably wouldn't be because he would have had to be added to the 40-man roster by now, and it's no cinch that he would have made it. He wouldn't have seen much regular time at first base. Rizzo has played at least 153 games in each of the past four seasons.
With no DH in the National League and no other position that he can play, Vogelbach would have largely been a waste of a 40-man slot while he continued to mash for the Iowa Cubs. Sure, perhaps the Cubs could have kept him around as a pinch hitter, but sadly, players such as Vogelbach don't have a place on modern benches. He could have DHed in interleague games, perhaps, and gotten some time during September. It wouldn't have added up to much, so chances are he never would have made the Cubs' 40-man roster and would have been lost in a Rule 5 draft.
Plus, let's not overlook the fact that until this season, Vogelbach looked like a washout. That his OPS is more than 1.400 and he has hit six of his 10 career homers this month is a great story, but it's not one we'd be telling if Vogelbach were still with the Cubs. Second base
Baez has turned into a wonderful player, and the assumption here is that if the Cubs still had Torres to play second base, Baez would then supplant Addison Russell at shortstop.
It's the former presence of players of Torres' caliber on the Cubs' old prospect lists that leads us to this kind of inquiry in the first place. Since he arrived in the majors with the Yankees last season, Torres has put up a .274/.341/.485 slash line while creating 80 runs at the plate with roughly neutral defense when he's playing second base. Leaving Russell's off-the-field troubles to the side for the moment, his offensive development has largely stalled. Last season, Russell hit .250/.317/.340 with 46 runs created, albeit with the same outstanding (plus-13 defensive runs saved in 2018) defensive metrics. Baez can fill the defensive void at shortstop, but overall, the Cubs would be worse defensively up the middle.
Still, Torres' edge in offense would be worth the trade-off, and let's not forget, he's nearly three years younger than Russell. Shortstop
Actually is: Addison Russell Could have been: Javier Baez Would the Cubs be better off? Yes.
Really, the only other thing to add regarding the middle infield is that this winter's low-cost signing of Daniel Descalso probably would not have happened. With Baez and Torres starting up the middle and Zobrist, Russell and Ian Happ on hand to augment them, it's a crowded depth chart as it is, though since our trade ban starts on Opening Day 2016, Castro wouldn't still be around to muddy the waters even more. Third base
Actually is: Kris Bryant Could have been: Kris Bryant Would the Cubs be better off? Nope. They'd be pretty much the same.
With Torres still around, the Cubs might have been better positioned to cover for Bryant's injuries last season. Still, David Bote did well enough, and he's still in this mix looking for playing time. Also, don't forget Jeimer Candelario, who was traded during the 2017 season. Candelario was a regular in Detroit last season, racking up 50 extra-base hits and 66 walks in 144 games. However, his inability to make consistent contact has thus far undermined his value, and it's unlikely that he would have retained a spot on the Cubs' 40-man roster. Even if he had, the Cubs would likely have mostly kept him at Iowa because Bote both has been more effective at the plate and has more positional versatility. Catcher
Actually is:Willson Contreras Could have been: Willson Contreras Would the Cubs be better off? Nope. Same.
Contreras is a keeper, and it's a good thing, because while Victor Caratini is a quality backup, he isn't an every-day catcher. Of course, the Cubs might have pushed Schwarber to keep a catcher's mask in his bag, and outfielder Mark Zagunis was a minor league catcher as well. Left field
Actually is: Kyle Schwarber Could have been: Kyle Schwarber and Eloy Jimenez Would the Cubs be better off? Yes, now and in the future.
The Cubs' trade for starter Jose Quintana is a problematic one when looked at with the benefit of hindsight. Quintana's performance has been uneven since he joined the team, but he has gone 21-15 with a 3.99 ERA in a league with a 4.28 ERA during his time in Chicago. You hear about replacement level a lot more often these days because of the rise of WAR as an evaluative tool. Well, average is still in many ways a more pertinent baseline when we're talking about explaining winning teams. Quintana has been an above-average starter for the Cubs, and that value is not that easy to find.
On the other hand, in the rare blockbuster deal between the North Side and the South Side, the Cubs sent away Jimenez and pitcher Dylan Cease. Both have become elite prospects, and both are expected to occupy regular roles for the White Sox this season. Jimenez has done well already and shown signs of putting together a run at AL Rookie of the Year. Cease has yet to be summoned from Charlotte, but he's close, and his early performance in Triple-A suggests that he'll be in Chicago to join Jimenez very soon.
When it comes to the Cubs' outfield, a world in which Quintana never moves across town is a crowded one. Jimenez is too talented to be Schwarber's platoon partner. Schwarber is too good to be platooned. But that's the reality Joe Maddon would face, juggling Schwarber, Jimenez and others. Although the players involved might be too good for the smaller roles, on paper it's a killer combination. Center field
Actually is:Albert Almora Jr. and Jason Heyward Could have been: Albert Almora Jr. and Jason Heyward Would the Cubs be better off? Pretty much the same.
You can add Happ to this group of those who cover center field for Chicago, as the Cubs have produced more corner outfield options than ones who can play up the middle. Dexter Fowler held the fort here through 2016 and would have still given way to a combination of Almora and part-time position partners, such as Heyward and Jon Jay. Right field
Actually is: Jason Heyward and Ben Zobrist Could have been: Jason Heyward, Ben Zobrist and Jorge Soler Would the Cubs be better off? Yes, now and in the future.
Although we're erasing the Cubs' trades from the record books, we're not forgetting about the free-agent signings. It's hard to look at the surplus of outfielders the Cubs could have had and not think they would take back the Heyward signing if they could. There's no doubt that Heyward's offensive production has been a disappointment since he joined the Cubs. He has been roughly 8 percent below league average overall and a little worse than that for right fielders.
Still, Heyward is one of the best defenders in baseball and has been all through his Cubs career. He's a terrific baserunner, and his ability to play center field is crucial on this year's team, at least while Happ is honing his bat-to-ball skills in Triple-A. There's just so much that Heyward brings to the table on the field and in the clubhouse, and it's not too late for him to bounce back to somewhere near his former offensive ability.
The problem with Heyward's contract isn't just its lack of surplus value; it's also the opportunity cost. The money that has gone to him and was allotted to him this year could have been used to shore up a pitching staff that needs shoring up. Maybe it's just a matter of timing. The Cubs needed Heyward to win the 2016 World Series. Soler was an injury risk then and now. Jimenez was nowhere near ready to help the big club.
That's exactly why all-in teams trade future value for present value. But it doesn't make it less painful when the future arrives. Bench
Could have been: Some combination of Ben Zobrist, Addison Russell, David Bote, Jorge Soler, Eloy Jimenez and Victor Caratini.
Would the Cubs be better off? Yes, that's a loaded bench.
My gosh. That is a lot of mouths to feed, and this list leaves off Happ, Candelario, Vogelbach, Mark Zagunis and Billy McKinney. When the Cubs set out to produce big league position players, they were not messing around. Rotation
Actually is: Jon Lester, Kyle Hendricks, Jose Quintana, Yu Darvish, Cole Hamels Could have been: Jon Lester, Kyle Hendricks, Yu Darvish, Dylan Cease, Paul Blackburn Would the Cubs be better off? Probably not yet but soon.
Hendricks came to the Cubs in the 2012 trade that sent Ryan Dempster to Texas. Hendricks and Lester, whose signing served notice that Chicago's rebuild was nearing its end, have been the constants in the rotation. The other spot that is sort of a constant is the one Arrieta occupied, which was filled by the Darvish signing. At the moment, most Cubs fans would probably prefer that Arrieta had been the one to land the contract Darvish received. There is plenty of time, however, for Darvish to change that narrative.
I discussed the Quintana trade. Not dealing for him might have boosted the outfield depth, but it opens a rotation hole that would have gone unfilled. Chicago would have had to sign a stopgap solution for 2018 in addition to Darvish and Tyler Chatwood and might have done the same this past winter. However, the stopgapping would have hopefully come to a stop this season, with the arrival of Cease.
As for Blackburn, he was tacked onto the Vogelbach-Montgomery trade and didn't stick long in Seattle. But he was a rated prospect when he was in the Cubs' system, and in 2017 he put up a good partial season in the rotation of the Oakland Athletics. Blackburn went 3-1 with a 3.22 ERA in 10 starts, albeit with a very low strikeout rate. He wasn't as good last season before getting injured. At the moment, Blackburn is back in Triple-A for Oakland and has a couple of solid starts under his belt. We don't know how that story is going to work out.
In reality, Blackburn would be one of several depth guys for the Cubs' rotation, along with Chatwood and Duane Underwood. There would be others as well, signed via free agency if there were no Quintana or Hamels around. The upside of Cease would be creating a serious buzz on the North Side. Still, despite the early struggles of the Cubs' rotation, this exercise only opens more questions. Bullpen
Actually is:Brandon Morrow, Pedro Strop, Steve Cishek, Brad Brach, Carl Edwards Jr. Could have been: Brandon Morrow, Pedro Strop, Steve Cishek, Brad Brach, Carl Edwards Jr. Would the Cubs be better off? The same.
The lack of quality relief options produced by the Cubs' system is sort of shocking. There were no young power arms traded away that would now be bolstering the big league bullpen that I can see. The Cubs would be stuck where they are now, waiting for Morrow and Strop to get healthy, for Brach and Edwards to find the strike zone. The depth options would be the same sort of low-level free-agent signings, such as Tim Collins, Allen Webster, Kyle Ryan, Randy Rosario and Xavier Cedeno. The Cubs would still be hoping to get something from Dillon Maples and James Norwood. You could add the traded Zac Rosscup to the mix, but it doesn't change the outlook.
That isn't to say the Cubs can't make a workable bullpen out of these guys. Teams, good teams, do exactly that kind of thing every season. The lack of trades would mean that Chapman never arrives in 2016. Although he was very good after his trade, I still think the Cubs would have won the NL Central that season. In the postseason, Chapman was fallible. It's hard to say for sure whether the Cubs would have won the World Series without Chapman, but I firmly believe it could have happened.
The Cubs also would have had to navigate the 2017 season without Wade Davis, whom they acquired in a one-for-one deal with Kansas City for Soler. It was a no-brainer kind of trade, one that I wouldn't want to undo. Soler was a luxury, and Davis was a top-tier late-inning reliever who was on a reasonable contract with one year remaining at $10 million. It would have been tough to sign a comparable closer in the market that winter, which saw Kenley Jansen, Mark Melancon and Chapman sign ginormous contracts.
Conclusions
If the Cubs had held on to their prospects, they would have the deepest, most talented group of position players in baseball. Of course, they've been close to that level anyway. But to have Torres and Jimenez joining a core group that includes Baez, Bryant, Rizzo and Contreras is not just exciting -- it's exciting for now and for the foreseeable future. Plus, Cease carries with him the promise of a future ace.
But what about the pitching? Without the trades, the Cubs would still be paying out the deals to Zobrist and Heyward, but they wouldn't have the commitments to Quintana ($10.5 million for 2018) or Hamels ($20 million). That means that core rotation group listed above of Hendricks, Lester, Darvish and Cease could be augmented with someone pretty good (ahem ... Dallas Keuchel) with money left over for the bullpen, perhaps even Craig Kimbrel on some sort of make-good deal. Still, because the Cubs would have to spend to fill those roles, Chicago's current projected outlay of around $203 million in 2019 payroll probably wouldn't be that much different.
For me, the key thing I wanted to know in going through this process is whether big-market teams such as the Cubs (and Yankees and Red Sox and Dodgers) -- teams that have built highly ranked farm systems in the recent past to go with their vast resources -- would be better off holding on to most of their prospects and the upside that comes with them.
To fill roster holes while waiting on prospects, the Cubs would have to spend, which is something that's tough to do efficiently, but it can be done. And obviously, the Cubs created such a surplus of position talent that it would have been silly for them to not trade some of it. In fact, you can make a pretty good argument that they should have traded more.
The Cubs' plan all along was to develop waves of positional talent and use that to augment the pitching staff. It's a plan that has paid off with a championship and four straight trips to the postseason. The plan has also led them here, to 2019, with a pitching staff that looks thin and a payroll that is apparently too full to address the problem.
Nevertheless, while you can quibble with individual decisions, you would be hard-pressed to say that the Cubs should have executed the shape of their plan any differently than they did.
Nevertheless, it would be awfully nice to have Dylan Cease, Eloy Jimenez and Gleyber Torres around right now.
SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks
If The Cubs Had Stopped Making Trades In 2016
Reply With Quote