Chicago Cubs: Why Daniel Descalso over Tommy La Stella?
The Chicago Cubs recent move to sign Daniel Descalso makes sense but is a curious move for a team that just unloaded one of their best bench pieces.
Don’t get me wrong. Recent Chicago Cubs acquisition Daniel Descalso is a fine backup infielder – not a great hitter, not a great fielder, but a guy who can give you a solid at-bat and competent defense at spots all over the diamond.
He is also coming off of his best year and has a reputation as a guy who can put together a professional plate appearance on a daily basis. He’s also on a pretty cheap two-year, $5 million contract that won’t break the bank (even in Chicago, where it seems like we are scrimping and saving every penny now to stay under the “salary cap”). None of that is really in question.
However, what is in question is the fact that we already had a professional hitter who plays the infield, hits left-handed and set the Cubs’ team record for pinch hits in a season just this past year. Oh, and he’s probably due to make less than $3 million total over the next two seasons. We traded him. For basically nothing.
Why would we trade Tommy La Stella (2.0 WAR in 947 career plate appearances) to the Angels for essentially nothing but a minor salary dump and pick up another guy, Descalso (2.2 WAR in 2699 PA, almost three times as many as LaStella) who fits essentially the same role and pay him more?
Did the Cubs not value La Stella’s bat? Did they question his ability to play defense? Was someone still annoyed at his “retire or play” bit from 2016?
A guy who can hit just about any time of day (his nickname was 3 a.m., as Joe Maddon once said he could roll out of bed at 3 and get a hit) and play second or third base in a pinch is a fairly nice 25th man on a team that has World Series aspirations
It’s curious, at best, as to why you’d get rid of him since he is so cheap ($1.5 million probable arbitration figure in 2019) and controllable for the long-term.
Chicago Cubs: Why wouldn’t you want this guy up in the ninth?
One answer to the previous questions might be that Descalso offers a bit more versatility on defense and has played shortstop before in his career. And, while that is true, Descalso and LaStella are both subpar defenders at second and third, Descalso didn’t play short in 2018, and he isn’t really anymore viable at said position than Ben Zobrist, David Bote or Kris Bryant.
If the Cubs needed someone to provide depth while Javier Baez is manning shortstop during Addison Russell‘s remaining suspension, what happened to Ronald Torreyes? (This is all assuming Zobrist and Russell aren’t going to be traded; of course, one or both things may very well be in the works). One would have thought that a defensive upgrade would have been coming once the Cubs traded La Stella, whose value was in his offensive potential and production.
More from Chicago Cubs News
- Cubs starting pitching has been thriving on the North Side
- Make no mistake: the Cubs are very much about power hitters
- Cubs: It’s time to start thinking about potential September call-ups
- Cubs: P.J. Higgins deserves to be in the lineup on a daily basis
- Cubs might start to limit Justin Steele’s workload soon
Another answer to the questions previously posed is a little deeper and more complex answer regarding the “clutch” narrative. Looking at leverage situations, Descalso has fared much better in medium and high-leverage situations than La Stella over the past couple years, with the latter destroying pitchers in low-leverage spots.
Just last year, Descalso posted a .936 OPS in high-leverage situations, while La Stella managed only a .705 OPS. Granted, these are both small samples, but if we continue to medium-leverage spots, Descalso posted a .600 OPS to LaStella’s .415. LaStella only shined and bettered him in low-leverage spots, with an OPS of .848 to Descalso’s .724.
Even in his great 2017 season, in which he posted an OPS+ of 122, La Stella’s leverage numbers of .487 and .636 OPS in high and medium-leverage situations pale in comparison to Descalso’s .936 and .600 OPS. And, while LaStella’s low-leverage OPS in 2017 was an off-the-charts 1.083 to Descalso’s .724, maybe the Cubs were looking for someone who could come in with the game on the line and deliver more often.
Chicago Cubs: Carryover from his 2016 actions?
Was La Stella undervalued, dismissed or eschewed internally because of his actions and words during the 2016 World Series season, where he basically held the Cubs hostage with his “retire or stay with the big league club” ultimatum?
More from Cubbies Crib
- Cubs starting pitching has been thriving on the North Side
- Make no mistake: the Cubs are very much about power hitters
- Cubs are giving pitcher Javier Assad a deserved shot
- Cubs: It’s time to start thinking about potential September call-ups
- Cubs: P.J. Higgins deserves to be in the lineup on a daily basis
When La Stella was optioned to the minors in 2016, he said he would retire rather than go play for anyone other than the Northsiders, including Triple-A Iowa. Admittedly, this rubbed a lot of fans and baseball people the wrong way, with lots of angst, argument and profanity shed on the subject.
While fans may have forgotten and forgiven after a World Series championship and a great 2017 season, perhaps the front office did not and felt a leader and veteran presence from outside the organization was needed.
La Stella, while an integral part of the club during their recent run of success, was not an everyday player, nor was he the leader that an Anthony Rizzo, Jason Heyward or even David Ross have been. He wasn’t even the emotional presence that Willson Contreras or Javier Baez have personified over the last couple of years.
And, while he has been part of some amusing antics (Spring Training pranks and home run interviews) and seemed to mesh with the team and Joe Maddon, maybe he was expendable because the brass just felt they needed another voice or leader, rather than comic relief.
As a Cubs fan, I certainly hope for a great 2019 season from our newest Cub, Daniel Descalso. His clutch stats over the past several seasons and the leadership he could bring are reasons for hope and optimism.
However, I still can’t get over the fact that we let a really good and cheap pinch hitter and backup infielder go for another back up infielder who doesn’t seem to be as good a hitter and isn’t as young or cheap on a team we all hope is heading back to the postseason and beyond.