How much will they offer Daniel Murphy?
Would Rizzo be willing to move to right field to open up a spot at 1st for Vogelbach?
With Soler able to cover so much ground from center field, will Maddon consider using a 5th infielder at times?
Let's go to work, gang.
I hope this thread title and the content of the first post aren't an omen for the entire offseason.
Quote from: Eli on October 22, 2015, 09:36:57 AM
I hope this thread title and the content of the first post aren't an omen for the entire offseason.
I don't follow.
Quote from: R-V on October 22, 2015, 09:44:31 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 22, 2015, 09:36:57 AM
I hope this thread title and the content of the first post aren't an omen for the entire offseason.
I don't follow.
Thanks to you, we have to look at David Ross's name all offseason when discussing fun and exciting possibilities.
Free agents:
Dexter Fowler ($9.5 million in 2015)
Austin Jackson ($7.7 million in 2015)
Fernando Rodney ($7 million in 2015)
Tommy Hunter ($4.65 million in 2015)
Jason Motte ($4.5 million in 2015)
Chris Denorfia ($2.6 million in 2015)
Dan Haren ($1 million in 2015)
Trevor Cahill ($507K in 2015)
Clayton Richard ($507K in 2015)
Do the Cubs resign any of these guys?
Did you remember Tommy Hunter was a Cub?
Did they really give Jason Motte that much money?
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on October 22, 2015, 10:00:55 AM
Free agents:
Dexter Fowler ($9.5 million in 2015)
Austin Jackson ($7.7 million in 2015)
Fernando Rodney ($7 million in 2015)
Tommy Hunter ($4.65 million in 2015)
Jason Motte ($4.5 million in 2015)
Chris Denorfia ($2.6 million in 2015)
Dan Haren ($1 million in 2015)
Trevor Cahill ($507K in 2015)
Clayton Richard ($507K in 2015)
Do the Cubs resign any of these guys?
Did you remember Tommy Hunter was a Cub?
Did they really give Jason Motte that much money?
I would consider bringing Richard back unless he's hellbent on a rotation spot. He was nice.
Haren's retiring, so that's easy.
Everyone else is probably gone unless they want to stick around for peanuts.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on October 22, 2015, 10:00:55 AM
Free agents:
Dexter Fowler ($9.5 million in 2015)
Austin Jackson ($7.7 million in 2015)
Fernando Rodney ($7 million in 2015)
Tommy Hunter ($4.65 million in 2015)
Jason Motte ($4.5 million in 2015)
Chris Denorfia ($2.6 million in 2015)
Dan Haren ($1 million in 2015)
Trevor Cahill ($507K in 2015)
Clayton Richard ($507K in 2015)
Do the Cubs resign any of these guys?
Did you remember Tommy Hunter was a Cub?
Did they really give Jason Motte that much money?
I'm going to venture a guess that they don't resign Haren.
Quote from: ChuckD on October 22, 2015, 10:02:37 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on October 22, 2015, 10:00:55 AM
Free agents:
Dexter Fowler ($9.5 million in 2015)
Austin Jackson ($7.7 million in 2015)
Fernando Rodney ($7 million in 2015)
Tommy Hunter ($4.65 million in 2015)
Jason Motte ($4.5 million in 2015)
Chris Denorfia ($2.6 million in 2015)
Dan Haren ($1 million in 2015)
Trevor Cahill ($507K in 2015)
Clayton Richard ($507K in 2015)
Do the Cubs resign any of these guys?
Did you remember Tommy Hunter was a Cub?
Did they really give Jason Motte that much money?
I'm going to venture a guess that they don't resign Haren.
Or re-sign him for that matter.
Quote from: Eli on October 22, 2015, 09:59:09 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 22, 2015, 09:44:31 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 22, 2015, 09:36:57 AM
I hope this thread title and the content of the first post aren't an omen for the entire offseason.
I don't follow.
Thanks to you, we have to look at David Ross's name all offseason when discussing fun and exciting possibilities.
When he retires and takes a coaching job, it will be a pleasant reminder that he's no longer on the team.
Anyway.
Setting aside pitching for the moment - catcher, second base, center field are the big question marks for me.
At catcher, considering they owe Montero another $28 million, I don't see them getting rid of him or spending significant dollars on a replacement/upgrade. Assuming they can make up a coaching position and get Ross to retire, I could see a Montero/Schwarber timeshare to start the season. If it turns out that Schwarber is completely inept back there, make a move at the deadline, or it's possible Contreras could be ready.
As much as I love Baez, I don't want to count on him as the every day second basemen. I think this is the spot where Theo & Jed will make a trade.
Center field is easy: sign Heyward.
Quote from: R-V on October 22, 2015, 09:35:28 AM
How much will they offer Daniel Murphy?
Would Rizzo be willing to move to right field to open up a spot at 1st for Vogelbach?
With Soler able to cover so much ground from center field, will Maddon consider using a 5th infielder at times?
Let's go to work, gang.
They already gave him 100k during the Eisenhower Administration. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Murphy_%28pitcher%29)
Fowler would be worth bringing back if there isn't a better CF option out there. Austin Jackson wouldn't be a bad fourth outfielder either. Heyward's interesting but can he play CF?
My irrational hatred of Ross & Montero tells me both guys should be launched but that's probably not happening & we'll have a black hole in the batting order at that position. I can't believe they'll try to make Schwarber a full-time or even part-time catcher.
They've got to go all-in on another starting pitcher.
List of free agents per mlbtraderumors.com. Updated 10-20-15:
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/09/2016-mlb-free-agents.html
Quote from: R-V on October 22, 2015, 10:07:35 AM
At catcher, considering they owe Montero another $28 million, I don't see them getting rid of him or spending significant dollars on a replacement/upgrade. Assuming they can make up a coaching position and get Ross to retire, I could see a Montero/Schwarber timeshare to start the season. If it turns out that Schwarber is completely inept back there, make a move at the deadline, or it's possible Contreras could be ready.
It's a tough spot. I don't think they can count on Schwarber in their catching plans, no matter how badly they want his bat in that spot.
Given some of the other roster needs -- two rotations spots (plus a depth arm) and CF -- they'll probably be content to just punt the catcher spot and hang their cat on a primarily defensive platoon. Any random hot streak from Montero would probably just be a bonus.
Quote from: Eli on October 22, 2015, 11:41:25 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 22, 2015, 10:07:35 AM
At catcher, considering they owe Montero another $28 million, I don't see them getting rid of him or spending significant dollars on a replacement/upgrade. Assuming they can make up a coaching position and get Ross to retire, I could see a Montero/Schwarber timeshare to start the season. If it turns out that Schwarber is completely inept back there, make a move at the deadline, or it's possible Contreras could be ready.
It's a tough spot. I don't think they can count on Schwarber in their catching plans, no matter how badly they want his bat in that spot.
Given some of the other roster needs -- two rotations spots (plus a depth arm) and CF -- they'll probably be content to just punt the catcher spot and hang their cat on a primarily defensive platoon. Any random hot streak from Montero would probably just be a bonus.
If Miggy is back as the full time catcher I sure hope he spends the next three months doing absolutely nothing.
Quote from: Slaky on October 22, 2015, 11:42:44 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 22, 2015, 11:41:25 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 22, 2015, 10:07:35 AM
At catcher, considering they owe Montero another $28 million, I don't see them getting rid of him or spending significant dollars on a replacement/upgrade. Assuming they can make up a coaching position and get Ross to retire, I could see a Montero/Schwarber timeshare to start the season. If it turns out that Schwarber is completely inept back there, make a move at the deadline, or it's possible Contreras could be ready.
It's a tough spot. I don't think they can count on Schwarber in their catching plans, no matter how badly they want his bat in that spot.
Given some of the other roster needs -- two rotations spots (plus a depth arm) and CF -- they'll probably be content to just punt the catcher spot and hang their cat on a primarily defensive platoon. Any random hot streak from Montero would probably just be a bonus.
If Miggy is back as the full time catcher I sure hope he spends the next three months doing absolutely nothing.
I think we should absolutely expect him to be the full-time catcher next year and hope we get 1-2 games/week with Schwarber back there.
Quote from: Eli on October 22, 2015, 11:41:25 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 22, 2015, 10:07:35 AM
At catcher, considering they owe Montero another $28 million, I don't see them getting rid of him or spending significant dollars on a replacement/upgrade. Assuming they can make up a coaching position and get Ross to retire, I could see a Montero/Schwarber timeshare to start the season. If it turns out that Schwarber is completely inept back there, make a move at the deadline, or it's possible Contreras could be ready.
It's a tough spot. I don't think they can count on Schwarber in their catching plans, no matter how badly they want his bat in that spot.
Given some of the other roster needs -- two rotations spots (plus a depth arm) and CF -- they'll probably be content to just punt the catcher spot and hang their cat on a primarily defensive platoon. Any random hot streak from Montero would probably just be a bonus.
I'm guessing they don't want Schwarber at catcher at all. Keeping him in the outfield extends his career. It just sucks we're stuck with the two slapdicks currently on the roster.
I feel like I should put this in a very small font, but if they trade either Soler or Schwarber for young, controllable pitching, Alex Gordon is a free agent and would look nice next to Jason Heyward in the outfield. He's got a good approach, plays excellent defense and might come at a slight discount since he's had a few struggles after his injury this year.
Quote from: PenFoe on October 22, 2015, 11:45:58 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 22, 2015, 11:42:44 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 22, 2015, 11:41:25 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 22, 2015, 10:07:35 AM
At catcher, considering they owe Montero another $28 million, I don't see them getting rid of him or spending significant dollars on a replacement/upgrade. Assuming they can make up a coaching position and get Ross to retire, I could see a Montero/Schwarber timeshare to start the season. If it turns out that Schwarber is completely inept back there, make a move at the deadline, or it's possible Contreras could be ready.
It's a tough spot. I don't think they can count on Schwarber in their catching plans, no matter how badly they want his bat in that spot.
Given some of the other roster needs -- two rotations spots (plus a depth arm) and CF -- they'll probably be content to just punt the catcher spot and hang their cat on a primarily defensive platoon. Any random hot streak from Montero would probably just be a bonus.
If Miggy is back as the full time catcher I sure hope he spends the next three months doing absolutely nothing.
I think we should absolutely expect him to be the full-time catcher next year and hope we get 1-2 games/week with Schwarber back there.
Is he really going to learn the position playing 1 or 2 games a week? Maybe they should just leave him in left and hope he hits enough to offset his defense. By the time he gets good at catcher it will be time to move him to outfield to prolong his career anyway.
Quote from: Tony on October 22, 2015, 11:56:05 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on October 22, 2015, 11:45:58 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 22, 2015, 11:42:44 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 22, 2015, 11:41:25 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 22, 2015, 10:07:35 AM
At catcher, considering they owe Montero another $28 million, I don't see them getting rid of him or spending significant dollars on a replacement/upgrade. Assuming they can make up a coaching position and get Ross to retire, I could see a Montero/Schwarber timeshare to start the season. If it turns out that Schwarber is completely inept back there, make a move at the deadline, or it's possible Contreras could be ready.
It's a tough spot. I don't think they can count on Schwarber in their catching plans, no matter how badly they want his bat in that spot.
Given some of the other roster needs -- two rotations spots (plus a depth arm) and CF -- they'll probably be content to just punt the catcher spot and hang their cat on a primarily defensive platoon. Any random hot streak from Montero would probably just be a bonus.
If Miggy is back as the full time catcher I sure hope he spends the next three months doing absolutely nothing.
I think we should absolutely expect him to be the full-time catcher next year and hope we get 1-2 games/week with Schwarber back there.
Is he really going to learn the position playing 1 or 2 games a week? Maybe they should just leave him in left and hope he hits enough to offset his defense. By the time he gets good at catcher it will be time to move him to outfield to prolong his career anyway.
I think they should coach the shit out of him to play outfield. If he's not going to be fast just continue to drill him on routes and he can at least be something approaching serviceable. He's not some old, fat asshole. He's a young, fat asshole. So there's still potential there.
Speaking of David Ross, I don't think it's out of the question he just retires and takes a coaching job with the team. He's made enough jokes about being bad at baseball that he might know his time is up.
Quote from: Eli on October 22, 2015, 12:04:06 PM
Speaking of David Ross, I don't think it's out of the question he just retires and takes a coaching job with the team. He's made enough jokes about being bad at baseball that he might know his time is up.
I hope he does, because I'd enjoy liking him for a change. He seems like a cool dude.
Quote from: SKO on October 22, 2015, 12:06:00 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 22, 2015, 12:04:06 PM
Speaking of David Ross, I don't think it's out of the question he just retires and takes a coaching job with the team. He's made enough jokes about being bad at baseball that he might know his time is up.
I hope he does, because I'd enjoy liking him for a change. He seems like a cool dude.
I honestly thought him retiring and becoming a coach was a foregone conclusion. Or maybe I was just hoping it was.
Quote from: Tony on October 22, 2015, 12:07:20 PM
Quote from: SKO on October 22, 2015, 12:06:00 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 22, 2015, 12:04:06 PM
Speaking of David Ross, I don't think it's out of the question he just retires and takes a coaching job with the team. He's made enough jokes about being bad at baseball that he might know his time is up.
I hope he does, because I'd enjoy liking him for a change. He seems like a cool dude.
I honestly thought him retiring and becoming a coach was a foregone conclusion. Or maybe I was just hoping it was.
I think it's up in the air because he's still signed for another year.
Quote from: Eli on October 22, 2015, 12:09:07 PM
Quote from: Tony on October 22, 2015, 12:07:20 PM
Quote from: SKO on October 22, 2015, 12:06:00 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 22, 2015, 12:04:06 PM
Speaking of David Ross, I don't think it's out of the question he just retires and takes a coaching job with the team. He's made enough jokes about being bad at baseball that he might know his time is up.
I hope he does, because I'd enjoy liking him for a change. He seems like a cool dude.
I honestly thought him retiring and becoming a coach was a foregone conclusion. Or maybe I was just hoping it was.
I think it's up in the air because he's still signed for another year.
Which is insane. Even if you accept all of the reasons given for having Ross on the roster this year, who gives a fucking 38 year old backup with no other suitors a guaranteed multi year deal? Jesus Christ.
Quote from: SKO on October 22, 2015, 12:10:25 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 22, 2015, 12:09:07 PM
Quote from: Tony on October 22, 2015, 12:07:20 PM
Quote from: SKO on October 22, 2015, 12:06:00 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 22, 2015, 12:04:06 PM
Speaking of David Ross, I don't think it's out of the question he just retires and takes a coaching job with the team. He's made enough jokes about being bad at baseball that he might know his time is up.
I hope he does, because I'd enjoy liking him for a change. He seems like a cool dude.
I honestly thought him retiring and becoming a coach was a foregone conclusion. Or maybe I was just hoping it was.
I think it's up in the air because he's still signed for another year.
Which is insane. Even if you accept all of the reasons given for having Ross on the roster this year, who gives a fucking 38 year old backup with no other suitors a guaranteed multi year deal? Jesus Christ.
Couldn't take much to buy that year out could it?
Quote from: InternetApex on October 22, 2015, 12:17:11 PM
Quote from: SKO on October 22, 2015, 12:10:25 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 22, 2015, 12:09:07 PM
Quote from: Tony on October 22, 2015, 12:07:20 PM
Quote from: SKO on October 22, 2015, 12:06:00 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 22, 2015, 12:04:06 PM
Speaking of David Ross, I don't think it's out of the question he just retires and takes a coaching job with the team. He's made enough jokes about being bad at baseball that he might know his time is up.
I hope he does, because I'd enjoy liking him for a change. He seems like a cool dude.
I honestly thought him retiring and becoming a coach was a foregone conclusion. Or maybe I was just hoping it was.
I think it's up in the air because he's still signed for another year.
Which is insane. Even if you accept all of the reasons given for having Ross on the roster this year, who gives a fucking 38 year old backup with no other suitors a guaranteed multi year deal? Jesus Christ.
Couldn't take much to buy that year out could it?
Probably not but why even set yourself up anyway? How hard would it have been to re-sign him if he ended up swinging a slightly better pool noodle this year?
Quote from: Tony on October 22, 2015, 12:07:20 PM
Quote from: SKO on October 22, 2015, 12:06:00 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 22, 2015, 12:04:06 PM
Speaking of David Ross, I don't think it's out of the question he just retires and takes a coaching job with the team. He's made enough jokes about being bad at baseball that he might know his time is up.
I hope he does, because I'd enjoy liking him for a change. He seems like a cool dude.
I honestly thought him retiring and becoming a coach was a foregone conclusion. Or maybe I was just hoping it was.
Dave Martinez is supposedly a candidate for the Dodgers job. That might open up a spot for Ross (although I admittedly don't know enough about the bench coach's role to know if you could jump right in there with no previous coaching experience).
Quote from: Eli on October 22, 2015, 11:50:29 AM
I feel like I should put this in a very small font, but if they trade either Soler or Schwarber for young, controllable pitching, Alex Gordon is a free agent and would look nice next to Jason Heyward in the outfield. He's got a good approach, plays excellent defense and might come at a slight discount since he's had a few struggles after his injury this year.
Trade Schwarber for Felix.
Sign Gordon to play LF (or RF and move Soler to LF).
Sign a mid-tier starter as the number 4 (Zimmermann too much to ask for? Cueto? Gallardo?).
Sign a CF (Fowler comes back? I assume Heyword may cost too much.)
I may like this plan.
Quote from: Oleg on October 22, 2015, 12:24:03 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 22, 2015, 11:50:29 AM
I feel like I should put this in a very small font, but if they trade either Soler or Schwarber for young, controllable pitching, Alex Gordon is a free agent and would look nice next to Jason Heyward in the outfield. He's got a good approach, plays excellent defense and might come at a slight discount since he's had a few struggles after his injury this year.
Trade Schwarber for Felix.
Sign Gordon to play LF (or RF and move Soler to LF).
Sign a mid-tier starter as the number 4 (Zimmermann too much to ask for? Cueto? Gallardo?).
Sign a CF (Fowler comes back? I assume Heyword may cost too much.)
I may like this plan.
If they trade Schwarber I may need to just stay away from the internet for a few weeks because part of me would think it's probably the right move while part of me would be furious and all of me would want to steer far clear of the hot taeks everyone else is spewing.
Quote from: Slaky on October 22, 2015, 11:58:37 AM
Quote from: Tony on October 22, 2015, 11:56:05 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on October 22, 2015, 11:45:58 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 22, 2015, 11:42:44 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 22, 2015, 11:41:25 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 22, 2015, 10:07:35 AM
At catcher, considering they owe Montero another $28 million, I don't see them getting rid of him or spending significant dollars on a replacement/upgrade. Assuming they can make up a coaching position and get Ross to retire, I could see a Montero/Schwarber timeshare to start the season. If it turns out that Schwarber is completely inept back there, make a move at the deadline, or it's possible Contreras could be ready.
It's a tough spot. I don't think they can count on Schwarber in their catching plans, no matter how badly they want his bat in that spot.
Given some of the other roster needs -- two rotations spots (plus a depth arm) and CF -- they'll probably be content to just punt the catcher spot and hang their cat on a primarily defensive platoon. Any random hot streak from Montero would probably just be a bonus.
If Miggy is back as the full time catcher I sure hope he spends the next three months doing absolutely nothing.
I think we should absolutely expect him to be the full-time catcher next year and hope we get 1-2 games/week with Schwarber back there.
Is he really going to learn the position playing 1 or 2 games a week? Maybe they should just leave him in left and hope he hits enough to offset his defense. By the time he gets good at catcher it will be time to move him to outfield to prolong his career anyway.
I think they should coach the shit out of him to play outfield. If he's not going to be fast just continue to drill him on routes and he can at least be something approaching serviceable. He's not some old, fat asshole. He's a young, fat asshole. So there's still potential there.
I'm operating under the assumption that that's the plan moving forward. It's not hard to teach a guy to play left field. He's got a decent arm and - usually - catches what he gets his glove on. He needs to work on reading the ball, taking proper angles and the little things that make a guy a serviceable outfielder. They've had worse guys playing LF in my lifetime.
Quote from: Armchair_QB on October 22, 2015, 12:30:10 PM
I'm operating under the assumption that that's the plan moving forward. It's not hard to teach a guy to play left field. He's got a decent arm and - usually - catches what he gets his glove on. He needs to work on reading the ball, taking proper angles and the little things that make a guy a serviceable outfielder. They've had worse guys playing LF in my lifetime.
I mean, look at Coghlan. He transformed from totally clueless in left field last year to a giant whiny asshole baby out there this year.
Quote from: Eli on October 22, 2015, 12:33:33 PM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on October 22, 2015, 12:30:10 PM
I'm operating under the assumption that that's the plan moving forward. It's not hard to teach a guy to play left field. He's got a decent arm and - usually - catches what he gets his glove on. He needs to work on reading the ball, taking proper angles and the little things that make a guy a serviceable outfielder. They've had worse guys playing LF in my lifetime.
I mean, look at Coghlan. He transformed from totally clueless in left field last year to a giant whiny asshole baby out there this year.
This. Soriano also made a remarkable transformation in his first year playing for Sveum. It can be done. For fuck's sake if the Red Sox managed to get by with Manny, Schwarber can be good enough to stick.
Quote from: Eli on October 22, 2015, 12:33:33 PM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on October 22, 2015, 12:30:10 PM
I'm operating under the assumption that that's the plan moving forward. It's not hard to teach a guy to play left field. He's got a decent arm and - usually - catches what he gets his glove on. He needs to work on reading the ball, taking proper angles and the little things that make a guy a serviceable outfielder. They've had worse guys playing LF in my lifetime.
I mean, look at Coghlan. He transformed from totally clueless in left field last year to a giant whiny asshole baby out there this year.
It's a good thing there's nobody else here in my office because they'd wonder why I was laughing like some kind of idiot.
So at what point can we expect the first wave of pitching arms that they've begun to collect the last few years (i.e. Dylan Cease, Carson Sands et.al) to wash ashore?
Scouting takes on Schwarber's defense (http://grantland.com/the-triangle/2015-mlb-playoffs-kyle-schwarber-chicago-cubs-future/), for what it's worth.
Quote“He needs lots of reps to stick in LF, but Manny Ramirez stuck out there for a while,” said one scout who projected Schwarber as a DH when he saw him as an amateur.2 An NL GM echoed the scout’s sentiment by invoking the name of another bat-first left fielder, saying, “If Matt Holliday can do it, so can Schwarber. He will drive in more than he will let in.” And a scouting director told me that Schwarber “could get to 40 in LF,” referring to the 20-80 scouting scale, on which 50 is average. “Could upgrade from disaster to slight liability,” he added.
ESPN analyst Keith Law had the least equivocal and most optimistic response. “I have zero doubt he can play an average left field,” Law said. “He’s a good athlete for a guy his size” (6 feet and 235 pounds).
QuoteBaseball Prospectus says his receiving was exactly average as well: In 953 “framing chances,” he earned his pitchers precisely as many strikes as expected. So how does a guy with average ratings in so many areas draw such scathing reviews?
“He may be a decent framer but he’s a horrible [blocker],” the AL scout says. “And while the pop times are passable, the arm is not accurate.”
The stats support those critiques. Between Double-A, Triple-A, and the majors, Schwarber allowed 47 wild pitches and 12 passed balls in 574.2 innings. Among major league catchers, only Russell Martin, Francisco Cervelli, and Blake Swihart had as many combined wild pitches and passed balls this season, and all three allowed far fewer on a per-inning basis. Moreover, Schwarber has thrown out only 21 of 105 baserunners (20 percent) in High-A and above.
The AL scout thinks the Cubs’ rhetoric about Schwarber’s future behind the plate was intended to prop up his trade value in the event the team decided to deal him for young pitching, like the Yankees did with Jesus Montero, another player without a position who (unlike Schwarber) has also been a bust with the bat. Yet, I spoke to an NL scout who doesn’t believe the Cubs were blowing smoke.
“I think that, for the next few years, there’s a possibility that Schwarber becomes an average defensive catcher,” he said. “I believe in his athleticism and his ability to translate it into lateral agility. Perhaps more importantly than that, he has proven to have very good balance and strong hands. I believe those two attributes correlate strongly with framing abilities. I’m not sure how long he will be able to last back there — the tools I see seem to be fairly maxed out and I am skeptical about any increases happening. But count me in on the Schwarber-behind-the-plate bandwagon. He won’t be Yadi [Molina], but I think he can do it and not be harmful to the pitching staff.”
I wonder what Coghlan could bring in a trade. He's under control for another year, he's managed a 118 OPS+ and been worth nearly 6 wins over almost 1000 PAs the last two years. He has proven to be able to play passable defense in both corners and can play 2B in a pinch. Obviously he's not going to interest a rebuilding team but if there's another contender that needs the bat and has a prospect the Cubs don't maybe he can be part of a three team deal. Either way I'd be surprised to see him back next year given Schwarber's emergence and Jorge and Starlin both reasserting themselves as forces to be reckoned with and also I fucking hate his stupid face and his pirouette when he swings and misses.
QuoteBaseball Prospectus says his receiving was exactly average as well: In 953 "framing chances," he earned his pitchers precisely as many strikes as expected. So how does a guy with average ratings in so many areas draw such scathing reviews?
RoboUmps would make framing ability irrelevant.
Quote from: PANK! on October 22, 2015, 12:42:33 PM
So at what point can we expect the first wave of pitching arms that they've begun to collect the last few years (i.e. Dylan Cease, Carson Sands et.al) to wash ashore?
Pierce Johnson might show up next year. Carl Edwards is already here.
Blackburn/Underwood/Tseng will scatter the ashes of the Southern League's souls this year.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 22, 2015, 12:53:17 PM
QuoteBaseball Prospectus says his receiving was exactly average as well: In 953 "framing chances," he earned his pitchers precisely as many strikes as expected. So how does a guy with average ratings in so many areas draw such scathing reviews?
RoboUmps would make framing ability irrelevant.
If what TBS was showing as the ball or strike is an example of what a RoboUmp would call, then I am not having any of it, thank you.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 22, 2015, 12:53:17 PM
QuoteBaseball Prospectus says his receiving was exactly average as well: In 953 "framing chances," he earned his pitchers precisely as many strikes as expected. So how does a guy with average ratings in so many areas draw such scathing reviews?
RoboUmps would make framing ability irrelevant.
Robot Umps and adding the DH to the NL would probably benefit the Cubs more than any of these offseason moves we're speculating about.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on October 22, 2015, 12:58:35 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 22, 2015, 12:42:33 PM
So at what point can we expect the first wave of pitching arms that they've begun to collect the last few years (i.e. Dylan Cease, Carson Sands et.al) to wash ashore?
Pierce Johnson might show up next year. Carl Edwards is already here.
This is not what we're looking for here.
Quote from: Eli on October 22, 2015, 01:19:07 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on October 22, 2015, 12:58:35 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 22, 2015, 12:42:33 PM
So at what point can we expect the first wave of pitching arms that they've begun to collect the last few years (i.e. Dylan Cease, Carson Sands et.al) to wash ashore?
Pierce Johnson might show up next year. Carl Edwards is already here.
This is not what we're looking for here.
Thank you.
I'm referring, specifically, to the last 2 drafts, where it seems they began to stockpile a bunch of high-upside 18 year old arms.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on October 22, 2015, 12:58:35 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 22, 2015, 12:42:33 PM
So at what point can we expect the first wave of pitching arms that they've begun to collect the last few years (i.e. Dylan Cease, Carson Sands et.al) to wash ashore?
Pierce Johnson might show up next year. Carl Edwards is already here.
Blackburn/Underwood/Tseng will scatter the ashes of the Southern League's souls this year.
Of the projected starters (or at least guys who are still starting):
Cease is most likely going to be in Eugene next year. If he starts hot he could definitely get to South Bend.
Sands and Steele should both be in South Bend.
Underwood will hopefully start in Tennessee, but at his age, he's probably a long-shot to make it to Iowa next year, barring just unhittable stuff.
Hopefully Ryan Williams will continue to
over-perform kick ass and he could easily start the year in Iowa and come up late next year.
Jeremy Null will probably start again in Myrtle Beach, but could definitely move up.
Jake Stinnett was really disappointing in South Bend last year. He may stay there another year.
Those are the top guys off the top of my head, other than the ones Fork mentioned.
Pierce Johnson is definitely the only interesting guy in the minors who might get a chance to audition for a rotation spot in Spring Training (assuming they don't try to stretch Edwards back out.)
Quote from: PANK! on October 22, 2015, 01:21:44 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 22, 2015, 01:19:07 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on October 22, 2015, 12:58:35 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 22, 2015, 12:42:33 PM
So at what point can we expect the first wave of pitching arms that they've begun to collect the last few years (i.e. Dylan Cease, Carson Sands et.al) to wash ashore?
Pierce Johnson might show up next year. Carl Edwards is already here.
This is not what we're looking for here.
Thank you.
I'm referring, specifically, to the last 2 drafts, where it seems they began to stockpile a bunch of high-upside 18 year old arms.
I'm mostly hoping those guys tear up AA ball in time to be trade chips at the deadline because based on this year's deadline the rest of the league hasn't quite adopted Theo's "bats are harder to find" approach to prospects and the currency of the game is still pitching prospects.
Quote from: SKO on October 22, 2015, 01:26:05 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 22, 2015, 01:21:44 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 22, 2015, 01:19:07 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on October 22, 2015, 12:58:35 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 22, 2015, 12:42:33 PM
So at what point can we expect the first wave of pitching arms that they've begun to collect the last few years (i.e. Dylan Cease, Carson Sands et.al) to wash ashore?
Pierce Johnson might show up next year. Carl Edwards is already here.
This is not what we're looking for here.
Thank you.
I'm referring, specifically, to the last 2 drafts, where it seems they began to stockpile a bunch of high-upside 18 year old arms.
I'm mostly hoping those guys tear up AA ball in time to be trade chips at the deadline because based on this year's deadline the rest of the league hasn't quite adopted Theo's "bats are harder to find" approach to prospects and the currency of the game is still pitching prospects.
Just so I understand, you've moved on from trading all the Cubs young bats to all their young arms, correct?
Quote from: PenFoe on October 22, 2015, 01:26:53 PM
Quote from: SKO on October 22, 2015, 01:26:05 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 22, 2015, 01:21:44 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 22, 2015, 01:19:07 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on October 22, 2015, 12:58:35 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 22, 2015, 12:42:33 PM
So at what point can we expect the first wave of pitching arms that they've begun to collect the last few years (i.e. Dylan Cease, Carson Sands et.al) to wash ashore?
Pierce Johnson might show up next year. Carl Edwards is already here.
This is not what we're looking for here.
Thank you.
I'm referring, specifically, to the last 2 drafts, where it seems they began to stockpile a bunch of high-upside 18 year old arms.
I'm mostly hoping those guys tear up AA ball in time to be trade chips at the deadline because based on this year's deadline the rest of the league hasn't quite adopted Theo's "bats are harder to find" approach to prospects and the currency of the game is still pitching prospects.
Just so I understand, you've moved on from trading all the Cubs young bats to all their young arms, correct?
I'm all for trading young arms that are likely to either fail to pan out or tear their everything for older, proven arms so long as they are contending with a core built around young, cheap hitters that are harder to find and far less likely to suffer career altering injuries, yes.
Quote from: SKO on October 22, 2015, 01:28:10 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on October 22, 2015, 01:26:53 PM
Quote from: SKO on October 22, 2015, 01:26:05 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 22, 2015, 01:21:44 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 22, 2015, 01:19:07 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on October 22, 2015, 12:58:35 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 22, 2015, 12:42:33 PM
So at what point can we expect the first wave of pitching arms that they've begun to collect the last few years (i.e. Dylan Cease, Carson Sands et.al) to wash ashore?
Pierce Johnson might show up next year. Carl Edwards is already here.
This is not what we're looking for here.
Thank you.
I'm referring, specifically, to the last 2 drafts, where it seems they began to stockpile a bunch of high-upside 18 year old arms.
I'm mostly hoping those guys tear up AA ball in time to be trade chips at the deadline because based on this year's deadline the rest of the league hasn't quite adopted Theo's "bats are harder to find" approach to prospects and the currency of the game is still pitching prospects.
Just so I understand, you've moved on from trading all the Cubs young bats to all their young arms, correct?
I'm all for trading young arms that are likely to either fail to pan out or tear their everything for older, proven arms so long as they are contending with a core built around young, cheap hitters that are harder to find and far less likely to suffer career altering injuries, yes.
I'm not against trading the young pitchers, I'm just trying to decipher your position du jour.
Quote from: PenFoe on October 22, 2015, 01:29:14 PM
Quote from: SKO on October 22, 2015, 01:28:10 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on October 22, 2015, 01:26:53 PM
Quote from: SKO on October 22, 2015, 01:26:05 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 22, 2015, 01:21:44 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 22, 2015, 01:19:07 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on October 22, 2015, 12:58:35 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 22, 2015, 12:42:33 PM
So at what point can we expect the first wave of pitching arms that they've begun to collect the last few years (i.e. Dylan Cease, Carson Sands et.al) to wash ashore?
Pierce Johnson might show up next year. Carl Edwards is already here.
This is not what we're looking for here.
Thank you.
I'm referring, specifically, to the last 2 drafts, where it seems they began to stockpile a bunch of high-upside 18 year old arms.
I'm mostly hoping those guys tear up AA ball in time to be trade chips at the deadline because based on this year's deadline the rest of the league hasn't quite adopted Theo's "bats are harder to find" approach to prospects and the currency of the game is still pitching prospects.
Just so I understand, you've moved on from trading all the Cubs young bats to all their young arms, correct?
I'm all for trading young arms that are likely to either fail to pan out or tear their everything for older, proven arms so long as they are contending with a core built around young, cheap hitters that are harder to find and far less likely to suffer career altering injuries, yes.
I'm not against trading the young pitchers, I'm just trying to decipher your position du jour.
To be fair other than when Eli dressed in a devil costume and hopped on my shoulder to whisper that they should trade Schwarber for Hamels and I temporarily believed him I have been pretty consistent about NOT trading Soler/Schwarber/Baez for the most part if they can avoid it. I am absolutely willing to trade Gleyber/Almora/McKinney and every other overvalued redundant prospect they have left in the system.
Basically if they weren't on the Cubs active roster yesterday I am cool with trading them and pretty much always have been. As far as guys on said roster I am still open to trading Castro or Baez and would MAYBE part with Soler or Schwarber for an elite arm like Felix but probably not.
They've got the position player core they need right now and their window of contention is as open as it is ever going to get. Trade anyone and everyone in the minors right now if it gets you the pitchers you need to win a title in the next 3-4 years.
I'd rather keep the position players and sign starting pitching. The core of the line-up is under arbitration for awhile. They can afford to back up the Brinks truck for pitchers. If they deal anybody, deal Baez.
Quote from: PANK! on October 22, 2015, 01:21:44 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 22, 2015, 01:19:07 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on October 22, 2015, 12:58:35 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 22, 2015, 12:42:33 PM
So at what point can we expect the first wave of pitching arms that they've begun to collect the last few years (i.e. Dylan Cease, Carson Sands et.al) to wash ashore?
Pierce Johnson might show up next year. Carl Edwards is already here.
This is not what we're looking for here.
Thank you.
I'm referring, specifically, to the last 2 drafts, where it seems they began to stockpile a bunch of high-upside 18 year old arms.
Those guys are at least 3 or 4 years away. The Cubs have been loathe to move those guys up the ranks at a rate of greater than one full season per level.
Basically:
DO NOT TRADE UNDER ANY OR ALL CIRCUMSTANCES:
Bryant, Rizzo, Russell
TRADE ONLY IF THE RETURN IS LIKE, CHRIS SALE:
Schwarber
TRADE ONLY IF THE RETURN IS LIKE, FELIX HERNANDEZ MAYBE BUT DAMMIT I LOVE HIM SO THIS IS HARD:
Soler
TRADE IF YOU CAN GET A YOUNG COST-CONTROLLED SP WITH A FASTBALL IN THE 90S FUCK YOU KYLE HENDRICKS:
Castro/Baez/Any Guy Currently in the Minors.
TRADE FOR LITERALLY ANYTHING:
Chris Coghlan.
Quote from: SKO on October 22, 2015, 01:31:39 PM
To be fair other than when Eli dressed in a devil costume and hopped on my shoulder
You should be so lucky.
I'm not going to post a recap of Theo's press conference from today because I assume everyone on this board is getting the notable nuggets one way or another, but I just want to say I am REALLY excited to see what this offseason brings after hearing him acknowledge and discuss the same weaknesses we've all seen. Feels real good to have this dude in charge instead of some of the well-meaning clods of the past.
Quote from: R-V on October 22, 2015, 03:20:49 PM
I'm not going to post a recap of Theo's press conference from today because I assume everyone on this board is getting the notable nuggets one way or another, but I just want to say I am REALLY excited to see what this offseason brings after hearing him acknowledge and discuss the same weaknesses we've all seen. Feels real good to have this dude in charge instead of some of the well-meaning clods of the past.
Except for the part where he loves Hammel.
Quote from: PenFoe on October 22, 2015, 03:28:07 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 22, 2015, 03:20:49 PM
I'm not going to post a recap of Theo's press conference from today because I assume everyone on this board is getting the notable nuggets one way or another, but I just want to say I am REALLY excited to see what this offseason brings after hearing him acknowledge and discuss the same weaknesses we've all seen. Feels real good to have this dude in charge instead of some of the well-meaning clods of the past.
Except for the part where he loves Hammel.
Trade value, dude.
Also it's possible that he's being upfront - that they actually did bring him back too soon from that injury because they had no other good options in the rotation.
Quote from: R-V on October 22, 2015, 03:46:21 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on October 22, 2015, 03:28:07 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 22, 2015, 03:20:49 PM
I'm not going to post a recap of Theo's press conference from today because I assume everyone on this board is getting the notable nuggets one way or another, but I just want to say I am REALLY excited to see what this offseason brings after hearing him acknowledge and discuss the same weaknesses we've all seen. Feels real good to have this dude in charge instead of some of the well-meaning clods of the past.
Except for the part where he loves Hammel.
Trade value, dude.
Also it's possible that he's being upfront - that they actually did bring him back too soon from that injury because they had no other good options in the rotation.
Ah shit, if Hammel was hurt all this time I'm going to have to take back everything I've said/tweeted about him in the last month.
Quote from: PANK! on October 22, 2015, 05:38:42 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 22, 2015, 03:46:21 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on October 22, 2015, 03:28:07 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 22, 2015, 03:20:49 PM
I'm not going to post a recap of Theo's press conference from today because I assume everyone on this board is getting the notable nuggets one way or another, but I just want to say I am REALLY excited to see what this offseason brings after hearing him acknowledge and discuss the same weaknesses we've all seen. Feels real good to have this dude in charge instead of some of the well-meaning clods of the past.
Except for the part where he loves Hammel.
Trade value, dude.
Also it's possible that he's being upfront - that they actually did bring him back too soon from that injury because they had no other good options in the rotation.
Ah shit, if Hammel was hurt all this time I'm going to have to take back everything I've said/tweeted about him in the last month.
I don't hate Hammel. Especially as a 5. But they probably need at least 3 really good starters if they want to improve on this.
I haven't heard this from anyone else but Boers and Bernstein's "sources" have concluded Jeff Samardzija will be a Cub next year. Please no. I know I need to consider the source but hearing his name makes the hate bubble up like heartburn. They're also convinced next year's center fielder is Kris Bryant. Again, no.
Quote from: Slaky on October 22, 2015, 10:02:58 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 22, 2015, 05:38:42 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 22, 2015, 03:46:21 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on October 22, 2015, 03:28:07 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 22, 2015, 03:20:49 PM
I'm not going to post a recap of Theo's press conference from today because I assume everyone on this board is getting the notable nuggets one way or another, but I just want to say I am REALLY excited to see what this offseason brings after hearing him acknowledge and discuss the same weaknesses we've all seen. Feels real good to have this dude in charge instead of some of the well-meaning clods of the past.
Except for the part where he loves Hammel.
Trade value, dude.
Also it's possible that he's being upfront - that they actually did bring him back too soon from that injury because they had no other good options in the rotation.
Ah shit, if Hammel was hurt all this time I'm going to have to take back everything I've said/tweeted about him in the last month.
I don't hate Hammel. Especially as a 5. But they probably need at least 3 really good starters if they want to improve on this.
I'd like to see them add one top of the rotation guy through trade probably (I still want Tyson Ross), and then one mid-tier free agent who has proven he can throw 200 innings a year without falling apart, which Hammel has never done. Then Hendricks and Hammel can battle to be the 5th starter, Hendricks' stellar fucking FIP be damned.
I'd rather they grab an established pitcher via free agency, trade for a respectable, young #3 pitcher (who still has the potential to blossom in to a top end starter) and maybe take a risk by grabbing a scrap-heap pitcher who may or may not make it with the team.
Equally important, how do they improve the bullpen next year? Presumably with trades?
Quote from: Canadouche on October 23, 2015, 07:51:23 AM
I'd rather they grab an established pitcher via free agency, trade for a respectable, young #3 pitcher (who still has the potential to blossom in to a top end starter) and maybe take a risk by grabbing a scrap-heap pitcher who may or may not make it with the team.
Equally important, how do they improve the bullpen next year? Presumably with trades?
Maybe? Their bullpen was pretty damn good this year, I'm not sure why the perception seems to be that they weren't. With the necessary caveat that bullpens are unpredictable I would still expect them to have a damn good one built around Rondon, Strop, Grimm, and hopefully a healthy Ramirez. I assume they'll also keep Travis Wood, who was pretty good in the pen as well.
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 07:57:09 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on October 23, 2015, 07:51:23 AM
I'd rather they grab an established pitcher via free agency, trade for a respectable, young #3 pitcher (who still has the potential to blossom in to a top end starter) and maybe take a risk by grabbing a scrap-heap pitcher who may or may not make it with the team.
Equally important, how do they improve the bullpen next year? Presumably with trades?
Maybe? Their bullpen was pretty damn good this year, I'm not sure why the perception seems to be that they weren't. With the necessary caveat that bullpens are unpredictable I would still expect them to have a damn good one built around Rondon, Strop, Grimm, and hopefully a healthy Ramirez. I assume they'll also keep Travis Wood, who was pretty good in the pen as well.
Plus, Edwards getting some 7th innings.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on October 23, 2015, 08:27:52 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 07:57:09 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on October 23, 2015, 07:51:23 AM
I'd rather they grab an established pitcher via free agency, trade for a respectable, young #3 pitcher (who still has the potential to blossom in to a top end starter) and maybe take a risk by grabbing a scrap-heap pitcher who may or may not make it with the team.
Equally important, how do they improve the bullpen next year? Presumably with trades?
Maybe? Their bullpen was pretty damn good this year, I'm not sure why the perception seems to be that they weren't. With the necessary caveat that bullpens are unpredictable I would still expect them to have a damn good one built around Rondon, Strop, Grimm, and hopefully a healthy Ramirez. I assume they'll also keep Travis Wood, who was pretty good in the pen as well.
Plus, Edwards getting some 7th innings.
Maybe. I don't think he's shown enough control to be counted on yet, and I don't think Theo will pencil him in for anything. Whatever he provides will be a bonus.
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 07:57:09 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on October 23, 2015, 07:51:23 AM
I'd rather they grab an established pitcher via free agency, trade for a respectable, young #3 pitcher (who still has the potential to blossom in to a top end starter) and maybe take a risk by grabbing a scrap-heap pitcher who may or may not make it with the team.
Equally important, how do they improve the bullpen next year? Presumably with trades?
Maybe? Their bullpen was pretty damn good this year, I'm not sure why the perception seems to be that they weren't. With the necessary caveat that bullpens are unpredictable I would still expect them to have a damn good one built around Rondon, Strop, Grimm, and hopefully a healthy Ramirez. I assume they'll also keep Travis Wood, who was pretty good in the pen as well.
Wood is Arb 3 this year. Could be too expensive for what he will bring. He's a non-tender candidate.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 23, 2015, 08:32:55 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 07:57:09 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on October 23, 2015, 07:51:23 AM
I'd rather they grab an established pitcher via free agency, trade for a respectable, young #3 pitcher (who still has the potential to blossom in to a top end starter) and maybe take a risk by grabbing a scrap-heap pitcher who may or may not make it with the team.
Equally important, how do they improve the bullpen next year? Presumably with trades?
Maybe? Their bullpen was pretty damn good this year, I'm not sure why the perception seems to be that they weren't. With the necessary caveat that bullpens are unpredictable I would still expect them to have a damn good one built around Rondon, Strop, Grimm, and hopefully a healthy Ramirez. I assume they'll also keep Travis Wood, who was pretty good in the pen as well.
Wood is Arb 3 this year. Could be too expensive for what he will bring. He's a non-tender candidate.
Then I would add left handed reliever who can actually strike people out (sorry Clayton Richard) to the wish list.
Quote from: Canadouche on October 23, 2015, 07:51:23 AM
I'd rather they grab an established pitcher via free agency, trade for a respectable, young #3 pitcher (who still has the potential to blossom in to a top end starter) and maybe take a risk by grabbing a scrap-heap pitcher who may or may not make it with the team.
Equally important, how do they improve the bullpen next year? Presumably with trades?
Hell, grab Bronson Arroyo if the Dodgers don't retain him.
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 08:31:20 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on October 23, 2015, 08:27:52 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 07:57:09 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on October 23, 2015, 07:51:23 AM
I'd rather they grab an established pitcher via free agency, trade for a respectable, young #3 pitcher (who still has the potential to blossom in to a top end starter) and maybe take a risk by grabbing a scrap-heap pitcher who may or may not make it with the team.
Equally important, how do they improve the bullpen next year? Presumably with trades?
Maybe? Their bullpen was pretty damn good this year, I'm not sure why the perception seems to be that they weren't. With the necessary caveat that bullpens are unpredictable I would still expect them to have a damn good one built around Rondon, Strop, Grimm, and hopefully a healthy Ramirez. I assume they'll also keep Travis Wood, who was pretty good in the pen as well.
Plus, Edwards getting some 7th innings.
Maybe. I don't think he's shown enough control to be counted on yet, and I don't think Theo will pencil him in for anything. Whatever he provides will be a bonus.
I think this year's team has proven that as long as you have a wizard for a pitching coach, you can cobble together one of the best bullpens in the league from the scrap heap. Knowing where Epstink needs to use his limited resources to become a dominant force, I'd say that's a pretty good plan for the 2016 bullpen.
Quote from: Oleg on October 23, 2015, 08:54:40 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 08:31:20 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on October 23, 2015, 08:27:52 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 07:57:09 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on October 23, 2015, 07:51:23 AM
I'd rather they grab an established pitcher via free agency, trade for a respectable, young #3 pitcher (who still has the potential to blossom in to a top end starter) and maybe take a risk by grabbing a scrap-heap pitcher who may or may not make it with the team.
Equally important, how do they improve the bullpen next year? Presumably with trades?
Maybe? Their bullpen was pretty damn good this year, I'm not sure why the perception seems to be that they weren't. With the necessary caveat that bullpens are unpredictable I would still expect them to have a damn good one built around Rondon, Strop, Grimm, and hopefully a healthy Ramirez. I assume they'll also keep Travis Wood, who was pretty good in the pen as well.
Plus, Edwards getting some 7th innings.
Maybe. I don't think he's shown enough control to be counted on yet, and I don't think Theo will pencil him in for anything. Whatever he provides will be a bonus.
I think this year's team has proven that as long as you have a wizard for a pitching coach, you can cobble together one of the best bullpens in the league from the scrap heap. Knowing where Epstink needs to use his limited resources to become a dominant force, I'd say that's a pretty good plan for the 2016 bullpen.
Yeah whatever they do about the bullpen it won't be expensive. I think Theo knows it doesn't that overpaying relievers is rarely a sound strategy (*stares at Rick Hahn*).
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 08:57:12 AM
Quote from: Oleg on October 23, 2015, 08:54:40 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 08:31:20 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on October 23, 2015, 08:27:52 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 07:57:09 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on October 23, 2015, 07:51:23 AM
I'd rather they grab an established pitcher via free agency, trade for a respectable, young #3 pitcher (who still has the potential to blossom in to a top end starter) and maybe take a risk by grabbing a scrap-heap pitcher who may or may not make it with the team.
Equally important, how do they improve the bullpen next year? Presumably with trades?
Maybe? Their bullpen was pretty damn good this year, I'm not sure why the perception seems to be that they weren't. With the necessary caveat that bullpens are unpredictable I would still expect them to have a damn good one built around Rondon, Strop, Grimm, and hopefully a healthy Ramirez. I assume they'll also keep Travis Wood, who was pretty good in the pen as well.
Plus, Edwards getting some 7th innings.
Maybe. I don't think he's shown enough control to be counted on yet, and I don't think Theo will pencil him in for anything. Whatever he provides will be a bonus.
I think this year's team has proven that as long as you have a wizard for a pitching coach, you can cobble together one of the best bullpens in the league from the scrap heap. Knowing where Epstink needs to use his limited resources to become a dominant force, I'd say that's a pretty good plan for the 2016 bullpen.
Yeah whatever they do about the bullpen it won't be expensive. I think Theo knows it doesn't that overpaying relievers is rarely a sound strategy (*stares at Rick Hahn*).
Seriously. $17MM (or whatever) to Duke and Robertson last year. Man, that's special.
Quote from: Oleg on October 23, 2015, 08:59:46 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 08:57:12 AM
Quote from: Oleg on October 23, 2015, 08:54:40 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 08:31:20 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on October 23, 2015, 08:27:52 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 07:57:09 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on October 23, 2015, 07:51:23 AM
I'd rather they grab an established pitcher via free agency, trade for a respectable, young #3 pitcher (who still has the potential to blossom in to a top end starter) and maybe take a risk by grabbing a scrap-heap pitcher who may or may not make it with the team.
Equally important, how do they improve the bullpen next year? Presumably with trades?
Maybe? Their bullpen was pretty damn good this year, I'm not sure why the perception seems to be that they weren't. With the necessary caveat that bullpens are unpredictable I would still expect them to have a damn good one built around Rondon, Strop, Grimm, and hopefully a healthy Ramirez. I assume they'll also keep Travis Wood, who was pretty good in the pen as well.
Plus, Edwards getting some 7th innings.
Maybe. I don't think he's shown enough control to be counted on yet, and I don't think Theo will pencil him in for anything. Whatever he provides will be a bonus.
I think this year's team has proven that as long as you have a wizard for a pitching coach, you can cobble together one of the best bullpens in the league from the scrap heap. Knowing where Epstink needs to use his limited resources to become a dominant force, I'd say that's a pretty good plan for the 2016 bullpen.
Yeah whatever they do about the bullpen it won't be expensive. I think Theo knows it doesn't that overpaying relievers is rarely a sound strategy (*stares at Rick Hahn*).
Seriously. $17MM (or whatever) to Duke and Robertson last year. Man, that's special.
And Robertson wasn't even bad (although he blew a higher number of saves than his numbers would indicate he probably should have. My guess is luck/sequencing issues), but that's just too much damn money for a closer, and having that much money tied up in the pen might make it harder for them to do stuff like eat the money they paid Adam LaRoche and find a designated hitter who can actually fucking hit.
Quote from: PANK! on October 23, 2015, 08:42:32 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on October 23, 2015, 07:51:23 AM
I'd rather they grab an established pitcher via free agency, trade for a respectable, young #3 pitcher (who still has the potential to blossom in to a top end starter) and maybe take a risk by grabbing a scrap-heap pitcher who may or may not make it with the team.
Equally important, how do they improve the bullpen next year? Presumably with trades?
Hell, grab Bronson Arroyo if the Dodgers don't retain him.
DON'T GET MY HOPES UP
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 09:03:08 AM
Quote from: Oleg on October 23, 2015, 08:59:46 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 08:57:12 AM
Quote from: Oleg on October 23, 2015, 08:54:40 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 08:31:20 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on October 23, 2015, 08:27:52 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 07:57:09 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on October 23, 2015, 07:51:23 AM
I'd rather they grab an established pitcher via free agency, trade for a respectable, young #3 pitcher (who still has the potential to blossom in to a top end starter) and maybe take a risk by grabbing a scrap-heap pitcher who may or may not make it with the team.
Equally important, how do they improve the bullpen next year? Presumably with trades?
Maybe? Their bullpen was pretty damn good this year, I'm not sure why the perception seems to be that they weren't. With the necessary caveat that bullpens are unpredictable I would still expect them to have a damn good one built around Rondon, Strop, Grimm, and hopefully a healthy Ramirez. I assume they'll also keep Travis Wood, who was pretty good in the pen as well.
Plus, Edwards getting some 7th innings.
Maybe. I don't think he's shown enough control to be counted on yet, and I don't think Theo will pencil him in for anything. Whatever he provides will be a bonus.
I think this year's team has proven that as long as you have a wizard for a pitching coach, you can cobble together one of the best bullpens in the league from the scrap heap. Knowing where Epstink needs to use his limited resources to become a dominant force, I'd say that's a pretty good plan for the 2016 bullpen.
Yeah whatever they do about the bullpen it won't be expensive. I think Theo knows it doesn't that overpaying relievers is rarely a sound strategy (*stares at Rick Hahn*).
Seriously. $17MM (or whatever) to Duke and Robertson last year. Man, that's special.
And Robertson wasn't even bad (although he blew a higher number of saves than his numbers would indicate he probably should have. My guess is luck/sequencing issues), but that's just too much damn money for a closer, and having that much money tied up in the pen might make it harder for them to do stuff like eat the money they paid Adam LaRoche and find a designated hitter who can actually fucking hit.
So if San Diego is shopping Kimbrel around, Theo should pass?
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on October 23, 2015, 10:32:55 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 09:03:08 AM
Quote from: Oleg on October 23, 2015, 08:59:46 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 08:57:12 AM
Quote from: Oleg on October 23, 2015, 08:54:40 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 08:31:20 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on October 23, 2015, 08:27:52 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 07:57:09 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on October 23, 2015, 07:51:23 AM
I'd rather they grab an established pitcher via free agency, trade for a respectable, young #3 pitcher (who still has the potential to blossom in to a top end starter) and maybe take a risk by grabbing a scrap-heap pitcher who may or may not make it with the team.
Equally important, how do they improve the bullpen next year? Presumably with trades?
Maybe? Their bullpen was pretty damn good this year, I'm not sure why the perception seems to be that they weren't. With the necessary caveat that bullpens are unpredictable I would still expect them to have a damn good one built around Rondon, Strop, Grimm, and hopefully a healthy Ramirez. I assume they'll also keep Travis Wood, who was pretty good in the pen as well.
Plus, Edwards getting some 7th innings.
Maybe. I don't think he's shown enough control to be counted on yet, and I don't think Theo will pencil him in for anything. Whatever he provides will be a bonus.
I think this year's team has proven that as long as you have a wizard for a pitching coach, you can cobble together one of the best bullpens in the league from the scrap heap. Knowing where Epstink needs to use his limited resources to become a dominant force, I'd say that's a pretty good plan for the 2016 bullpen.
Yeah whatever they do about the bullpen it won't be expensive. I think Theo knows it doesn't that overpaying relievers is rarely a sound strategy (*stares at Rick Hahn*).
Seriously. $17MM (or whatever) to Duke and Robertson last year. Man, that's special.
And Robertson wasn't even bad (although he blew a higher number of saves than his numbers would indicate he probably should have. My guess is luck/sequencing issues), but that's just too much damn money for a closer, and having that much money tied up in the pen might make it harder for them to do stuff like eat the money they paid Adam LaRoche and find a designated hitter who can actually fucking hit.
So if San Diego is shopping Kimbrel around, Theo should pass?
Depends on how much money he's got to spend? I mean you can overpay relievers if you have unlimited funds like the Dodgers or Red Sox or Yankees and hopefully these Cubs eventually. But if he's got a finite amount of money to work with I wouldn't want Kimbrel if that money keeps us from outbidding someone for Price or whatever.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on October 23, 2015, 10:32:55 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 09:03:08 AM
Quote from: Oleg on October 23, 2015, 08:59:46 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 08:57:12 AM
Quote from: Oleg on October 23, 2015, 08:54:40 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 08:31:20 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on October 23, 2015, 08:27:52 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 07:57:09 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on October 23, 2015, 07:51:23 AM
I'd rather they grab an established pitcher via free agency, trade for a respectable, young #3 pitcher (who still has the potential to blossom in to a top end starter) and maybe take a risk by grabbing a scrap-heap pitcher who may or may not make it with the team.
Equally important, how do they improve the bullpen next year? Presumably with trades?
Maybe? Their bullpen was pretty damn good this year, I'm not sure why the perception seems to be that they weren't. With the necessary caveat that bullpens are unpredictable I would still expect them to have a damn good one built around Rondon, Strop, Grimm, and hopefully a healthy Ramirez. I assume they'll also keep Travis Wood, who was pretty good in the pen as well.
Plus, Edwards getting some 7th innings.
Maybe. I don't think he's shown enough control to be counted on yet, and I don't think Theo will pencil him in for anything. Whatever he provides will be a bonus.
I think this year's team has proven that as long as you have a wizard for a pitching coach, you can cobble together one of the best bullpens in the league from the scrap heap. Knowing where Epstink needs to use his limited resources to become a dominant force, I'd say that's a pretty good plan for the 2016 bullpen.
Yeah whatever they do about the bullpen it won't be expensive. I think Theo knows it doesn't that overpaying relievers is rarely a sound strategy (*stares at Rick Hahn*).
Seriously. $17MM (or whatever) to Duke and Robertson last year. Man, that's special.
And Robertson wasn't even bad (although he blew a higher number of saves than his numbers would indicate he probably should have. My guess is luck/sequencing issues), but that's just too much damn money for a closer, and having that much money tied up in the pen might make it harder for them to do stuff like eat the money they paid Adam LaRoche and find a designated hitter who can actually fucking hit.
So if San Diego is shopping Kimbrel around, Theo should pass?
If they're asking for tier 1 prospects (all of this years rookies and Baez as well as Torres/Jiminez/Happ (even Almora possibly)) then I'd say no. Rondon blew a few games but he seemed about as effective as anyone in the league. Even when I was worried about the bad spells of Grimm and Strop, I felt good about Rondon.
Now if it'd only take the type of flotsam that netted Montero and Fowler (sorry, Andy) then I'd say go for it.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on October 23, 2015, 10:32:55 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 09:03:08 AM
Quote from: Oleg on October 23, 2015, 08:59:46 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 08:57:12 AM
Quote from: Oleg on October 23, 2015, 08:54:40 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 08:31:20 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on October 23, 2015, 08:27:52 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 07:57:09 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on October 23, 2015, 07:51:23 AM
I'd rather they grab an established pitcher via free agency, trade for a respectable, young #3 pitcher (who still has the potential to blossom in to a top end starter) and maybe take a risk by grabbing a scrap-heap pitcher who may or may not make it with the team.
Equally important, how do they improve the bullpen next year? Presumably with trades?
Maybe? Their bullpen was pretty damn good this year, I'm not sure why the perception seems to be that they weren't. With the necessary caveat that bullpens are unpredictable I would still expect them to have a damn good one built around Rondon, Strop, Grimm, and hopefully a healthy Ramirez. I assume they'll also keep Travis Wood, who was pretty good in the pen as well.
Plus, Edwards getting some 7th innings.
Maybe. I don't think he's shown enough control to be counted on yet, and I don't think Theo will pencil him in for anything. Whatever he provides will be a bonus.
I think this year's team has proven that as long as you have a wizard for a pitching coach, you can cobble together one of the best bullpens in the league from the scrap heap. Knowing where Epstink needs to use his limited resources to become a dominant force, I'd say that's a pretty good plan for the 2016 bullpen.
Yeah whatever they do about the bullpen it won't be expensive. I think Theo knows it doesn't that overpaying relievers is rarely a sound strategy (*stares at Rick Hahn*).
Seriously. $17MM (or whatever) to Duke and Robertson last year. Man, that's special.
And Robertson wasn't even bad (although he blew a higher number of saves than his numbers would indicate he probably should have. My guess is luck/sequencing issues), but that's just too much damn money for a closer, and having that much money tied up in the pen might make it harder for them to do stuff like eat the money they paid Adam LaRoche and find a designated hitter who can actually fucking hit.
So if San Diego is shopping Kimbrel around, Theo should pass?
Yes.
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 08:35:41 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 23, 2015, 08:32:55 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 07:57:09 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on October 23, 2015, 07:51:23 AM
I'd rather they grab an established pitcher via free agency, trade for a respectable, young #3 pitcher (who still has the potential to blossom in to a top end starter) and maybe take a risk by grabbing a scrap-heap pitcher who may or may not make it with the team.
Equally important, how do they improve the bullpen next year? Presumably with trades?
Maybe? Their bullpen was pretty damn good this year, I'm not sure why the perception seems to be that they weren't. With the necessary caveat that bullpens are unpredictable I would still expect them to have a damn good one built around Rondon, Strop, Grimm, and hopefully a healthy Ramirez. I assume they'll also keep Travis Wood, who was pretty good in the pen as well.
Wood is Arb 3 this year. Could be too expensive for what he will bring. He's a non-tender candidate.
Then I would add left handed reliever who can actually strike people out (sorry Clayton Richard) to the wish list.
Wood probably wants to return to the rotation, and he might actually have some trade value. I think he'd be worth keeping, but wouldn't be upset if he got moved.
Quote from: Canadouche on October 23, 2015, 11:17:50 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 08:35:41 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 23, 2015, 08:32:55 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 07:57:09 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on October 23, 2015, 07:51:23 AM
I'd rather they grab an established pitcher via free agency, trade for a respectable, young #3 pitcher (who still has the potential to blossom in to a top end starter) and maybe take a risk by grabbing a scrap-heap pitcher who may or may not make it with the team.
Equally important, how do they improve the bullpen next year? Presumably with trades?
Maybe? Their bullpen was pretty damn good this year, I'm not sure why the perception seems to be that they weren't. With the necessary caveat that bullpens are unpredictable I would still expect them to have a damn good one built around Rondon, Strop, Grimm, and hopefully a healthy Ramirez. I assume they'll also keep Travis Wood, who was pretty good in the pen as well.
Wood is Arb 3 this year. Could be too expensive for what he will bring. He's a non-tender candidate.
Then I would add left handed reliever who can actually strike people out (sorry Clayton Richard) to the wish list.
Wood probably wants to return to the rotation, and he might actually have some trade value. I think he'd be worth keeping, but wouldn't be upset if he got moved.
They'll probably agree to a one-year deal. I'd be surprised if it went all the way to arbitration.
When it comes to Travis Wood, it just occurred to me that Theo traded Sean Marshall for future Sean Marshall.
Quote from: Yeti on October 23, 2015, 12:57:18 PM
When it comes to Travis Wood, it just occurred to me that Theo traded Sean Marshall for future Sean Marshall.
I had made a similar observation during Game 2 to the people around me. In the end, Wood ended up filling the role that was eventually vacated by the guy for whom he was traded.
Quote from: PANK! on October 23, 2015, 01:09:16 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 23, 2015, 12:57:18 PM
When it comes to Travis Wood, it just occurred to me that Theo traded Sean Marshall for future Sean Marshall.
I had made a similar observation during Game 2 to the people around me. In the end, Wood ended up filling the role that was eventually vacated by the guy for whom he was traded.
I'm the only one who's saying this, guys, but Travis Wood essentially replaced Sean Marshall in that trade.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 23, 2015, 01:23:08 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 23, 2015, 01:09:16 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 23, 2015, 12:57:18 PM
When it comes to Travis Wood, it just occurred to me that Theo traded Sean Marshall for future Sean Marshall.
I had made a similar observation during Game 2 to the people around me. In the end, Wood ended up filling the role that was eventually vacated by the guy for whom he was traded.
I'm the only one who's saying this, guys, but Travis Wood essentially replaced Sean Marshall in that trade.
Also it's not a true PANK but saying a guy who was gone before Wood arrived (because he was traded for Wood, natch) "eventually vacated" the spot that Wood took is some awkward ass sentence construction.
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 01:29:42 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 23, 2015, 01:23:08 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 23, 2015, 01:09:16 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 23, 2015, 12:57:18 PM
When it comes to Travis Wood, it just occurred to me that Theo traded Sean Marshall for future Sean Marshall.
I had made a similar observation during Game 2 to the people around me. In the end, Wood ended up filling the role that was eventually vacated by the guy for whom he was traded.
I'm the only one who's saying this, guys, but Travis Wood essentially replaced Sean Marshall in that trade.
Also it's not a true PANK but saying a guy who was gone before Wood arrived (because he was traded for Wood, natch) "eventually vacated" the spot that Wood took is some awkward ass sentence construction.
Take it somewhere else of that's how younger about it.
Quote from: R-V on October 23, 2015, 01:46:51 PM
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 01:29:42 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 23, 2015, 01:23:08 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 23, 2015, 01:09:16 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 23, 2015, 12:57:18 PM
When it comes to Travis Wood, it just occurred to me that Theo traded Sean Marshall for future Sean Marshall.
I had made a similar observation during Game 2 to the people around me. In the end, Wood ended up filling the role that was eventually vacated by the guy for whom he was traded.
I'm the only one who's saying this, guys, but Travis Wood essentially replaced Sean Marshall in that trade.
Also it's not a true PANK but saying a guy who was gone before Wood arrived (because he was traded for Wood, natch) "eventually vacated" the spot that Wood took is some awkward ass sentence construction.
Take it somewhere else of that's how younger about it.
Just trying to gigure out ho this sentence construction works, man
I was perusing Jason Heyward's Baseball Reference page and his #4 comp through age 25 season was interesting.
Heyward
.353 OBP
.431 SLG
31.1 WAR
Mystery Comp
.358 OBP
.479 SLG
33.2 WAR
I don't know about you guys but I'm ready to spend some cash on Barry Bonds* minus some pop in his bat.
* He's not actually the next Barry Bonds
Quote from: R-V on October 23, 2015, 01:59:42 PM
I was perusing Jason Heyward's Baseball Reference page and his #4 comp through age 25 season was interesting.
Heyward
.353 OBP
.431 SLG
31.1 WAR
Mystery Comp
.358 OBP
.479 SLG
33.2 WAR
I don't know about you guys but I'm ready to spend some cash on Barry Bonds* minus some pop in his bat.
* He's not actually the next Barry Bonds
I definitely would like Heyward in CF next year vs. overpaying for a guy like Price. Trade whatever prospects you can to get a solid #2/3 starter, sign a mid-tier innings eater to be your #4, and baby you got a second consecutive 90+ win season stew goin'
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 02:15:47 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 23, 2015, 01:59:42 PM
I was perusing Jason Heyward's Baseball Reference page and his #4 comp through age 25 season was interesting.
Heyward
.353 OBP
.431 SLG
31.1 WAR
Mystery Comp
.358 OBP
.479 SLG
33.2 WAR
I don't know about you guys but I'm ready to spend some cash on Barry Bonds* minus some pop in his bat.
* He's not actually the next Barry Bonds
I definitely would like Heyward in CF next year vs. overpaying for a guy like Price. Trade whatever prospects you can to get a solid #2/3 starter, sign a mid-tier innings eater to be your #4, and baby you got a second consecutive 90+ win season stew goin'
There's no reason for it to be versus.
Both.
Quote from: R-V on October 23, 2015, 01:59:42 PM
I was perusing Jason Heyward's Baseball Reference page and his #4 comp through age 25 season was interesting.
Heyward
.353 OBP
.431 SLG
31.1 WAR
Mystery Comp
.358 OBP
.479 SLG
33.2 WAR
I don't know about you guys but I'm ready to spend some cash on Barry Bonds* minus some pop in his bat.
* He's not actually the next Barry Bonds
I think entirely based on his physique*, he reminds me a lot of a left-handed Andre Dawson. I wouldn't mind watching him play in CF next year.
*physique is a really weird word
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 23, 2015, 02:32:13 PM
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 02:15:47 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 23, 2015, 01:59:42 PM
I was perusing Jason Heyward's Baseball Reference page and his #4 comp through age 25 season was interesting.
Heyward
.353 OBP
.431 SLG
31.1 WAR
Mystery Comp
.358 OBP
.479 SLG
33.2 WAR
I don't know about you guys but I'm ready to spend some cash on Barry Bonds* minus some pop in his bat.
* He's not actually the next Barry Bonds
I definitely would like Heyward in CF next year vs. overpaying for a guy like Price. Trade whatever prospects you can to get a solid #2/3 starter, sign a mid-tier innings eater to be your #4, and baby you got a second consecutive 90+ win season stew goin'
There's no reason for it to be versus.
Both.
Chuck that's just not going to happen no matter how much you're setting things up so that you can continue to be mad at the Ricketts when they don't spend 400 mildo in one offseason.
Quote from: R-V on October 23, 2015, 01:59:42 PM
I was perusing Jason Heyward's Baseball Reference page and his #4 comp through age 25 season was interesting.
Heyward
.353 OBP
.431 SLG
31.1 WAR
Mystery Comp
.358 OBP
.479 SLG
33.2 WAR
I don't know about you guys but I'm ready to spend some cash on Barry Bonds* minus some pop in his bat.
* He's not actually the next Barry Bonds
Heyward might be the Cubs' only option in CF if they're asking someone to Baumholtz his ass off between Soler and Schwarber out there.
Quote from: Canadouche on October 23, 2015, 02:33:26 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 23, 2015, 01:59:42 PM
I was perusing Jason Heyward's Baseball Reference page and his #4 comp through age 25 season was interesting.
Heyward
.353 OBP
.431 SLG
31.1 WAR
Mystery Comp
.358 OBP
.479 SLG
33.2 WAR
I don't know about you guys but I'm ready to spend some cash on Barry Bonds* minus some pop in his bat.
* He's not actually the next Barry Bonds
I think entirely based on his physique*, he reminds me a lot of a left-handed Andre Dawson. I wouldn't mind watching him play in CF next year.
*physique is a really weird word
VEB is in a collective panic (http://www.vivaelbirdos.com/st-louis-cardinals-sabermetrics-analysis/2015/10/22/9589924/will-the-chicago-cubs-outbid-the-st-louis-cardinals-on-jason-heyward) over the Cubs signing Heyward away, so maybe there's something to it.
I still want Price though.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 23, 2015, 04:02:09 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on October 23, 2015, 02:33:26 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 23, 2015, 01:59:42 PM
I was perusing Jason Heyward's Baseball Reference page and his #4 comp through age 25 season was interesting.
Heyward
.353 OBP
.431 SLG
31.1 WAR
Mystery Comp
.358 OBP
.479 SLG
33.2 WAR
I don't know about you guys but I'm ready to spend some cash on Barry Bonds* minus some pop in his bat.
* He's not actually the next Barry Bonds
I think entirely based on his physique*, he reminds me a lot of a left-handed Andre Dawson. I wouldn't mind watching him play in CF next year.
*physique is a really weird word
VEB is in a collective panic (http://www.vivaelbirdos.com/st-louis-cardinals-sabermetrics-analysis/2015/10/22/9589924/will-the-chicago-cubs-outbid-the-st-louis-cardinals-on-jason-heyward) over the Cubs signing Heyward away, so maybe there's something to it.
I still want Price though.
Why not both?
Also, what are everybody's thoughts on Lackey? (Not as an alternative to Price, but as an additional acquistion)
Quote from: Canadouche on October 23, 2015, 04:13:22 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 23, 2015, 04:02:09 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on October 23, 2015, 02:33:26 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 23, 2015, 01:59:42 PM
I was perusing Jason Heyward's Baseball Reference page and his #4 comp through age 25 season was interesting.
Heyward
.353 OBP
.431 SLG
31.1 WAR
Mystery Comp
.358 OBP
.479 SLG
33.2 WAR
I don't know about you guys but I'm ready to spend some cash on Barry Bonds* minus some pop in his bat.
* He's not actually the next Barry Bonds
I think entirely based on his physique*, he reminds me a lot of a left-handed Andre Dawson. I wouldn't mind watching him play in CF next year.
*physique is a really weird word
VEB is in a collective panic (http://www.vivaelbirdos.com/st-louis-cardinals-sabermetrics-analysis/2015/10/22/9589924/will-the-chicago-cubs-outbid-the-st-louis-cardinals-on-jason-heyward) over the Cubs signing Heyward away, so maybe there's something to it.
I still want Price though.
Why not both?
Also, what are everybody's thoughts on Lackey? (Not as an alternative to Price, but as an additional acquistion)
I think he's a shithead and this year's team was pretty free of shitheads, which was enjoyable. Say no to shitheads.
Quote from: Eli on October 23, 2015, 04:15:09 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on October 23, 2015, 04:13:22 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 23, 2015, 04:02:09 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on October 23, 2015, 02:33:26 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 23, 2015, 01:59:42 PM
I was perusing Jason Heyward's Baseball Reference page and his #4 comp through age 25 season was interesting.
Heyward
.353 OBP
.431 SLG
31.1 WAR
Mystery Comp
.358 OBP
.479 SLG
33.2 WAR
I don't know about you guys but I'm ready to spend some cash on Barry Bonds* minus some pop in his bat.
* He's not actually the next Barry Bonds
I think entirely based on his physique*, he reminds me a lot of a left-handed Andre Dawson. I wouldn't mind watching him play in CF next year.
*physique is a really weird word
VEB is in a collective panic (http://www.vivaelbirdos.com/st-louis-cardinals-sabermetrics-analysis/2015/10/22/9589924/will-the-chicago-cubs-outbid-the-st-louis-cardinals-on-jason-heyward) over the Cubs signing Heyward away, so maybe there's something to it.
I still want Price though.
Why not both?
Also, what are everybody's thoughts on Lackey? (Not as an alternative to Price, but as an additional acquistion)
I think he's a shithead and this year's team was pretty free of shitheads, which was enjoyable. Say no to shitheads.
What if he replaces David Ross as Lester's grabass bro?
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 23, 2015, 04:02:09 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on October 23, 2015, 02:33:26 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 23, 2015, 01:59:42 PM
I was perusing Jason Heyward's Baseball Reference page and his #4 comp through age 25 season was interesting.
Heyward
.353 OBP
.431 SLG
31.1 WAR
Mystery Comp
.358 OBP
.479 SLG
33.2 WAR
I don't know about you guys but I'm ready to spend some cash on Barry Bonds* minus some pop in his bat.
* He's not actually the next Barry Bonds
I think entirely based on his physique*, he reminds me a lot of a left-handed Andre Dawson. I wouldn't mind watching him play in CF next year.
*physique is a really weird word
VEB is in a collective panic (http://www.vivaelbirdos.com/st-louis-cardinals-sabermetrics-analysis/2015/10/22/9589924/will-the-chicago-cubs-outbid-the-st-louis-cardinals-on-jason-heyward) over the Cubs signing Heyward away, so maybe there's something to it.
I still want Price though.
I also enjoy the notion of Jepstink pulling off the power move of taking him from the Cardinals. His Steamer WAR of 4.3 represents a potential ~8 game swing in the standings.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on October 23, 2015, 04:37:27 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 23, 2015, 04:02:09 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on October 23, 2015, 02:33:26 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 23, 2015, 01:59:42 PM
I was perusing Jason Heyward's Baseball Reference page and his #4 comp through age 25 season was interesting.
Heyward
.353 OBP
.431 SLG
31.1 WAR
Mystery Comp
.358 OBP
.479 SLG
33.2 WAR
I don't know about you guys but I'm ready to spend some cash on Barry Bonds* minus some pop in his bat.
* He's not actually the next Barry Bonds
I think entirely based on his physique*, he reminds me a lot of a left-handed Andre Dawson. I wouldn't mind watching him play in CF next year.
*physique is a really weird word
VEB is in a collective panic (http://www.vivaelbirdos.com/st-louis-cardinals-sabermetrics-analysis/2015/10/22/9589924/will-the-chicago-cubs-outbid-the-st-louis-cardinals-on-jason-heyward) over the Cubs signing Heyward away, so maybe there's something to it.
I still want Price though.
I also enjoy the notion of Jepstink pulling off the power move of taking him from the Cardinals. His Steamer WAR of 4.3 represents a potential ~8 game swing in the standings.
Assuming they replace him with Damon Buford, I'll go ahead and bank those 8 games right now.
*opens giant ledger across entire desk and dips quill in black inkwell*
Quote from: Oleg on October 23, 2015, 04:32:58 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 23, 2015, 04:15:09 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on October 23, 2015, 04:13:22 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 23, 2015, 04:02:09 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on October 23, 2015, 02:33:26 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 23, 2015, 01:59:42 PM
I was perusing Jason Heyward's Baseball Reference page and his #4 comp through age 25 season was interesting.
Heyward
.353 OBP
.431 SLG
31.1 WAR
Mystery Comp
.358 OBP
.479 SLG
33.2 WAR
I don't know about you guys but I'm ready to spend some cash on Barry Bonds* minus some pop in his bat.
* He's not actually the next Barry Bonds
I think entirely based on his physique*, he reminds me a lot of a left-handed Andre Dawson. I wouldn't mind watching him play in CF next year.
*physique is a really weird word
VEB is in a collective panic (http://www.vivaelbirdos.com/st-louis-cardinals-sabermetrics-analysis/2015/10/22/9589924/will-the-chicago-cubs-outbid-the-st-louis-cardinals-on-jason-heyward) over the Cubs signing Heyward away, so maybe there's something to it.
I still want Price though.
Why not both?
Also, what are everybody's thoughts on Lackey? (Not as an alternative to Price, but as an additional acquistion)
I think he's a shithead and this year's team was pretty free of shitheads, which was enjoyable. Say no to shitheads.
What if he replaces David Ross as Lester's grabass bro?
A location more convenient to Wrigley will be in order.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/20070131_Harold's_Chicken_Shack_2.JPG)
Quote from: Oleg on October 23, 2015, 04:32:58 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 23, 2015, 04:15:09 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on October 23, 2015, 04:13:22 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 23, 2015, 04:02:09 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on October 23, 2015, 02:33:26 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 23, 2015, 01:59:42 PM
I was perusing Jason Heyward's Baseball Reference page and his #4 comp through age 25 season was interesting.
Heyward
.353 OBP
.431 SLG
31.1 WAR
Mystery Comp
.358 OBP
.479 SLG
33.2 WAR
I don't know about you guys but I'm ready to spend some cash on Barry Bonds* minus some pop in his bat.
* He's not actually the next Barry Bonds
I think entirely based on his physique*, he reminds me a lot of a left-handed Andre Dawson. I wouldn't mind watching him play in CF next year.
*physique is a really weird word
VEB is in a collective panic (http://www.vivaelbirdos.com/st-louis-cardinals-sabermetrics-analysis/2015/10/22/9589924/will-the-chicago-cubs-outbid-the-st-louis-cardinals-on-jason-heyward) over the Cubs signing Heyward away, so maybe there's something to it.
I still want Price though.
Why not both?
Also, what are everybody's thoughts on Lackey? (Not as an alternative to Price, but as an additional acquistion)
I think he's a shithead and this year's team was pretty free of shitheads, which was enjoyable. Say no to shitheads.
What if he replaces David Ross as Lester's grabass bro?
Can't Lester play grabass with the bench coach?
Quote from: Oleg on October 23, 2015, 04:32:58 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 23, 2015, 04:15:09 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on October 23, 2015, 04:13:22 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 23, 2015, 04:02:09 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on October 23, 2015, 02:33:26 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 23, 2015, 01:59:42 PM
I was perusing Jason Heyward's Baseball Reference page and his #4 comp through age 25 season was interesting.
Heyward
.353 OBP
.431 SLG
31.1 WAR
Mystery Comp
.358 OBP
.479 SLG
33.2 WAR
I don't know about you guys but I'm ready to spend some cash on Barry Bonds* minus some pop in his bat.
* He's not actually the next Barry Bonds
I think entirely based on his physique*, he reminds me a lot of a left-handed Andre Dawson. I wouldn't mind watching him play in CF next year.
*physique is a really weird word
VEB is in a collective panic (http://www.vivaelbirdos.com/st-louis-cardinals-sabermetrics-analysis/2015/10/22/9589924/will-the-chicago-cubs-outbid-the-st-louis-cardinals-on-jason-heyward) over the Cubs signing Heyward away, so maybe there's something to it.
I still want Price though.
Why not both?
Also, what are everybody's thoughts on Lackey? (Not as an alternative to Price, but as an additional acquistion)
I think he's a shithead and this year's team was pretty free of shitheads, which was enjoyable. Say no to shitheads.
What if he replaces David Ross as Lester's grabass bro?
So would Lackey be the personal catcher then? And we thought Schwarber was bad...
DPD. The Orange One says the Brewers have stolen former Vanderbilt pitching guru turned Cubs pitching coordinator Derek Johnson away to be their pitching coach at the big-league level. There goes our David Price advantage. FUCK. /s
Quote from: InternetApex on October 23, 2015, 05:16:00 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on October 23, 2015, 04:37:27 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 23, 2015, 04:02:09 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on October 23, 2015, 02:33:26 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 23, 2015, 01:59:42 PM
I was perusing Jason Heyward's Baseball Reference page and his #4 comp through age 25 season was interesting.
Heyward
.353 OBP
.431 SLG
31.1 WAR
Mystery Comp
.358 OBP
.479 SLG
33.2 WAR
I don't know about you guys but I'm ready to spend some cash on Barry Bonds* minus some pop in his bat.
* He's not actually the next Barry Bonds
I think entirely based on his physique*, he reminds me a lot of a left-handed Andre Dawson. I wouldn't mind watching him play in CF next year.
*physique is a really weird word
VEB is in a collective panic (http://www.vivaelbirdos.com/st-louis-cardinals-sabermetrics-analysis/2015/10/22/9589924/will-the-chicago-cubs-outbid-the-st-louis-cardinals-on-jason-heyward) over the Cubs signing Heyward away, so maybe there's something to it.
I still want Price though.
I also enjoy the notion of Jepstink pulling off the power move of taking him from the Cardinals. His Steamer WAR of 4.3 represents a potential ~8 game swing in the standings.
Assuming they replace him with Damon Buford, I'll go ahead and bank those 8 games right now.
*opens giant ledger across entire desk and dips quill in black inkwell*
I also forgot about Damon Buford playing for the Cubs this year.
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 02:34:16 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 23, 2015, 02:32:13 PM
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 02:15:47 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 23, 2015, 01:59:42 PM
I was perusing Jason Heyward's Baseball Reference page and his #4 comp through age 25 season was interesting.
Heyward
.353 OBP
.431 SLG
31.1 WAR
Mystery Comp
.358 OBP
.479 SLG
33.2 WAR
I don't know about you guys but I'm ready to spend some cash on Barry Bonds* minus some pop in his bat.
* He's not actually the next Barry Bonds
I definitely would like Heyward in CF next year vs. overpaying for a guy like Price. Trade whatever prospects you can to get a solid #2/3 starter, sign a mid-tier innings eater to be your #4, and baby you got a second consecutive 90+ win season stew goin'
There's no reason for it to be versus.
Both.
Chuck that's just not going to happen no matter how much you're setting things up so that you can continue to be mad at the Ricketts when they don't spend 400 mildo in one offseason.
Allowing for renewals and arbitration raises, payroll is at about $120mm for 2016 right now. That includes $13mm dropping off at the end of the year for Edwin Jackson. Two $20mm players boosts payroll to $147mm (net of Edwin), only $3mm more than 2010 payroll.
I'm not expecting them to spend $400mm, but they certainly can. If Theo wants Price and Heyward, they can certainly afford it.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 24, 2015, 11:08:45 PM
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 02:34:16 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 23, 2015, 02:32:13 PM
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 02:15:47 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 23, 2015, 01:59:42 PM
I was perusing Jason Heyward's Baseball Reference page and his #4 comp through age 25 season was interesting.
Heyward
.353 OBP
.431 SLG
31.1 WAR
Mystery Comp
.358 OBP
.479 SLG
33.2 WAR
I don't know about you guys but I'm ready to spend some cash on Barry Bonds* minus some pop in his bat.
* He's not actually the next Barry Bonds
I definitely would like Heyward in CF next year vs. overpaying for a guy like Price. Trade whatever prospects you can to get a solid #2/3 starter, sign a mid-tier innings eater to be your #4, and baby you got a second consecutive 90+ win season stew goin'
There's no reason for it to be versus.
Both.
Chuck that's just not going to happen no matter how much you're setting things up so that you can continue to be mad at the Ricketts when they don't spend 400 mildo in one offseason.
Allowing for renewals and arbitration raises, payroll is at about $120mm for 2016 right now. That includes $13mm dropping off at the end of the year for Edwin Jackson. Two $20mm players boosts payroll to $147mm (net of Edwin), only $3mm more than 2010 payroll.
I'm not expecting them to spend $400mm, but they certainly can. If Theo wants Price and Heyward, they can certainly afford it.
Maybe semantics, but Price and Heyward will each cost more than $20mm/year. And they're going to add more than just two players this offseason.
Quote from: Eli on October 25, 2015, 09:05:05 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 24, 2015, 11:08:45 PM
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 02:34:16 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 23, 2015, 02:32:13 PM
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2015, 02:15:47 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 23, 2015, 01:59:42 PM
I was perusing Jason Heyward's Baseball Reference page and his #4 comp through age 25 season was interesting.
Heyward
.353 OBP
.431 SLG
31.1 WAR
Mystery Comp
.358 OBP
.479 SLG
33.2 WAR
I don't know about you guys but I'm ready to spend some cash on Barry Bonds* minus some pop in his bat.
* He's not actually the next Barry Bonds
I definitely would like Heyward in CF next year vs. overpaying for a guy like Price. Trade whatever prospects you can to get a solid #2/3 starter, sign a mid-tier innings eater to be your #4, and baby you got a second consecutive 90+ win season stew goin'
There's no reason for it to be versus.
Both.
Chuck that's just not going to happen no matter how much you're setting things up so that you can continue to be mad at the Ricketts when they don't spend 400 mildo in one offseason.
Allowing for renewals and arbitration raises, payroll is at about $120mm for 2016 right now. That includes $13mm dropping off at the end of the year for Edwin Jackson. Two $20mm players boosts payroll to $147mm (net of Edwin), only $3mm more than 2010 payroll.
I'm not expecting them to spend $400mm, but they certainly can. If Theo wants Price and Heyward, they can certainly afford it.
Maybe semantics, but Price and Heyward will each cost more than $20mm/year. And they're going to add more than just two players this offseason.
Hopefully more than they lose, otherwise their Phil Rogers +/- Rating will be negative and I will want Theo fired.
Quote from: Brownie on October 23, 2015, 05:24:15 PM
Quote from: Oleg on October 23, 2015, 04:32:58 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 23, 2015, 04:15:09 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on October 23, 2015, 04:13:22 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 23, 2015, 04:02:09 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on October 23, 2015, 02:33:26 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 23, 2015, 01:59:42 PM
I was perusing Jason Heyward's Baseball Reference page and his #4 comp through age 25 season was interesting.
Heyward
.353 OBP
.431 SLG
31.1 WAR
Mystery Comp
.358 OBP
.479 SLG
33.2 WAR
I don't know about you guys but I'm ready to spend some cash on Barry Bonds* minus some pop in his bat.
* He's not actually the next Barry Bonds
I think entirely based on his physique*, he reminds me a lot of a left-handed Andre Dawson. I wouldn't mind watching him play in CF next year.
*physique is a really weird word
VEB is in a collective panic (http://www.vivaelbirdos.com/st-louis-cardinals-sabermetrics-analysis/2015/10/22/9589924/will-the-chicago-cubs-outbid-the-st-louis-cardinals-on-jason-heyward) over the Cubs signing Heyward away, so maybe there's something to it.
I still want Price though.
Why not both?
Also, what are everybody's thoughts on Lackey? (Not as an alternative to Price, but as an additional acquistion)
I think he's a shithead and this year's team was pretty free of shitheads, which was enjoyable. Say no to shitheads.
What if he replaces David Ross as Lester's grabass bro?
A location more convenient to Wrigley will be in order.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/20070131_Harold's_Chicken_Shack_2.JPG)
They've got a food truck now. Easy peasy.
Not surprising, but there we go (http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/10/24/baseball-players-trending-and-down-nearing-free-agency/1RwcdPawxg563i00KTGSIP/story.html?event=event25):
Quote8. David Ross, C, Cubs — Ross said he will honor the final year of his contract and return next season. "It was a great ride," Ross said. "It's more sad we didn't play well and [the Mets] played great. A lot of positives as I look back, but thought we had a legit chance at the World Series. I really wanted to get [Jon] Lester and [Jake] Arrieta another start."
(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/4043309/mars-attacks-head-explode-2-o.gif)
Quote from: SKO on October 26, 2015, 08:49:57 AM
(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/4043309/mars-attacks-head-explode-2-o.gif)
happy monday to you
Quote from: Eli on October 26, 2015, 08:58:23 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 26, 2015, 08:49:57 AM
(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/4043309/mars-attacks-head-explode-2-o.gif)
happy monday to you
Hard to blame Ross. Just don't understand why in God's name a 38 year old catcher got a fucking two year deal. Countless articles have been written this year about all of the Cubs hot young prospects and the roster squeeze they'll be in trying to protect them all from the Rule V draft and oh hey here's a guaranteed spot for
David Ross
Ross will have an OPS above .650 next season. It will be his death rattle, but there you go.
I missed this last week, but I think it's a pretty fair and measured analysis of Schwarber's offensive skills and his defensive, uh, skills(?).
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/2015-mlb-playoffs-kyle-schwarber-chicago-cubs-future/
Something that I don't think gets talked about with trading Schwarber is his body type (insert standard Desipio BMI joke). Guys like him age differently than thinner players and it's not particularly pretty (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-will-prince-fielder-age/). Then again, it's entirely possible that the value of his bat will be so substantial in the next 2-3 years it would surpass whatever value you could get from him in a trade this winter. I worry more about him once he hits his later 20s, but I guess that's still a ways off.
All that said, this is mostly for the sake of combating offseason boredom. I still don't think he's going anywhere.
Quote from: SKO on October 26, 2015, 09:00:42 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 26, 2015, 08:58:23 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 26, 2015, 08:49:57 AM
(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/4043309/mars-attacks-head-explode-2-o.gif)
happy monday to you
Hard to blame Ross. Just don't understand why in God's name a 38 year old catcher got a fucking two year deal. Countless articles have been written this year about all of the Cubs hot young prospects and the roster squeeze they'll be in trying to protect them all from the Rule V draft and oh hey here's a guaranteed spot for David Ross
A whole winter of this.
Quote from: Slaky on October 26, 2015, 10:32:05 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 26, 2015, 09:00:42 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 26, 2015, 08:58:23 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 26, 2015, 08:49:57 AM
(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/4043309/mars-attacks-head-explode-2-o.gif)
happy monday to you
Hard to blame Ross. Just don't understand why in God's name a 38 year old catcher got a fucking two year deal. Countless articles have been written this year about all of the Cubs hot young prospects and the roster squeeze they'll be in trying to protect them all from the Rule V draft and oh hey here's a guaranteed spot for David Ross
A whole winter of this.
I will vow, for the sake of peace, not to complain about Ross between now and his first start next year.
Quote from: SKO on October 26, 2015, 10:32:54 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 26, 2015, 10:32:05 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 26, 2015, 09:00:42 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 26, 2015, 08:58:23 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 26, 2015, 08:49:57 AM
(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/4043309/mars-attacks-head-explode-2-o.gif)
happy monday to you
Hard to blame Ross. Just don't understand why in God's name a 38 year old catcher got a fucking two year deal. Countless articles have been written this year about all of the Cubs hot young prospects and the roster squeeze they'll be in trying to protect them all from the Rule V draft and oh hey here's a guaranteed spot for David Ross
A whole winter of this.
I will vow, for the sake of peace, not to complain about Ross between now and his first start next year.
I think someone needs a signature change.
Quote from: Eli on October 26, 2015, 10:33:51 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 26, 2015, 10:32:54 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 26, 2015, 10:32:05 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 26, 2015, 09:00:42 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 26, 2015, 08:58:23 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 26, 2015, 08:49:57 AM
(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/4043309/mars-attacks-head-explode-2-o.gif)
happy monday to you
Hard to blame Ross. Just don't understand why in God's name a 38 year old catcher got a fucking two year deal. Countless articles have been written this year about all of the Cubs hot young prospects and the roster squeeze they'll be in trying to protect them all from the Rule V draft and oh hey here's a guaranteed spot for David Ross
A whole winter of this.
I will vow, for the sake of peace, not to complain about Ross between now and his first start next year.
I think someone needs a signature change.
Done
Quote from: SKO on October 26, 2015, 10:42:20 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 26, 2015, 10:33:51 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 26, 2015, 10:32:54 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 26, 2015, 10:32:05 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 26, 2015, 09:00:42 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 26, 2015, 08:58:23 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 26, 2015, 08:49:57 AM
(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/4043309/mars-attacks-head-explode-2-o.gif)
happy monday to you
Hard to blame Ross. Just don't understand why in God's name a 38 year old catcher got a fucking two year deal. Countless articles have been written this year about all of the Cubs hot young prospects and the roster squeeze they'll be in trying to protect them all from the Rule V draft and oh hey here's a guaranteed spot for David Ross
A whole winter of this.
I will vow, for the sake of peace, not to complain about Ross between now and his first start next year.
I think someone needs a signature change.
Done
I guess it can also apply to Ross from Friends.
Quote from: Eli on October 26, 2015, 10:15:11 AM
I missed this last week, but I think it's a pretty fair and measured analysis of Schwarber's offensive skills and his defensive, uh, skills(?).
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/2015-mlb-playoffs-kyle-schwarber-chicago-cubs-future/
Something that I don't think gets talked about with trading Schwarber is his body type (insert standard Desipio BMI joke). Guys like him age differently than thinner players and it's not particularly pretty (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-will-prince-fielder-age/). Then again, it's entirely possible that the value of his bat will be so substantial in the next 2-3 years it would surpass whatever value you could get from him in a trade this winter. I worry more about him once he hits his later 20s, but I guess that's still a ways off.
All that said, this is mostly for the sake of combating offseason boredom. I still don't think he's going anywhere.
The AL scouts quoted in that article all think he can't play left or catch because the want him traded to their team. They're clearly biased.
Quote from: Slaky on October 26, 2015, 10:42:48 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 26, 2015, 10:42:20 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 26, 2015, 10:33:51 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 26, 2015, 10:32:54 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 26, 2015, 10:32:05 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 26, 2015, 09:00:42 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 26, 2015, 08:58:23 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 26, 2015, 08:49:57 AM
(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/4043309/mars-attacks-head-explode-2-o.gif)
happy monday to you
Hard to blame Ross. Just don't understand why in God's name a 38 year old catcher got a fucking two year deal. Countless articles have been written this year about all of the Cubs hot young prospects and the roster squeeze they'll be in trying to protect them all from the Rule V draft and oh hey here's a guaranteed spot for David Ross
A whole winter of this.
I will vow, for the sake of peace, not to complain about Ross between now and his first start next year.
I think someone needs a signature change.
Done
I guess it can also apply to Ross from Friends.
I fixed it so that I can celebrate the trade for Tyson Ross.
Quote from: Eli on October 26, 2015, 10:15:11 AM
I missed this last week, but I think it's a pretty fair and measured analysis of Schwarber's offensive skills and his defensive, uh, skills(?).
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/2015-mlb-playoffs-kyle-schwarber-chicago-cubs-future/
Something that I don't think gets talked about with trading Schwarber is his body type (insert standard Desipio BMI joke). Guys like him age differently than thinner players and it's not particularly pretty (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-will-prince-fielder-age/). Then again, it's entirely possible that the value of his bat will be so substantial in the next 2-3 years it would surpass whatever value you could get from him in a trade this winter. I worry more about him once he hits his later 20s, but I guess that's still a ways off.
All that said, this is mostly for the sake of combating offseason boredom. I still don't think he's going anywhere.
I'm hanging my hat on the DH coming to the National League before his career is over. Until then, I don't care if he needs a road map to play left field as long as he keeps raking.
How many runs does a LF realistically cost a team over season? I'm guessing fewer than he's going to drive in.
Quote from: Eli on October 26, 2015, 10:15:11 AM
I missed this last week, but I think it's a pretty fair and measured analysis of Schwarber's offensive skills and his defensive, uh, skills(?).
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/2015-mlb-playoffs-kyle-schwarber-chicago-cubs-future/
Something that I don't think gets talked about with trading Schwarber is his body type (insert standard Desipio BMI joke). Guys like him age differently than thinner players and it's not particularly pretty (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-will-prince-fielder-age/). Then again, it's entirely possible that the value of his bat will be so substantial in the next 2-3 years it would surpass whatever value you could get from him in a trade this winter. I worry more about him once he hits his later 20s, but I guess that's still a ways off.
All that said, this is mostly for the sake of combating offseason boredom. I still don't think he's going anywhere.
So who are these people I keep hearing about who think the Cubs should trade Schwarber?
Quote from: Armchair_QB on October 26, 2015, 12:54:58 PM
How many runs does a LF realistically cost a team over season? I'm guessing fewer than he's going to drive in.
Well, if you want a depressing example, 2008 Adam Dunn hit 40 homers with a .900 OPS and was still a below-replacement-level player because his defense was so bad. Of course, Dunn was
historically terrible in the outfield and Schwarber should be able to top that (I sure hope).
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on October 26, 2015, 01:04:24 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 26, 2015, 10:15:11 AM
I missed this last week, but I think it's a pretty fair and measured analysis of Schwarber's offensive skills and his defensive, uh, skills(?).
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/2015-mlb-playoffs-kyle-schwarber-chicago-cubs-future/
Something that I don't think gets talked about with trading Schwarber is his body type (insert standard Desipio BMI joke). Guys like him age differently than thinner players and it's not particularly pretty (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-will-prince-fielder-age/). Then again, it's entirely possible that the value of his bat will be so substantial in the next 2-3 years it would surpass whatever value you could get from him in a trade this winter. I worry more about him once he hits his later 20s, but I guess that's still a ways off.
All that said, this is mostly for the sake of combating offseason boredom. I still don't think he's going anywhere.
So who are these people I keep hearing about who think the Cubs should trade Schwarber?
I don't have a full list of names.
Quote from: Eli on October 26, 2015, 01:04:41 PM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on October 26, 2015, 12:54:58 PM
How many runs does a LF realistically cost a team over season? I'm guessing fewer than he's going to drive in.
Well, if you want a depressing example, 2008 Adam Dunn hit 40 homers with a .900 OPS and was still a below-replacement-level player because his defense was so bad. Of course, Dunn was historically terrible in the outfield and Schwarber should be able to top that (I sure hope).
Right. Well both BR (1.7) and Fangraphs (1.9) had him as being well above average in just 69 (nice) games. So as I pointed out before that's a 4+ win pace if he maintained the same offensive production and the same mediocre defense he managed this year over a full season. So he's obviously not Adam Dunn level bad, and I don't see why he can't improve somewhat next year if he spends a full offseason tracking balls in the outfield with the help of professional coaching. He's never going to cover a ton of ground but simply avoiding the abysmal drops and shit that we saw in the playoffs will probably make him a non-embarrassment in the field.
Quote from: SKO on October 26, 2015, 01:11:33 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 26, 2015, 01:04:41 PM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on October 26, 2015, 12:54:58 PM
How many runs does a LF realistically cost a team over season? I'm guessing fewer than he's going to drive in.
Well, if you want a depressing example, 2008 Adam Dunn hit 40 homers with a .900 OPS and was still a below-replacement-level player because his defense was so bad. Of course, Dunn was historically terrible in the outfield and Schwarber should be able to top that (I sure hope).
Right. Well both BR (1.7) and Fangraphs (1.9) had him as being well above average in just 69 (nice) games. So as I pointed out before that's a 4+ win pace if he maintained the same offensive production and the same mediocre defense he managed this year over a full season. So he's obviously not Adam Dunn level bad, and I don't see why he can't improve somewhat next year if he spends a full offseason tracking balls in the outfield with the help of professional coaching. He's never going to cover a ton of ground but simply avoiding the abysmal drops and shit that we saw in the playoffs will probably make him a non-embarrassment in the field.
Also a .900 OPS in the depressed run environment of 2016 (barring rule changes to stop the current trend) is going to be a hell of a lot more valuable than a .900 OPS was in 2008.
Quote from: Eli on October 26, 2015, 01:05:13 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on October 26, 2015, 01:04:24 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 26, 2015, 10:15:11 AM
I missed this last week, but I think it's a pretty fair and measured analysis of Schwarber's offensive skills and his defensive, uh, skills(?).
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/2015-mlb-playoffs-kyle-schwarber-chicago-cubs-future/
Something that I don't think gets talked about with trading Schwarber is his body type (insert standard Desipio BMI joke). Guys like him age differently than thinner players and it's not particularly pretty (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-will-prince-fielder-age/). Then again, it's entirely possible that the value of his bat will be so substantial in the next 2-3 years it would surpass whatever value you could get from him in a trade this winter. I worry more about him once he hits his later 20s, but I guess that's still a ways off.
All that said, this is mostly for the sake of combating offseason boredom. I still don't think he's going anywhere.
So who are these people I keep hearing about who think the Cubs should trade Schwarber?
I don't have a full list of names.
Get back to me on this.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on October 26, 2015, 01:16:01 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 26, 2015, 01:05:13 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on October 26, 2015, 01:04:24 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 26, 2015, 10:15:11 AM
I missed this last week, but I think it's a pretty fair and measured analysis of Schwarber's offensive skills and his defensive, uh, skills(?).
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/2015-mlb-playoffs-kyle-schwarber-chicago-cubs-future/
Something that I don't think gets talked about with trading Schwarber is his body type (insert standard Desipio BMI joke). Guys like him age differently than thinner players and it's not particularly pretty (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-will-prince-fielder-age/). Then again, it's entirely possible that the value of his bat will be so substantial in the next 2-3 years it would surpass whatever value you could get from him in a trade this winter. I worry more about him once he hits his later 20s, but I guess that's still a ways off.
All that said, this is mostly for the sake of combating offseason boredom. I still don't think he's going anywhere.
So who are these people I keep hearing about who think the Cubs should trade Schwarber?
I don't have a full list of names.
Get back to me on this.
Probably the same people who insisted the Cubs had to trade a shortstop before this season.
Quote from: R-V on October 26, 2015, 01:14:42 PM
Quote from: SKO on October 26, 2015, 01:11:33 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 26, 2015, 01:04:41 PM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on October 26, 2015, 12:54:58 PM
How many runs does a LF realistically cost a team over season? I'm guessing fewer than he's going to drive in.
Well, if you want a depressing example, 2008 Adam Dunn hit 40 homers with a .900 OPS and was still a below-replacement-level player because his defense was so bad. Of course, Dunn was historically terrible in the outfield and Schwarber should be able to top that (I sure hope).
Right. Well both BR (1.7) and Fangraphs (1.9) had him as being well above average in just 69 (nice) games. So as I pointed out before that's a 4+ win pace if he maintained the same offensive production and the same mediocre defense he managed this year over a full season. So he's obviously not Adam Dunn level bad, and I don't see why he can't improve somewhat next year if he spends a full offseason tracking balls in the outfield with the help of professional coaching. He's never going to cover a ton of ground but simply avoiding the abysmal drops and shit that we saw in the playoffs will probably make him a non-embarrassment in the field.
Also a .900 OPS in the depressed run environment of 2016 (barring rule changes to stop the current trend) is going to be a hell of a lot more valuable than a .900 OPS was in 2008 when .900 OPS's grew on trees.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on October 26, 2015, 01:04:24 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 26, 2015, 10:15:11 AM
I missed this last week, but I think it's a pretty fair and measured analysis of Schwarber's offensive skills and his defensive, uh, skills(?).
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/2015-mlb-playoffs-kyle-schwarber-chicago-cubs-future/
Something that I don't think gets talked about with trading Schwarber is his body type (insert standard Desipio BMI joke). Guys like him age differently than thinner players and it's not particularly pretty (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-will-prince-fielder-age/). Then again, it's entirely possible that the value of his bat will be so substantial in the next 2-3 years it would surpass whatever value you could get from him in a trade this winter. I worry more about him once he hits his later 20s, but I guess that's still a ways off.
All that said, this is mostly for the sake of combating offseason boredom. I still don't think he's going anywhere.
So who are these people I keep hearing about who think the Cubs should trade Schwarber?
I don't think they *should* trade Schwarber (that's a stupid way of saying it) but if they can get Sonny Gray or the like? I'd think I wouldn't be upset if The Cubs considered that.
Quote from: Oleg on October 26, 2015, 01:43:42 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on October 26, 2015, 01:04:24 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 26, 2015, 10:15:11 AM
I missed this last week, but I think it's a pretty fair and measured analysis of Schwarber's offensive skills and his defensive, uh, skills(?).
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/2015-mlb-playoffs-kyle-schwarber-chicago-cubs-future/
Something that I don't think gets talked about with trading Schwarber is his body type (insert standard Desipio BMI joke). Guys like him age differently than thinner players and it's not particularly pretty (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-will-prince-fielder-age/). Then again, it's entirely possible that the value of his bat will be so substantial in the next 2-3 years it would surpass whatever value you could get from him in a trade this winter. I worry more about him once he hits his later 20s, but I guess that's still a ways off.
All that said, this is mostly for the sake of combating offseason boredom. I still don't think he's going anywhere.
So who are these people I keep hearing about who think the Cubs should trade Schwarber?
I don't think they *should* trade Schwarber (that's a stupid way of saying it) but if they can get Sonny Gray or the like? I'd think I wouldn't be upset if The Cubs considered that.
I think that's where the rub is. Of course I don't think Schwarber is untouchable, but he seems like a guy that is as close to a lock to OPS north of .850 and hit 30+ bombs from the left side of the plate as you'll find. I would pretty much only trade that guy for a proven, young, top of the line starter, and it'd be straight up. While I think Jepstink were wise to accumulate young hitters in this offense scarce market, this year's trade deadline showed me that in terms of prospects a lot of teams still prefer to accumulate pitching. The Mets run certainly isn't going to do us any favors in this regard. So while I think it's probably harder to find a bat like Kyle Schwarber's than an arm like Sonny Gray's (not that either is easy), I don't think the A's would ever see it that way.
He basically has Schroedinger's trade value: he is too valuable to trade for anyone who isn't too valuable to be traded for him.
Quote from: SKO on October 26, 2015, 01:52:51 PM
Quote from: Oleg on October 26, 2015, 01:43:42 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on October 26, 2015, 01:04:24 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 26, 2015, 10:15:11 AM
I missed this last week, but I think it's a pretty fair and measured analysis of Schwarber's offensive skills and his defensive, uh, skills(?).
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/2015-mlb-playoffs-kyle-schwarber-chicago-cubs-future/
Something that I don't think gets talked about with trading Schwarber is his body type (insert standard Desipio BMI joke). Guys like him age differently than thinner players and it's not particularly pretty (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-will-prince-fielder-age/). Then again, it's entirely possible that the value of his bat will be so substantial in the next 2-3 years it would surpass whatever value you could get from him in a trade this winter. I worry more about him once he hits his later 20s, but I guess that's still a ways off.
All that said, this is mostly for the sake of combating offseason boredom. I still don't think he's going anywhere.
So who are these people I keep hearing about who think the Cubs should trade Schwarber?
I don't think they *should* trade Schwarber (that's a stupid way of saying it) but if they can get Sonny Gray or the like? I'd think I wouldn't be upset if The Cubs considered that.
I think that's where the rub is. Of course I don't think Schwarber is untouchable, but he seems like a guy that is as close to a lock to OPS north of .850 and hit 30+ bombs from the left side of the plate as you'll find. I would pretty much only trade that guy for a proven, young, top of the line starter, and it'd be straight up. While I think Jepstink were wise to accumulate young hitters in this offense scarce market, this year's trade deadline showed me that in terms of prospects a lot of teams still prefer to accumulate pitching. The Mets run certainly isn't going to do us any favors in this regard. So while I think it's probably harder to find a bat like Kyle Schwarber's than an arm like Sonny Gray's (not that either is easy), I don't think the A's would ever see it that way.
He basically has Schroedinger's trade value: he is too valuable to trade for anyone who isn't too valuable to be traded for him.
Surely that's Groucho's trade value?
Quote from: Tonker on October 26, 2015, 01:56:36 PM
Quote from: SKO on October 26, 2015, 01:52:51 PM
Quote from: Oleg on October 26, 2015, 01:43:42 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on October 26, 2015, 01:04:24 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 26, 2015, 10:15:11 AM
I missed this last week, but I think it's a pretty fair and measured analysis of Schwarber's offensive skills and his defensive, uh, skills(?).
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/2015-mlb-playoffs-kyle-schwarber-chicago-cubs-future/
Something that I don't think gets talked about with trading Schwarber is his body type (insert standard Desipio BMI joke). Guys like him age differently than thinner players and it's not particularly pretty (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-will-prince-fielder-age/). Then again, it's entirely possible that the value of his bat will be so substantial in the next 2-3 years it would surpass whatever value you could get from him in a trade this winter. I worry more about him once he hits his later 20s, but I guess that's still a ways off.
All that said, this is mostly for the sake of combating offseason boredom. I still don't think he's going anywhere.
So who are these people I keep hearing about who think the Cubs should trade Schwarber?
I don't think they *should* trade Schwarber (that's a stupid way of saying it) but if they can get Sonny Gray or the like? I'd think I wouldn't be upset if The Cubs considered that.
I think that's where the rub is. Of course I don't think Schwarber is untouchable, but he seems like a guy that is as close to a lock to OPS north of .850 and hit 30+ bombs from the left side of the plate as you'll find. I would pretty much only trade that guy for a proven, young, top of the line starter, and it'd be straight up. While I think Jepstink were wise to accumulate young hitters in this offense scarce market, this year's trade deadline showed me that in terms of prospects a lot of teams still prefer to accumulate pitching. The Mets run certainly isn't going to do us any favors in this regard. So while I think it's probably harder to find a bat like Kyle Schwarber's than an arm like Sonny Gray's (not that either is easy), I don't think the A's would ever see it that way.
He basically has Schroedinger's trade value: he is too valuable to trade for anyone who isn't too valuable to be traded for him.
Surely that's Groucho's trade value?
Either way there's a dead cat, is what I'm saying.
Quote from: SKO on October 26, 2015, 01:11:33 PM
Right. Well both BR (1.7) and Fangraphs (1.9) had him as being well above average in just 69 (nice) games. So as I pointed out before that's a 4+ win pace if he maintained the same offensive production and the same mediocre defense he managed this year over a full season. So he's obviously not Adam Dunn level bad, and I don't see why he can't improve somewhat next year if he spends a full offseason tracking balls in the outfield with the help of professional coaching. He's never going to cover a ton of ground but simply avoiding the abysmal drops and shit that we saw in the playoffs will probably make him a non-embarrassment in the field.
My main point was just in response to the "he'll drive in more than he lets in" argument that I've seen pop up. It's entirely possible to negate most of a bat's value, even in left field. He could certainly improve there, or the numbers could look worse as the sample size becomes larger.
Two of the worst defenders in baseball this year happened to be two of the best hitters, so we actually have a decent idea of what a Jekyll and Hyde Schwarber scenario could look like in the modern environment:
Nelson Cruz - 158 wRC+, -17.6 defensive runs, 4.8 WAR
Jose Bautista - 148 wRC+, -18.9 defensive runs, 4.5 WAR
Those are still very valuable players, obviously, but their defense caps their overall upside. Maybe Schwarber won't be as bad out there are these guys, but there's also a pretty good chance he's not going to hit like Jose Bautista over a full season.
Given his defensive limitations, I think it's tough to see him topping 5 WAR even in a best-case scenario.
That would obviously be a result worth keeping around because 4-5 win seasons for cheap are very valuable. But some fans are acting like we'd be trading away a guy with a Mike Trout type of ceiling.
Quote from: Eli on October 26, 2015, 02:07:59 PM
Quote from: SKO on October 26, 2015, 01:11:33 PM
Right. Well both BR (1.7) and Fangraphs (1.9) had him as being well above average in just 69 (nice) games. So as I pointed out before that's a 4+ win pace if he maintained the same offensive production and the same mediocre defense he managed this year over a full season. So he's obviously not Adam Dunn level bad, and I don't see why he can't improve somewhat next year if he spends a full offseason tracking balls in the outfield with the help of professional coaching. He's never going to cover a ton of ground but simply avoiding the abysmal drops and shit that we saw in the playoffs will probably make him a non-embarrassment in the field.
My main point was just in response to the "he'll drive in more than he lets in" argument that I've seen pop up. It's entirely possible to negate most of a bat's value, even in left field. He could certainly improve there, or the numbers could look worse as the sample size becomes larger.
Two of the worst defenders in baseball this year happened to be two of the best hitters, so we actually have a decent idea of what a Jekyll and Hyde Schwarber scenario could look like in the modern environment:
Nelson Cruz - 158 wRC+, -17.6 defensive runs, 4.8 WAR
Jose Bautista - 148 wRC+, -18.9 defensive runs, 4.5 WAR
Those are still very valuable players, obviously, but their defense caps their overall upside. Maybe Schwarber won't be as bad out there are these guys, but there's also a pretty good chance he's not going to hit like Jose Bautista over a full season.
Given his defensive limitations, I think it's tough to see him topping 5 WAR even in a best-case scenario. That would obviously be a result worth keeping around because 4-5 win seasons for cheap are very valuable. But some fans are acting like we'd be trading away a guy with a Mike Trout type of ceiling.
Yeah, I am basing this off a 3-4 win projection, and you just don't trade young, cost-controlled position players of that caliber unless you're getting a bonafide top of the rotation starting pitcher, and most teams are more reluctant to give a "true number one" pitcher away than the Cubs would be to give up Schwarber. I certainly wouldn't trade him for Carrasco or Ross or any other solid #2 types whose elbows scare the living piss out of me.
Quote from: R-V on October 26, 2015, 01:14:42 PM
Quote from: SKO on October 26, 2015, 01:11:33 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 26, 2015, 01:04:41 PM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on October 26, 2015, 12:54:58 PM
How many runs does a LF realistically cost a team over season? I'm guessing fewer than he's going to drive in.
Well, if you want a depressing example, 2008 Adam Dunn hit 40 homers with a .900 OPS and was still a below-replacement-level player because his defense was so bad. Of course, Dunn was historically terrible in the outfield and Schwarber should be able to top that (I sure hope).
Right. Well both BR (1.7) and Fangraphs (1.9) had him as being well above average in just 69 (nice) games. So as I pointed out before that's a 4+ win pace if he maintained the same offensive production and the same mediocre defense he managed this year over a full season. So he's obviously not Adam Dunn level bad, and I don't see why he can't improve somewhat next year if he spends a full offseason tracking balls in the outfield with the help of professional coaching. He's never going to cover a ton of ground but simply avoiding the abysmal drops and shit that we saw in the playoffs will probably make him a non-embarrassment in the field.
Also a .900 OPS in the depressed run environment of 2016 (barring rule changes to stop the current trend) is going to be a hell of a lot more valuable than a .900 OPS was in 2008.
So assuming this is an apples to apples comparison - and I think it is because they're both NL players, and I'm using oWAR as opposed to overall WAR, which I think ignores positional considerations - a .900 OPS is worth 2 wins more now than it was in 2008.
Dunn 2008 - .898 OPS - 3.1 oWAR
Rizzo 2015 - .899 OPS - 5.1 oWAR
The more we talk about it, the more certain I am that people will be somewhat upset regardless of who gets traded, even if we like who the Cubs get in return. Does anybody really want to imagine the team next year without Castro, Baez, or Soler? My feeling is that one of those three will be gone for sure.
Quote from: Canadouche on October 26, 2015, 03:17:54 PM
Does anybody really want to imagine the team next year without Castro, Baez, or Soler?
Sure. It's not like they'll just disappear -- someone would fairly valuable will have come back in their place.
Quote from: Eli on October 26, 2015, 03:20:10 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on October 26, 2015, 03:17:54 PM
Does anybody really want to imagine the team next year without Castro, Baez, or Soler?
Sure. It's not like they'll just disappear -- someone would fairly valuable will have come back in their place.
I can make myself pretty damn excited about this team with either Castro or Baez at second base next year so trading one of them for pitching is perfectly acceptable to me. Losing Soler would be harder just because my last memory of him is a postseason/late September run where he seemed to be putting it all together and also he's huge and terrifying and the thought of Rizzo/Bryant/Schwarber/Soler all at the height of their powers together causes so much blood to rush downstairs that I feel faint.
But for a big enough return (and I would think if they move Soler it's because they're also signing an Upton/Heyward/Cespedes type to replace him) I could live with that, too.
Quote from: SKO on October 26, 2015, 03:26:01 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 26, 2015, 03:20:10 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on October 26, 2015, 03:17:54 PM
Does anybody really want to imagine the team next year without Castro, Baez, or Soler?
Sure. It's not like they'll just disappear -- someone would fairly valuable will have come back in their place.
I can make myself pretty damn excited about this team with either Castro or Baez at second base next year so trading one of them for pitching is perfectly acceptable to me. Losing Soler would be harder just because my last memory of him is a postseason/late September run where he seemed to be putting it all together and also he's huge and terrifying and the thought of Rizzo/Bryant/Schwarber/Soler all at the height of their powers together causes so much blood to rush downstairs that I feel faint.
But for a big enough return (and I would think if they move Soler it's because they're also signing an Upton/Heyward/Cespedes type to replace him) I could live with that, too.
I really think the Cubs are going to be hesitant to go long-term on any position players (unless they can get them for a steal), simply because the pipeline is full of them. If anything, I see them repeating the Fowler exercise of trading for a veteran OF with a year or two left on his deal.
I will now sit back and light a cragar while waiting for events to prove me completely wrong.
Quote from: SKO on October 26, 2015, 03:26:01 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 26, 2015, 03:20:10 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on October 26, 2015, 03:17:54 PM
Does anybody really want to imagine the team next year without Castro, Baez, or Soler?
Sure. It's not like they'll just disappear -- someone would fairly valuable will have come back in their place.
I can make myself pretty damn excited about this team with either Castro or Baez at second base next year so trading one of them for pitching is perfectly acceptable to me. Losing Soler would be harder just because my last memory of him is a postseason/late September run where he seemed to be putting it all together and also he's huge and terrifying and the thought of Rizzo/Bryant/Schwarber/Soler all at the height of their powers together causes so much blood to rush downstairs that I feel faint.
But for a big enough return (and I would think if they move Soler it's because they're also signing an Upton/Heyward/Cespedes type to replace him) I could live with that, too.
Objectively, Soler is the player I'm most ok with them trading, if only because he doesn't stay healthy and I could see that becoming a point of serious frustration down the line.
Quote from: Canadouche on October 26, 2015, 04:15:57 PM
Quote from: SKO on October 26, 2015, 03:26:01 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 26, 2015, 03:20:10 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on October 26, 2015, 03:17:54 PM
Does anybody really want to imagine the team next year without Castro, Baez, or Soler?
Sure. It's not like they'll just disappear -- someone would fairly valuable will have come back in their place.
I can make myself pretty damn excited about this team with either Castro or Baez at second base next year so trading one of them for pitching is perfectly acceptable to me. Losing Soler would be harder just because my last memory of him is a postseason/late September run where he seemed to be putting it all together and also he's huge and terrifying and the thought of Rizzo/Bryant/Schwarber/Soler all at the height of their powers together causes so much blood to rush downstairs that I feel faint.
But for a big enough return (and I would think if they move Soler it's because they're also signing an Upton/Heyward/Cespedes type to replace him) I could live with that, too.
Objectively, Soler is the player I'm most ok with them trading, if only because he doesn't stay healthy and I could see that becoming a point of serious frustration down the line.
I'm back to the the player I'm most ok with them trading being Baez. Castro is second on the list.
Biggest offseason wish is that somehow they get Schwarber ready for 120 games at catcher. Having left field available would be huge. Upgrading from Montero's bat would be huger.
Since we're not really admitting anything, in order to stay in the good graces of the mods, I'll move the Contreras discussion here.
I'm hesitant to trade the guy because (a) I don't think Schwarber will be a long-term full-time catcher and (b) I don't see any long-term answers at catcher becoming available via free agency or trade in the next year or two. Whereas the Cubs could be looking at a surplus in the infield and possibly the outfield, I don't see that being the case at catcher.
Quote from: R-V on October 27, 2015, 09:55:41 AM
Since we're not really admitting anything, in order to stay in the good graces of the mods, I'll move the Contreras discussion here.
I'm hesitant to trade the guy because (a) I don't think Schwarber will be a long-term full-time catcher and (b) I don't see any long-term answers at catcher becoming available via free agency or trade in the next year or two. Whereas the Cubs could be looking at a surplus in the infield and possibly the outfield, I don't see that being the case at catcher.
Unless Contreras is the deal-breaker for getting Ross from the Padres.
I want the Cubs to sign David Price.
Quote from: PANK! on October 27, 2015, 10:16:27 AM
I want the Cubs to sign David Price.
And trade for Carrasco or Ross.
Quote from: PANK! on October 27, 2015, 10:16:27 AM
I want the Cubs to sign David Price.
Sounds great, but at some point they need to pay Jake too. Think the Cubs can afford 3 $20+million pitchers?
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on October 27, 2015, 10:22:05 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 27, 2015, 10:16:27 AM
I want the Cubs to sign David Price.
Sounds great, but at some point they need to pay Jake too. Think the Cubs can afford 3 $20+million pitchers?
Do you want the Chuck answer or the realistic answer? The latter is probably no, unless the deals are backloaded to 2020 and beyond.
Quote from: R-V on October 27, 2015, 10:23:09 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on October 27, 2015, 10:22:05 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 27, 2015, 10:16:27 AM
I want the Cubs to sign David Price.
Sounds great, but at some point they need to pay Jake too. Think the Cubs can afford 3 $20+million pitchers?
Do you want the Chuck answer or the realistic answer? The latter is probably no, unless the deals are backloaded to 2020 and beyond.
Afford? Yes. That much in breakable arms? Probably not. The date when salaries become a problem for the Cubs is about 2019, when many of these guys hit Arb 2. (Rizzo is a FA in 2020 and Lester's payday goes down by $7.5mm that same year).
Funny. That's the year they get new TV money. Big question is: How much TV money will there be in 2019? Still huge like the Dodgers? Or will streaming take a big bite out?
Let's see how it plays out.
Interesting column from BP Wrigleyville. Short: No, Price. Yes, Heyward. Trade, Soler.
http://wrigleyville.locals.baseballprospectus.com/2015/10/27/theo-epstein-language-and-the-shape-of-the-cubs-offseason/
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 27, 2015, 10:48:00 AM
Interesting column from BP Wrigleyville. Short: No, Price. Yes, Heyward. Trade, Soler.
http://wrigleyville.locals.baseballprospectus.com/2015/10/27/theo-epstein-language-and-the-shape-of-the-cubs-offseason/
That 4 paragraph introduction is painful.
Quote from: Oleg on October 27, 2015, 10:52:12 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 27, 2015, 10:48:00 AM
Interesting column from BP Wrigleyville. Short: No, Price. Yes, Heyward. Trade, Soler.
http://wrigleyville.locals.baseballprospectus.com/2015/10/27/theo-epstein-language-and-the-shape-of-the-cubs-offseason/
That 4 paragraph introduction is painful.
Yeah, I was wondering where the writer landed on dolphin sex.
Quote from: Oleg on October 27, 2015, 10:52:12 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 27, 2015, 10:48:00 AM
Interesting column from BP Wrigleyville. Short: No, Price. Yes, Heyward. Trade, Soler.
http://wrigleyville.locals.baseballprospectus.com/2015/10/27/theo-epstein-language-and-the-shape-of-the-cubs-offseason/
That 4 paragraph introduction is painful.
This guy fancies himself some hot shit.
Quote from: Slaky on October 27, 2015, 12:34:39 PM
Quote from: Oleg on October 27, 2015, 10:52:12 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 27, 2015, 10:48:00 AM
Interesting column from BP Wrigleyville. Short: No, Price. Yes, Heyward. Trade, Soler.
http://wrigleyville.locals.baseballprospectus.com/2015/10/27/theo-epstein-language-and-the-shape-of-the-cubs-offseason/
That 4 paragraph introduction is painful.
This guy fancies himself some hot shit.
Quote
To learn to say exactly what needed to be said, and no more? That was—and is—an exciting prospect for me.
You have a funny way of showing it.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 27, 2015, 12:37:44 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 27, 2015, 12:34:39 PM
Quote from: Oleg on October 27, 2015, 10:52:12 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 27, 2015, 10:48:00 AM
Interesting column from BP Wrigleyville. Short: No, Price. Yes, Heyward. Trade, Soler.
http://wrigleyville.locals.baseballprospectus.com/2015/10/27/theo-epstein-language-and-the-shape-of-the-cubs-offseason/
That 4 paragraph introduction is painful.
This guy fancies himself some hot shit.
Quote
To learn to say exactly what needed to be said, and no more? That was—and is—an exciting prospect for me.
You have a funny way of showing it.
QuoteMy colleague Sahadev Sharma captured the spirit of that tone
JEBUS. That prose is so clunky it practically clangs.
Quote from: Bort on October 27, 2015, 05:04:46 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 27, 2015, 12:37:44 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 27, 2015, 12:34:39 PM
Quote from: Oleg on October 27, 2015, 10:52:12 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 27, 2015, 10:48:00 AM
Interesting column from BP Wrigleyville. Short: No, Price. Yes, Heyward. Trade, Soler.
http://wrigleyville.locals.baseballprospectus.com/2015/10/27/theo-epstein-language-and-the-shape-of-the-cubs-offseason/
That 4 paragraph introduction is painful.
This guy fancies himself some hot shit.
Quote
To learn to say exactly what needed to be said, and no more? That was—and is—an exciting prospect for me.
You have a funny way of showing it.
QuoteMy colleague Sahadev Sharma captured the spirit of that tone
JEBUS. That prose is so clunky it practically clangs.
Well, until recently he was a graduate student in economics so its only natural that his writing would malekfszzzzzzzzzzzz
Quote from: Bort on October 27, 2015, 05:04:46 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 27, 2015, 12:37:44 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 27, 2015, 12:34:39 PM
Quote from: Oleg on October 27, 2015, 10:52:12 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 27, 2015, 10:48:00 AM
Interesting column from BP Wrigleyville. Short: No, Price. Yes, Heyward. Trade, Soler.
http://wrigleyville.locals.baseballprospectus.com/2015/10/27/theo-epstein-language-and-the-shape-of-the-cubs-offseason/
That 4 paragraph introduction is painful.
This guy fancies himself some hot shit.
Quote
To learn to say exactly what needed to be said, and no more? That was—and is—an exciting prospect for me.
You have a funny way of showing it.
QuoteMy colleague Sahadev Sharma captured the spirit of that tone
JEBUS. That prose is so clunky it practically clangs.
http://youtu.be/0ptQY6tkVGo
Quote from: CT III on October 27, 2015, 10:01:17 PM
Quote from: Bort on October 27, 2015, 05:04:46 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 27, 2015, 12:37:44 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 27, 2015, 12:34:39 PM
Quote from: Oleg on October 27, 2015, 10:52:12 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 27, 2015, 10:48:00 AM
Interesting column from BP Wrigleyville. Short: No, Price. Yes, Heyward. Trade, Soler.
http://wrigleyville.locals.baseballprospectus.com/2015/10/27/theo-epstein-language-and-the-shape-of-the-cubs-offseason/
That 4 paragraph introduction is painful.
This guy fancies himself some hot shit.
Quote
To learn to say exactly what needed to be said, and no more? That was—and is—an exciting prospect for me.
You have a funny way of showing it.
QuoteMy colleague Sahadev Sharma captured the spirit of that tone
JEBUS. That prose is so clunky it practically clangs.
Well, until recently he was a graduate student in economics so its only natural that his writing would malekfszzzzzzzzzzzz
This popped up in my FB feed yesterday (shared by Morph, presumably) so I had a look. I managed to get as far as the bit where he told me to "Stop, and read that paragraph again" before giving up in disgust, only to subsequently come along here and see all your comments. I've got to tell you, it's always nice to have your feelings on a subject echoed and endorsed by a bunch of barely-functional waterheads like you lot.
Quote from: Tonker on October 28, 2015, 02:42:21 AM
Quote from: CT III on October 27, 2015, 10:01:17 PM
Quote from: Bort on October 27, 2015, 05:04:46 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 27, 2015, 12:37:44 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 27, 2015, 12:34:39 PM
Quote from: Oleg on October 27, 2015, 10:52:12 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 27, 2015, 10:48:00 AM
Interesting column from BP Wrigleyville. Short: No, Price. Yes, Heyward. Trade, Soler.
http://wrigleyville.locals.baseballprospectus.com/2015/10/27/theo-epstein-language-and-the-shape-of-the-cubs-offseason/
That 4 paragraph introduction is painful.
This guy fancies himself some hot shit.
Quote
To learn to say exactly what needed to be said, and no more? That was—and is—an exciting prospect for me.
You have a funny way of showing it.
QuoteMy colleague Sahadev Sharma captured the spirit of that tone
JEBUS. That prose is so clunky it practically clangs.
Well, until recently he was a graduate student in economics so its only natural that his writing would malekfszzzzzzzzzzzz
This popped up in my FB feed yesterday (shared by Morph, presumably) so I had a look. I managed to get as far as the bit where he told me to "Stop, and read that paragraph again" before giving up in disgust, only to subsequently come along here and see all your comments. I've got to tell you, it's always nice to have your feelings on a subject echoed and endorsed by a bunch of barely-functional waterheads like you lot.
Someone should tell that kid to read some Hemingway.
Quote from: Slaky on October 28, 2015, 08:04:11 AM
Quote from: Tonker on October 28, 2015, 02:42:21 AM
Quote from: CT III on October 27, 2015, 10:01:17 PM
Quote from: Bort on October 27, 2015, 05:04:46 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 27, 2015, 12:37:44 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 27, 2015, 12:34:39 PM
Quote from: Oleg on October 27, 2015, 10:52:12 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 27, 2015, 10:48:00 AM
Interesting column from BP Wrigleyville. Short: No, Price. Yes, Heyward. Trade, Soler.
http://wrigleyville.locals.baseballprospectus.com/2015/10/27/theo-epstein-language-and-the-shape-of-the-cubs-offseason/
That 4 paragraph introduction is painful.
This guy fancies himself some hot shit.
Quote
To learn to say exactly what needed to be said, and no more? That was—and is—an exciting prospect for me.
You have a funny way of showing it.
QuoteMy colleague Sahadev Sharma captured the spirit of that tone
JEBUS. That prose is so clunky it practically clangs.
Well, until recently he was a graduate student in economics so its only natural that his writing would malekfszzzzzzzzzzzz
This popped up in my FB feed yesterday (shared by Morph, presumably) so I had a look. I managed to get as far as the bit where he told me to "Stop, and read that paragraph again" before giving up in disgust, only to subsequently come along here and see all your comments. I've got to tell you, it's always nice to have your feelings on a subject echoed and endorsed by a bunch of barely-functional waterheads like you lot.
Someone should tell that kid to read some Hemingway.
The fact that he thinks legal writing is a model of clarity says everything we need to know.
Ned Yost and Dale Sveum are World Series champions. NICE CHOICE EPSTINK
Dexter Fowler on his plans for 2016:
"I believe God has a process," Fowler said. "At the end of the day, if this is where I need to be, this is where I need to be."
This is the first time that I have heard Scott Boras referred to as God.
Quote from: CBStew on November 02, 2015, 04:02:15 PM
Dexter Fowler on his plans for 2016:
"I believe God has a process," Fowler said. "At the end of the day, if this is where I need to be, this is where I need to be."
This is the first time that I have heard Scott Boras referred to as God.
Apparently, you've never heard Scott speak.
Quote from: Shooter on November 02, 2015, 06:57:15 PM
Quote from: CBStew on November 02, 2015, 04:02:15 PM
Dexter Fowler on his plans for 2016:
"I believe God has a process," Fowler said. "At the end of the day, if this is where I need to be, this is where I need to be."
This is the first time that I have heard Scott Boras referred to as God.
Apparently, you've never heard Scott speak.
+1
So, Cliff Lee?
Positive: Short-term deal/was still decent in 13 starts in '14
Negatives: old/could be bad/didn't pitch last year/was in HS at same time as David Ross
Quote from: Yeti on November 03, 2015, 10:46:15 AM
So, Cliff Lee?
Positive: Short-term deal/was still decent in 13 starts in '14
Negatives: old/could be bad/didn't pitch last year/was in HS at same time as David Ross
Not sure he'd be a better #5 than the Quality Start Machine
tm at this point.
Quote from: Yeti on November 03, 2015, 10:46:15 AM
So, Cliff Lee?
Positive: Short-term deal/was still decent in 13 starts in '14
Negatives: old/could be bad/didn't pitch last year/was in HS at same time as David Ross
Why?
Quote from: Yeti on November 03, 2015, 10:46:15 AM
So, Cliff Lee?
Positive: Short-term deal/was still decent in 13 starts in '14
Negatives: old/could be bad/didn't pitch last year/was in HS at same time as David Ross
Will he take John Lackey post-injury $500k-plus-incentives money? Then sure, might as well.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 03, 2015, 12:47:05 PM
Quote from: Yeti on November 03, 2015, 10:46:15 AM
So, Cliff Lee?
Positive: Short-term deal/was still decent in 13 starts in '14
Negatives: old/could be bad/didn't pitch last year/was in HS at same time as David Ross
Will he take John Lackey post-injury $500k-plus-incentives money? Then sure, might as well.
Why?
Quote from: Oleg on November 03, 2015, 12:05:53 PM
Quote from: Yeti on November 03, 2015, 10:46:15 AM
So, Cliff Lee?
Positive: Short-term deal/was still decent in 13 starts in '14
Negatives: old/could be bad/didn't pitch last year/was in HS at same time as David Ross
Why?
he's a winner
Quote from: Yeti on November 03, 2015, 12:56:43 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 03, 2015, 12:05:53 PM
Quote from: Yeti on November 03, 2015, 10:46:15 AM
So, Cliff Lee?
Positive: Short-term deal/was still decent in 13 starts in '14
Negatives: old/could be bad/didn't pitch last year/was in HS at same time as David Ross
Why?
he's a winner
If he could be a serviceable middle reliever, why not? But him getting the ball in his shoe every 5 games will not move the Cubs any closer to a World's Championship.
Quote from: Oleg on November 03, 2015, 12:50:19 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 03, 2015, 12:47:05 PM
Quote from: Yeti on November 03, 2015, 10:46:15 AM
So, Cliff Lee?
Positive: Short-term deal/was still decent in 13 starts in '14
Negatives: old/could be bad/didn't pitch last year/was in HS at same time as David Ross
Will he take John Lackey post-injury $500k-plus-incentives money? Then sure, might as well.
Why?
What, do you want more Dallas Beeler?
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 03, 2015, 01:56:25 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 03, 2015, 12:50:19 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 03, 2015, 12:47:05 PM
Quote from: Yeti on November 03, 2015, 10:46:15 AM
So, Cliff Lee?
Positive: Short-term deal/was still decent in 13 starts in '14
Negatives: old/could be bad/didn't pitch last year/was in HS at same time as David Ross
Will he take John Lackey post-injury $500k-plus-incentives money? Then sure, might as well.
Why?
What, do you want more Dallas Beeler?
I forgot those are literally the only two options.
Quote from: SKO on November 03, 2015, 01:57:49 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 03, 2015, 01:56:25 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 03, 2015, 12:50:19 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 03, 2015, 12:47:05 PM
Quote from: Yeti on November 03, 2015, 10:46:15 AM
So, Cliff Lee?
Positive: Short-term deal/was still decent in 13 starts in '14
Negatives: old/could be bad/didn't pitch last year/was in HS at same time as David Ross
Will he take John Lackey post-injury $500k-plus-incentives money? Then sure, might as well.
Why?
What, do you want more Dallas Beeler?
I forgot those are literally the only two options.
So that's a "yes" for more Dallas Beeler then.
Not a surprise, but now it's official.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2015/11/04/zack-greinke-free-agent-opt-out/75147698/
Quote from: Armchair_QB on November 04, 2015, 11:46:04 AM
Not a surprise, but now it's official.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2015/11/04/zack-greinke-free-agent-opt-out/75147698/
Ri¢kett$ Ri¢kett$ Ri¢kett$ Ri¢kett$
I know the defensive metrics are particularly kind to him but, the more I think about it, the more I want The Cubs to sign Span for CF.
Quote from: Oleg on November 05, 2015, 08:52:49 AM
I know the defensive metrics are particularly kind to him but, the more I think about it, the more I want The Cubs to sign Span for CF.
I assume you meant aren't there, but yeah I'd be fine with that if the years/price were right. Fowler's defense wasn't particularly stout either per the metrics but Wrigley's center field proved to be far more manageable for him.
Quote from: SKO on November 05, 2015, 08:58:33 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 05, 2015, 08:52:49 AM
I know the defensive metrics are particularly kind to him but, the more I think about it, the more I want The Cubs to sign Span for CF.
I assume you meant aren't there, but yeah I'd be fine with that if the years/price were right. Fowler's defense wasn't particularly stout either per the metrics but Wrigley's center field proved to be far more manageable for him.
And Span will be a lot more affordable, both in dollars and years, than Fowler will be.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 05, 2015, 09:04:19 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 05, 2015, 08:58:33 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 05, 2015, 08:52:49 AM
I know the defensive metrics are particularly kind to him but, the more I think about it, the more I want The Cubs to sign Span for CF.
I assume you meant aren't there, but yeah I'd be fine with that if the years/price were right. Fowler's defense wasn't particularly stout either per the metrics but Wrigley's center field proved to be far more manageable for him.
And Span will be a lot more affordable, both in dollars and years, than Fowler will be.
How would Span compare to Austin Jackson?
Quote from: PANK! on November 05, 2015, 09:15:00 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 05, 2015, 09:04:19 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 05, 2015, 08:58:33 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 05, 2015, 08:52:49 AM
I know the defensive metrics are particularly kind to him but, the more I think about it, the more I want The Cubs to sign Span for CF.
I assume you meant aren't there, but yeah I'd be fine with that if the years/price were right. Fowler's defense wasn't particularly stout either per the metrics but Wrigley's center field proved to be far more manageable for him.
And Span will be a lot more affordable, both in dollars and years, than Fowler will be.
How would Span compare to Austin Jackson?
Jackson would be a lot cheaper, but Span has been the better player by far over the last 3-4 years. Span's averaged 3.6 fWAR in his last 3 full seasons, Jackson's averaged about 2 fWAR.
Jackson was pretty good from 2010-2012 with the Tigers, though, so maybe he can reclaim some of that in a full season hitting in Chicago rather than Seattle.
Quote from: SKO on November 05, 2015, 09:18:22 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 05, 2015, 09:15:00 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 05, 2015, 09:04:19 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 05, 2015, 08:58:33 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 05, 2015, 08:52:49 AM
I know the defensive metrics are particularly kind to him but, the more I think about it, the more I want The Cubs to sign Span for CF.
I assume you meant aren't there, but yeah I'd be fine with that if the years/price were right. Fowler's defense wasn't particularly stout either per the metrics but Wrigley's center field proved to be far more manageable for him.
And Span will be a lot more affordable, both in dollars and years, than Fowler will be.
How would Span compare to Austin Jackson?
Jackson would be a lot cheaper, but Span has been the better player by far over the last 3-4 years. Span's averaged 3.6 fWAR in his last 3 full seasons, Jackson's averaged about 2 fWAR.
Jackson was pretty good from 2010-2012 with the Tigers, though, so maybe he can reclaim some of that in a full season hitting in Chicago rather than Seattle.
If the Cubs are going to keep Schwarber in LF for the forseeable future, they'd be better off with Span covering the extra ground.
Another thought on Fowler....and my understanding may be...PANKISH....but has anyone ever accepted a qualifying offer and does it work similar to an NFL player who's been tagged a franchise player--i.e. 1-year fat contract then FA again? As I understood it, Fowler's QO would be maybe 16 mildo? Any chance he would roll the dice on another solid season and maybe win a CHAMMENSHIP (both which would increase his value for next year, though only marginally at best)?
Just say no and I'll put it to rest.
Quote from: PANK! on November 05, 2015, 09:15:00 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 05, 2015, 09:04:19 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 05, 2015, 08:58:33 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 05, 2015, 08:52:49 AM
I know the defensive metrics are particularly kind to him but, the more I think about it, the more I want The Cubs to sign Span for CF.
I assume you meant aren't there, but yeah I'd be fine with that if the years/price were right. Fowler's defense wasn't particularly stout either per the metrics but Wrigley's center field proved to be far more manageable for him.
And Span will be a lot more affordable, both in dollars and years, than Fowler will be.
How would Span compare to Austin Jackson?
Span's K rate is also much, much better than Jackson, by about 2:1. He's a low K, high BB guy, which seems to fit with what Epstink was talking about in his news conference.
If they can get Span on a 3/36 deal, I'd say they should jump all over it. There's a chance Jackson gets less.
Quote from: PANK! on November 05, 2015, 09:28:04 AM
Another thought on Fowler....and my understanding may be...PANKISH....but has anyone ever accepted a qualifying offer and does it work similar to an NFL player who's been tagged a franchise player--i.e. 1-year fat contract then FA again? As I understood it, Fowler's QO would be maybe 16 mildo? Any chance he would roll the dice on another solid season and maybe win a CHAMMENSHIP (both which would increase his value for next year, though only marginally at best)?
Just say no and I'll put it to rest.
I highly doubt it. He may get something close to 4/50 on the market.
But, that draft pick The Cubs get might be pretty nice.
Quote from: PANK! on November 05, 2015, 09:28:04 AM
Another thought on Fowler....and my understanding may be...PANKISH....but has anyone ever accepted a qualifying offer and does it work similar to an NFL player who's been tagged a franchise player--i.e. 1-year fat contract then FA again? As I understood it, Fowler's QO would be maybe 16 mildo? Any chance he would roll the dice on another solid season and maybe win a CHAMMENSHIP (both which would increase his value for next year, though only marginally at best)?
Just say no and I'll put it to rest.
As far as I'm aware, nobody has ever accepted a qualifying offer, but my understanding is that, yes: it's a one-year contract after which the player is a free agent. And yes, I think it's around $16MM. I'd say the chances of Fowler taking it are slim: if he has a bad year, or gets seriously hurt, he's fucked. Somebody will give him that kind of money for more years.
Quote from: Tonker on November 05, 2015, 09:34:27 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 05, 2015, 09:28:04 AM
Another thought on Fowler....and my understanding may be...PANKISH....but has anyone ever accepted a qualifying offer and does it work similar to an NFL player who's been tagged a franchise player--i.e. 1-year fat contract then FA again? As I understood it, Fowler's QO would be maybe 16 mildo? Any chance he would roll the dice on another solid season and maybe win a CHAMMENSHIP (both which would increase his value for next year, though only marginally at best)?
Just say no and I'll put it to rest.
As far as I'm aware, nobody has ever accepted a qualifying offer, but my understanding is that, yes: it's a one-year contract after which the player is a free agent. And yes, I think it's around $16MM. I'd say the chances of Fowler taking it are slim: if he has a bad year, or gets seriously hurt, he's fucked. Somebody will give him that kind of money for more years.
Yeah, and this isn't like the NBA or NFL where a player might gamble on that one year deal in anticipation of a huge jump in the salary cap following that season (and therefore a huge jump in the multiyear dollars that would be on the table). I think I've seen speculation about Kevin Durant doing something like this next summer.
Quote from: R-V on November 05, 2015, 09:41:00 AM
Quote from: Tonker on November 05, 2015, 09:34:27 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 05, 2015, 09:28:04 AM
Another thought on Fowler....and my understanding may be...PANKISH....but has anyone ever accepted a qualifying offer and does it work similar to an NFL player who's been tagged a franchise player--i.e. 1-year fat contract then FA again? As I understood it, Fowler's QO would be maybe 16 mildo? Any chance he would roll the dice on another solid season and maybe win a CHAMMENSHIP (both which would increase his value for next year, though only marginally at best)?
Just say no and I'll put it to rest.
As far as I'm aware, nobody has ever accepted a qualifying offer, but my understanding is that, yes: it's a one-year contract after which the player is a free agent. And yes, I think it's around $16MM. I'd say the chances of Fowler taking it are slim: if he has a bad year, or gets seriously hurt, he's fucked. Somebody will give him that kind of money for more years.
Yeah, and this isn't like the NBA or NFL where a player might gamble on that one year deal in anticipation of a huge jump in the salary cap following that season (and therefore a huge jump in the multiyear dollars that would be on the table). I think I've seen speculation about Kevin Durant doing something like this next summer.
The NBA is just fucking weird with their cap. I think the expectation is that their cap will jump exponentially in 2017, right? So, the top free agents are all eyeing that (with the max contract value going up too). That's why Lebron keeps signing one year and two year deals, right?
Football is weird because of non-guaranteed contracts. Also, they don't get to decline a franchise tag.
The only thing that would keep Fowler from taking a multi-year deal is if he thinks this free agent class is so string, that it depresses his market. I don't think it's enough to keep him from taking a multi-year deal and security. Plus, he'll be a year older and I think teams are much better at evaluating players than they used to be.
Quote from: Oleg on November 05, 2015, 08:52:49 AM
I know the defensive metrics are particularly kind to him but, the more I think about it, the more I want The Cubs to sign Span for CF.
I like Span. I think he could come at a discount after being dinged up most of last year. My unlikely wish is they grab him for CF and Heyward for RF, which would offset a lot of Schwarber's shortcomings defensively. And they'd be a good 1-2 combo at the top of the order (if Maddon could handle back-to-back lefties).
Quote from: PANK! on November 05, 2015, 09:28:04 AM
Another thought on Fowler....and my understanding may be...PANKISH....but has anyone ever accepted a qualifying offer and does it work similar to an NFL player who's been tagged a franchise player--i.e. 1-year fat contract then FA again? As I understood it, Fowler's QO would be maybe 16 mildo? Any chance he would roll the dice on another solid season and maybe win a CHAMMENSHIP (both which would increase his value for next year, though only marginally at best)?
Just say no and I'll put it to rest.
The rules have changed in recent years, but Maddux once accepted a qualifying offer from the Braves because he knew that the amount of money they'd owe him for that one year was more than what he'd make with any other team. I believe this was before the 2003 season, and we all remember what happened during that following off-season.
Quote from: Canadouche on November 05, 2015, 10:07:12 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 05, 2015, 09:28:04 AM
Another thought on Fowler....and my understanding may be...PANKISH....but has anyone ever accepted a qualifying offer and does it work similar to an NFL player who's been tagged a franchise player--i.e. 1-year fat contract then FA again? As I understood it, Fowler's QO would be maybe 16 mildo? Any chance he would roll the dice on another solid season and maybe win a CHAMMENSHIP (both which would increase his value for next year, though only marginally at best)?
Just say no and I'll put it to rest.
The rules have changed in recent years, but Maddux once accepted a qualifying offer from the Braves because he knew that the amount of money they'd owe him for that one year was more than what he'd make with any other team. I believe this was before the 2003 season, and we all remember what happened during that following off-season.
Back then, they weren't qualifying offers. It was arbitration.
Quote from: Oleg on November 05, 2015, 10:22:00 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 05, 2015, 10:07:12 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 05, 2015, 09:28:04 AM
Another thought on Fowler....and my understanding may be...PANKISH....but has anyone ever accepted a qualifying offer and does it work similar to an NFL player who's been tagged a franchise player--i.e. 1-year fat contract then FA again? As I understood it, Fowler's QO would be maybe 16 mildo? Any chance he would roll the dice on another solid season and maybe win a CHAMMENSHIP (both which would increase his value for next year, though only marginally at best)?
Just say no and I'll put it to rest.
The rules have changed in recent years, but Maddux once accepted a qualifying offer from the Braves because he knew that the amount of money they'd owe him for that one year was more than what he'd make with any other team. I believe this was before the 2003 season, and we all remember what happened during that following off-season.
Back then, they weren't qualifying offers. It was arbitration.
IMHO the system was greatly improved by the introduction of Huebitration.
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2015, 09:59:33 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 05, 2015, 08:52:49 AM
I know the defensive metrics are particularly kind to him but, the more I think about it, the more I want The Cubs to sign Span for CF.
I like Span. I think he could come at a discount after being dinged up most of last year. My unlikely wish is they grab him for CF and Heyward for RF, which would offset a lot of Schwarber's shortcomings defensively. And they'd be a good 1-2 combo at the top of the order (if Maddon could handle back-to-back lefties).
New meme alert: Eli hates Jorge.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 05, 2015, 11:21:18 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2015, 09:59:33 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 05, 2015, 08:52:49 AM
I know the defensive metrics are particularly kind to him but, the more I think about it, the more I want The Cubs to sign Span for CF.
I like Span. I think he could come at a discount after being dinged up most of last year. My unlikely wish is they grab him for CF and Heyward for RF, which would offset a lot of Schwarber's shortcomings defensively. And they'd be a good 1-2 combo at the top of the order (if Maddon could handle back-to-back lefties).
New meme alert: Eli hates Jorge.
I don't think that's new.
Quote from: Canadouche on November 05, 2015, 10:07:12 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 05, 2015, 09:28:04 AM
Another thought on Fowler....and my understanding may be...PANKISH....but has anyone ever accepted a qualifying offer and does it work similar to an NFL player who's been tagged a franchise player--i.e. 1-year fat contract then FA again? As I understood it, Fowler's QO would be maybe 16 mildo? Any chance he would roll the dice on another solid season and maybe win a CHAMMENSHIP (both which would increase his value for next year, though only marginally at best)?
Just say no and I'll put it to rest.
The rules have changed in recent years, but Maddux once accepted a qualifying offer from the Braves because he knew that the amount of money they'd owe him for that one year was more than what he'd make with any other team. I believe this was before the 2003 season, and we all remember what happened during that following off-season.
And of course, Babe Ruth notoriously accepted the Red Sox's qualifying offer only to be sold to the Yankees. Long history with those qualifying offers.
Quote from: Tonker on November 05, 2015, 09:34:27 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 05, 2015, 09:28:04 AM
Another thought on Fowler....and my understanding may be...PANKISH....but has anyone ever accepted a qualifying offer and does it work similar to an NFL player who's been tagged a franchise player--i.e. 1-year fat contract then FA again? As I understood it, Fowler's QO would be maybe 16 mildo? Any chance he would roll the dice on another solid season and maybe win a CHAMMENSHIP (both which would increase his value for next year, though only marginally at best)?
Just say no and I'll put it to rest.
As far as I'm aware, nobody has ever accepted a qualifying offer, but my understanding is that, yes: it's a one-year contract after which the player is a free agent. And yes, I think it's around $16MM. I'd say the chances of Fowler taking it are slim: if he has a bad year, or gets seriously hurt, he's fucked. Somebody will give him that kind of money for more years.
The internet tells me that no one has ever accepted a qualifying offer.
However, Brett says that this is the year this will change (not with Fowler, per se.)
Quote from: PenFoe on November 05, 2015, 12:03:43 PM
Quote from: Tonker on November 05, 2015, 09:34:27 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 05, 2015, 09:28:04 AM
Another thought on Fowler....and my understanding may be...PANKISH....but has anyone ever accepted a qualifying offer and does it work similar to an NFL player who's been tagged a franchise player--i.e. 1-year fat contract then FA again? As I understood it, Fowler's QO would be maybe 16 mildo? Any chance he would roll the dice on another solid season and maybe win a CHAMMENSHIP (both which would increase his value for next year, though only marginally at best)?
Just say no and I'll put it to rest.
As far as I'm aware, nobody has ever accepted a qualifying offer, but my understanding is that, yes: it's a one-year contract after which the player is a free agent. And yes, I think it's around $16MM. I'd say the chances of Fowler taking it are slim: if he has a bad year, or gets seriously hurt, he's fucked. Somebody will give him that kind of money for more years.
The internet tells me that no one has ever accepted a qualifying offer.
However, Brett says that this is the year this will change (not with Fowler, per se.)
Does Brett mention who? Cause teams don't tend to give out those QOs unless they know the player won't accept. If the player accepts, it means he's not worth it and I think teams have a pretty good idea of those types of things. At least that's my take.
Quote from: Oleg on November 05, 2015, 12:06:47 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on November 05, 2015, 12:03:43 PM
Quote from: Tonker on November 05, 2015, 09:34:27 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 05, 2015, 09:28:04 AM
Another thought on Fowler....and my understanding may be...PANKISH....but has anyone ever accepted a qualifying offer and does it work similar to an NFL player who's been tagged a franchise player--i.e. 1-year fat contract then FA again? As I understood it, Fowler's QO would be maybe 16 mildo? Any chance he would roll the dice on another solid season and maybe win a CHAMMENSHIP (both which would increase his value for next year, though only marginally at best)?
Just say no and I'll put it to rest.
As far as I'm aware, nobody has ever accepted a qualifying offer, but my understanding is that, yes: it's a one-year contract after which the player is a free agent. And yes, I think it's around $16MM. I'd say the chances of Fowler taking it are slim: if he has a bad year, or gets seriously hurt, he's fucked. Somebody will give him that kind of money for more years.
The internet tells me that no one has ever accepted a qualifying offer.
However, Brett says that this is the year this will change (not with Fowler, per se.)
Does Brett mention who? Cause teams don't tend to give out those QOs unless they know the player won't accept. If the player accepts, it means he's not worth it and I think teams have a pretty good idea of those types of things. At least that's my take.
PleasebeSnorkPleasebeSnorkPleasebeSnorkPleasebeSnorkPleasebeSnorkPleasebeSnorkPleasebeSnorkPleasebeSnorkPleasebeSnorkPleasebeSnorkPleasebeSnorkPleasebeSnorkPleasebeSnorkPleasebeSnorkPleasebeSnorkPleasebeSnorkPleasebeSnorkPleasebeSnorkPleasebeSnorkPleasebeSnorkPleasebeSnorkPleasebeSnorkPleasebeSnorkPleasebeSnorkPleasebeSnorkPleasebeSnorkPleasebeSnorkPleasebeSnorkPleasebeSnorkPleasebeSnorkPleasebeSnorkPleasebeSnorkPleasebeSnorkPleasebeSnorkPleasebeSnorkPleasebeSnorkPleasebeSnorkPleasebeSnorkPleasebeSnork
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 05, 2015, 11:21:18 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2015, 09:59:33 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 05, 2015, 08:52:49 AM
I know the defensive metrics are particularly kind to him but, the more I think about it, the more I want The Cubs to sign Span for CF.
I like Span. I think he could come at a discount after being dinged up most of last year. My unlikely wish is they grab him for CF and Heyward for RF, which would offset a lot of Schwarber's shortcomings defensively. And they'd be a good 1-2 combo at the top of the order (if Maddon could handle back-to-back lefties).
New meme alert: Eli hates Jorge.
Confession: I forgot all about him as I was writing my post. Maybe that's worse than actively hating him.
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2015, 12:38:18 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 05, 2015, 11:21:18 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2015, 09:59:33 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 05, 2015, 08:52:49 AM
I know the defensive metrics are particularly kind to him but, the more I think about it, the more I want The Cubs to sign Span for CF.
I like Span. I think he could come at a discount after being dinged up most of last year. My unlikely wish is they grab him for CF and Heyward for RF, which would offset a lot of Schwarber's shortcomings defensively. And they'd be a good 1-2 combo at the top of the order (if Maddon could handle back-to-back lefties).
New meme alert: Eli hates Jorge.
Confession: I forgot all about him as I was writing my post. Maybe that's worse than actively hating him.
I have a hard time reconciling the fact that Heyward is obviously a better player and will probably be a better player overall for the next several years given his defense even if Jorge's bat improves with the fact that losing Jorge would make me sad even if they replaced him with someone as good as Heyward.
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2015, 12:38:18 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 05, 2015, 11:21:18 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2015, 09:59:33 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 05, 2015, 08:52:49 AM
I know the defensive metrics are particularly kind to him but, the more I think about it, the more I want The Cubs to sign Span for CF.
I like Span. I think he could come at a discount after being dinged up most of last year. My unlikely wish is they grab him for CF and Heyward for RF, which would offset a lot of Schwarber's shortcomings defensively. And they'd be a good 1-2 combo at the top of the order (if Maddon could handle back-to-back lefties).
New meme alert: Eli hates Jorge.
Confession: I forgot all about him as I was writing my post. Maybe that's worse than actively hating him.
Chuck would agree.
For what it's worth. (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2016-top-50-free-agent-predictions/)
Here's my question...is Fowler at 4/58 better than Span at 3/30?
Quote from: SKO on November 05, 2015, 12:42:53 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2015, 12:38:18 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 05, 2015, 11:21:18 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2015, 09:59:33 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 05, 2015, 08:52:49 AM
I know the defensive metrics are particularly kind to him but, the more I think about it, the more I want The Cubs to sign Span for CF.
I like Span. I think he could come at a discount after being dinged up most of last year. My unlikely wish is they grab him for CF and Heyward for RF, which would offset a lot of Schwarber's shortcomings defensively. And they'd be a good 1-2 combo at the top of the order (if Maddon could handle back-to-back lefties).
New meme alert: Eli hates Jorge.
Confession: I forgot all about him as I was writing my post. Maybe that's worse than actively hating him.
I have a hard time reconciling the fact that Heyward is obviously a better player and will probably be a better player overall for the next several years given his defense even if Jorge's bat improves with the fact that losing Jorge would make me sad even if they replaced him with someone as good as Heyward.
I think I might be more concerned about Soler's defense than his bat.
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2015, 12:56:18 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 05, 2015, 12:42:53 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2015, 12:38:18 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 05, 2015, 11:21:18 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2015, 09:59:33 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 05, 2015, 08:52:49 AM
I know the defensive metrics are particularly kind to him but, the more I think about it, the more I want The Cubs to sign Span for CF.
I like Span. I think he could come at a discount after being dinged up most of last year. My unlikely wish is they grab him for CF and Heyward for RF, which would offset a lot of Schwarber's shortcomings defensively. And they'd be a good 1-2 combo at the top of the order (if Maddon could handle back-to-back lefties).
New meme alert: Eli hates Jorge.
Confession: I forgot all about him as I was writing my post. Maybe that's worse than actively hating him.
I have a hard time reconciling the fact that Heyward is obviously a better player and will probably be a better player overall for the next several years given his defense even if Jorge's bat improves with the fact that losing Jorge would make me sad even if they replaced him with someone as good as Heyward.
I think I might be more concerned about Soler's defense than his bat.
I know, that's why I said Heyward stands to be the better player for the conceivable future even if Jorge keeps hitting like he did in the playoffs. His defense is just so bad.
Quote from: SKO on November 05, 2015, 12:58:02 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2015, 12:56:18 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 05, 2015, 12:42:53 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2015, 12:38:18 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 05, 2015, 11:21:18 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2015, 09:59:33 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 05, 2015, 08:52:49 AM
I know the defensive metrics are particularly kind to him but, the more I think about it, the more I want The Cubs to sign Span for CF.
I like Span. I think he could come at a discount after being dinged up most of last year. My unlikely wish is they grab him for CF and Heyward for RF, which would offset a lot of Schwarber's shortcomings defensively. And they'd be a good 1-2 combo at the top of the order (if Maddon could handle back-to-back lefties).
New meme alert: Eli hates Jorge.
Confession: I forgot all about him as I was writing my post. Maybe that's worse than actively hating him.
I have a hard time reconciling the fact that Heyward is obviously a better player and will probably be a better player overall for the next several years given his defense even if Jorge's bat improves with the fact that losing Jorge would make me sad even if they replaced him with someone as good as Heyward.
I think I might be more concerned about Soler's defense than his bat.
I know, that's why I said Heyward stands to be the better player for the conceivable future even if Jorge keeps hitting like he did in the playoffs. His defense is just so bad.
If Soler hits 474/600/1105 in the regular season, he can be a cross between Canseco and Luzinski in the OF and he'd still be
MVP HoF.
I don't think Soler's case is very different than Schwarber's. It's a matter of how much appetite Epstink has for two of those guys in the OF.
Quote from: SKO on November 05, 2015, 12:58:02 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2015, 12:56:18 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 05, 2015, 12:42:53 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2015, 12:38:18 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 05, 2015, 11:21:18 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2015, 09:59:33 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 05, 2015, 08:52:49 AM
I know the defensive metrics are particularly kind to him but, the more I think about it, the more I want The Cubs to sign Span for CF.
I like Span. I think he could come at a discount after being dinged up most of last year. My unlikely wish is they grab him for CF and Heyward for RF, which would offset a lot of Schwarber's shortcomings defensively. And they'd be a good 1-2 combo at the top of the order (if Maddon could handle back-to-back lefties).
New meme alert: Eli hates Jorge.
Confession: I forgot all about him as I was writing my post. Maybe that's worse than actively hating him.
I have a hard time reconciling the fact that Heyward is obviously a better player and will probably be a better player overall for the next several years given his defense even if Jorge's bat improves with the fact that losing Jorge would make me sad even if they replaced him with someone as good as Heyward.
I think I might be more concerned about Soler's defense than his bat.
I know, that's why I said Heyward stands to be the better player for the conceivable future even if Jorge keeps hitting like he did in the playoffs. His defense is just so bad.
To be fair, that was kind of a long sentence.
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2015, 01:08:06 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 05, 2015, 12:58:02 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2015, 12:56:18 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 05, 2015, 12:42:53 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2015, 12:38:18 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 05, 2015, 11:21:18 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2015, 09:59:33 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 05, 2015, 08:52:49 AM
I know the defensive metrics are particularly kind to him but, the more I think about it, the more I want The Cubs to sign Span for CF.
I like Span. I think he could come at a discount after being dinged up most of last year. My unlikely wish is they grab him for CF and Heyward for RF, which would offset a lot of Schwarber's shortcomings defensively. And they'd be a good 1-2 combo at the top of the order (if Maddon could handle back-to-back lefties).
New meme alert: Eli hates Jorge.
Confession: I forgot all about him as I was writing my post. Maybe that's worse than actively hating him.
I have a hard time reconciling the fact that Heyward is obviously a better player and will probably be a better player overall for the next several years given his defense even if Jorge's bat improves with the fact that losing Jorge would make me sad even if they replaced him with someone as good as Heyward.
I think I might be more concerned about Soler's defense than his bat.
I know, that's why I said Heyward stands to be the better player for the conceivable future even if Jorge keeps hitting like he did in the playoffs. His defense is just so bad.
To be fair, that was kind of a long sentence.
To be fair, by my standards it was pretty short.
If it's not Starlin, I think Soler has to be trade bait #1. His suspect defense and his health history have to make him the least reliable player, even if he can rake.
Or maybe he can play in center field? (Kidding, kidding)
Quote from: SKO on November 05, 2015, 12:58:02 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2015, 12:56:18 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 05, 2015, 12:42:53 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2015, 12:38:18 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 05, 2015, 11:21:18 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2015, 09:59:33 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 05, 2015, 08:52:49 AM
I know the defensive metrics are particularly kind to him but, the more I think about it, the more I want The Cubs to sign Span for CF.
I like Span. I think he could come at a discount after being dinged up most of last year. My unlikely wish is they grab him for CF and Heyward for RF, which would offset a lot of Schwarber's shortcomings defensively. And they'd be a good 1-2 combo at the top of the order (if Maddon could handle back-to-back lefties).
New meme alert: Eli hates Jorge.
Confession: I forgot all about him as I was writing my post. Maybe that's worse than actively hating him.
I have a hard time reconciling the fact that Heyward is obviously a better player and will probably be a better player overall for the next several years given his defense even if Jorge's bat improves with the fact that losing Jorge would make me sad even if they replaced him with someone as good as Heyward.
I think I might be more concerned about Soler's defense than his bat.
I know, that's why I said Heyward stands to be the better player for the conceivable future even if Jorge keeps hitting like he did in the playoffs. His defense is just so bad.
But with Soler making $3 million/per for a while, how much is an upgrade to Heyward worth? Is a player-win still worth $7 million? If so, based on their 2016 Steamers, Heyward is worth about $20 million/per more than Soler.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 05, 2015, 02:10:19 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 05, 2015, 12:58:02 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2015, 12:56:18 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 05, 2015, 12:42:53 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2015, 12:38:18 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 05, 2015, 11:21:18 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2015, 09:59:33 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 05, 2015, 08:52:49 AM
I know the defensive metrics are particularly kind to him but, the more I think about it, the more I want The Cubs to sign Span for CF.
I like Span. I think he could come at a discount after being dinged up most of last year. My unlikely wish is they grab him for CF and Heyward for RF, which would offset a lot of Schwarber's shortcomings defensively. And they'd be a good 1-2 combo at the top of the order (if Maddon could handle back-to-back lefties).
New meme alert: Eli hates Jorge.
Confession: I forgot all about him as I was writing my post. Maybe that's worse than actively hating him.
I have a hard time reconciling the fact that Heyward is obviously a better player and will probably be a better player overall for the next several years given his defense even if Jorge's bat improves with the fact that losing Jorge would make me sad even if they replaced him with someone as good as Heyward.
I think I might be more concerned about Soler's defense than his bat.
I know, that's why I said Heyward stands to be the better player for the conceivable future even if Jorge keeps hitting like he did in the playoffs. His defense is just so bad.
But with Soler making $3 million/per for a while, how much is an upgrade to Heyward worth? Is a player-win still worth $7 million? If so, based on their 2016 Steamers, Heyward is worth about $20 million/per more than Soler.
I think the estimate is closer to $8 million now. So even if we're doing a basic $/WAR calculation (which we probably shouldn't because the ultimate goal is wins, not perfect efficiency), Heyward comes out ahead.
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2015, 02:18:27 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 05, 2015, 02:10:19 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 05, 2015, 12:58:02 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2015, 12:56:18 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 05, 2015, 12:42:53 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2015, 12:38:18 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 05, 2015, 11:21:18 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2015, 09:59:33 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 05, 2015, 08:52:49 AM
I know the defensive metrics are particularly kind to him but, the more I think about it, the more I want The Cubs to sign Span for CF.
I like Span. I think he could come at a discount after being dinged up most of last year. My unlikely wish is they grab him for CF and Heyward for RF, which would offset a lot of Schwarber's shortcomings defensively. And they'd be a good 1-2 combo at the top of the order (if Maddon could handle back-to-back lefties).
New meme alert: Eli hates Jorge.
Confession: I forgot all about him as I was writing my post. Maybe that's worse than actively hating him.
I have a hard time reconciling the fact that Heyward is obviously a better player and will probably be a better player overall for the next several years given his defense even if Jorge's bat improves with the fact that losing Jorge would make me sad even if they replaced him with someone as good as Heyward.
I think I might be more concerned about Soler's defense than his bat.
I know, that's why I said Heyward stands to be the better player for the conceivable future even if Jorge keeps hitting like he did in the playoffs. His defense is just so bad.
But with Soler making $3 million/per for a while, how much is an upgrade to Heyward worth? Is a player-win still worth $7 million? If so, based on their 2016 Steamers, Heyward is worth about $20 million/per more than Soler.
I think the estimate is closer to $8 million now. So even if we're doing a basic $/WAR calculation (which we probably shouldn't because the ultimate goal is wins, not perfect efficiency), Heyward comes out ahead.
I would also assume if they were to sign Heyward that Soler would then be a key part of a trade for pitching, so that's another thing to consider.
But you know also they could keep Jorge and he could destroy worlds next year and that would be neat.
That's something else I forget sometimes--that unlike these other bonus babies, Soler is ridiculously cost-controlled.
Quote from: PANK! on November 05, 2015, 02:56:01 PM
That's something else I forget sometimes--that unlike these other bonus babies, Soler is ridiculously cost-controlled.
There's a clause in his contract that says he can opt for arbitration when he's eligible. So if he plays well enough, he'll go for that (which would be a fine problem to have).
Welp (http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/hot-stove-league-free-agents-trade-candidates-david-price-zack-greinke-cespedes-heyward-110615).
QuoteDavid Price: Two agents for free-agent starting pitchers predict that Price will sign with the Cubs. An executive who knows Price says that the Cubs are his first choice. It's all talk until the contract is signed, particularly when the Dodgers, Giants, Cardinals and Red Sox all could be in the mix.
Also (http://www.baseballessential.com/news/2015/11/06/report-cubs-considered-heavy-favorites-to-sign-david-price/).
QuoteOn his podcast, ESPN.com's Buster Olney said that he has heard that the Cubs are "heavy, heavy, heavy, heavy favorites" to sign Price in free agency.
Quote from: Eli on November 06, 2015, 09:50:55 AM
Welp (http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/hot-stove-league-free-agents-trade-candidates-david-price-zack-greinke-cespedes-heyward-110615).
QuoteDavid Price: Two agents for free-agent starting pitchers predict that Price will sign with the Cubs. An executive who knows Price says that the Cubs are his first choice. It's all talk until the contract is signed, particularly when the Dodgers, Giants, Cardinals and Red Sox all could be in the mix.
Also (http://www.baseballessential.com/news/2015/11/06/report-cubs-considered-heavy-favorites-to-sign-david-price/).
QuoteOn his podcast, ESPN.com's Buster Olney said that he has heard that the Cubs are "heavy, heavy, heavy, heavy favorites" to sign Price in free agency.
This makes sense, to me, if it means they're not worried about locking up Arrieta after next year which, as strange as that sounds, is just the type of coldblooded, objective move that would get me even
more excited about this front office were that to come to pass.
Quote from: PANK! on November 06, 2015, 09:56:18 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 06, 2015, 09:50:55 AM
Welp (http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/hot-stove-league-free-agents-trade-candidates-david-price-zack-greinke-cespedes-heyward-110615).
QuoteDavid Price: Two agents for free-agent starting pitchers predict that Price will sign with the Cubs. An executive who knows Price says that the Cubs are his first choice. It's all talk until the contract is signed, particularly when the Dodgers, Giants, Cardinals and Red Sox all could be in the mix.
Also (http://www.baseballessential.com/news/2015/11/06/report-cubs-considered-heavy-favorites-to-sign-david-price/).
QuoteOn his podcast, ESPN.com's Buster Olney said that he has heard that the Cubs are "heavy, heavy, heavy, heavy favorites" to sign Price in free agency.
This makes sense, to me, if it means they're not worried about locking up Arrieta after next year which, as strange as that sounds, is just the type of coldblooded, objective move that would get me even more excited about this front office were that to come to pass.
This is pretty much exactly how last offseason started with Lester, so God I hope it plays out the same way.
I'm still not sure that $200MM+ for Price is the best use of resources but if Jepstink decides it is, I'll shut up and enjoy the dumb ensuing debate about who starts Opening Day.
Quote from: Eli on November 06, 2015, 10:16:21 AM
I'm still not sure that $200MM+ for Price is the best use of resources but if Jepstink decides it is, I'll shut up and enjoy the dumb ensuing debate about who starts Opening Day.
My guess is they wouldn't put all of their eggs into the Price basket. I doubt they'd sign him if they weren't assured that there would still be some flexibility in future offseasons. Obviously not a 200 million dollar contract added every year, but I feel like they wouldn't commit everything to Price if they knew they were fucked if it fails.
If they did sign Price, I'd still want them to get another starting pitcher in a trade. They wouldn't have to go get a Tyson Ross or Corrasco that would cost them a guy like Soler, but trading whoever in the minor for a quality, cost-controlled #3 type would be good. Whatever they do I'd like them to be in a situation where Hammel and Hendricks are competing for one spot in the rotation, rather than counting on both of them.
Quote from: SKO on November 06, 2015, 11:01:58 AM
If they did sign Price, I'd still want them to get another starting pitcher in a trade. They wouldn't have to go get a Tyson Ross or Corrasco that would cost them a guy like Soler, but trading whoever in the minor for a quality, cost-controlled #3 type would be good. Whatever they do I'd like them to be in a situation where Hammel and Hendricks are competing for one spot in the rotation, rather than counting on both of them.
Unless one of them goes the other way in the trade for said pitcher.
If the front three are Lester, Arrieta & Price, why deal for a fourth starter? Why not a low-money deal for another free agent?
Quote from: Armchair_QB on November 06, 2015, 11:12:54 AM
If the front three are Lester, Arrieta & Price, why deal for a fourth starter? Why not a low-money deal for another free agent?
Because a rotation isn't like taking an average. They would ideally still have 5 capable starters, regardless of how good the top 3 are.
Quote from: Eli on November 06, 2015, 11:16:15 AM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on November 06, 2015, 11:12:54 AM
If the front three are Lester, Arrieta & Price, why deal for a fourth starter? Why not a low-money deal for another free agent?
Because a rotation isn't like taking an average. They would ideally still have 5 capable starters, regardless of how good the top 3 are.
And it would be nice to balance out the three expensive vets (Jake gonna get paid in arbitration whether they work out an extension or not) with some cost-controlled, talented young guys at the bottom.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 06, 2015, 11:12:39 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 06, 2015, 11:01:58 AM
If they did sign Price, I'd still want them to get another starting pitcher in a trade. They wouldn't have to go get a Tyson Ross or Corrasco that would cost them a guy like Soler, but trading whoever in the minor for a quality, cost-controlled #3 type would be good. Whatever they do I'd like them to be in a situation where Hammel and Hendricks are competing for one spot in the rotation, rather than counting on both of them.
Unless one of them goes the other way in the trade for said pitcher.
If Hammel can be used to get anything that's notjasonhammel that'd be good enough for me.
Arrieta
Lester
Price
Wei-Yin Chen
Hendricks/Pierce Johnson/Hammel
Quote from: PANK! on November 06, 2015, 11:18:40 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 06, 2015, 11:12:39 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 06, 2015, 11:01:58 AM
If they did sign Price, I'd still want them to get another starting pitcher in a trade. They wouldn't have to go get a Tyson Ross or Corrasco that would cost them a guy like Soler, but trading whoever in the minor for a quality, cost-controlled #3 type would be good. Whatever they do I'd like them to be in a situation where Hammel and Hendricks are competing for one spot in the rotation, rather than counting on both of them.
Unless one of them goes the other way in the trade for said pitcher.
If Hammel can be used to get anything that's notjasonhammel that'd be good enough for me.
I reckon they should ride Hammel's inevitable first-half hot streak and then flip him at the deadline even though they're twenty games over .500 and obviously buyers. Baltimore will give up something decent for him.
Quote from: PenFoe on November 06, 2015, 11:35:56 AM
Arrieta
Lester
Price
Wei-Yin Chen
Hendricks/Pierce Johnson/Hammel
I've wanted Chen for a long time but I doubt they would or should try to outbid the Yankees who are in hot pursuit.
Quote from: Eli on November 06, 2015, 10:16:21 AM
I'm still not sure that $200MM+ for Price is the best use of resources but if Jepstink decides it is, I'll shut up and enjoy the dumb ensuing debate about who starts Opening Day.
That's easy. The one who doesn't need Tommy John surgery.
Quote from: CBStew on November 06, 2015, 12:25:40 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 06, 2015, 10:16:21 AM
I'm still not sure that $200MM+ for Price is the best use of resources but if Jepstink decides it is, I'll shut up and enjoy the dumb ensuing debate about who starts Opening Day.
That's easy. The one who doesn't need Tommy John surgery.
Buzzkill.
Quote from: SKO on November 06, 2015, 11:18:19 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 06, 2015, 11:16:15 AM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on November 06, 2015, 11:12:54 AM
If the front three are Lester, Arrieta & Price, why deal for a fourth starter? Why not a low-money deal for another free agent?
Because a rotation isn't like taking an average. They would ideally still have 5 capable starters, regardless of how good the top 3 are.
And it would be nice to balance out the three expensive vets (Jake gonna get paid in arbitration whether they work out an extension or not) with some cost-controlled, talented young guys at the bottom.
I don't know why, but SKO's obsession with young, cost-controlled pitchers makes me chuckle.
Quote from: InternetApex on November 06, 2015, 11:59:31 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on November 06, 2015, 11:35:56 AM
Arrieta
Lester
Price
Wei-Yin Chen
Hendricks/Pierce Johnson/Hammel
I've wanted Chen for a long time but I doubt they would or should try to outbid the Yankees who are in hot pursuit.
Something something Apex pining for the Asian.
Quote from: CT III on November 06, 2015, 02:00:41 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 06, 2015, 11:18:19 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 06, 2015, 11:16:15 AM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on November 06, 2015, 11:12:54 AM
If the front three are Lester, Arrieta & Price, why deal for a fourth starter? Why not a low-money deal for another free agent?
Because a rotation isn't like taking an average. They would ideally still have 5 capable starters, regardless of how good the top 3 are.
And it would be nice to balance out the three expensive vets (Jake gonna get paid in arbitration whether they work out an extension or not) with some cost-controlled, talented young guys at the bottom.
I don't know why, but SKO's obsession with young, cost-controlled pitchers makes me chuckle.
Cost-controlled is a buzzword that lets people know you totally get how contracts and stuff work (NOTE: I do not actually get how that stuff works most of the time).
Quote from: SKO on November 06, 2015, 02:05:37 PM
Quote from: CT III on November 06, 2015, 02:00:41 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 06, 2015, 11:18:19 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 06, 2015, 11:16:15 AM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on November 06, 2015, 11:12:54 AM
If the front three are Lester, Arrieta & Price, why deal for a fourth starter? Why not a low-money deal for another free agent?
Because a rotation isn't like taking an average. They would ideally still have 5 capable starters, regardless of how good the top 3 are.
And it would be nice to balance out the three expensive vets (Jake gonna get paid in arbitration whether they work out an extension or not) with some cost-controlled, talented young guys at the bottom.
I don't know why, but SKO's obsession with young, cost-controlled pitchers makes me chuckle.
Cost-controlled is a buzzword that lets people know you totally get how contracts and stuff work (NOTE: I do not actually get how that stuff works most of the time).
I'm just a simple caveman, but I thought the whole point of having young, cost-controlled position players was that you'd then have money to spend on not-so-young free agent pitchers. Now we're saying that two expensive free agent pitchers is too many?
No qualifying offer from the Nationals to Denard Span, removing one potential obstacle to his becoming a Cub (but simultaneously increasing his value to everyone else).
Quote from: R-V on November 06, 2015, 03:20:50 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 06, 2015, 02:05:37 PM
Quote from: CT III on November 06, 2015, 02:00:41 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 06, 2015, 11:18:19 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 06, 2015, 11:16:15 AM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on November 06, 2015, 11:12:54 AM
If the front three are Lester, Arrieta & Price, why deal for a fourth starter? Why not a low-money deal for another free agent?
Because a rotation isn't like taking an average. They would ideally still have 5 capable starters, regardless of how good the top 3 are.
And it would be nice to balance out the three expensive vets (Jake gonna get paid in arbitration whether they work out an extension or not) with some cost-controlled, talented young guys at the bottom.
I don't know why, but SKO's obsession with young, cost-controlled pitchers makes me chuckle.
Cost-controlled is a buzzword that lets people know you totally get how contracts and stuff work (NOTE: I do not actually get how that stuff works most of the time).
I'm just a simple caveman, but I thought the whole point of having young, cost-controlled position players was that you'd then have money to spend on not-so-young free agent pitchers. Now we're saying that two expensive free agent pitchers is too many?
I think it's also about mitigating risk.
Quote from: Oleg on November 06, 2015, 04:24:14 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 06, 2015, 03:20:50 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 06, 2015, 02:05:37 PM
Quote from: CT III on November 06, 2015, 02:00:41 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 06, 2015, 11:18:19 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 06, 2015, 11:16:15 AM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on November 06, 2015, 11:12:54 AM
If the front three are Lester, Arrieta & Price, why deal for a fourth starter? Why not a low-money deal for another free agent?
Because a rotation isn't like taking an average. They would ideally still have 5 capable starters, regardless of how good the top 3 are.
And it would be nice to balance out the three expensive vets (Jake gonna get paid in arbitration whether they work out an extension or not) with some cost-controlled, talented young guys at the bottom.
I don't know why, but SKO's obsession with young, cost-controlled pitchers makes me chuckle.
Cost-controlled is a buzzword that lets people know you totally get how contracts and stuff work (NOTE: I do not actually get how that stuff works most of the time).
I'm just a simple caveman, but I thought the whole point of having young, cost-controlled position players was that you'd then have money to spend on not-so-young free agent pitchers. Now we're saying that two expensive free agent pitchers is too many?
I think it's also about mitigating risk.
As an insurance professional, let me tell you that there is nothing more exciting than mitigating risk.
Quote from: R-V on November 06, 2015, 03:20:50 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 06, 2015, 02:05:37 PM
Quote from: CT III on November 06, 2015, 02:00:41 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 06, 2015, 11:18:19 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 06, 2015, 11:16:15 AM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on November 06, 2015, 11:12:54 AM
If the front three are Lester, Arrieta & Price, why deal for a fourth starter? Why not a low-money deal for another free agent?
Because a rotation isn't like taking an average. They would ideally still have 5 capable starters, regardless of how good the top 3 are.
And it would be nice to balance out the three expensive vets (Jake gonna get paid in arbitration whether they work out an extension or not) with some cost-controlled, talented young guys at the bottom.
I don't know why, but SKO's obsession with young, cost-controlled pitchers makes me chuckle.
Cost-controlled is a buzzword that lets people know you totally get how contracts and stuff work (NOTE: I do not actually get how that stuff works most of the time).
I'm just a simple caveman, but I thought the whole point of having young, cost-controlled position players was that you'd then have money to spend on not-so-young free agent pitchers. Now we're saying that two expensive free agent pitchers is too many?
Not to mention, any minor league pitchers who have any realistic shot at being in the rotation are at least two years away, at which point the Cubs have cost-controlled pitching before they have to start shelling out to the position players.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 06, 2015, 04:54:49 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 06, 2015, 03:20:50 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 06, 2015, 02:05:37 PM
Quote from: CT III on November 06, 2015, 02:00:41 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 06, 2015, 11:18:19 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 06, 2015, 11:16:15 AM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on November 06, 2015, 11:12:54 AM
If the front three are Lester, Arrieta & Price, why deal for a fourth starter? Why not a low-money deal for another free agent?
Because a rotation isn't like taking an average. They would ideally still have 5 capable starters, regardless of how good the top 3 are.
And it would be nice to balance out the three expensive vets (Jake gonna get paid in arbitration whether they work out an extension or not) with some cost-controlled, talented young guys at the bottom.
I don't know why, but SKO's obsession with young, cost-controlled pitchers makes me chuckle.
Cost-controlled is a buzzword that lets people know you totally get how contracts and stuff work (NOTE: I do not actually get how that stuff works most of the time).
I'm just a simple caveman, but I thought the whole point of having young, cost-controlled position players was that you'd then have money to spend on not-so-young free agent pitchers. Now we're saying that two expensive free agent pitchers is too many?
Not to mention, any minor league pitchers who have any realistic shot at being in the rotation are at least two years away, at which point the Cubs have cost-controlled pitching before they have to start shelling out to the position players.
This is where I'm at. The hope is that they're as successful with the pitching they're developing as they have been with the bats. If so, that'd be one well-oiled machine.
Quote from: R-V on November 06, 2015, 03:20:50 PM
I'm just a simple caveman, but I thought the whole point of having young, cost-controlled position players was that you'd then have money to spend on not-so-young free agent pitchers. Now we're saying that two expensive free agent pitchers is too many?
Or, in the case of this offseason, spend the money to steal young, in-their-prime superstar outfielders from the Cardinals.
Quote from: Eli on November 07, 2015, 10:30:12 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 06, 2015, 03:20:50 PM
I'm just a simple caveman, but I thought the whole point of having young, cost-controlled position players was that you'd then have money to spend on not-so-young free agent pitchers. Now we're saying that two expensive free agent pitchers is too many?
Or, in the case of this offseason, spend the money to steal young, in-their-prime superstar outfielders from the Cardinals.
QuoteIntrepid Reader: BFIB
Oh geez, not Bourjos!!!
DPD. http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/11/2015-16-top-50-mlb-free-agents-with-predictions.html
Quote24. John Lackey – Cubs. Three years, $50MM. Lackey had a fantastic year for the Cardinals, with a 2.77 ERA in 218 innings. His base salary was the league minimum due to an injury-related clause he agreed to upon signing with Theo Epstein's Red Sox in 2009, but the Cards added $2MM in performance bonuses. After that bargain, the Cardinals made the $15.8MM qualifying offer, and Lackey is expected to turn it down in search of a multiyear deal. He recently turned 37, so some suitors could be wary of a three-year deal. The Cubs, Dodgers, Diamondbacks, Astros, Royals, Giants, Tigers, Blue Jays, Orioles, Mariners, Marlins, Nationals, Rangers, Twins, and Yankees could all be part of his robust market.
Fuck. That. Shit.
Quote from: ChuckD on November 07, 2015, 04:47:59 PM
DPD. http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/11/2015-16-top-50-mlb-free-agents-with-predictions.html
Quote24. John Lackey – Cubs. Three years, $50MM. Lackey had a fantastic year for the Cardinals, with a 2.77 ERA in 218 innings. His base salary was the league minimum due to an injury-related clause he agreed to upon signing with Theo Epstein's Red Sox in 2009, but the Cards added $2MM in performance bonuses. After that bargain, the Cardinals made the $15.8MM qualifying offer, and Lackey is expected to turn it down in search of a multiyear deal. He recently turned 37, so some suitors could be wary of a three-year deal. The Cubs, Dodgers, Diamondbacks, Astros, Royals, Giants, Tigers, Blue Jays, Orioles, Mariners, Marlins, Nationals, Rangers, Twins, and Yankees could all be part of his robust market.
Fuck. That. Shit.
If they sign that fucking mouthbreathing Dunwich Horror, it's going to make my Snork FIREBARN look like a matchstick.
What if you can trade one of the Cubs young hitters for a reliable #3 pitcher or sign Lackey. What do you do?
Quote from: Canadouche on November 07, 2015, 05:17:32 PM
What if you can trade one of the Cubs young hitters for a reliable #3 pitcher or sign Lackey. What do you do?
Which hitter? Which pitcher?
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 07, 2015, 05:43:41 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 07, 2015, 05:17:32 PM
What if you can trade one of the Cubs young hitters for a reliable #3 pitcher or sign Lackey. What do you do?
Which hitter? Which pitcher?
Who cares. Do the trade or don't do the trade. Just don't sign Lackey.
Quote from: ChuckD on November 07, 2015, 05:48:50 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 07, 2015, 05:43:41 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 07, 2015, 05:17:32 PM
What if you can trade one of the Cubs young hitters for a reliable #3 pitcher or sign Lackey. What do you do?
Which hitter? Which pitcher?
Who cares. Do the trade or don't do the trade. Just don't sign Lackey.
Word. I don't care how meatball this sounds: you can give me all the proof in the world that Lackey improves the Cubs, and I still won't believe it.
Quote from: Bort on November 07, 2015, 07:00:01 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on November 07, 2015, 05:48:50 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 07, 2015, 05:43:41 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 07, 2015, 05:17:32 PM
What if you can trade one of the Cubs young hitters for a reliable #3 pitcher or sign Lackey. What do you do?
Which hitter? Which pitcher?
Who cares. Do the trade or don't do the trade. Just don't sign Lackey.
Word. I don't care how meatball this sounds: you can give me all the proof in the world that Lackey improves the Cubs, and I still won't believe it.
I think aside from the whole "winning 97 games and bouncing the Cardinals from the playoffs" thing, my favorite part about this team was that the major contributors all appeared to be really likable and decent people.
The addition of Lackey would seem to be like throwing a simmering pot of shart drippings on that. It's possible he's a really nice guy in person, but literally every piece of evidence I've read or seen suggests otherwise.
Lackey would hardly be my first choice, especially if he expects 3+ years on any contract. But he does have playoff experience and success, which can't be said of any Cubs pitchers save Lester.
Quote from: Canadouche on November 08, 2015, 07:45:59 AM
Lackey would hardly be my first choice, especially if he expects 3+ years on any contract. But he does have playoff experience and success, which can't be said of any Cubs pitchers save Lester.
I think Crazy Rumor Guy said 3/50. If his agent calls Theo asking for that, I'm guessing he actually laughs into the phone.
Signing Lackey would work about as well as the time they brought in Rich Gossage.
Quote from: Canadouche on November 08, 2015, 07:45:59 AM
Lackey would hardly be my first choice, especially if he expects 3+ years on any contract. But he does have playoff experience and success, which can't be said of any Cubs pitchers save Lester.
What?
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/Ivychat/Capture_zpsrgmotjkx.png)
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 08, 2015, 12:29:36 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 08, 2015, 07:45:59 AM
Lackey would hardly be my first choice, especially if he expects 3+ years on any contract. But he does have playoff experience and success, which can't be said of any Cubs pitchers save Lester.
What?
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/Ivychat/Capture_zpsrgmotjkx.png)
I don't know if you can call what Hammel did "experience". I think it was more "an experience".
Quote from: Canadouche on November 08, 2015, 07:45:59 AM
Lackey would hardly be my first choice, especially if he expects 3+ years on any contract. But he does have playoff experience and success, which can't be said of any Cubs pitchers save Lester.
Arrieta did throw a shut out in a one game playoff. Am I missing the point?
Quote from: Slaky on November 08, 2015, 02:11:36 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 08, 2015, 07:45:59 AM
Lackey would hardly be my first choice, especially if he expects 3+ years on any contract. But he does have playoff experience and success, which can't be said of any Cubs pitchers save Lester.
Arrieta did throw a shut out in a one game playoff. Am I missing the point?
I guess the point is, he pitched other games after that and didn't look like himself. I'm not trying to say that he can't be relied upon, or trusted, but I wouldn't call the end result of his first go-round a success. I think he'll be more prepared next time, as last year he threw way, way more innings than ever before in his career. Still, it obviously wouldn't hurt to have a playoff-capable starter to bridge the gap between games in which Lester and Arrieta start.
I'm not shilling for Lackey btw. He's too old and past playoff success is not indicative of future playoff success.
Quote from: Canadouche on November 08, 2015, 02:22:24 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 08, 2015, 02:11:36 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 08, 2015, 07:45:59 AM
Lackey would hardly be my first choice, especially if he expects 3+ years on any contract. But he does have playoff experience and success, which can't be said of any Cubs pitchers save Lester.
Arrieta did throw a shut out in a one game playoff. Am I missing the point?
I guess the point is, he pitched other games after that and didn't look like himself. I'm not trying to say that he can't be relied upon, or trusted, but I wouldn't call the end result of his first go-round a success. I think he'll be more prepared next time, as last year he threw way, way more innings than ever before in his career. Still, it obviously wouldn't hurt to have a playoff-capable starter to bridge the gap between games in which Lester and Arrieta start.
I'm not shilling for Lackey btw. He's too old and past playoff success is not indicative of future playoff success.
Okay, now I'm confused.
Quote from: Tonker on November 08, 2015, 02:29:09 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 08, 2015, 02:22:24 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 08, 2015, 02:11:36 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 08, 2015, 07:45:59 AM
Lackey would hardly be my first choice, especially if he expects 3+ years on any contract. But he does have playoff experience and success, which can't be said of any Cubs pitchers save Lester.
Arrieta did throw a shut out in a one game playoff. Am I missing the point?
I guess the point is, he pitched other games after that and didn't look like himself. I'm not trying to say that he can't be relied upon, or trusted, but I wouldn't call the end result of his first go-round a success. I think he'll be more prepared next time, as last year he threw way, way more innings than ever before in his career. Still, it obviously wouldn't hurt to have a playoff-capable starter to bridge the gap between games in which Lester and Arrieta start.
I'm not shilling for Lackey btw. He's too old and past playoff success is not indicative of future playoff success.
Okay, now I'm confused.
Focus more on the first part, big guy. Lackey's age could have an impact on how well he pitches later in a season.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 08, 2015, 12:29:36 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 08, 2015, 07:45:59 AM
Lackey would hardly be my first choice, especially if he expects 3+ years on any contract. But he does have playoff experience and success, which can't be said of any Cubs pitchers save Lester.
What?
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/Ivychat/Capture_zpsrgmotjkx.png)
I assume you're just pointing out that other Cubs pitchers now have postseason experience and not that Lester hasn't had postseason success, right?
Quote from: Eli on November 08, 2015, 03:12:07 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 08, 2015, 12:29:36 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 08, 2015, 07:45:59 AM
Lackey would hardly be my first choice, especially if he expects 3+ years on any contract. But he does have playoff experience and success, which can't be said of any Cubs pitchers save Lester.
What?
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/Ivychat/Capture_zpsrgmotjkx.png)
I assume you're just pointing out that other Cubs pitchers now have postseason experience and not that Lester hasn't had postseason success, right?
Yes.
Quote from: Canadouche on November 08, 2015, 02:22:24 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 08, 2015, 02:11:36 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 08, 2015, 07:45:59 AM
Lackey would hardly be my first choice, especially if he expects 3+ years on any contract. But he does have playoff experience and success, which can't be said of any Cubs pitchers save Lester.
Arrieta did throw a shut out in a one game playoff. Am I missing the point?
I guess the point is, he pitched other games after that and didn't look like himself. I'm not trying to say that he can't be relied upon, or trusted, but I wouldn't call the end result of his first go-round a success. I think he'll be more prepared next time, as last year he threw way, way more innings than ever before in his career. Still, it obviously wouldn't hurt to have a playoff-capable starter to bridge the gap between games in which Lester and Arrieta start.
I'm not shilling for Lackey btw. He's too old and past playoff success is not indicative of future playoff success.
Yay! Kurt is back. This is a load of gobbledygook.
Quote from: Canadouche on November 08, 2015, 02:33:14 PM
Quote from: Tonker on November 08, 2015, 02:29:09 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 08, 2015, 02:22:24 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 08, 2015, 02:11:36 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 08, 2015, 07:45:59 AM
Lackey would hardly be my first choice, especially if he expects 3+ years on any contract. But he does have playoff experience and success, which can't be said of any Cubs pitchers save Lester.
Arrieta did throw a shut out in a one game playoff. Am I missing the point?
I guess the point is, he pitched other games after that and didn't look like himself. I'm not trying to say that he can't be relied upon, or trusted, but I wouldn't call the end result of his first go-round a success. I think he'll be more prepared next time, as last year he threw way, way more innings than ever before in his career. Still, it obviously wouldn't hurt to have a playoff-capable starter to bridge the gap between games in which Lester and Arrieta start.
I'm not shilling for Lackey btw. He's too old and past playoff success is not indicative of future playoff success.
Okay, now I'm confused.
Focus more on the first part, big guy. Lackey's age could have an impact on how well he pitches later in a season.
(http://media3.giphy.com/media/Qy9hRuWrKjY2I/giphy.gif)
Quote from: Oleg on November 09, 2015, 08:51:35 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 08, 2015, 02:22:24 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 08, 2015, 02:11:36 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 08, 2015, 07:45:59 AM
Lackey would hardly be my first choice, especially if he expects 3+ years on any contract. But he does have playoff experience and success, which can't be said of any Cubs pitchers save Lester.
Arrieta did throw a shut out in a one game playoff. Am I missing the point?
I guess the point is, he pitched other games after that and didn't look like himself. I'm not trying to say that he can't be relied upon, or trusted, but I wouldn't call the end result of his first go-round a success. I think he'll be more prepared next time, as last year he threw way, way more innings than ever before in his career. Still, it obviously wouldn't hurt to have a playoff-capable starter to bridge the gap between games in which Lester and Arrieta start.
I'm not shilling for Lackey btw. He's too old and past playoff success is not indicative of future playoff success.
Yay! Kurt is back. This is a load of gobbledygook.
My favorite was when he sarcastically said "focus on the first part, big boy" to Tonk as though it was the Australian's fault that what Kurt said was gobbledygook and contradicted itself by the next paragraph.
Quote from: SKO on November 09, 2015, 08:59:46 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 09, 2015, 08:51:35 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 08, 2015, 02:22:24 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 08, 2015, 02:11:36 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 08, 2015, 07:45:59 AM
Lackey would hardly be my first choice, especially if he expects 3+ years on any contract. But he does have playoff experience and success, which can't be said of any Cubs pitchers save Lester.
Arrieta did throw a shut out in a one game playoff. Am I missing the point?
I guess the point is, he pitched other games after that and didn't look like himself. I'm not trying to say that he can't be relied upon, or trusted, but I wouldn't call the end result of his first go-round a success. I think he'll be more prepared next time, as last year he threw way, way more innings than ever before in his career. Still, it obviously wouldn't hurt to have a playoff-capable starter to bridge the gap between games in which Lester and Arrieta start.
I'm not shilling for Lackey btw. He's too old and past playoff success is not indicative of future playoff success.
Yay! Kurt is back. This is a load of gobbledygook.
My favorite was when he sarcastically said "focus on the first part, big boy" to Tonk as though it was the Australian's fault that what Kurt said was gobbledygook and contradicted itself by the next paragraph.
If only all of that was in the form of a Photoshop, then maybe we would get it.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 09, 2015, 09:04:16 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 09, 2015, 08:59:46 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 09, 2015, 08:51:35 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 08, 2015, 02:22:24 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 08, 2015, 02:11:36 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 08, 2015, 07:45:59 AM
Lackey would hardly be my first choice, especially if he expects 3+ years on any contract. But he does have playoff experience and success, which can't be said of any Cubs pitchers save Lester.
Arrieta did throw a shut out in a one game playoff. Am I missing the point?
I guess the point is, he pitched other games after that and didn't look like himself. I'm not trying to say that he can't be relied upon, or trusted, but I wouldn't call the end result of his first go-round a success. I think he'll be more prepared next time, as last year he threw way, way more innings than ever before in his career. Still, it obviously wouldn't hurt to have a playoff-capable starter to bridge the gap between games in which Lester and Arrieta start.
I'm not shilling for Lackey btw. He's too old and past playoff success is not indicative of future playoff success.
Yay! Kurt is back. This is a load of gobbledygook.
My favorite was when he sarcastically said "focus on the first part, big boy" to Tonk as though it was the Australian's fault that what Kurt said was gobbledygook and contradicted itself by the next paragraph.
If only all of that was in the form of a Photoshop, then maybe we would get it.
(http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j74/KurtEvans/neifirude1.jpg~original)(http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3948/2466/400/Brokearm%20Mountain.jpg)
Quote from: SKO on November 09, 2015, 08:59:46 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 09, 2015, 08:51:35 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 08, 2015, 02:22:24 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 08, 2015, 02:11:36 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 08, 2015, 07:45:59 AM
Lackey would hardly be my first choice, especially if he expects 3+ years on any contract. But he does have playoff experience and success, which can't be said of any Cubs pitchers save Lester.
Arrieta did throw a shut out in a one game playoff. Am I missing the point?
I guess the point is, he pitched other games after that and didn't look like himself. I'm not trying to say that he can't be relied upon, or trusted, but I wouldn't call the end result of his first go-round a success. I think he'll be more prepared next time, as last year he threw way, way more innings than ever before in his career. Still, it obviously wouldn't hurt to have a playoff-capable starter to bridge the gap between games in which Lester and Arrieta start.
I'm not shilling for Lackey btw. He's too old and past playoff success is not indicative of future playoff success.
Yay! Kurt is back. This is a load of gobbledygook.
My favorite was when he sarcastically said "focus on the first part, big boy" to Tonk as though it was the Australian's fault that what Kurt said was gobbledygook and contradicted itself by the next paragraph.
Grow up.
Quote from: Oleg on November 09, 2015, 08:51:35 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 08, 2015, 02:22:24 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 08, 2015, 02:11:36 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 08, 2015, 07:45:59 AM
Lackey would hardly be my first choice, especially if he expects 3+ years on any contract. But he does have playoff experience and success, which can't be said of any Cubs pitchers save Lester.
Arrieta did throw a shut out in a one game playoff. Am I missing the point?
I guess the point is, he pitched other games after that and didn't look like himself. I'm not trying to say that he can't be relied upon, or trusted, but I wouldn't call the end result of his first go-round a success. I think he'll be more prepared next time, as last year he threw way, way more innings than ever before in his career. Still, it obviously wouldn't hurt to have a playoff-capable starter to bridge the gap between games in which Lester and Arrieta start.
I'm not shilling for Lackey btw. He's too old and past playoff success is not indicative of future playoff success.
Yay! Kurt is back. This is a load of gobbledygook.
Hah. Yeah, I have no idea what I want from the Cubs this off season. Well, I know what I want - improved pitching to better their chances of winning again, but I have no idea how they should proceed with it. I don't envy Jebstein at all, because they will either be scrutinized heavily for spending too much on old pitching or for trading too much for young pitching.
Quote from: SKO on November 09, 2015, 08:59:46 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 09, 2015, 08:51:35 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 08, 2015, 02:22:24 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 08, 2015, 02:11:36 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 08, 2015, 07:45:59 AM
Lackey would hardly be my first choice, especially if he expects 3+ years on any contract. But he does have playoff experience and success, which can't be said of any Cubs pitchers save Lester.
Arrieta did throw a shut out in a one game playoff. Am I missing the point?
I guess the point is, he pitched other games after that and didn't look like himself. I'm not trying to say that he can't be relied upon, or trusted, but I wouldn't call the end result of his first go-round a success. I think he'll be more prepared next time, as last year he threw way, way more innings than ever before in his career. Still, it obviously wouldn't hurt to have a playoff-capable starter to bridge the gap between games in which Lester and Arrieta start.
I'm not shilling for Lackey btw. He's too old and past playoff success is not indicative of future playoff success.
Yay! Kurt is back. This is a load of gobbledygook.
My favorite was when he sarcastically said "focus on the first part, big boy" to Tonk as though it was the Australian's fault that what Kurt said was gobbledygook and contradicted itself by the next paragraph.
Sorry, I apologize for coming across in a douchey way. I didn't call Tonker a "big boy," which would be tremendously condescending and assholeish, but I called him "big guy," and I can see where that might offend him. Not my intention.
I
would prefer the Cubs get a pitcher with some success in the playoffs. I don't believe that past success automatically means future success, but it's still better than not knowing at all how a pitcher handles that kind of pressure. I especially don't trust in past success with a pitcher who is in his mid-to-late 30's.
Apologies for any goobledegook. Like I said previously, I don't envy the Cubs for having to make these kinds of decisions. I can see positives and negatives in many different choices, and if I'm posting about one of them that doesn't mean I'm advocating for it.
Can we take a break from the over-sensitivity?
Looking at not Kurt here.
Quote from: Canadouche on November 09, 2015, 10:32:32 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 09, 2015, 08:59:46 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 09, 2015, 08:51:35 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 08, 2015, 02:22:24 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 08, 2015, 02:11:36 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 08, 2015, 07:45:59 AM
Lackey would hardly be my first choice, especially if he expects 3+ years on any contract. But he does have playoff experience and success, which can't be said of any Cubs pitchers save Lester.
Arrieta did throw a shut out in a one game playoff. Am I missing the point?
I guess the point is, he pitched other games after that and didn't look like himself. I'm not trying to say that he can't be relied upon, or trusted, but I wouldn't call the end result of his first go-round a success. I think he'll be more prepared next time, as last year he threw way, way more innings than ever before in his career. Still, it obviously wouldn't hurt to have a playoff-capable starter to bridge the gap between games in which Lester and Arrieta start.
I'm not shilling for Lackey btw. He's too old and past playoff success is not indicative of future playoff success.
Yay! Kurt is back. This is a load of gobbledygook.
My favorite was when he sarcastically said "focus on the first part, big boy" to Tonk as though it was the Australian's fault that what Kurt said was gobbledygook and contradicted itself by the next paragraph.
Sorry, I apologize for coming across in a douchey way. I didn't call Tonker a "big boy," which would be tremendously condescending and assholeish, but I called him "big guy," and I can see where that might offend him. Not my intention.
I would prefer the Cubs get a pitcher with some success in the playoffs. I don't believe that past success automatically means future success, but it's still better than not knowing at all how a pitcher handles that kind of pressure. I especially don't trust in past success with a pitcher who is in his mid-to-late 30's.
Apologies for any goobledegook. Like I said previously, I don't envy the Cubs for having to make these kinds of decisions. I can see positives and negatives in many different choices, and if I'm posting about one of them that doesn't mean I'm advocating for it.
The gobbledygook part is bolded. This has nothing to do with Kurt but some sort of a weird idea that professional athletes who have played in front of thousands and tens of thousands of people most of their lives are somehow overcome with the pressure of the post-season. More often than not, I think, two things contribute to a delta in post-season performance and regular season performance, randomness/small sample size and simply facing better competition. Just get good pitchers and let the ducks fall into place.
Quote from: PenFoe on November 09, 2015, 10:35:15 AM
Can we take a break from the over-sensitivity?
Looking at not Kurt here.
Fuck you.
Quote from: Oleg on November 09, 2015, 10:38:44 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 09, 2015, 10:32:32 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 09, 2015, 08:59:46 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 09, 2015, 08:51:35 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 08, 2015, 02:22:24 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 08, 2015, 02:11:36 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 08, 2015, 07:45:59 AM
Lackey would hardly be my first choice, especially if he expects 3+ years on any contract. But he does have playoff experience and success, which can't be said of any Cubs pitchers save Lester.
Arrieta did throw a shut out in a one game playoff. Am I missing the point?
I guess the point is, he pitched other games after that and didn't look like himself. I'm not trying to say that he can't be relied upon, or trusted, but I wouldn't call the end result of his first go-round a success. I think he'll be more prepared next time, as last year he threw way, way more innings than ever before in his career. Still, it obviously wouldn't hurt to have a playoff-capable starter to bridge the gap between games in which Lester and Arrieta start.
I'm not shilling for Lackey btw. He's too old and past playoff success is not indicative of future playoff success.
Yay! Kurt is back. This is a load of gobbledygook.
My favorite was when he sarcastically said "focus on the first part, big boy" to Tonk as though it was the Australian's fault that what Kurt said was gobbledygook and contradicted itself by the next paragraph.
Sorry, I apologize for coming across in a douchey way. I didn't call Tonker a "big boy," which would be tremendously condescending and assholeish, but I called him "big guy," and I can see where that might offend him. Not my intention.
I would prefer the Cubs get a pitcher with some success in the playoffs. I don't believe that past success automatically means future success, but it's still better than not knowing at all how a pitcher handles that kind of pressure. I especially don't trust in past success with a pitcher who is in his mid-to-late 30's.
Apologies for any goobledegook. Like I said previously, I don't envy the Cubs for having to make these kinds of decisions. I can see positives and negatives in many different choices, and if I'm posting about one of them that doesn't mean I'm advocating for it.
The gobbledygook part is bolded. This has nothing to do with Kurt but some sort of a weird idea that professional athletes who have played in front of thousands and tens of thousands of people most of their lives are somehow overcome with the pressure of the post-season. More often than not, I think, two things contribute to a delta in post-season performance and regular season performance, randomness/small sample size and simply facing better competition. Just get good pitchers and let the ducks fall into place.
Quote from: PenFoe on November 09, 2015, 10:35:15 AM
Can we take a break from the over-sensitivity?
Looking at not Kurt here.
Fuck you.
'atta boy, fuckface.
Quote from: PenFoe on November 09, 2015, 10:39:32 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 09, 2015, 10:38:44 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 09, 2015, 10:32:32 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 09, 2015, 08:59:46 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 09, 2015, 08:51:35 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 08, 2015, 02:22:24 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 08, 2015, 02:11:36 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 08, 2015, 07:45:59 AM
Lackey would hardly be my first choice, especially if he expects 3+ years on any contract. But he does have playoff experience and success, which can't be said of any Cubs pitchers save Lester.
Arrieta did throw a shut out in a one game playoff. Am I missing the point?
I guess the point is, he pitched other games after that and didn't look like himself. I'm not trying to say that he can't be relied upon, or trusted, but I wouldn't call the end result of his first go-round a success. I think he'll be more prepared next time, as last year he threw way, way more innings than ever before in his career. Still, it obviously wouldn't hurt to have a playoff-capable starter to bridge the gap between games in which Lester and Arrieta start.
I'm not shilling for Lackey btw. He's too old and past playoff success is not indicative of future playoff success.
Yay! Kurt is back. This is a load of gobbledygook.
My favorite was when he sarcastically said "focus on the first part, big boy" to Tonk as though it was the Australian's fault that what Kurt said was gobbledygook and contradicted itself by the next paragraph.
Sorry, I apologize for coming across in a douchey way. I didn't call Tonker a "big boy," which would be tremendously condescending and assholeish, but I called him "big guy," and I can see where that might offend him. Not my intention.
I would prefer the Cubs get a pitcher with some success in the playoffs. I don't believe that past success automatically means future success, but it's still better than not knowing at all how a pitcher handles that kind of pressure. I especially don't trust in past success with a pitcher who is in his mid-to-late 30's.
Apologies for any goobledegook. Like I said previously, I don't envy the Cubs for having to make these kinds of decisions. I can see positives and negatives in many different choices, and if I'm posting about one of them that doesn't mean I'm advocating for it.
The gobbledygook part is bolded. This has nothing to do with Kurt but some sort of a weird idea that professional athletes who have played in front of thousands and tens of thousands of people most of their lives are somehow overcome with the pressure of the post-season. More often than not, I think, two things contribute to a delta in post-season performance and regular season performance, randomness/small sample size and simply facing better competition. Just get good pitchers and let the ducks fall into place.
Quote from: PenFoe on November 09, 2015, 10:35:15 AM
Can we take a break from the over-sensitivity?
Looking at not Kurt here.
Fuck you.
'atta boy, fuckface.
Thanks for focusing on the important part of that post.
Quote from: Canadouche on November 09, 2015, 10:32:32 AM
I would prefer the Cubs get a pitcher with some success in the playoffs.
If nothing else, I think you're getting ridden for this sentiment which is defintiely gobbleygook.
There's no such thing. James Shields had the nickname "Big Game" and he didn't do a thing in last year's postseason. Jon Lester was masterful in 2 World Series games vs. The Cardinals in 2013, but has had some rough outings. As we saw this year, in the very same postseason, Arrieta was dominant, and then not so much.
The greatest pitcher of his generation--Greg Maddux--supposedly couldn't pitch in big games, until he did, and won a World Series in 1995.
I actually swing the other way on the issue. The fact that David Price has a 5.12 ERA in 63 postseason innings makes him more enticing to me, because for any and all good pitchers, that shit will work itself out because David Price is really, really good. One of these years, Kershaw is likely to go off. Conversely, you have Madison Bumgarner--who you can say has been nearly flawless in big games to date--and give him a few more postseason appearances and don't be surprised if he gets shelled once or twice.
Just get good pitchers. Period. There's no such as a "good postseason pitcher". No pitcher's experience--both successful and unsuccessful--matters a whit. A good pitcher will be both good and bad in the postseason, over time.
Quote from: PANK! on November 09, 2015, 10:44:25 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 09, 2015, 10:32:32 AM
I would prefer the Cubs get a pitcher with some success in the playoffs.
If nothing else, I think you're getting ridden for this sentiment which is defintiely gobbleygook.
There's no such thing. James Shields had the nickname "Big Game" and he didn't do a thing in last year's postseason. Jon Lester was masterful in 2 World Series games vs. The Cardinals in 2013, but has had some rough outings. As we saw this year, in the very same postseason, Arrieta was dominant, and then not so much.
The greatest pitcher of his generation--Greg Maddux--supposedly couldn't pitch in big games, until he did, and won a World Series in 1995.
I actually swing the other way on the issue. The fact that David Price has a 5.12 ERA in 63 postseason innings makes him more enticing to me, because for any and all good pitchers, that shit will work itself out because David Price is really, really good. One of these years, Kershaw is likely to go off. Conversely, you have Madison Bumgarner--who you can say has been nearly flawless in big games to date--and give him a few more postseason appearances and don't be surprised if he gets shelled once or twice.
Just get good pitchers. Period. There's no such as a "good postseason pitcher". No pitcher's experience--both successful and unsuccessful--matters a whit. A good pitcher will be both good and bad in the postseason, over time.
Wasn't Lester that pitcher with success in the playoffs that they got?
Quote from: PANK! on November 09, 2015, 10:44:25 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 09, 2015, 10:32:32 AM
I would prefer the Cubs get a pitcher with some success in the playoffs.
If nothing else, I think you're getting ridden for this sentiment which is defintiely gobbleygook.
There's no such thing. James Shields had the nickname "Big Game" and he didn't do a thing in last year's postseason. Jon Lester was masterful in 2 World Series games vs. The Cardinals in 2013, but has had some rough outings. As we saw this year, in the very same postseason, Arrieta was dominant, and then not so much.
The greatest pitcher of his generation--Greg Maddux--supposedly couldn't pitch in big games, until he did, and won a World Series in 1995.
I actually swing the other way on the issue. The fact that David Price has a 5.12 ERA in 63 postseason innings makes him more enticing to me, because for any and all good pitchers, that shit will work itself out because David Price is really, really good. One of these years, Kershaw is likely to go off. Conversely, you have Madison Bumgarner--who you can say has been nearly flawless in big games to date--and give him a few more postseason appearances and don't be surprised if he gets shelled once or twice.
Just get good pitchers. Period. There's no such as a "good postseason pitcher". No pitcher's experience--both successful and unsuccessful--matters a whit. A good pitcher will be both good and bad in the postseason, over time.
Six minutes too late. GOODPITCHERFACE!
Quote from: Oleg on November 09, 2015, 10:38:44 AM
The gobbledygook part is bolded. This has nothing to do with Kurt but some sort of a weird idea that professional athletes who have played in front of thousands and tens of thousands of people most of their lives are somehow overcome with the pressure of the post-season. More often than not, I think, two things contribute to a delta in post-season performance and regular season performance, randomness/small sample size and simply facing better competition. Just get good pitchers and let the ducks fall into place.
You can also make the case that a guy like Price could have more postseason success with the Cubs, since as a #3 starter who would be facing another team's #3 starter he'd get more run support.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 10:56:34 AM
You can also make the case that a guy like Price could have more postseason success with the Cubs, since as a #3 starter who would be facing another team's #3 starter he'd get more run support.
You can also make the case that if we're judging his postseason performance on whether he wins the game based on the amount of run support he gets that this is stupid and we should stop talking about it.
Quote from: SKO on November 09, 2015, 11:09:23 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 10:56:34 AM
You can also make the case that a guy like Price could have more postseason success with the Cubs, since as a #3 starter who would be facing another team's #3 starter he'd get more run support.
You can also make the case that if we're judging his postseason performance on whether he wins the game based on the amount of run support he gets that this is stupid and we should stop talking about it.
I think we should spend at least 3 pages talking about not talking about it.
Quote from: PenFoe on November 09, 2015, 11:12:51 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 09, 2015, 11:09:23 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 10:56:34 AM
You can also make the case that a guy like Price could have more postseason success with the Cubs, since as a #3 starter who would be facing another team's #3 starter he'd get more run support.
You can also make the case that if we're judging his postseason performance on whether he wins the game based on the amount of run support he gets that this is stupid and we should stop talking about it.
I think we should spend at least 3 pages talking about not talking about it.
Daniel Murphy,
fucking Daniel Murphy practically drove the Mets to victory in two different postseason series this year with a random as shit hot streak and we have to debate whether David Price having a grand total of like, 6 bad games scattered over 5 years or whatever means anything.
It doesn't. Good night.
Price would be an excellent addition to the team. I wonder how much more expensive Greinke will be?
I don't think it's crazy to think that human beings would occasionally feel the pressure of a big moment, tighten up a bit and make a bad pitch/decision.
However, it probably is crazy to assume we can predict who will and won't do that in the future based on their history.
Quote from: Eli on November 09, 2015, 11:22:37 AM
I don't think it's crazy to think that human beings would occasionally feel the pressure of a big moment, tighten up a bit and make a bad pitch/decision.
However, it probably is crazy to assume we can predict who will and won't do that in the future based on their history.
Agree with all this.
Except Derek Jeter. We should assume he won't freeze up.
Quote from: PenFoe on November 09, 2015, 11:24:25 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 09, 2015, 11:22:37 AM
I don't think it's crazy to think that human beings would occasionally feel the pressure of a big moment, tighten up a bit and make a bad pitch/decision.
However, it probably is crazy to assume we can predict who will and won't do that in the future based on their history.
Agree with all this.
Except Derek Jeter. We should assume he won't freeze up.
Curt Schilling, too.
When it comes to the concept of "clutch pitching," my perspective is forever going to be scarred and skewed by LaTroy Hawkins. I will probably always make too big a deal out of it, because LaTroy proved to me that it's possible to shit the bed in important games with epic regularity.
Quote from: The Beltless Arbiter on November 09, 2015, 11:09:23 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 10:56:34 AM
You can also make the case that a guy like Price could have more postseason success with the Cubs, since as a #3 starter who would be facing another team's #3 starter he'd get more run support.
You can also make the case that if we're judging his postseason performance on whether he wins the game based on the amount of run support he gets that this is stupid and we should stop talking about it.
Are you saying pitchers pitch the same when they aren't getting run support as they do when they are? I mean, sure, when nobody can hit you you just pitch the same. But at other times, you know you don't have to be quite as fine and you can afford to not be over-cautious when you get some runs. That has nothing to do with the postseason, it just has to do with each particular game. But the #3 starters tend to match up more consistently in the postseason.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 11:53:46 AM
Quote from: The Beltless Arbiter on November 09, 2015, 11:09:23 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 10:56:34 AM
You can also make the case that a guy like Price could have more postseason success with the Cubs, since as a #3 starter who would be facing another team's #3 starter he'd get more run support.
You can also make the case that if we're judging his postseason performance on whether he wins the game based on the amount of run support he gets that this is stupid and we should stop talking about it.
Are you saying pitchers pitch the same when they aren't getting run support as they do when they are? I mean, sure, when nobody can hit you you just pitch the same. But at other times, you know you don't have to be quite as fine and you can afford to not be over-cautious when you get some runs. That has nothing to do with the postseason, it just has to do with each particular game. But the #3 starters tend to match up more consistently in the postseason.
There've been a number of people to tackle that question of do pitchers pitch differently with a lead and even if guys say they do (they may walk fewer batters and go right after guys slightly more for example), for the most part the results are rarely very different. For his career David Price has an OPS against of .632 when his team scores 0-2 runs for him, .649 when his team scores 3-5 runs for him and .652 when they score 6+. That small margin is pretty much meaningless, especially when he's faced 500-1000 more batters in that 3-5 run range than <3 or >5.
So what I'm saying is pitchers may think they are pitching differently or maybe they actually do pitch differently but the fact of the matter is the results don't really change. David Price's run support or lack thereof or his expectation thereof probably hasn't made any difference in the postseason. In fact, if it had, you'd think the opposite would be true since his OPS against would indicate that he's usually at his best when he gets fewer runs in support.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 11:53:46 AM
Quote from: The Beltless Arbiter on November 09, 2015, 11:09:23 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 10:56:34 AM
You can also make the case that a guy like Price could have more postseason success with the Cubs, since as a #3 starter who would be facing another team's #3 starter he'd get more run support.
You can also make the case that if we're judging his postseason performance on whether he wins the game based on the amount of run support he gets that this is stupid and we should stop talking about it.
Are you saying pitchers pitch the same when they aren't getting run support as they do when they are? I mean, sure, when nobody can hit you you just pitch the same. But at other times, you know you don't have to be quite as fine and you can afford to not be over-cautious when you get some runs. That has nothing to do with the postseason, it just has to do with each particular game. But the #3 starters tend to match up more consistently in the postseason.
Even if any of this matters (which it doesn't), why are we assuming Price would be the Cubs' #3 starter?
Quote from: Eli on November 09, 2015, 12:11:21 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 11:53:46 AM
Quote from: The Beltless Arbiter on November 09, 2015, 11:09:23 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 10:56:34 AM
You can also make the case that a guy like Price could have more postseason success with the Cubs, since as a #3 starter who would be facing another team's #3 starter he'd get more run support.
You can also make the case that if we're judging his postseason performance on whether he wins the game based on the amount of run support he gets that this is stupid and we should stop talking about it.
Are you saying pitchers pitch the same when they aren't getting run support as they do when they are? I mean, sure, when nobody can hit you you just pitch the same. But at other times, you know you don't have to be quite as fine and you can afford to not be over-cautious when you get some runs. That has nothing to do with the postseason, it just has to do with each particular game. But the #3 starters tend to match up more consistently in the postseason.
Even if any of this matters (which it doesn't), why are we assuming Price would be the Cubs' #3 starter?
I think Fork is arguing if they signed him and they gave a shit about his past performances in the playoffs, they could be like "here, you fucking pansy, go out there and just try not to shit yourself too much because it's only Michael Wacha over there. We knew better than to ask you to go up against their top guy."
Theo could use this in negotiations, as well. "Sign with us and we'll only ask you to start game 3 of the LDS, since we don't want to get burned the next time you gag in the playoffs"
Quote from: SKO on November 09, 2015, 12:13:37 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 09, 2015, 12:11:21 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 11:53:46 AM
Quote from: The Beltless Arbiter on November 09, 2015, 11:09:23 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 10:56:34 AM
You can also make the case that a guy like Price could have more postseason success with the Cubs, since as a #3 starter who would be facing another team's #3 starter he'd get more run support.
You can also make the case that if we're judging his postseason performance on whether he wins the game based on the amount of run support he gets that this is stupid and we should stop talking about it.
Are you saying pitchers pitch the same when they aren't getting run support as they do when they are? I mean, sure, when nobody can hit you you just pitch the same. But at other times, you know you don't have to be quite as fine and you can afford to not be over-cautious when you get some runs. That has nothing to do with the postseason, it just has to do with each particular game. But the #3 starters tend to match up more consistently in the postseason.
Even if any of this matters (which it doesn't), why are we assuming Price would be the Cubs' #3 starter?
I think Fork is arguing if they signed him and they gave a shit about his past performances in the playoffs, they could be like "here, you fucking pansy, go out there and just try not to shit yourself too much because it's only Michael Wacha over there. We knew better than to ask you to go up against their top guy."
Theo could use this in negotiations, as well. "Sign with us and we'll only ask you to start game 3 of the LDS, since we don't want to get burned the next time you gag in the playoffs"
Great. David Price is starting the WC game. We're DOOOOOOOOMED!
Quote from: Eli on November 09, 2015, 12:11:21 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 11:53:46 AM
Quote from: The Beltless Arbiter on November 09, 2015, 11:09:23 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 10:56:34 AM
You can also make the case that a guy like Price could have more postseason success with the Cubs, since as a #3 starter who would be facing another team's #3 starter he'd get more run support.
You can also make the case that if we're judging his postseason performance on whether he wins the game based on the amount of run support he gets that this is stupid and we should stop talking about it.
Are you saying pitchers pitch the same when they aren't getting run support as they do when they are? I mean, sure, when nobody can hit you you just pitch the same. But at other times, you know you don't have to be quite as fine and you can afford to not be over-cautious when you get some runs. That has nothing to do with the postseason, it just has to do with each particular game. But the #3 starters tend to match up more consistently in the postseason.
Even if any of this matters (which it doesn't), why are we assuming Price would be the Cubs' #3 starter?
Because they have a pretty fucking good 1 and 2?
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 12:21:37 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 09, 2015, 12:11:21 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 11:53:46 AM
Quote from: The Beltless Arbiter on November 09, 2015, 11:09:23 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 10:56:34 AM
You can also make the case that a guy like Price could have more postseason success with the Cubs, since as a #3 starter who would be facing another team's #3 starter he'd get more run support.
You can also make the case that if we're judging his postseason performance on whether he wins the game based on the amount of run support he gets that this is stupid and we should stop talking about it.
Are you saying pitchers pitch the same when they aren't getting run support as they do when they are? I mean, sure, when nobody can hit you you just pitch the same. But at other times, you know you don't have to be quite as fine and you can afford to not be over-cautious when you get some runs. That has nothing to do with the postseason, it just has to do with each particular game. But the #3 starters tend to match up more consistently in the postseason.
Even if any of this matters (which it doesn't), why are we assuming Price would be the Cubs' #3 starter?
Because they have a pretty fucking good 1 and 2?
David Price is better and younger than Lester, and much as I love Jake he's pitched one full season. There's very little reason to assume that Price would be the third best Cubs starter of 2016.
Quote from: SKO on November 09, 2015, 12:26:22 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 12:21:37 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 09, 2015, 12:11:21 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 11:53:46 AM
Quote from: The Beltless Arbiter on November 09, 2015, 11:09:23 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 10:56:34 AM
You can also make the case that a guy like Price could have more postseason success with the Cubs, since as a #3 starter who would be facing another team's #3 starter he'd get more run support.
You can also make the case that if we're judging his postseason performance on whether he wins the game based on the amount of run support he gets that this is stupid and we should stop talking about it.
Are you saying pitchers pitch the same when they aren't getting run support as they do when they are? I mean, sure, when nobody can hit you you just pitch the same. But at other times, you know you don't have to be quite as fine and you can afford to not be over-cautious when you get some runs. That has nothing to do with the postseason, it just has to do with each particular game. But the #3 starters tend to match up more consistently in the postseason.
Even if any of this matters (which it doesn't), why are we assuming Price would be the Cubs' #3 starter?
Because they have a pretty fucking good 1 and 2?
David Price is better and younger than Lester, and much as I love Jake he's pitched one full season. There's very little reason to assume that Price would be the third best Cubs starter of 2016.
Regardless, this would be one hell of a problem to have.
Time to call The Indians about Carrasco, huh? (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/11/michael-brantley-shoulder-surgery-indians.html)
Quote from: SKO on November 09, 2015, 12:26:22 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 12:21:37 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 09, 2015, 12:11:21 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 11:53:46 AM
Quote from: The Beltless Arbiter on November 09, 2015, 11:09:23 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 10:56:34 AM
You can also make the case that a guy like Price could have more postseason success with the Cubs, since as a #3 starter who would be facing another team's #3 starter he'd get more run support.
You can also make the case that if we're judging his postseason performance on whether he wins the game based on the amount of run support he gets that this is stupid and we should stop talking about it.
Are you saying pitchers pitch the same when they aren't getting run support as they do when they are? I mean, sure, when nobody can hit you you just pitch the same. But at other times, you know you don't have to be quite as fine and you can afford to not be over-cautious when you get some runs. That has nothing to do with the postseason, it just has to do with each particular game. But the #3 starters tend to match up more consistently in the postseason.
Even if any of this matters (which it doesn't), why are we assuming Price would be the Cubs' #3 starter?
Because they have a pretty fucking good 1 and 2?
David Price is better and younger than Lester, and much as I love Jake he's pitched one full season. There's very little reason to assume that Price would be the third best Cubs starter of 2016.
Of course. Just like the day Lester was signed there was very little reason to assume he'd be the Cubs' second best starter. Hell, Lester got the Opening Night start. And anything could happen in the next 11 months. Because of that, you have to operate within the parameters of what's known for the sake of this particular exercise. And within those parameters, if Price comes here, he starts off in the 3 slot.
Quote from: Oleg on November 09, 2015, 12:29:28 PM
Time to call The Indians about Carrasco, huh? (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/11/michael-brantley-shoulder-surgery-indians.html)
I'm still keeping Brantley in the Desipio Fantasy League.
Just saying.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 12:32:26 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 09, 2015, 12:26:22 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 12:21:37 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 09, 2015, 12:11:21 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 11:53:46 AM
Quote from: The Beltless Arbiter on November 09, 2015, 11:09:23 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 10:56:34 AM
You can also make the case that a guy like Price could have more postseason success with the Cubs, since as a #3 starter who would be facing another team's #3 starter he'd get more run support.
You can also make the case that if we're judging his postseason performance on whether he wins the game based on the amount of run support he gets that this is stupid and we should stop talking about it.
Are you saying pitchers pitch the same when they aren't getting run support as they do when they are? I mean, sure, when nobody can hit you you just pitch the same. But at other times, you know you don't have to be quite as fine and you can afford to not be over-cautious when you get some runs. That has nothing to do with the postseason, it just has to do with each particular game. But the #3 starters tend to match up more consistently in the postseason.
Even if any of this matters (which it doesn't), why are we assuming Price would be the Cubs' #3 starter?
Because they have a pretty fucking good 1 and 2?
David Price is better and younger than Lester, and much as I love Jake he's pitched one full season. There's very little reason to assume that Price would be the third best Cubs starter of 2016.
Of course. Just like the day Lester was signed there was very little reason to assume he'd be the Cubs' second best starter. Hell, Lester got the Opening Night start. And anything could happen in the next 11 months. Because of that, you have to operate within the parameters of what's known for the sake of this particular exercise. And within those parameters, if Price comes here, he starts off in the 3 slot.
So then we should definitely speculate as to whether being the #3 starter in the playoffs a year from now would help him?
Quote from: SKO on November 09, 2015, 12:34:22 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 12:32:26 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 09, 2015, 12:26:22 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 12:21:37 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 09, 2015, 12:11:21 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 11:53:46 AM
Quote from: The Beltless Arbiter on November 09, 2015, 11:09:23 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 10:56:34 AM
You can also make the case that a guy like Price could have more postseason success with the Cubs, since as a #3 starter who would be facing another team's #3 starter he'd get more run support.
You can also make the case that if we're judging his postseason performance on whether he wins the game based on the amount of run support he gets that this is stupid and we should stop talking about it.
Are you saying pitchers pitch the same when they aren't getting run support as they do when they are? I mean, sure, when nobody can hit you you just pitch the same. But at other times, you know you don't have to be quite as fine and you can afford to not be over-cautious when you get some runs. That has nothing to do with the postseason, it just has to do with each particular game. But the #3 starters tend to match up more consistently in the postseason.
Even if any of this matters (which it doesn't), why are we assuming Price would be the Cubs' #3 starter?
Because they have a pretty fucking good 1 and 2?
David Price is better and younger than Lester, and much as I love Jake he's pitched one full season. There's very little reason to assume that Price would be the third best Cubs starter of 2016.
Of course. Just like the day Lester was signed there was very little reason to assume he'd be the Cubs' second best starter. Hell, Lester got the Opening Night start. And anything could happen in the next 11 months. Because of that, you have to operate within the parameters of what's known for the sake of this particular exercise. And within those parameters, if Price comes here, he starts off in the 3 slot.
So then we should definitely speculate as to whether being the #3 starter in the playoffs a year from now would help him?
You got anything better to do?
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 12:32:26 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 09, 2015, 12:26:22 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 12:21:37 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 09, 2015, 12:11:21 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 11:53:46 AM
Quote from: The Beltless Arbiter on November 09, 2015, 11:09:23 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 10:56:34 AM
You can also make the case that a guy like Price could have more postseason success with the Cubs, since as a #3 starter who would be facing another team's #3 starter he'd get more run support.
You can also make the case that if we're judging his postseason performance on whether he wins the game based on the amount of run support he gets that this is stupid and we should stop talking about it.
Are you saying pitchers pitch the same when they aren't getting run support as they do when they are? I mean, sure, when nobody can hit you you just pitch the same. But at other times, you know you don't have to be quite as fine and you can afford to not be over-cautious when you get some runs. That has nothing to do with the postseason, it just has to do with each particular game. But the #3 starters tend to match up more consistently in the postseason.
Even if any of this matters (which it doesn't), why are we assuming Price would be the Cubs' #3 starter?
Because they have a pretty fucking good 1 and 2?
David Price is better and younger than Lester, and much as I love Jake he's pitched one full season. There's very little reason to assume that Price would be the third best Cubs starter of 2016.
Of course. Just like the day Lester was signed there was very little reason to assume he'd be the Cubs' second best starter. Hell, Lester got the Opening Night start. And anything could happen in the next 11 months. Because of that, you have to operate within the parameters of what's known for the sake of this particular exercise. And within those parameters, if Price comes here, he starts off in the 3 slot.
Quote from: Eli on November 06, 2015, 10:16:21 AM
I'm still not sure that $200MM+ for Price is the best use of resources but if Jepstink decides it is, I'll shut up and enjoy the dumb ensuing debate about who starts Opening Day.
So close, Eli. So close.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 12:36:06 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 09, 2015, 12:34:22 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 12:32:26 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 09, 2015, 12:26:22 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 12:21:37 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 09, 2015, 12:11:21 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 11:53:46 AM
Quote from: The Beltless Arbiter on November 09, 2015, 11:09:23 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 10:56:34 AM
You can also make the case that a guy like Price could have more postseason success with the Cubs, since as a #3 starter who would be facing another team's #3 starter he'd get more run support.
You can also make the case that if we're judging his postseason performance on whether he wins the game based on the amount of run support he gets that this is stupid and we should stop talking about it.
Are you saying pitchers pitch the same when they aren't getting run support as they do when they are? I mean, sure, when nobody can hit you you just pitch the same. But at other times, you know you don't have to be quite as fine and you can afford to not be over-cautious when you get some runs. That has nothing to do with the postseason, it just has to do with each particular game. But the #3 starters tend to match up more consistently in the postseason.
Even if any of this matters (which it doesn't), why are we assuming Price would be the Cubs' #3 starter?
Because they have a pretty fucking good 1 and 2?
David Price is better and younger than Lester, and much as I love Jake he's pitched one full season. There's very little reason to assume that Price would be the third best Cubs starter of 2016.
Of course. Just like the day Lester was signed there was very little reason to assume he'd be the Cubs' second best starter. Hell, Lester got the Opening Night start. And anything could happen in the next 11 months. Because of that, you have to operate within the parameters of what's known for the sake of this particular exercise. And within those parameters, if Price comes here, he starts off in the 3 slot.
So then we should definitely speculate as to whether being the #3 starter in the playoffs a year from now would help him?
You got anything better to do?
I think we all know the answer to this question.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 12:36:06 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 09, 2015, 12:34:22 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 12:32:26 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 09, 2015, 12:26:22 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 12:21:37 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 09, 2015, 12:11:21 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 11:53:46 AM
Quote from: The Beltless Arbiter on November 09, 2015, 11:09:23 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 10:56:34 AM
You can also make the case that a guy like Price could have more postseason success with the Cubs, since as a #3 starter who would be facing another team's #3 starter he'd get more run support.
You can also make the case that if we're judging his postseason performance on whether he wins the game based on the amount of run support he gets that this is stupid and we should stop talking about it.
Are you saying pitchers pitch the same when they aren't getting run support as they do when they are? I mean, sure, when nobody can hit you you just pitch the same. But at other times, you know you don't have to be quite as fine and you can afford to not be over-cautious when you get some runs. That has nothing to do with the postseason, it just has to do with each particular game. But the #3 starters tend to match up more consistently in the postseason.
Even if any of this matters (which it doesn't), why are we assuming Price would be the Cubs' #3 starter?
Because they have a pretty fucking good 1 and 2?
David Price is better and younger than Lester, and much as I love Jake he's pitched one full season. There's very little reason to assume that Price would be the third best Cubs starter of 2016.
Of course. Just like the day Lester was signed there was very little reason to assume he'd be the Cubs' second best starter. Hell, Lester got the Opening Night start. And anything could happen in the next 11 months. Because of that, you have to operate within the parameters of what's known for the sake of this particular exercise. And within those parameters, if Price comes here, he starts off in the 3 slot.
So then we should definitely speculate as to whether being the #3 starter in the playoffs a year from now would help him?
You got anything better to do?
I have to go to a police station today. My car got rear-ended and the other dude took off last night in Slaky-ville.
I think some guys throw differently after the 200 IP threshold than they do below it. Call me crazy, but I think that might have something do with why certain great pitchers are less effective in the postseason. We can't really predict which ones will not pitch worse based upon past history. Lester was ridden hard and put away wet by both Boston and Oakland before the Cubs signed him. I thought it was likely he'd drop off some this season. He did slighly but was still worth the investment in year one.
Sign good pitchers. Have a good bullpen. Score a bunch of runs. Manage well. Get into the postseason. Flip a damn coin.
Quote from: Oleg on November 09, 2015, 12:36:33 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 12:32:26 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 09, 2015, 12:26:22 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 12:21:37 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 09, 2015, 12:11:21 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 11:53:46 AM
Quote from: The Beltless Arbiter on November 09, 2015, 11:09:23 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 09, 2015, 10:56:34 AM
You can also make the case that a guy like Price could have more postseason success with the Cubs, since as a #3 starter who would be facing another team's #3 starter he'd get more run support.
You can also make the case that if we're judging his postseason performance on whether he wins the game based on the amount of run support he gets that this is stupid and we should stop talking about it.
Are you saying pitchers pitch the same when they aren't getting run support as they do when they are? I mean, sure, when nobody can hit you you just pitch the same. But at other times, you know you don't have to be quite as fine and you can afford to not be over-cautious when you get some runs. That has nothing to do with the postseason, it just has to do with each particular game. But the #3 starters tend to match up more consistently in the postseason.
Even if any of this matters (which it doesn't), why are we assuming Price would be the Cubs' #3 starter?
Because they have a pretty fucking good 1 and 2?
David Price is better and younger than Lester, and much as I love Jake he's pitched one full season. There's very little reason to assume that Price would be the third best Cubs starter of 2016.
Of course. Just like the day Lester was signed there was very little reason to assume he'd be the Cubs' second best starter. Hell, Lester got the Opening Night start. And anything could happen in the next 11 months. Because of that, you have to operate within the parameters of what's known for the sake of this particular exercise. And within those parameters, if Price comes here, he starts off in the 3 slot.
Quote from: Eli on November 06, 2015, 10:16:21 AM
I'm still not sure that $200MM+ for Price is the best use of resources but if Jepstink decides it is, I'll shut up and enjoy the dumb ensuing debate about who starts Opening Day.
So close, Eli. So close.
Damn. I had given us all too much credit.
Theo speaks (http://www.csnchicago.com/cubs/theo-epstein-doubts-cubs-can-sign-two-free-agents-100-million-range).
Quote"If we want to do two things, we have to get pretty creative," Epstein said. "Even if we want to do one really big thing, I think we have to get creative. Just because you guys know the situation – we're going to have more money down the line than we have right now. So we just have to keep that in mind and be a little bit creative.
"We have the ability to add a little bit from where we are right now, but the arbitration raises cut into things quite a bit. I don't necessarily think we have room to go do everything that's been speculated in some areas, but we can get creative."
...
"Two sizable things – we have to definitely get creative," Epstein said. "But that doesn't make it impossible. There's a lot of moving parts. (And) there's always ways to get things done if they make sense for the club."
I think Theo wants to get creative.
Quote from: Eli on November 09, 2015, 08:17:34 PM
Theo speaks (http://www.csnchicago.com/cubs/theo-epstein-doubts-cubs-can-sign-two-free-agents-100-million-range).
Quote"If we want to do two things, we have to get pretty creative," Epstein said. "Even if we want to do one really big thing, I think we have to get creative. Just because you guys know the situation – we're going to have more money down the line than we have right now. So we just have to keep that in mind and be a little bit creative.
"We have the ability to add a little bit from where we are right now, but the arbitration raises cut into things quite a bit. I don't necessarily think we have room to go do everything that's been speculated in some areas, but we can get creative."
...
"Two sizable things – we have to definitely get creative," Epstein said. "But that doesn't make it impossible. There's a lot of moving parts. (And) there's always ways to get things done if they make sense for the club."
I think Theo wants to get creative.
Intrepid Reader: Cubs.comValidated.
(http://i66.tinypic.com/142xw01.png)
If Boston's really shopping Jackie Bradley around, how creative does Jepstink get to bring him in?
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 12, 2015, 12:18:08 PM
If Boston's really shopping Jackie Bradley around, how creative does Jepstink get to bring him in?
I kinda feel like this guy is just an older version of Almora. Am I wrong?
Quote from: Oleg on November 12, 2015, 01:35:21 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 12, 2015, 12:18:08 PM
If Boston's really shopping Jackie Bradley around, how creative does Jepstink get to bring him in?
I kinda feel like this guy is just an older version of Almora. Am I wrong?
I would be extremely hesistant for them to give up much for a guy who has basically had one good month in the majors, however highly regarded he was as a prospect. Dude had a .548 OPS in 530 PA before this year, and even this year he had a .426 OPS in his first 24 games, followed by a blisteringly hot 1.441 OPS over his next 25 games (with a .577 (!) BABIP), then in his last 25 games he had a .510 OPS.
There's a lot of absolutely unplayable offensive production sandwiched around one ludicrous hot streak. He scares the piss out of me.
Quote from: SKO on November 12, 2015, 01:49:19 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 12, 2015, 01:35:21 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 12, 2015, 12:18:08 PM
If Boston's really shopping Jackie Bradley around, how creative does Jepstink get to bring him in?
I kinda feel like this guy is just an older version of Almora. Am I wrong?
I would be extremely hesistant for them to give up much for a guy who has basically had one good month in the majors, however highly regarded he was as a prospect. Dude had a .548 OPS in 530 PA before this year, and even this year he had a .426 OPS in his first 24 games, followed by a blisteringly hot 1.441 OPS over his next 25 games (with a .577 (!) BABIP), then in his last 25 games he had a .510 OPS.
There's a lot of absolutely unplayable offensive production sandwiched around one ludicrous hot streak. He scares the piss out of me.
But...he's 25 and may be better than Heyward on defense. He wouldn't solve the lead-off man problem but The Cubs may have enough offense to work around him and he's cheap. He also strikes out about 30% of the time, which doesn't seem to jive with what Theo said he wanted to do this off-season.
Quote from: SKO on November 12, 2015, 01:49:19 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 12, 2015, 01:35:21 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 12, 2015, 12:18:08 PM
If Boston's really shopping Jackie Bradley around, how creative does Jepstink get to bring him in?
I kinda feel like this guy is just an older version of Almora. Am I wrong?
I would be extremely hesistant for them to give up much for a guy who has basically had one good month in the majors, however highly regarded he was as a prospect. Dude had a .548 OPS in 530 PA before this year, and even this year he had a .426 OPS in his first 24 games, followed by a blisteringly hot 1.441 OPS over his next 25 games (with a .577 (!) BABIP), then in his last 25 games he had a .510 OPS.
There's a lot of absolutely unplayable offensive production sandwiched around one ludicrous hot streak. He scares the piss out of me.
I'm thinking his defense and low cost can be an attractive alternative in the event that Span gets too expensive. Not to mention, at his age he'd be pretty easy to roll off if/when anybody from the minors is ready to slot in.
Quote from: Oleg on November 12, 2015, 02:08:26 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 12, 2015, 01:49:19 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 12, 2015, 01:35:21 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 12, 2015, 12:18:08 PM
If Boston's really shopping Jackie Bradley around, how creative does Jepstink get to bring him in?
I kinda feel like this guy is just an older version of Almora. Am I wrong?
I would be extremely hesistant for them to give up much for a guy who has basically had one good month in the majors, however highly regarded he was as a prospect. Dude had a .548 OPS in 530 PA before this year, and even this year he had a .426 OPS in his first 24 games, followed by a blisteringly hot 1.441 OPS over his next 25 games (with a .577 (!) BABIP), then in his last 25 games he had a .510 OPS.
There's a lot of absolutely unplayable offensive production sandwiched around one ludicrous hot streak. He scares the piss out of me.
But...he's 25 and may be better than Heyward on defense. He wouldn't solve the lead-off man problem but The Cubs may have enough offense to work around him and he's cheap. He also strikes out about 30% of the time, which doesn't seem to jive with what Theo said he wanted to do this off-season.
I mean he's worth looking into but the price would have to be less than the Red Sox could probably get from a much dumber team willing to overreact to a small sample size.
I don't think the Cubs have enough offense they can just punt CF and make it a defense only position and if they're planning on doing so why not just call up Almora?
Quote from: SKO on November 12, 2015, 02:11:11 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 12, 2015, 02:08:26 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 12, 2015, 01:49:19 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 12, 2015, 01:35:21 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 12, 2015, 12:18:08 PM
If Boston's really shopping Jackie Bradley around, how creative does Jepstink get to bring him in?
I kinda feel like this guy is just an older version of Almora. Am I wrong?
I would be extremely hesistant for them to give up much for a guy who has basically had one good month in the majors, however highly regarded he was as a prospect. Dude had a .548 OPS in 530 PA before this year, and even this year he had a .426 OPS in his first 24 games, followed by a blisteringly hot 1.441 OPS over his next 25 games (with a .577 (!) BABIP), then in his last 25 games he had a .510 OPS.
There's a lot of absolutely unplayable offensive production sandwiched around one ludicrous hot streak. He scares the piss out of me.
But...he's 25 and may be better than Heyward on defense. He wouldn't solve the lead-off man problem but The Cubs may have enough offense to work around him and he's cheap. He also strikes out about 30% of the time, which doesn't seem to jive with what Theo said he wanted to do this off-season.
I mean he's worth looking into but the price would have to be less than the Red Sox could probably get from a much dumber team willing to overreact to a small sample size.
I don't think the Cubs have enough offense they can just punt CF and make it a defense only position and if they're planning on doing so why not just call up Almora?
Or maybe Theo sees what he saw when he drafted him, and the Cubs think they can make him into a decent hitter? That way, they can let Almora continue trying to figure it our offensively?
Either way, I doubt Bradley is Plan A or even Plan B. Just something to consider if the CF market goes beyond what they're willing to spend, and they don't just want to say "fuck it" and hand the keys over to Austin Jackson..
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 12, 2015, 02:14:40 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 12, 2015, 02:11:11 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 12, 2015, 02:08:26 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 12, 2015, 01:49:19 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 12, 2015, 01:35:21 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 12, 2015, 12:18:08 PM
If Boston's really shopping Jackie Bradley around, how creative does Jepstink get to bring him in?
I kinda feel like this guy is just an older version of Almora. Am I wrong?
I would be extremely hesistant for them to give up much for a guy who has basically had one good month in the majors, however highly regarded he was as a prospect. Dude had a .548 OPS in 530 PA before this year, and even this year he had a .426 OPS in his first 24 games, followed by a blisteringly hot 1.441 OPS over his next 25 games (with a .577 (!) BABIP), then in his last 25 games he had a .510 OPS.
There's a lot of absolutely unplayable offensive production sandwiched around one ludicrous hot streak. He scares the piss out of me.
But...he's 25 and may be better than Heyward on defense. He wouldn't solve the lead-off man problem but The Cubs may have enough offense to work around him and he's cheap. He also strikes out about 30% of the time, which doesn't seem to jive with what Theo said he wanted to do this off-season.
I mean he's worth looking into but the price would have to be less than the Red Sox could probably get from a much dumber team willing to overreact to a small sample size.
I don't think the Cubs have enough offense they can just punt CF and make it a defense only position and if they're planning on doing so why not just call up Almora?
Or maybe Theo sees what he saw when he drafted him, and the Cubs think they can make him into a decent hitter? That way, they can let Almora continue trying to figure it our offensively?
Either way, I doubt Bradley is Plan A or even Plan B. Just something to consider if the CF market goes beyond what they're willing to spend, and they don't just want to say "fuck it" and hand the keys over to Austin Jackson..
I would hope to God Theo's not allowing anything about Albert Almora to influence his thinking when his focus should be on making a title run with a team that was four wins away from a world series last year. If he forces his way into the picture, cool, but a guy who has had one decent half season at AA should be a complete non-factor in their major league plans.
Also, I would feel considerably better about just saying "fuck it" and handing the keys over to Austin Jackson, Major League CF who has averaged 3 fWAR a year in his career, than banking on Jackie Bradley, Jr. and his 25 games of actually decent major league production.
I mean if they get him for the trade value you would expect for a fourth outfielder with upside, fine, sure, let's try it and hopefully hedge the bet with Jackson or something, but given the hot streak and the hype that often surrounds Boston prospects and the fact that teams like the Mariners also have interest in him I'd say he'd be more of a risk than he's worth.
Quote from: SKO on November 12, 2015, 02:17:54 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 12, 2015, 02:14:40 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 12, 2015, 02:11:11 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 12, 2015, 02:08:26 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 12, 2015, 01:49:19 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 12, 2015, 01:35:21 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 12, 2015, 12:18:08 PM
If Boston's really shopping Jackie Bradley around, how creative does Jepstink get to bring him in?
I kinda feel like this guy is just an older version of Almora. Am I wrong?
I would be extremely hesistant for them to give up much for a guy who has basically had one good month in the majors, however highly regarded he was as a prospect. Dude had a .548 OPS in 530 PA before this year, and even this year he had a .426 OPS in his first 24 games, followed by a blisteringly hot 1.441 OPS over his next 25 games (with a .577 (!) BABIP), then in his last 25 games he had a .510 OPS.
There's a lot of absolutely unplayable offensive production sandwiched around one ludicrous hot streak. He scares the piss out of me.
But...he's 25 and may be better than Heyward on defense. He wouldn't solve the lead-off man problem but The Cubs may have enough offense to work around him and he's cheap. He also strikes out about 30% of the time, which doesn't seem to jive with what Theo said he wanted to do this off-season.
I mean he's worth looking into but the price would have to be less than the Red Sox could probably get from a much dumber team willing to overreact to a small sample size.
I don't think the Cubs have enough offense they can just punt CF and make it a defense only position and if they're planning on doing so why not just call up Almora?
Or maybe Theo sees what he saw when he drafted him, and the Cubs think they can make him into a decent hitter? That way, they can let Almora continue trying to figure it our offensively?
Either way, I doubt Bradley is Plan A or even Plan B. Just something to consider if the CF market goes beyond what they're willing to spend, and they don't just want to say "fuck it" and hand the keys over to Austin Jackson..
I would hope to God Theo's not allowing anything about Albert Almora to influence his thinking when his focus should be on making a title run with a team that was four wins away from a world series last year. If he forces his way into the picture, cool, but a guy who has had one decent half season at AA should be a complete non-factor in their major league plans.
Also, I would feel considerably better about just saying "fuck it" and handing the keys over to Austin Jackson, Major League CF who has averaged 3 fWAR a year in his career, than banking on Jackie Bradley, Jr. and his 25 games of actually decent major league production.
I mean if they get him for the trade value you would expect for a fourth outfielder with upside, fine, sure, let's try it and hopefully hedge the bet with Jackson or something, but given the hot streak and the hype that often surrounds Boston prospects and the fact that teams like the Mariners also have interest in him I'd say he'd be more of a risk than he's worth.
Jackson will cost a lot more than the half-million Bradley does.
And Almora isn't influencing anybody's thinking. Once Bryant, Russell and Schwarber came up, the minors still have some good guys, but no show stoppers.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 12, 2015, 02:32:02 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 12, 2015, 02:17:54 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 12, 2015, 02:14:40 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 12, 2015, 02:11:11 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 12, 2015, 02:08:26 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 12, 2015, 01:49:19 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 12, 2015, 01:35:21 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 12, 2015, 12:18:08 PM
If Boston's really shopping Jackie Bradley around, how creative does Jepstink get to bring him in?
I kinda feel like this guy is just an older version of Almora. Am I wrong?
I would be extremely hesistant for them to give up much for a guy who has basically had one good month in the majors, however highly regarded he was as a prospect. Dude had a .548 OPS in 530 PA before this year, and even this year he had a .426 OPS in his first 24 games, followed by a blisteringly hot 1.441 OPS over his next 25 games (with a .577 (!) BABIP), then in his last 25 games he had a .510 OPS.
There's a lot of absolutely unplayable offensive production sandwiched around one ludicrous hot streak. He scares the piss out of me.
But...he's 25 and may be better than Heyward on defense. He wouldn't solve the lead-off man problem but The Cubs may have enough offense to work around him and he's cheap. He also strikes out about 30% of the time, which doesn't seem to jive with what Theo said he wanted to do this off-season.
I mean he's worth looking into but the price would have to be less than the Red Sox could probably get from a much dumber team willing to overreact to a small sample size.
I don't think the Cubs have enough offense they can just punt CF and make it a defense only position and if they're planning on doing so why not just call up Almora?
Or maybe Theo sees what he saw when he drafted him, and the Cubs think they can make him into a decent hitter? That way, they can let Almora continue trying to figure it our offensively?
Either way, I doubt Bradley is Plan A or even Plan B. Just something to consider if the CF market goes beyond what they're willing to spend, and they don't just want to say "fuck it" and hand the keys over to Austin Jackson..
I would hope to God Theo's not allowing anything about Albert Almora to influence his thinking when his focus should be on making a title run with a team that was four wins away from a world series last year. If he forces his way into the picture, cool, but a guy who has had one decent half season at AA should be a complete non-factor in their major league plans.
Also, I would feel considerably better about just saying "fuck it" and handing the keys over to Austin Jackson, Major League CF who has averaged 3 fWAR a year in his career, than banking on Jackie Bradley, Jr. and his 25 games of actually decent major league production.
I mean if they get him for the trade value you would expect for a fourth outfielder with upside, fine, sure, let's try it and hopefully hedge the bet with Jackson or something, but given the hot streak and the hype that often surrounds Boston prospects and the fact that teams like the Mariners also have interest in him I'd say he'd be more of a risk than he's worth.
Jackson will cost a lot more than the half-million Bradley does.
And Almora isn't influencing anybody's thinking. Once Bryant, Russell and Schwarber came up, the minors still have some good guys, but no show stoppers.
If this team is content to take the chance that their starting CF might put up a sub .600 OPS like Bradley did in 2014 because they still can't do better than replacement level salary at CF and can't afford a guy like Austin Jackson or something I don't want to play anymore and Gordo can write whatever Ricketts-Are-Cheap column he wants and I'll co-sign it.
Quote from: SKO on November 12, 2015, 02:35:19 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 12, 2015, 02:32:02 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 12, 2015, 02:17:54 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 12, 2015, 02:14:40 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 12, 2015, 02:11:11 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 12, 2015, 02:08:26 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 12, 2015, 01:49:19 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 12, 2015, 01:35:21 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 12, 2015, 12:18:08 PM
If Boston's really shopping Jackie Bradley around, how creative does Jepstink get to bring him in?
I kinda feel like this guy is just an older version of Almora. Am I wrong?
I would be extremely hesistant for them to give up much for a guy who has basically had one good month in the majors, however highly regarded he was as a prospect. Dude had a .548 OPS in 530 PA before this year, and even this year he had a .426 OPS in his first 24 games, followed by a blisteringly hot 1.441 OPS over his next 25 games (with a .577 (!) BABIP), then in his last 25 games he had a .510 OPS.
There's a lot of absolutely unplayable offensive production sandwiched around one ludicrous hot streak. He scares the piss out of me.
But...he's 25 and may be better than Heyward on defense. He wouldn't solve the lead-off man problem but The Cubs may have enough offense to work around him and he's cheap. He also strikes out about 30% of the time, which doesn't seem to jive with what Theo said he wanted to do this off-season.
I mean he's worth looking into but the price would have to be less than the Red Sox could probably get from a much dumber team willing to overreact to a small sample size.
I don't think the Cubs have enough offense they can just punt CF and make it a defense only position and if they're planning on doing so why not just call up Almora?
Or maybe Theo sees what he saw when he drafted him, and the Cubs think they can make him into a decent hitter? That way, they can let Almora continue trying to figure it our offensively?
Either way, I doubt Bradley is Plan A or even Plan B. Just something to consider if the CF market goes beyond what they're willing to spend, and they don't just want to say "fuck it" and hand the keys over to Austin Jackson..
I would hope to God Theo's not allowing anything about Albert Almora to influence his thinking when his focus should be on making a title run with a team that was four wins away from a world series last year. If he forces his way into the picture, cool, but a guy who has had one decent half season at AA should be a complete non-factor in their major league plans.
Also, I would feel considerably better about just saying "fuck it" and handing the keys over to Austin Jackson, Major League CF who has averaged 3 fWAR a year in his career, than banking on Jackie Bradley, Jr. and his 25 games of actually decent major league production.
I mean if they get him for the trade value you would expect for a fourth outfielder with upside, fine, sure, let's try it and hopefully hedge the bet with Jackson or something, but given the hot streak and the hype that often surrounds Boston prospects and the fact that teams like the Mariners also have interest in him I'd say he'd be more of a risk than he's worth.
Jackson will cost a lot more than the half-million Bradley does.
And Almora isn't influencing anybody's thinking. Once Bryant, Russell and Schwarber came up, the minors still have some good guys, but no show stoppers.
If this team is content to take the chance that their starting CF might put up a sub .600 OPS like Bradley did in 2014 because they still can't do better than replacement level salary at CF and can't afford a guy like Austin Jackson or something I don't want to play anymore and Gordo can write whatever Ricketts-Are-Cheap column he wants and I'll co-sign it.
I am too damn lazy to do the math on this but given the DEBT LOAD what if the choices are Price & Jackie Jr, or Snork & Span. What do you choose, pal?
Quote from: R-V on November 12, 2015, 02:57:35 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 12, 2015, 02:35:19 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 12, 2015, 02:32:02 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 12, 2015, 02:17:54 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 12, 2015, 02:14:40 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 12, 2015, 02:11:11 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 12, 2015, 02:08:26 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 12, 2015, 01:49:19 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 12, 2015, 01:35:21 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 12, 2015, 12:18:08 PM
If Boston's really shopping Jackie Bradley around, how creative does Jepstink get to bring him in?
I kinda feel like this guy is just an older version of Almora. Am I wrong?
I would be extremely hesistant for them to give up much for a guy who has basically had one good month in the majors, however highly regarded he was as a prospect. Dude had a .548 OPS in 530 PA before this year, and even this year he had a .426 OPS in his first 24 games, followed by a blisteringly hot 1.441 OPS over his next 25 games (with a .577 (!) BABIP), then in his last 25 games he had a .510 OPS.
There's a lot of absolutely unplayable offensive production sandwiched around one ludicrous hot streak. He scares the piss out of me.
But...he's 25 and may be better than Heyward on defense. He wouldn't solve the lead-off man problem but The Cubs may have enough offense to work around him and he's cheap. He also strikes out about 30% of the time, which doesn't seem to jive with what Theo said he wanted to do this off-season.
I mean he's worth looking into but the price would have to be less than the Red Sox could probably get from a much dumber team willing to overreact to a small sample size.
I don't think the Cubs have enough offense they can just punt CF and make it a defense only position and if they're planning on doing so why not just call up Almora?
Or maybe Theo sees what he saw when he drafted him, and the Cubs think they can make him into a decent hitter? That way, they can let Almora continue trying to figure it our offensively?
Either way, I doubt Bradley is Plan A or even Plan B. Just something to consider if the CF market goes beyond what they're willing to spend, and they don't just want to say "fuck it" and hand the keys over to Austin Jackson..
I would hope to God Theo's not allowing anything about Albert Almora to influence his thinking when his focus should be on making a title run with a team that was four wins away from a world series last year. If he forces his way into the picture, cool, but a guy who has had one decent half season at AA should be a complete non-factor in their major league plans.
Also, I would feel considerably better about just saying "fuck it" and handing the keys over to Austin Jackson, Major League CF who has averaged 3 fWAR a year in his career, than banking on Jackie Bradley, Jr. and his 25 games of actually decent major league production.
I mean if they get him for the trade value you would expect for a fourth outfielder with upside, fine, sure, let's try it and hopefully hedge the bet with Jackson or something, but given the hot streak and the hype that often surrounds Boston prospects and the fact that teams like the Mariners also have interest in him I'd say he'd be more of a risk than he's worth.
Jackson will cost a lot more than the half-million Bradley does.
And Almora isn't influencing anybody's thinking. Once Bryant, Russell and Schwarber came up, the minors still have some good guys, but no show stoppers.
If this team is content to take the chance that their starting CF might put up a sub .600 OPS like Bradley did in 2014 because they still can't do better than replacement level salary at CF and can't afford a guy like Austin Jackson or something I don't want to play anymore and Gordo can write whatever Ricketts-Are-Cheap column he wants and I'll co-sign it.
I am too damn lazy to do the math on this but given the DEBT LOAD what if the choices are Price & Jackie Jr, or Snork & Span. What do you choose, pal?
I guess A, but my point is that it'd be pretty depressing if the only way to make Price work is having to do a league-minimum salary for a center fielder that probably has at least a 50% chance of being replacement level and I hope to God that's not really their situation.
Also, given what we've seen from Rizzo, Arrieta, Strop, Cahill and even Coghlan, I'm willing to trust Theo & Jed's judgment on Guys Who Have Good Pedigrees Who Aren't That Old but Have Recently Struggled in the Major Leagues. So you heard it here first, if they trade for Jackie, he's going to be great. Now if you'll excuse me I have several dongs hanging out of my mouth that need servicing.
Quote from: R-V on November 12, 2015, 03:03:02 PM
Also, given what we've seen from Rizzo, Arrieta, Strop, Cahill and even Coghlan, I'm willing to trust Theo & Jed's judgment on Guys Who Have Good Pedigrees Who Aren't That Old but Have Recently Struggled in the Major Leagues. So you heard it here first, if they trade for Jackie, he's going to be great. Now if you'll excuse me I have several dongs hanging out of my mouth that need servicing.
Yeah, also guys like Ian Stewart and Mike Olt! Oh, wait.
Not saying they haven't had way more success than failure on balance but they are in a situation now where I'd hope they can afford to sign more of a sure thing. They don't really have the benefit of knowing they're losing 90+ games on purpose to throw reclamation projects at the wall and hope they stick like they used to. If Bradley is more "everything but August 2015" than "August 2015" Bradley next year that's going to sting. A lot.
And again, I'm still OK with a potential Bradley trade if the cost is fair and they have a backup plan in case Bradley brings his 2014 bat with him, I just don't think with the hype the guy has picked up after that hot streak that they'd be able to land him for what he should actually cost.
Quote from: SKO on November 12, 2015, 03:10:50 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 12, 2015, 03:03:02 PM
Also, given what we've seen from Rizzo, Arrieta, Strop, Cahill and even Coghlan, I'm willing to trust Theo & Jed's judgment on Guys Who Have Good Pedigrees Who Aren't That Old but Have Recently Struggled in the Major Leagues. So you heard it here first, if they trade for Jackie, he's going to be great. Now if you'll excuse me I have several dongs hanging out of my mouth that need servicing.
Yeah, also guys like Ian Stewart and Mike Olt! Oh, wait.
Not saying they haven't had way more success than failure on balance but they are in a situation now where I'd hope they can afford to sign more of a sure thing. They don't really have the benefit of knowing they're losing 90+ games on purpose to throw reclamation projects at the wall and hope they stick like they used to. If Bradley is more "everything but August 2015" than "August 2015" Bradley next year that's going to sting. A lot.
And again, I'm still OK with a potential Bradley trade if the cost is fair and they have a backup plan in case Bradley brings his 2014 bat with him, I just don't think with the hype the guy has picked up after that hot streak that they'd be able to land him for what he should actually cost.
As Eli pointed out, Theo used the word "creative" about 38 times when asked about this offseason. It's all well and good that the payroll is going to be sky high in 2020 but that's like, 4 to 6 years away depending on which calendar you use. It'd be great if they could go out and acquire Price and Heyward and call it an offseason, but it's not gonna hai. And once you take Heyward out of the conversation - and it is debatable how long he could be effective in CF - you're left with several imperfect options: Fowler who will probably command too many years, Span who is coming off of injury, and any other number of CF options who don't fit the good defense/good contact/good OBP the royal we all want. So you should probably accept the fact that you're not going to be completely happy with the answers at catcher, the outfield, and the rotation heading into spring training next year, and some of those answers might be buy-low guys (and I think you're overestimating the "hype" on Jackie - I don't think there's evidence one way or the other on his market value vs. his "true" value).
On the other hand, CF is not known for being an offensive position, with some notable exceptions. Considering how strong the rest of the Cubs lineup is, they could tolerate a pretty significant amount of awful as long as the defense is stellar. If the Cubs have to roll the dice on CF in order to be able to spend more on the rotation, it probably wouldn't be the end of the world.
Quote from: Canadouche on November 12, 2015, 03:38:52 PM
On the other hand, CF is not known for being an offensive position, with some notable exceptions. Considering how strong the rest of the Cubs lineup is, they could tolerate a pretty significant amount of awful as long as the defense is stellar.
I see this "they can tolerate something bad because ..." a lot. I think it's weird.
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2015, 04:03:49 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 12, 2015, 03:38:52 PM
On the other hand, CF is not known for being an offensive position, with some notable exceptions. Considering how strong the rest of the Cubs lineup is, they could tolerate a pretty significant amount of awful as long as the defense is stellar.
I see this "they can tolerate something bad because ..." a lot. I think it's weird.
It's not weird if you want a .500 team. The Cubs are playing for the World Series. If they think there's something fixable in Bradley that turns him into a low-risk/high-reward proposition, then go for it. But again, he's pretty fucking far from Plan A.
Quote from: SKO on November 12, 2015, 02:17:54 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 12, 2015, 02:14:40 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 12, 2015, 02:11:11 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 12, 2015, 02:08:26 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 12, 2015, 01:49:19 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 12, 2015, 01:35:21 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 12, 2015, 12:18:08 PM
If Boston's really shopping Jackie Bradley around, how creative does Jepstink get to bring him in?
I kinda feel like this guy is just an older version of Almora. Am I wrong?
I would be extremely hesistant for them to give up much for a guy who has basically had one good month in the majors, however highly regarded he was as a prospect. Dude had a .548 OPS in 530 PA before this year, and even this year he had a .426 OPS in his first 24 games, followed by a blisteringly hot 1.441 OPS over his next 25 games (with a .577 (!) BABIP), then in his last 25 games he had a .510 OPS.
There's a lot of absolutely unplayable offensive production sandwiched around one ludicrous hot streak. He scares the piss out of me.
But...he's 25 and may be better than Heyward on defense. He wouldn't solve the lead-off man problem but The Cubs may have enough offense to work around him and he's cheap. He also strikes out about 30% of the time, which doesn't seem to jive with what Theo said he wanted to do this off-season.
I mean he's worth looking into but the price would have to be less than the Red Sox could probably get from a much dumber team willing to overreact to a small sample size.
I don't think the Cubs have enough offense they can just punt CF and make it a defense only position and if they're planning on doing so why not just call up Almora?
Or maybe Theo sees what he saw when he drafted him, and the Cubs think they can make him into a decent hitter? That way, they can let Almora continue trying to figure it our offensively?
Either way, I doubt Bradley is Plan A or even Plan B. Just something to consider if the CF market goes beyond what they're willing to spend, and they don't just want to say "fuck it" and hand the keys over to Austin Jackson..
I would hope to God Theo's not allowing anything about Albert Almora to influence his thinking when his focus should be on making a title run with a team that was four wins away from a world series last year. If he forces his way into the picture, cool, but a guy who has had one decent half season at AA should be a complete non-factor in their major league plans.
Also, I would feel considerably better about just saying "fuck it" and handing the keys over to Austin Jackson, Major League CF who has averaged 3 fWAR a year in his career, than banking on Jackie Bradley, Jr. and his 25 games of actually decent major league production.
I mean if they get him for the trade value you would expect for a fourth outfielder with upside, fine, sure, let's try it and hopefully hedge the bet with Jackson or something, but given the hot streak and the hype that often surrounds Boston prospects and the fact that teams like the Mariners also have interest in him I'd say he'd be more of a risk than he's worth.
I know I'm Exhibit A for "Prospect Overhype Guy" but I'd be willing to wager that Almora never amounts to anything at the major league level.
And I'd be willing to wager even more that if he does, it's not for the Cubs.
Quote from: PenFoe on November 12, 2015, 04:54:45 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 12, 2015, 02:17:54 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 12, 2015, 02:14:40 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 12, 2015, 02:11:11 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 12, 2015, 02:08:26 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 12, 2015, 01:49:19 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 12, 2015, 01:35:21 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 12, 2015, 12:18:08 PM
If Boston's really shopping Jackie Bradley around, how creative does Jepstink get to bring him in?
I kinda feel like this guy is just an older version of Almora. Am I wrong?
I would be extremely hesistant for them to give up much for a guy who has basically had one good month in the majors, however highly regarded he was as a prospect. Dude had a .548 OPS in 530 PA before this year, and even this year he had a .426 OPS in his first 24 games, followed by a blisteringly hot 1.441 OPS over his next 25 games (with a .577 (!) BABIP), then in his last 25 games he had a .510 OPS.
There's a lot of absolutely unplayable offensive production sandwiched around one ludicrous hot streak. He scares the piss out of me.
But...he's 25 and may be better than Heyward on defense. He wouldn't solve the lead-off man problem but The Cubs may have enough offense to work around him and he's cheap. He also strikes out about 30% of the time, which doesn't seem to jive with what Theo said he wanted to do this off-season.
I mean he's worth looking into but the price would have to be less than the Red Sox could probably get from a much dumber team willing to overreact to a small sample size.
I don't think the Cubs have enough offense they can just punt CF and make it a defense only position and if they're planning on doing so why not just call up Almora?
Or maybe Theo sees what he saw when he drafted him, and the Cubs think they can make him into a decent hitter? That way, they can let Almora continue trying to figure it our offensively?
Either way, I doubt Bradley is Plan A or even Plan B. Just something to consider if the CF market goes beyond what they're willing to spend, and they don't just want to say "fuck it" and hand the keys over to Austin Jackson..
I would hope to God Theo's not allowing anything about Albert Almora to influence his thinking when his focus should be on making a title run with a team that was four wins away from a world series last year. If he forces his way into the picture, cool, but a guy who has had one decent half season at AA should be a complete non-factor in their major league plans.
Also, I would feel considerably better about just saying "fuck it" and handing the keys over to Austin Jackson, Major League CF who has averaged 3 fWAR a year in his career, than banking on Jackie Bradley, Jr. and his 25 games of actually decent major league production.
I mean if they get him for the trade value you would expect for a fourth outfielder with upside, fine, sure, let's try it and hopefully hedge the bet with Jackson or something, but given the hot streak and the hype that often surrounds Boston prospects and the fact that teams like the Mariners also have interest in him I'd say he'd be more of a risk than he's worth.
I know I'm Exhibit A for "Prospect Overhype Guy" but I'd be willing to wager that Almora never amounts to anything at the major league level.
And I'd be willing to wager even more that if he does, it's not for the Cubs.
Unless he learns how to get on base more, he's going to be somebody's SAM FULD. Which is a crying shame, because it is fun watching him play center field.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 12, 2015, 04:08:35 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2015, 04:03:49 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 12, 2015, 03:38:52 PM
On the other hand, CF is not known for being an offensive position, with some notable exceptions. Considering how strong the rest of the Cubs lineup is, they could tolerate a pretty significant amount of awful as long as the defense is stellar.
I see this "they can tolerate something bad because ..." a lot. I think it's weird.
It's not weird if you want a .500 team. The Cubs are playing for the World Series. If they think there's something fixable in Bradley that turns him into a low-risk/high-reward proposition, then go for it. But again, he's pretty fucking far from Plan A.
I think the reality is that most teams today, even the best ones, have a position or two in which they don't have a reliable offensive player. Even the Royals gave a ton of at bats to Omar Infante and Alex Rios, whose WARs were in the negatives over the span of 2015. The amazing thing is that the Cubs don't need to be one of those teams.
They very well might have a Plan A and B in which they slot somebody into CF who should rake. But if they had to go a Plan C route to pick up a third ace (something else most teams don't have), then acquiring a player who
might be offensively reliable but
should be defensively sound wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, would it?
Quote from: Canadouche on November 13, 2015, 07:20:17 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 12, 2015, 04:08:35 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2015, 04:03:49 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 12, 2015, 03:38:52 PM
On the other hand, CF is not known for being an offensive position, with some notable exceptions. Considering how strong the rest of the Cubs lineup is, they could tolerate a pretty significant amount of awful as long as the defense is stellar.
I see this "they can tolerate something bad because ..." a lot. I think it's weird.
It's not weird if you want a .500 team. The Cubs are playing for the World Series. If they think there's something fixable in Bradley that turns him into a low-risk/high-reward proposition, then go for it. But again, he's pretty fucking far from Plan A.
I think the reality is that most teams today, even the best ones, have a position or two in which they don't have a reliable offensive player. Even the Royals gave a ton of at bats to Omar Infante and Alex Rios, whose WARs were in the negatives over the span of 2015. The amazing thing is that the Cubs don't need to be one of those teams.
They very well might have a Plan A and B in which they slot somebody into CF who should rake. But if they had to go a Plan C route to pick up a third ace (something else most teams don't have), then acquiring a player who might be offensively reliable but should be defensively sound wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, would it?
No, it wouldn't be, but I'm not sure that a 200 million dollar contract to an over 30 pitcher if it also means potentially punting all offense at a spot where they got a lot of offense last year makes a ton of sense. I'd rather they trade for Ross or something and re-sign Fowler or take that 200 million and spend it on Heyward if that's the case.
Quote from: SKO on November 13, 2015, 07:23:40 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 13, 2015, 07:20:17 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 12, 2015, 04:08:35 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2015, 04:03:49 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 12, 2015, 03:38:52 PM
On the other hand, CF is not known for being an offensive position, with some notable exceptions. Considering how strong the rest of the Cubs lineup is, they could tolerate a pretty significant amount of awful as long as the defense is stellar.
I see this "they can tolerate something bad because ..." a lot. I think it's weird.
It's not weird if you want a .500 team. The Cubs are playing for the World Series. If they think there's something fixable in Bradley that turns him into a low-risk/high-reward proposition, then go for it. But again, he's pretty fucking far from Plan A.
I think the reality is that most teams today, even the best ones, have a position or two in which they don't have a reliable offensive player. Even the Royals gave a ton of at bats to Omar Infante and Alex Rios, whose WARs were in the negatives over the span of 2015. The amazing thing is that the Cubs don't need to be one of those teams.
They very well might have a Plan A and B in which they slot somebody into CF who should rake. But if they had to go a Plan C route to pick up a third ace (something else most teams don't have), then acquiring a player who might be offensively reliable but should be defensively sound wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, would it?
No, it wouldn't be, but I'm not sure that a 200 million dollar contract to an over 30 pitcher if it also means potentially punting all offense at a spot where they got a lot of offense last year makes a ton of sense. I'd rather they trade for Ross or something and re-sign Fowler or take that 200 million and spend it on Heyward if that's the case.
The Cubs need starting pitching in a winter where there's a glut in the market. It's easy to buy a top 3 guy right now. Heyward kind of has his own niche. Yeah, it would be awesome to stick him between Schwarber and Soler. Any lineup that has Miguel Montero and Addison Russell as the weak links is one you start planning the parade for. But I think if the Cubs can either get a good deal on Span or make a trade that doesn't clean the house out for a CF for 2-3 years, that's probably what they're looking for. At that time they might have a better handle on Happ, McKinney or one of the other guys not named Almora.
I'm sure Theo and Jed have a whiteboard or some shit with a fuckload of scenarios drawn out. They've gotten the Cubs this far, I'm confident they can outthink a bunch of goofballs on a fringe messageboard.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 13, 2015, 07:53:06 AM
Any lineup that has Miguel Montero and Addison Russell as the weak links is one you start planning the parade for.
That 2015 parade was dope AF.
Quote from: Eli on November 13, 2015, 08:24:58 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 13, 2015, 07:53:06 AM
Any lineup that has Miguel Montero and Addison Russell as the weak links is one you start planning the parade for.
That 2015 parade was dope AF.
Yeah. Russell was awesome in the NLCS.
Quote from: Eli on November 13, 2015, 08:24:58 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 13, 2015, 07:53:06 AM
Any lineup that has Miguel Montero and Addison Russell as the weak links is one you start planning the parade for.
That 2015 parade was dope AF.
David Ross killed the parade just as sure as the Muppets killed my grandfather.
What if they get just one premier starter--and no other starters--and say, Span? No trades until next summer. Fans will freak out with a Hammel and Hendrix back end redux but whataver.
They didn't get much of anything at the non-waiver deadline last year--they actually got more production from what they got at the August deadline (Jackson and Cahill) than at July (Haren and Hunter), but they didn't give anything up, either, and it paid off, in that they won 2 postseason "series" and all of the guys they didn't trade contributed and enhanced their value in the process.
Rather than make a big trade this offseason would they be better off with just signing a stud P, solid CF and everyone else stays for now? Barring injury,a team with Lester, Arrieta and, say, Greinke in its rotation is likely going to be in contention through June. So let's see how Baez continues to be the super-utility slick IF guy with Castro being Castro at the keystone, same with George Sun in right. I think it's become clear that if and when a trade does happen it would be one or two (or three(!)) of these guys invovled The gamble has paid off so far in that Baez and Soler only enhanced their value by playing (and Castro rescued his value). This year the hope falls more on the Ghleybar/Happ/Almora/McKinney group doing similar. If two of those guys get hot, then next year the Cubs should be able to get whomever they want to bolster by late July.
Quote from: PANK! on November 13, 2015, 08:55:10 AM
What if they get just one premier starter--and no other starters--and say, Span? No trades until next summer. Fans will freak out with a Hammel and Hendrix back end redux but whataver.
They shouldn't. I'm not the biggest fan of either guy (for mostly irrational reasons), but that's still a pretty strong 4/5 combo.
Quote from: Eli on November 13, 2015, 08:58:43 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 13, 2015, 08:55:10 AM
What if they get just one premier starter--and no other starters--and say, Span? No trades until next summer. Fans will freak out with a Hammel and Hendrix back end redux but whataver.
They shouldn't. I'm not the biggest fan of either guy (for mostly irrational reasons), but that's still a pretty strong 4/5 combo.
Yeah, as long as they upgrade the third SP somehow and fill CF with an actual major league center fielder I wouldn't consider this offseason a failure by any stretch.
Quote from: Eli on November 13, 2015, 08:58:43 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 13, 2015, 08:55:10 AM
What if they get just one premier starter--and no other starters--and say, Span? No trades until next summer. Fans will freak out with a Hammel and Hendrix back end redux but whataver.
They shouldn't. I'm not the biggest fan of either guy (for mostly irrational reasons), but that's still a pretty strong 4/5 combo.
There was of course nothing rational about my white-hot scalding hatred for Hammel, which only intensified with each passing game until that first fucking inning of that last one when Victor fucking Du--
Sorry,...but I agree, at least on Hammel. Objectively, he shouldn't kill you as a #4. And I quite like Kyle as the #5 heading in.
I'm starting to fantasize about a Greinke signing and my pants are moving.
Quote from: PANK! on November 13, 2015, 08:55:10 AM
What if they get just one premier starter--and no other starters--and say, Span? No trades until next summer. Fans will freak out with a Hammel and Hendrix back end redux but whataver.
They didn't get much of anything at the non-waiver deadline last year--they actually got more production from what they got at the August deadline (Jackson and Cahill) than at July (Haren and Hunter), but they didn't give anything up, either, and it paid off, in that they won 2 postseason "series" and all of the guys they didn't trade contributed and enhanced their value in the process.
Rather than make a big trade this offseason would they be better off with just signing a stud P, solid CF and everyone else stays for now? Barring injury,a team with Lester, Arrieta and, say, Greinke in its rotation is likely going to be in contention through June. So let's see how Baez continues to be the super-utility slick IF guy with Castro being Castro at the keystone, same with George Sun in right. I think it's become clear that if and when a trade does happen it would be one or two (or three(!)) of these guys invovled The gamble has paid off so far in that Baez and Soler only enhanced their value by playing (and Castro rescued his value). This year the hope falls more on the Ghleybar/Happ/Almora/McKinney group doing similar. If two of those guys get hot, then next year the Cubs should be able to get whomever they want to bolster by late July.
I think part of the plan is to look beyond 2016 anyway. That's really the impetus for trading for a young starter like Ross or Carrasco. Those types probably wouldn't be available very often and perhaps The Cubs should strike while they are.
Ian Happ is an interesting case in that he seems to be a polished college hitter who can also play the IF. I think he may end up being the insurance policy for Baez or Castro flaming out this year. There's probably no need to move him quickly but I also don't think it'd be much of a concern if they did.
The question may become, "Is the offense that Rizzo/Bryant/Schwarber/Soler give you enough to make up for further Russell/Baez growing pains and little production out of the catcher spot?" How do you mitigate that risk, knowing the free agents just aren't out there right now?
Quote from: PANK! on November 13, 2015, 09:14:05 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 13, 2015, 08:58:43 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 13, 2015, 08:55:10 AM
What if they get just one premier starter--and no other starters--and say, Span? No trades until next summer. Fans will freak out with a Hammel and Hendrix back end redux but whataver.
They shouldn't. I'm not the biggest fan of either guy (for mostly irrational reasons), but that's still a pretty strong 4/5 combo.
There was of course nothing rational about my white-hot scalding hatred for Hammel, which only intensified with each passing game until that first fucking inning of that last one when Victor fucking Du--
Sorry,...but I agree, at least on Hammel. Objectively, he shouldn't kill you as a #4. And I quite like Kyle as the #5 heading in.
I'm starting to fantasize about a Greinke signing and my pants are moving.
In Hammel's last 15 starts after the hammy injury the team went 8-7 despite him constantly tub-shitting. As long as he reverts somewhat closer to his first half performance last year (although I doubt he can repeat it entirely), they should have no problem winning with him in the regular season. Same with Hendricks. The Cubs had the best record in the majors in the second half with those two (and Haren, actually) being fairly shitty. They can win plenty of regular season games with those guys going 5 IP and giving up 3 ER. I just want a quality 3rd starter for any playoff series they might play next year. That guy doesn't have to be David Price. He just has to be better than those two idiots.
DPD, not really that relevant but in the first half when Hammel had a 2.98 ERA in his first 16 starts the Cubs went 7-9.
So they actually won more games with Crappy Hammel than Good Hammel. It's a testament to how much better the offense was in the second half, but also that baseball is weird sometimes.
Quote from: Oleg on November 13, 2015, 09:20:55 AM
I think part of the plan is to look beyond 2016 anyway. That's really the impetus for trading for a young starter like Ross or Carrasco. Those types probably wouldn't be available very often and perhaps The Cubs should strike while they are.
It's a tough balance. Theo had some interesting comments yesterday about how the next 2 years may actually be their best chance to have a fully loaded roster since the young talent is so cheap (which spawned some "super team" talk, unlikely as that may be). People think of the Cubs having a long window of contention, which is certainly true, but I guess there can be various shades of contending teams.
I do think there's some merit to the idea that the next two years may be their "best" window-within-the-window -- they still have Arrieta under control for those years for relatively cheap, Lester should still be ace-ish and the young players are all pre-arb. I could see there being a bit of a lull in 2018-2019 after a few guys decline and before the TV deal kicks payroll into high gear. Then again, hopefully a lull means something more like 88 wins instead of 95.
Quote from: Eli on November 13, 2015, 09:32:03 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 13, 2015, 09:20:55 AM
I think part of the plan is to look beyond 2016 anyway. That's really the impetus for trading for a young starter like Ross or Carrasco. Those types probably wouldn't be available very often and perhaps The Cubs should strike while they are.
It's a tough balance. Theo had some interesting comments yesterday about how the next 2 years may actually be their best chance to have a fully loaded roster since the young talent is so cheap (which spawned some "super team" talk, unlikely as that may be). People think of the Cubs having a long window of contention, which is certainly true, but I guess there can be various shades of contending teams.
I do think there's some merit to the idea that the next two years may be their "best" window-within-the-window -- they still have Arrieta under control for those years for relatively cheap, Lester should still be ace-ish and the young players are all pre-arb. I could see there being a bit of a lull in 2018-2019 after a few guys decline and before the TV deal kicks payroll into high gear. Then again, hopefully a lull means something more like 88 wins instead of 95.
We know better than that, huh, Eli?
Quote from: Eli on November 13, 2015, 09:32:03 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 13, 2015, 09:20:55 AM
I think part of the plan is to look beyond 2016 anyway. That's really the impetus for trading for a young starter like Ross or Carrasco. Those types probably wouldn't be available very often and perhaps The Cubs should strike while they are.
It's a tough balance. Theo had some interesting comments yesterday about how the next 2 years may actually be their best chance to have a fully loaded roster since the young talent is so cheap (which spawned some "super team" talk, unlikely as that may be). People think of the Cubs having a long window of contention, which is certainly true, but I guess there can be various shades of contending teams.
I do think there's some merit to the idea that the next two years may be their "best" window-within-the-window -- they still have Arrieta under control for those years for relatively cheap, Lester should still be ace-ish and the young players are all pre-arb. I could see there being a bit of a lull in 2018-2019 after a few guys decline and before the TV deal kicks payroll into high gear. Then again, hopefully a lull means something more like 88 wins instead of 95.
2018 is when hopefully one or two of the starters in AA in 2016 will be ready to move into the rotation. This would stretch the window out a bit.
Quote from: Tonker on November 13, 2015, 09:38:01 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 13, 2015, 09:32:03 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 13, 2015, 09:20:55 AM
I think part of the plan is to look beyond 2016 anyway. That's really the impetus for trading for a young starter like Ross or Carrasco. Those types probably wouldn't be available very often and perhaps The Cubs should strike while they are.
It's a tough balance. Theo had some interesting comments yesterday about how the next 2 years may actually be their best chance to have a fully loaded roster since the young talent is so cheap (which spawned some "super team" talk, unlikely as that may be). People think of the Cubs having a long window of contention, which is certainly true, but I guess there can be various shades of contending teams.
I do think there's some merit to the idea that the next two years may be their "best" window-within-the-window -- they still have Arrieta under control for those years for relatively cheap, Lester should still be ace-ish and the young players are all pre-arb. I could see there being a bit of a lull in 2018-2019 after a few guys decline and before the TV deal kicks payroll into high gear. Then again, hopefully a lull means something more like 88 wins instead of 95.
We know better than that, huh, Eli?
Quote from: Eli on November 13, 2015, 09:32:03 AM
People think of the Cubs having a long window of contention, which is certainly true
I'm also still kind of amused that my comment about the Nationals gets brought up as if they've done anything since shutting down Strasburg and aren't now managed by Dusty Baker.
You guys are doing some good work in here but this thread title is bumming me out. Whoever did it should change it.
Now keep doing what you guys were doing.
Quote from: Eli on November 13, 2015, 09:32:03 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 13, 2015, 09:20:55 AM
I think part of the plan is to look beyond 2016 anyway. That's really the impetus for trading for a young starter like Ross or Carrasco. Those types probably wouldn't be available very often and perhaps The Cubs should strike while they are.
It's a tough balance. Theo had some interesting comments yesterday about how the next 2 years may actually be their best chance to have a fully loaded roster since the young talent is so cheap (which spawned some "super team" talk, unlikely as that may be). People think of the Cubs having a long window of contention, which is certainly true, but I guess there can be various shades of contending teams.
I do think there's some merit to the idea that the next two years may be their "best" window-within-the-window -- they still have Arrieta under control for those years for relatively cheap, Lester should still be ace-ish and the young players are all pre-arb. I could see there being a bit of a lull in 2018-2019 after a few guys decline and before the TV deal kicks payroll into high gear. Then again, hopefully a lull means something more like 88 wins instead of 95.
Yeah, for as much as people liked to throw out the "2015 Cubs will be the worst Cubs team of the next five years", I think there's just as much reason to think the 2016 Cubs might be the best team they'll field in that time period. It would make sense to be pretty aggressive this offseason.
Quote from: SKO on November 13, 2015, 10:42:53 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 13, 2015, 09:32:03 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 13, 2015, 09:20:55 AM
I think part of the plan is to look beyond 2016 anyway. That's really the impetus for trading for a young starter like Ross or Carrasco. Those types probably wouldn't be available very often and perhaps The Cubs should strike while they are.
It's a tough balance. Theo had some interesting comments yesterday about how the next 2 years may actually be their best chance to have a fully loaded roster since the young talent is so cheap (which spawned some "super team" talk, unlikely as that may be). People think of the Cubs having a long window of contention, which is certainly true, but I guess there can be various shades of contending teams.
I do think there's some merit to the idea that the next two years may be their "best" window-within-the-window -- they still have Arrieta under control for those years for relatively cheap, Lester should still be ace-ish and the young players are all pre-arb. I could see there being a bit of a lull in 2018-2019 after a few guys decline and before the TV deal kicks payroll into high gear. Then again, hopefully a lull means something more like 88 wins instead of 95.
Yeah, for as much as people liked to throw out the "2015 Cubs will be the worst Cubs team of the next five years", I think there's just as much reason to think the 2016 Cubs might be the best team they'll field in that time period. It would make sense to be pretty aggressive this offseason.
Not to mention, the market is flush with starting pitching, exactly what they need. Get one studly arm, then you can always package the Quality Start Machine with some other guys to get a young cost-controlled pitcher for the 4 spot, Hammel's your 5 for a year, and it's all crescent fresh from here on out.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 13, 2015, 07:53:06 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 13, 2015, 07:23:40 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 13, 2015, 07:20:17 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 12, 2015, 04:08:35 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2015, 04:03:49 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 12, 2015, 03:38:52 PM
On the other hand, CF is not known for being an offensive position, with some notable exceptions. Considering how strong the rest of the Cubs lineup is, they could tolerate a pretty significant amount of awful as long as the defense is stellar.
I see this "they can tolerate something bad because ..." a lot. I think it's weird.
It's not weird if you want a .500 team. The Cubs are playing for the World Series. If they think there's something fixable in Bradley that turns him into a low-risk/high-reward proposition, then go for it. But again, he's pretty fucking far from Plan A.
I think the reality is that most teams today, even the best ones, have a position or two in which they don't have a reliable offensive player. Even the Royals gave a ton of at bats to Omar Infante and Alex Rios, whose WARs were in the negatives over the span of 2015. The amazing thing is that the Cubs don't need to be one of those teams.
They very well might have a Plan A and B in which they slot somebody into CF who should rake. But if they had to go a Plan C route to pick up a third ace (something else most teams don't have), then acquiring a player who might be offensively reliable but should be defensively sound wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, would it?
No, it wouldn't be, but I'm not sure that a 200 million dollar contract to an over 30 pitcher if it also means potentially punting all offense at a spot where they got a lot of offense last year makes a ton of sense. I'd rather they trade for Ross or something and re-sign Fowler or take that 200 million and spend it on Heyward if that's the case.
The Cubs need starting pitching in a winter where there's a glut in the market. It's easy to buy a top 3 guy right now. Heyward kind of has his own niche. Yeah, it would be awesome to stick him between Schwarber and Soler. Any lineup that has Miguel Montero and Addison Russell as the weak links is one you start planning the parade for. But I think if the Cubs can either get a good deal on Span or make a trade that doesn't clean the house out for a CF for 2-3 years, that's probably what they're looking for. At that time they might have a better handle on Happ, McKinney or one of the other guys not named Almora.
I'm sure Theo and Jed have a whiteboard or some shit with a fuckload of scenarios drawn out. They've gotten the Cubs this far, I'm confident they can outthink a bunch of goofballs on a fringe messageboard.
Apparently they are planning on being creative.
Quote from: PANK! on November 13, 2015, 08:55:10 AM
What if they get just one premier starter--and no other starters--and say, Span? No trades until next summer. Fans will freak out with a Hammel and Hendrix back end redux but whataver.
They didn't get much of anything at the non-waiver deadline last year--they actually got more production from what they got at the August deadline (Jackson and Cahill) than at July (Haren and Hunter), but they didn't give anything up, either, and it paid off, in that they won 2 postseason "series" and all of the guys they didn't trade contributed and enhanced their value in the process.
Rather than make a big trade this offseason would they be better off with just signing a stud P, solid CF and everyone else stays for now? Barring injury,a team with Lester, Arrieta and, say, Greinke in its rotation is likely going to be in contention through June. So let's see how Baez continues to be the super-utility slick IF guy with Castro being Castro at the keystone, same with George Sun in right. I think it's become clear that if and when a trade does happen it would be one or two (or three(!)) of these guys invovled The gamble has paid off so far in that Baez and Soler only enhanced their value by playing (and Castro rescued his value). This year the hope falls more on the Ghleybar/Happ/Almora/McKinney group doing similar. If two of those guys get hot, then next year the Cubs should be able to get whomever they want to bolster by late July.
I wonder how much it would cost to bring back Jackson? I don't know how good he is defensively, but offensively he's actually pretty similar to Dexter.
Quote from: Canadouche on November 13, 2015, 11:35:00 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 13, 2015, 08:55:10 AM
What if they get just one premier starter--and no other starters--and say, Span? No trades until next summer. Fans will freak out with a Hammel and Hendrix back end redux but whataver.
They didn't get much of anything at the non-waiver deadline last year--they actually got more production from what they got at the August deadline (Jackson and Cahill) than at July (Haren and Hunter), but they didn't give anything up, either, and it paid off, in that they won 2 postseason "series" and all of the guys they didn't trade contributed and enhanced their value in the process.
Rather than make a big trade this offseason would they be better off with just signing a stud P, solid CF and everyone else stays for now? Barring injury,a team with Lester, Arrieta and, say, Greinke in its rotation is likely going to be in contention through June. So let's see how Baez continues to be the super-utility slick IF guy with Castro being Castro at the keystone, same with George Sun in right. I think it's become clear that if and when a trade does happen it would be one or two (or three(!)) of these guys invovled The gamble has paid off so far in that Baez and Soler only enhanced their value by playing (and Castro rescued his value). This year the hope falls more on the Ghleybar/Happ/Almora/McKinney group doing similar. If two of those guys get hot, then next year the Cubs should be able to get whomever they want to bolster by late July.
I wonder how much it would cost to bring back Jackson? I don't know how good he is defensively, but offensively he's actually pretty similar to Dexter.
He's better defensively. As for cost, he made 7.7 last year. If he'd re-up for 2 years at around that, the Cubs would be doing OK. But I don't think they'd need to rush into it. I don't know how many teams feel they have a hole that only Austin Jackson can fill.
So, somebody finally accepted a qualifying offer: Colby Rasmus will get $15.8MM next year (http://m.mlb.com/news/article/157190090/colby-rasmus-changes-view-of-qualifying-offers). The Astros must be thrilled.
Quote from: PANK! on November 13, 2015, 08:55:10 AM
What if they get just one premier starter--and no other starters--and say, Span? No trades until next summer. Fans will freak out with a Hammel and Hendrix back end redux but whataver.
They didn't get much of anything at the non-waiver deadline last year--they actually got more production from what they got at the August deadline (Jackson and Cahill) than at July (Haren and Hunter), but they didn't give anything up, either, and it paid off, in that they won 2 postseason "series" and all of the guys they didn't trade contributed and enhanced their value in the process.
Rather than make a big trade this offseason would they be better off with just signing a stud P, solid CF and everyone else stays for now? Barring injury,a team with Lester, Arrieta and, say, Greinke in its rotation is likely going to be in contention through June. So let's see how Baez continues to be the super-utility slick IF guy with Castro being Castro at the keystone, same with George Sun in right. I think it's become clear that if and when a trade does happen it would be one or two (or three(!)) of these guys invovled The gamble has paid off so far in that Baez and Soler only enhanced their value by playing (and Castro rescued his value). This year the hope falls more on the Ghleybar/Happ/Almora/McKinney group doing similar. If two of those guys get hot, then next year the Cubs should be able to get whomever they want to bolster by late July.
Just curious, what makes you drop Greinke and not Price in as the hypothetical big $ pitcher?
Also, I was just looking at when the big moves went down last year, and now I'm depressed we may have to wait a month for anything significant to happen.
Hammel - December 8
Montero - December 9
Lester - December 10
Ross - December 19
Fowler - January 19
If they're looking for a defense-first CF who can't hit a lick, might as well throw Leonys Martin in the discussion.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/texas-rangers/headlines/20151111-grant-rangers-recognize-leonys-martin-s-value-on-the-field-or-in-the-trade-market.ece
Quote from: R-V on November 13, 2015, 01:00:05 PM
Quote from: PANK! on November 13, 2015, 08:55:10 AM
What if they get just one premier starter--and no other starters--and say, Span? No trades until next summer. Fans will freak out with a Hammel and Hendrix back end redux but whataver.
They didn't get much of anything at the non-waiver deadline last year--they actually got more production from what they got at the August deadline (Jackson and Cahill) than at July (Haren and Hunter), but they didn't give anything up, either, and it paid off, in that they won 2 postseason "series" and all of the guys they didn't trade contributed and enhanced their value in the process.
Rather than make a big trade this offseason would they be better off with just signing a stud P, solid CF and everyone else stays for now? Barring injury,a team with Lester, Arrieta and, say, Greinke in its rotation is likely going to be in contention through June. So let's see how Baez continues to be the super-utility slick IF guy with Castro being Castro at the keystone, same with George Sun in right. I think it's become clear that if and when a trade does happen it would be one or two (or three(!)) of these guys invovled The gamble has paid off so far in that Baez and Soler only enhanced their value by playing (and Castro rescued his value). This year the hope falls more on the Ghleybar/Happ/Almora/McKinney group doing similar. If two of those guys get hot, then next year the Cubs should be able to get whomever they want to bolster by late July.
Just curious, what makes you drop Greinke and not Price in as the hypothetical big $ pitcher?
Nothing I guess. I liked the idea of getting Price when the offseason began but I have since gotten a little more excited for Greinke for whatever reason. Either one's good for me.
Quote from: PANK! on November 13, 2015, 01:45:26 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 13, 2015, 01:00:05 PM
Quote from: PANK! on November 13, 2015, 08:55:10 AM
What if they get just one premier starter--and no other starters--and say, Span? No trades until next summer. Fans will freak out with a Hammel and Hendrix back end redux but whataver.
They didn't get much of anything at the non-waiver deadline last year--they actually got more production from what they got at the August deadline (Jackson and Cahill) than at July (Haren and Hunter), but they didn't give anything up, either, and it paid off, in that they won 2 postseason "series" and all of the guys they didn't trade contributed and enhanced their value in the process.
Rather than make a big trade this offseason would they be better off with just signing a stud P, solid CF and everyone else stays for now? Barring injury,a team with Lester, Arrieta and, say, Greinke in its rotation is likely going to be in contention through June. So let's see how Baez continues to be the super-utility slick IF guy with Castro being Castro at the keystone, same with George Sun in right. I think it's become clear that if and when a trade does happen it would be one or two (or three(!)) of these guys invovled The gamble has paid off so far in that Baez and Soler only enhanced their value by playing (and Castro rescued his value). This year the hope falls more on the Ghleybar/Happ/Almora/McKinney group doing similar. If two of those guys get hot, then next year the Cubs should be able to get whomever they want to bolster by late July.
Just curious, what makes you drop Greinke and not Price in as the hypothetical big $ pitcher?
Nothing I guess. I liked the idea of getting Price when the offseason began but I have since gotten a little more excited for Greinke for whatever reason. Either one's good for me.
Chuck tells me they have the money for both, so that's what I want.
I'm late to this but I'm cool with PANK's hypothetical offseason. However after Castro's late-season surge I think they won't be able to get more for him than they can right now.
Quote from: SKO on November 13, 2015, 09:28:41 AM
DPD, not really that relevant but in the first half when Hammel had a 2.98 ERA in his first 16 starts the Cubs went 7-9.
So they actually won more games with Crappy Hammel than Good Hammel. It's a testament to how much better the offense was in the second half, but also that baseball is weird sometimes.
Thank you for this. My managing partner is a proud member of the Church of Pitcher Wins. This will be useful.
Boston is picking up Craig Kimbrel from the Padres.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 13, 2015, 06:50:32 PM
Boston is picking up Craig Kimbrel from the Padres.
San Diego's stockpiling prospects. Let's hope Jepstink can pry Ross loose now.
I got excited for a second (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/11/david-ross-likely-to-retire-after-season.html)
QuoteDavid Ross Likely To Retire After Season
because I was hoping that meant this season, but
QuoteHe explained that he's "going to give it one more run" but that it's "time to be a dad" thereafter.
Quote from: Yeti on November 17, 2015, 08:19:30 AM
I got excited for a second (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/11/david-ross-likely-to-retire-after-season.html)
QuoteDavid Ross Likely To Retire After Season
because I was hoping that meant this season, but
QuoteHe explained that he's "going to give it one more run" but that it's "time to be a dad" thereafter.
Why would you think "after the season" meant after 2015 a month after 2015 already ended? Wouldn't it just be "David Ross retires"?
Quote from: PANK! on November 17, 2015, 08:33:52 AM
Quote from: Yeti on November 17, 2015, 08:19:30 AM
I got excited for a second (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/11/david-ross-likely-to-retire-after-season.html)
QuoteDavid Ross Likely To Retire After Season
because I was hoping that meant this season, but
QuoteHe explained that he's "going to give it one more run" but that it's "time to be a dad" thereafter.
Why would you think "after the season" meant after 2015 a month after 2015 already ended? Wouldn't it just be "David Ross retires"?
Allow the man his moment of optimism, will you?
So, Jose Fernandez anyone (https://twitter.com/CraigMish/status/666668290358513664?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)?
I'd give up Baez/Castro, Gleyber, McKinney, and whatever minor league pitcher they want.
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2015, 12:42:45 PM
So, Jose Fernandez anyone (https://twitter.com/CraigMish/status/666668290358513664?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)?
I'd give up Baez/Castro, Gleyber, McKinney, and whatever minor league pitcher they want.
I imagine Soler or Baez would be the main piece. Wonder if the deal could be expanded to bring back Ozuna to play CF.
Do that, sign Heyward, profit.
Quote from: Eli on November 17, 2015, 12:57:38 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2015, 12:42:45 PM
So, Jose Fernandez anyone (https://twitter.com/CraigMish/status/666668290358513664?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)?
I'd give up Baez/Castro, Gleyber, McKinney, and whatever minor league pitcher they want.
I imagine Soler or Baez would be the main piece. Wonder if the deal could be expanded to bring back Ozuna to play CF.
Do that, sign Heyward, profit.
Why on earth trade a young arm with that much promise that is still cheap? Makes no sense even for the Marlins.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 17, 2015, 01:01:14 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 17, 2015, 12:57:38 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2015, 12:42:45 PM
So, Jose Fernandez anyone (https://twitter.com/CraigMish/status/666668290358513664?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)?
I'd give up Baez/Castro, Gleyber, McKinney, and whatever minor league pitcher they want.
I imagine Soler or Baez would be the main piece. Wonder if the deal could be expanded to bring back Ozuna to play CF.
Do that, sign Heyward, profit.
Why on earth trade a young arm with that much promise that is still cheap? Makes no sense even for the Marlins.
They don't really have that many assets. I'm sure if they had much else to swap they'd rather do it. But by the time they're relevant by any means at all, Fernandez would have more miles on the odometer and less value due to his impending free agency. Holding on to him accomplishes very little unless they have some unknown method for talent acquisition. It would behoove them to stockpile prospects and get busy sucking/drafting so they can return to the competitive fray in 3-4 years.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 17, 2015, 01:01:14 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 17, 2015, 12:57:38 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2015, 12:42:45 PM
So, Jose Fernandez anyone (https://twitter.com/CraigMish/status/666668290358513664?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)?
I'd give up Baez/Castro, Gleyber, McKinney, and whatever minor league pitcher they want.
I imagine Soler or Baez would be the main piece. Wonder if the deal could be expanded to bring back Ozuna to play CF.
Do that, sign Heyward, profit.
Why on earth trade a young arm with that much promise that is still cheap? Makes no sense even for the Marlins.
Scott Boras is to The Marlins what Kings of Leon are to Oleg.
Quote from: Oleg on November 17, 2015, 01:52:23 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 17, 2015, 01:01:14 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 17, 2015, 12:57:38 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2015, 12:42:45 PM
So, Jose Fernandez anyone (https://twitter.com/CraigMish/status/666668290358513664?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)?
I'd give up Baez/Castro, Gleyber, McKinney, and whatever minor league pitcher they want.
I imagine Soler or Baez would be the main piece. Wonder if the deal could be expanded to bring back Ozuna to play CF.
Do that, sign Heyward, profit.
Why on earth trade a young arm with that much promise that is still cheap? Makes no sense even for the Marlins.
Scott Boras is to The Marlins what Kings of Leon are to Oleg.
They thought he was dope until everybody else jumped on his dick and then they complained that he'd sold out and shit on every subsequent thing he did?
Quote from: InternetApex on November 17, 2015, 02:06:04 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 17, 2015, 01:52:23 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 17, 2015, 01:01:14 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 17, 2015, 12:57:38 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2015, 12:42:45 PM
So, Jose Fernandez anyone (https://twitter.com/CraigMish/status/666668290358513664?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)?
I'd give up Baez/Castro, Gleyber, McKinney, and whatever minor league pitcher they want.
I imagine Soler or Baez would be the main piece. Wonder if the deal could be expanded to bring back Ozuna to play CF.
Do that, sign Heyward, profit.
Why on earth trade a young arm with that much promise that is still cheap? Makes no sense even for the Marlins.
Scott Boras is to The Marlins what Kings of Leon are to Oleg.
They thought he was dope until everybody else jumped on his dick and then they complained that he'd sold out and shit on every subsequent thing he did?
That's a bit more detail than I was going for but, yeah...that about nails it on the head.
Quote from: Oleg on November 17, 2015, 01:52:23 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 17, 2015, 01:01:14 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 17, 2015, 12:57:38 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2015, 12:42:45 PM
So, Jose Fernandez anyone (https://twitter.com/CraigMish/status/666668290358513664?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)?
I'd give up Baez/Castro, Gleyber, McKinney, and whatever minor league pitcher they want.
I imagine Soler or Baez would be the main piece. Wonder if the deal could be expanded to bring back Ozuna to play CF.
Do that, sign Heyward, profit.
Why on earth trade a young arm with that much promise that is still cheap? Makes no sense even for the Marlins.
Scott Boras is to The Marlins what Kings of Leon are to Oleg.
Taller?
Quote from: Eli on November 17, 2015, 12:57:38 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2015, 12:42:45 PM
So, Jose Fernandez anyone (https://twitter.com/CraigMish/status/666668290358513664?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)?
I'd give up Baez/Castro, Gleyber, McKinney, and whatever minor league pitcher they want.
I imagine Soler or Baez would be the main piece. Wonder if the deal could be expanded to bring back Ozuna to play CF.
Do that, sign Heyward, profit.
This whole idea has been making me tingle for more than a few minutes.
Quote from: Oleg on November 17, 2015, 02:51:11 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 17, 2015, 12:57:38 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2015, 12:42:45 PM
So, Jose Fernandez anyone (https://twitter.com/CraigMish/status/666668290358513664?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)?
I'd give up Baez/Castro, Gleyber, McKinney, and whatever minor league pitcher they want.
I imagine Soler or Baez would be the main piece. Wonder if the deal could be expanded to bring back Ozuna to play CF.
Do that, sign Heyward, profit.
This whole idea has been making me tingle for more than a few minutes.
Doesn't Tommy John Disease tend to reoccur after about 5 or 6 years?
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 17, 2015, 02:59:14 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 17, 2015, 02:51:11 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 17, 2015, 12:57:38 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2015, 12:42:45 PM
So, Jose Fernandez anyone (https://twitter.com/CraigMish/status/666668290358513664?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)?
I'd give up Baez/Castro, Gleyber, McKinney, and whatever minor league pitcher they want.
I imagine Soler or Baez would be the main piece. Wonder if the deal could be expanded to bring back Ozuna to play CF.
Do that, sign Heyward, profit.
This whole idea has been making me tingle for more than a few minutes.
Doesn't Tommy John Disease tend to reoccur after about 5 or 6 years?
Cool? Cubs can win a series during the two or three years of control he has left, then let someone else pay Boras' price tag to watch his arm explode.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 17, 2015, 02:59:14 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 17, 2015, 02:51:11 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 17, 2015, 12:57:38 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2015, 12:42:45 PM
So, Jose Fernandez anyone (https://twitter.com/CraigMish/status/666668290358513664?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)?
I'd give up Baez/Castro, Gleyber, McKinney, and whatever minor league pitcher they want.
I imagine Soler or Baez would be the main piece. Wonder if the deal could be expanded to bring back Ozuna to play CF.
Do that, sign Heyward, profit.
This whole idea has been making me tingle for more than a few minutes.
Doesn't Tommy John Disease tend to reoccur after about 5 or 6 years?
I think it's 5-7. So, they've got plenty of time to enjoy him.
Quote from: Eli on November 17, 2015, 03:04:26 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 17, 2015, 02:59:14 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 17, 2015, 02:51:11 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 17, 2015, 12:57:38 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2015, 12:42:45 PM
So, Jose Fernandez anyone (https://twitter.com/CraigMish/status/666668290358513664?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)?
I'd give up Baez/Castro, Gleyber, McKinney, and whatever minor league pitcher they want.
I imagine Soler or Baez would be the main piece. Wonder if the deal could be expanded to bring back Ozuna to play CF.
Do that, sign Heyward, profit.
This whole idea has been making me tingle for more than a few minutes.
Doesn't Tommy John Disease tend to reoccur after about 5 or 6 years?
I think it's 5-7. So, they've got plenty of time to enjoy him.
Leave Soler out of this and I'm completely on board - irrational as that may be.
Quote from: InternetApex on November 17, 2015, 03:07:02 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 17, 2015, 03:04:26 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 17, 2015, 02:59:14 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 17, 2015, 02:51:11 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 17, 2015, 12:57:38 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2015, 12:42:45 PM
So, Jose Fernandez anyone (https://twitter.com/CraigMish/status/666668290358513664?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)?
I'd give up Baez/Castro, Gleyber, McKinney, and whatever minor league pitcher they want.
I imagine Soler or Baez would be the main piece. Wonder if the deal could be expanded to bring back Ozuna to play CF.
Do that, sign Heyward, profit.
This whole idea has been making me tingle for more than a few minutes.
Doesn't Tommy John Disease tend to reoccur after about 5 or 6 years?
I think it's 5-7. So, they've got plenty of time to enjoy him.
Leave Soler out of this and I'm completely on board - irrational as that may be.
This. No Soler, yes Baez/Castro plus high ceiling teenagers.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 17, 2015, 03:14:52 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on November 17, 2015, 03:07:02 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 17, 2015, 03:04:26 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 17, 2015, 02:59:14 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 17, 2015, 02:51:11 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 17, 2015, 12:57:38 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2015, 12:42:45 PM
So, Jose Fernandez anyone (https://twitter.com/CraigMish/status/666668290358513664?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)?
I'd give up Baez/Castro, Gleyber, McKinney, and whatever minor league pitcher they want.
I imagine Soler or Baez would be the main piece. Wonder if the deal could be expanded to bring back Ozuna to play CF.
Do that, sign Heyward, profit.
This whole idea has been making me tingle for more than a few minutes.
Doesn't Tommy John Disease tend to reoccur after about 5 or 6 years?
I think it's 5-7. So, they've got plenty of time to enjoy him.
Leave Soler out of this and I'm completely on board - irrational as that may be.
This. No Soler, yes Baez/Castro plus high ceiling teenagers.
Not to mention, I don't know if you can trust Soler in CF - the Marlins have Stanton in RF.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 17, 2015, 03:20:38 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 17, 2015, 03:14:52 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on November 17, 2015, 03:07:02 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 17, 2015, 03:04:26 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 17, 2015, 02:59:14 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 17, 2015, 02:51:11 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 17, 2015, 12:57:38 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2015, 12:42:45 PM
So, Jose Fernandez anyone (https://twitter.com/CraigMish/status/666668290358513664?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)?
I'd give up Baez/Castro, Gleyber, McKinney, and whatever minor league pitcher they want.
I imagine Soler or Baez would be the main piece. Wonder if the deal could be expanded to bring back Ozuna to play CF.
Do that, sign Heyward, profit.
This whole idea has been making me tingle for more than a few minutes.
Doesn't Tommy John Disease tend to reoccur after about 5 or 6 years?
I think it's 5-7. So, they've got plenty of time to enjoy him.
Leave Soler out of this and I'm completely on board - irrational as that may be.
This. No Soler, yes Baez/Castro plus high ceiling teenagers.
Not to mention, I don't know if you can trust Soler in CF - the Marlins have Stanton in RF.
I'm sure Soler can bumble his way around in LF as well as he can in RF.
Quote from: Eli on November 17, 2015, 03:28:36 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 17, 2015, 03:20:38 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 17, 2015, 03:14:52 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on November 17, 2015, 03:07:02 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 17, 2015, 03:04:26 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 17, 2015, 02:59:14 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 17, 2015, 02:51:11 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 17, 2015, 12:57:38 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2015, 12:42:45 PM
So, Jose Fernandez anyone (https://twitter.com/CraigMish/status/666668290358513664?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)?
I'd give up Baez/Castro, Gleyber, McKinney, and whatever minor league pitcher they want.
I imagine Soler or Baez would be the main piece. Wonder if the deal could be expanded to bring back Ozuna to play CF.
Do that, sign Heyward, profit.
This whole idea has been making me tingle for more than a few minutes.
Doesn't Tommy John Disease tend to reoccur after about 5 or 6 years?
I think it's 5-7. So, they've got plenty of time to enjoy him.
Leave Soler out of this and I'm completely on board - irrational as that may be.
This. No Soler, yes Baez/Castro plus high ceiling teenagers.
Not to mention, I don't know if you can trust Soler in CF - the Marlins have Stanton in RF.
I'm sure Soler can bumble his way around in LF as well as he can in RF.
You and your whore mouth.
Quote from: InternetApex on November 17, 2015, 03:29:23 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 17, 2015, 03:28:36 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 17, 2015, 03:20:38 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 17, 2015, 03:14:52 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on November 17, 2015, 03:07:02 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 17, 2015, 03:04:26 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 17, 2015, 02:59:14 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 17, 2015, 02:51:11 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 17, 2015, 12:57:38 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2015, 12:42:45 PM
So, Jose Fernandez anyone (https://twitter.com/CraigMish/status/666668290358513664?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)?
I'd give up Baez/Castro, Gleyber, McKinney, and whatever minor league pitcher they want.
I imagine Soler or Baez would be the main piece. Wonder if the deal could be expanded to bring back Ozuna to play CF.
Do that, sign Heyward, profit.
This whole idea has been making me tingle for more than a few minutes.
Doesn't Tommy John Disease tend to reoccur after about 5 or 6 years?
I think it's 5-7. So, they've got plenty of time to enjoy him.
Leave Soler out of this and I'm completely on board - irrational as that may be.
This. No Soler, yes Baez/Castro plus high ceiling teenagers.
Not to mention, I don't know if you can trust Soler in CF - the Marlins have Stanton in RF.
I'm sure Soler can bumble his way around in LF as well as he can in RF.
You and your whore mouth.
But he's right and you know this.
Quote from: PANK! on November 17, 2015, 03:40:46 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on November 17, 2015, 03:29:23 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 17, 2015, 03:28:36 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 17, 2015, 03:20:38 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 17, 2015, 03:14:52 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on November 17, 2015, 03:07:02 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 17, 2015, 03:04:26 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 17, 2015, 02:59:14 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 17, 2015, 02:51:11 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 17, 2015, 12:57:38 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2015, 12:42:45 PM
So, Jose Fernandez anyone (https://twitter.com/CraigMish/status/666668290358513664?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)?
I'd give up Baez/Castro, Gleyber, McKinney, and whatever minor league pitcher they want.
I imagine Soler or Baez would be the main piece. Wonder if the deal could be expanded to bring back Ozuna to play CF.
Do that, sign Heyward, profit.
This whole idea has been making me tingle for more than a few minutes.
Doesn't Tommy John Disease tend to reoccur after about 5 or 6 years?
I think it's 5-7. So, they've got plenty of time to enjoy him.
Leave Soler out of this and I'm completely on board - irrational as that may be.
This. No Soler, yes Baez/Castro plus high ceiling teenagers.
Not to mention, I don't know if you can trust Soler in CF - the Marlins have Stanton in RF.
I'm sure Soler can bumble his way around in LF as well as he can in RF.
You and your whore mouth.
But he's right and you know this.
His consistently talking about it is making me uneasy though.
Quote from: InternetApex on November 17, 2015, 04:08:58 PM
Quote from: PANK! on November 17, 2015, 03:40:46 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on November 17, 2015, 03:29:23 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 17, 2015, 03:28:36 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 17, 2015, 03:20:38 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 17, 2015, 03:14:52 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on November 17, 2015, 03:07:02 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 17, 2015, 03:04:26 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 17, 2015, 02:59:14 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 17, 2015, 02:51:11 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 17, 2015, 12:57:38 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2015, 12:42:45 PM
So, Jose Fernandez anyone (https://twitter.com/CraigMish/status/666668290358513664?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)?
I'd give up Baez/Castro, Gleyber, McKinney, and whatever minor league pitcher they want.
I imagine Soler or Baez would be the main piece. Wonder if the deal could be expanded to bring back Ozuna to play CF.
Do that, sign Heyward, profit.
This whole idea has been making me tingle for more than a few minutes.
Doesn't Tommy John Disease tend to reoccur after about 5 or 6 years?
I think it's 5-7. So, they've got plenty of time to enjoy him.
Leave Soler out of this and I'm completely on board - irrational as that may be.
This. No Soler, yes Baez/Castro plus high ceiling teenagers.
Not to mention, I don't know if you can trust Soler in CF - the Marlins have Stanton in RF.
I'm sure Soler can bumble his way around in LF as well as he can in RF.
You and your whore mouth.
But he's right and you know this.
His consistently talking about it is making me uneasy though.
I actually like Jorge and don't mind if he stays. I think I'm just resigned to them trading him or Javy and I'd prefer Javy to stay, if we're choosing between the two.
According to today's rumors:
1. Arrieta
2. Greinke
3. Price
4. Fernandez
5. Lester
Think they'll sell all five shirseys in a bundle?
Quote from: Eli on November 17, 2015, 03:28:36 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 17, 2015, 03:20:38 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 17, 2015, 03:14:52 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on November 17, 2015, 03:07:02 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 17, 2015, 03:04:26 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 17, 2015, 02:59:14 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 17, 2015, 02:51:11 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 17, 2015, 12:57:38 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2015, 12:42:45 PM
So, Jose Fernandez anyone (https://twitter.com/CraigMish/status/666668290358513664?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)?
I'd give up Baez/Castro, Gleyber, McKinney, and whatever minor league pitcher they want.
I imagine Soler or Baez would be the main piece. Wonder if the deal could be expanded to bring back Ozuna to play CF.
Do that, sign Heyward, profit.
This whole idea has been making me tingle for more than a few minutes.
Doesn't Tommy John Disease tend to reoccur after about 5 or 6 years?
I think it's 5-7. So, they've got plenty of time to enjoy him.
Leave Soler out of this and I'm completely on board - irrational as that may be.
This. No Soler, yes Baez/Castro plus high ceiling teenagers.
Not to mention, I don't know if you can trust Soler in CF - the Marlins have Stanton in RF.
I'm sure Soler can bumble his way around in LF as well as he can in RF.
That won't work unless Schwaber can stay behind home plate.
Which would be outstanding if he could.
In 25 pages of various trade scenarios, Coughlan's never been mentioned. What's wrong with us?
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 17, 2015, 04:37:35 PM
In 25 pages of various trade scenarios, Coughlan's never been mentioned. What's wrong with us?
Probably because they don't have anyone by that name. /worstpersonontheinternet
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 17, 2015, 05:00:46 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 17, 2015, 04:37:35 PM
In 25 pages of various trade scenarios, Coughlan's never been mentioned. What's wrong with us?
Probably because they don't have anyone by that name. /worstpersonontheinternet
I'M TALKIN' ABOUT DA GUY WHO WUZ A BETTER WETTERMAN DAN HARRY VOLKMAN. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Coughlin_%28weatherman%29)
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 17, 2015, 04:37:35 PM
In 25 pages of various trade scenarios, Coughlan's never been mentioned. What's wrong with us?
It's a reflection of just how little we collectively think he's worth.
Quote from: PANK! on November 17, 2015, 07:33:26 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 17, 2015, 05:00:46 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 17, 2015, 04:37:35 PM
In 25 pages of various trade scenarios, Coughlan's never been mentioned. What's wrong with us?
Probably because they don't have anyone by that name. /worstpersonontheinternet
I'M TALKIN' ABOUT DA GUY WHO WUZ A BETTER WETTERMAN DAN HARRY VOLKMAN. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Coughlin_%28weatherman%29)
Maybe I keep hoping somehow Theo can trade the Giants' coach.
Quote from: Tonker on November 18, 2015, 02:06:28 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 17, 2015, 04:37:35 PM
In 25 pages of various trade scenarios, Coughlan's never been mentioned. What's wrong with us?
It's a reflection of just how little we collectively think he's worth.
Yeah, I'm not sure he'd fetch much in a trade. Maybe someone middling organization's #17 prospect or whatever. They might as well keep him around as a decent 4th OF.
Quote from: Eli on November 18, 2015, 08:28:13 AM
Quote from: Tonker on November 18, 2015, 02:06:28 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 17, 2015, 04:37:35 PM
In 25 pages of various trade scenarios, Coughlan's never been mentioned. What's wrong with us?
It's a reflection of just how little we collectively think he's worth.
Yeah, I'm not sure he'd fetch much in a trade. Maybe someone middling organization's #17 prospect or whatever. They might as well keep him around as a decent 4th OF.
Perhaps if there's a contender out there that has a surplus of young, effective relievers and needs a serviceable corner OF they could make something happen there because I still think the Cubs pen is fairly thin (especially if guys like Richard and Cahill are either gone or unable to repeat their success from 2015 and/or Wood leaves). Otherwise yeah much as I loathe his face Coghlan makes sense as one of the three or four Ben Zobrists Joe Maddon will have next year including Bryant, Baez, and Ben Zobrist.
Quote from: SKO on November 18, 2015, 08:53:31 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 18, 2015, 08:28:13 AM
Quote from: Tonker on November 18, 2015, 02:06:28 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 17, 2015, 04:37:35 PM
In 25 pages of various trade scenarios, Coughlan's never been mentioned. What's wrong with us?
It's a reflection of just how little we collectively think he's worth.
Yeah, I'm not sure he'd fetch much in a trade. Maybe someone middling organization's #17 prospect or whatever. They might as well keep him around as a decent 4th OF.
Perhaps if there's a contender out there that has a surplus of young, effective relievers and needs a serviceable corner OF they could make something happen there because I still think the Cubs pen is fairly thin (especially if guys like Richard and Cahill are either gone or unable to repeat their success from 2015 and/or Wood leaves). Otherwise yeah much as I loathe his face Coghlan makes sense as one of the three or four Ben Zobrists Joe Maddon will have next year including Bryant, Baez, and Ben Zobrist.
Haven't we already discussed that having Zobrist would be in all likelihood a needless redundancy by now?
Quote from: PANK! on November 18, 2015, 09:21:44 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 18, 2015, 08:53:31 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 18, 2015, 08:28:13 AM
Quote from: Tonker on November 18, 2015, 02:06:28 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 17, 2015, 04:37:35 PM
In 25 pages of various trade scenarios, Coughlan's never been mentioned. What's wrong with us?
It's a reflection of just how little we collectively think he's worth.
Yeah, I'm not sure he'd fetch much in a trade. Maybe someone middling organization's #17 prospect or whatever. They might as well keep him around as a decent 4th OF.
Perhaps if there's a contender out there that has a surplus of young, effective relievers and needs a serviceable corner OF they could make something happen there because I still think the Cubs pen is fairly thin (especially if guys like Richard and Cahill are either gone or unable to repeat their success from 2015 and/or Wood leaves). Otherwise yeah much as I loathe his face Coghlan makes sense as one of the three or four Ben Zobrists Joe Maddon will have next year including Bryant, Baez, and Ben Zobrist.
Haven't we already discussed that having Zobrist would be in all likelihood a needless redundancy by now?
Like all free agents he's going to take pennies on the dollar just to play for the Manager of the Year and be on the Cubs team that wins the World Series. It's gonna hai.
I was just making a joke about that week when Chris Coghlan played a shitty second base and people called him Joe Maddon's new Ben Zobrist. My bad.
Quote from: PANK! on November 18, 2015, 09:21:44 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 18, 2015, 08:53:31 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 18, 2015, 08:28:13 AM
Quote from: Tonker on November 18, 2015, 02:06:28 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 17, 2015, 04:37:35 PM
In 25 pages of various trade scenarios, Coughlan's never been mentioned. What's wrong with us?
It's a reflection of just how little we collectively think he's worth.
Yeah, I'm not sure he'd fetch much in a trade. Maybe someone middling organization's #17 prospect or whatever. They might as well keep him around as a decent 4th OF.
Perhaps if there's a contender out there that has a surplus of young, effective relievers and needs a serviceable corner OF they could make something happen there because I still think the Cubs pen is fairly thin (especially if guys like Richard and Cahill are either gone or unable to repeat their success from 2015 and/or Wood leaves). Otherwise yeah much as I loathe his face Coghlan makes sense as one of the three or four Ben Zobrists Joe Maddon will have next year including Bryant, Baez, and Ben Zobrist.
Haven't we already discussed that having Zobrist would be in all likelihood a needless redundancy by now?
4/60 for a 35 year old who still has some value but is in decline? Yeah, redundancy is the least of it.
Would have been a nice piece for a couple months last year. Now? Meh.
Quote from: Eli on November 18, 2015, 08:28:13 AM
Quote from: Tonker on November 18, 2015, 02:06:28 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 17, 2015, 04:37:35 PM
In 25 pages of various trade scenarios, Coughlan's never been mentioned. What's wrong with us?
It's a reflection of just how little we collectively think he's worth.
Yeah, I'm not sure he'd fetch much in a trade. Maybe someone middling organization's #17 prospect or whatever. They might as well keep him around as a decent 4th OF.
He made 2.5 last year. He's gotta be looking for a decent bump, right? How much will Jepstink pay for a 4th OF?
(in fairness, it's really a 3b considering how likely it is that Soler's hammies betray him at some point)
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 18, 2015, 10:10:58 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 18, 2015, 08:28:13 AM
Quote from: Tonker on November 18, 2015, 02:06:28 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 17, 2015, 04:37:35 PM
In 25 pages of various trade scenarios, Coughlan's never been mentioned. What's wrong with us?
It's a reflection of just how little we collectively think he's worth.
Yeah, I'm not sure he'd fetch much in a trade. Maybe someone middling organization's #17 prospect or whatever. They might as well keep him around as a decent 4th OF.
He made 2.5 last year. He's gotta be looking for a decent bump, right? How much will Jepstink pay for a 4th OF?
(in fairness, it's really a 3b considering how likely it is that Soler's hammies betray him at some point)
If he's a 2.5 win player, that's worth what...10-12MM per year? Whatever he gets will be less than that. Of course if he's a part-timer who's only worth a win, that's still a $5-6MM player, right?
Quote from: Oleg on November 18, 2015, 01:03:59 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 18, 2015, 10:10:58 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 18, 2015, 08:28:13 AM
Quote from: Tonker on November 18, 2015, 02:06:28 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 17, 2015, 04:37:35 PM
In 25 pages of various trade scenarios, Coughlan's never been mentioned. What's wrong with us?
It's a reflection of just how little we collectively think he's worth.
Yeah, I'm not sure he'd fetch much in a trade. Maybe someone middling organization's #17 prospect or whatever. They might as well keep him around as a decent 4th OF.
He made 2.5 last year. He's gotta be looking for a decent bump, right? How much will Jepstink pay for a 4th OF?
(in fairness, it's really a 3b considering how likely it is that Soler's hammies betray him at some point)
If he's a 2.5 win player, that's worth what...10-12MM per year? Whatever he gets will be less than that. Of course if he's a part-timer who's only worth a win, that's still a $5-6MM player, right?
He made $2.5 million. He was a 3.3 win player last year.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 18, 2015, 01:09:02 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 18, 2015, 01:03:59 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 18, 2015, 10:10:58 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 18, 2015, 08:28:13 AM
Quote from: Tonker on November 18, 2015, 02:06:28 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 17, 2015, 04:37:35 PM
In 25 pages of various trade scenarios, Coughlan's never been mentioned. What's wrong with us?
It's a reflection of just how little we collectively think he's worth.
Yeah, I'm not sure he'd fetch much in a trade. Maybe someone middling organization's #17 prospect or whatever. They might as well keep him around as a decent 4th OF.
He made 2.5 last year. He's gotta be looking for a decent bump, right? How much will Jepstink pay for a 4th OF?
(in fairness, it's really a 3b considering how likely it is that Soler's hammies betray him at some point)
If he's a 2.5 win player, that's worth what...10-12MM per year? Whatever he gets will be less than that. Of course if he's a part-timer who's only worth a win, that's still a $5-6MM player, right?
He made $2.5 million. He was a 3.3 win player last year.
Crazy rumor site (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/10/projected-arbitration-salaries-for-2016.html) projects $3.9MM for him.
Coghlan needs to stay if only so I have someone to hate next year. As it stands a lineup of Montero/Rizzo/CastroBaez/Russell/Bryant/Schwarber/UNKNOWN CF/Soler is way too likeable. I mean, I expect Miggy's bat to continue to degrade and make me sad but I can't see myself straight up hating that guy.
Deep down, in places I don't admit at parties, I need Coghlan and his stupid asshole face on that team.
Quote from: SKO on November 18, 2015, 01:15:57 PM
Coghlan needs to stay if only so I have someone to hate next year. As it stands a lineup of Montero/Rizzo/CastroBaez/Russell/Bryant/Schwarber/UNKNOWN CF/Soler is way too likeable. I mean, I expect Miggy's bat to continue to degrade and make me sad but I can't see myself straight up hating that guy.
Deep down, in places I don't admit at parties, I need Coghlan and his stupid asshole face on that team.
He should also be fairly valuable in relation to what he'll cost. Getting a player of his ilk on the open market will eat into resources that could be used elsewhere.
For a team that's planning on competing for a World Series, he's a really good asset to have for a 4th OF. Unless The Reds want give up Chapman for him straight up.
Quote from: Oleg on November 18, 2015, 01:18:11 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 18, 2015, 01:15:57 PM
Coghlan needs to stay if only so I have someone to hate next year. As it stands a lineup of Montero/Rizzo/CastroBaez/Russell/Bryant/Schwarber/UNKNOWN CF/Soler is way too likeable. I mean, I expect Miggy's bat to continue to degrade and make me sad but I can't see myself straight up hating that guy.
Deep down, in places I don't admit at parties, I need Coghlan and his stupid asshole face on that team.
He should also be fairly valuable in relation to what he'll cost. Getting a player of his ilk on the open market will eat into resources that could be used elsewhere.
For a team that's planning on competing for a World Series, he's a really good asset to have for a 4th OF. Unless The Reds want give up Chapman for him straight up.
Plus I get to chuckle each time he's not in the lineup at the visual Eli put in my head of David Ross trying to comfort Coghlan with a noogie and Coghlan losing his shit.
Quote from: Oleg on November 18, 2015, 01:18:11 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 18, 2015, 01:15:57 PM
Coghlan needs to stay if only so I have someone to hate next year. As it stands a lineup of Montero/Rizzo/CastroBaez/Russell/Bryant/Schwarber/UNKNOWN CF/Soler is way too likeable. I mean, I expect Miggy's bat to continue to degrade and make me sad but I can't see myself straight up hating that guy.
Deep down, in places I don't admit at parties, I need Coghlan and his stupid asshole face on that team.
He should also be fairly valuable in relation to what he'll cost. Getting a player of his ilk on the open market will eat into resources that could be used elsewhere.
For a team that's planning on competing for a World Series, he's a really good asset to have for a 4th OF. Unless The Reds want give up Chapman for him straight up.
A clubhouse with Chapman and Rizzo should be a reality show.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 18, 2015, 02:03:54 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 18, 2015, 01:18:11 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 18, 2015, 01:15:57 PM
Coghlan needs to stay if only so I have someone to hate next year. As it stands a lineup of Montero/Rizzo/CastroBaez/Russell/Bryant/Schwarber/UNKNOWN CF/Soler is way too likeable. I mean, I expect Miggy's bat to continue to degrade and make me sad but I can't see myself straight up hating that guy.
Deep down, in places I don't admit at parties, I need Coghlan and his stupid asshole face on that team.
He should also be fairly valuable in relation to what he'll cost. Getting a player of his ilk on the open market will eat into resources that could be used elsewhere.
For a team that's planning on competing for a World Series, he's a really good asset to have for a 4th OF. Unless The Reds want give up Chapman for him straight up.
A clubhouse with Chapman and Rizzo should be a reality show.
I'm willing to be that would be solved with like two seconds of "oh hey sorry I threw at your teammate" "yeah it's baseball, that shit happens". Fin.
Quote from: SKO on November 18, 2015, 02:05:02 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 18, 2015, 02:03:54 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 18, 2015, 01:18:11 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 18, 2015, 01:15:57 PM
Coghlan needs to stay if only so I have someone to hate next year. As it stands a lineup of Montero/Rizzo/CastroBaez/Russell/Bryant/Schwarber/UNKNOWN CF/Soler is way too likeable. I mean, I expect Miggy's bat to continue to degrade and make me sad but I can't see myself straight up hating that guy.
Deep down, in places I don't admit at parties, I need Coghlan and his stupid asshole face on that team.
He should also be fairly valuable in relation to what he'll cost. Getting a player of his ilk on the open market will eat into resources that could be used elsewhere.
For a team that's planning on competing for a World Series, he's a really good asset to have for a 4th OF. Unless The Reds want give up Chapman for him straight up.
A clubhouse with Chapman and Rizzo should be a reality show.
I'm willing to be that would be solved with like two seconds of "oh hey sorry I threw at your teammate" "yeah it's baseball, that shit happens". Fin.
"Pick someone on the Reds you want me to hit with a 102 mph heater and we'll call it even."
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 18, 2015, 02:23:15 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 18, 2015, 02:05:02 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 18, 2015, 02:03:54 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 18, 2015, 01:18:11 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 18, 2015, 01:15:57 PM
Coghlan needs to stay if only so I have someone to hate next year. As it stands a lineup of Montero/Rizzo/CastroBaez/Russell/Bryant/Schwarber/UNKNOWN CF/Soler is way too likeable. I mean, I expect Miggy's bat to continue to degrade and make me sad but I can't see myself straight up hating that guy.
Deep down, in places I don't admit at parties, I need Coghlan and his stupid asshole face on that team.
He should also be fairly valuable in relation to what he'll cost. Getting a player of his ilk on the open market will eat into resources that could be used elsewhere.
For a team that's planning on competing for a World Series, he's a really good asset to have for a 4th OF. Unless The Reds want give up Chapman for him straight up.
A clubhouse with Chapman and Rizzo should be a reality show.
I'm willing to be that would be solved with like two seconds of "oh hey sorry I threw at your teammate" "yeah it's baseball, that shit happens". Fin.
"Pick someone on the Reds you want me to hit with a 102 mph heater and we'll call it even."
INTREPID READER TONKER: How about that gobby cunt Votto?
Quote from: SKO on November 18, 2015, 02:27:59 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 18, 2015, 02:23:15 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 18, 2015, 02:05:02 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 18, 2015, 02:03:54 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 18, 2015, 01:18:11 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 18, 2015, 01:15:57 PM
Coghlan needs to stay if only so I have someone to hate next year. As it stands a lineup of Montero/Rizzo/CastroBaez/Russell/Bryant/Schwarber/UNKNOWN CF/Soler is way too likeable. I mean, I expect Miggy's bat to continue to degrade and make me sad but I can't see myself straight up hating that guy.
Deep down, in places I don't admit at parties, I need Coghlan and his stupid asshole face on that team.
He should also be fairly valuable in relation to what he'll cost. Getting a player of his ilk on the open market will eat into resources that could be used elsewhere.
For a team that's planning on competing for a World Series, he's a really good asset to have for a 4th OF. Unless The Reds want give up Chapman for him straight up.
A clubhouse with Chapman and Rizzo should be a reality show.
I'm willing to be that would be solved with like two seconds of "oh hey sorry I threw at your teammate" "yeah it's baseball, that shit happens". Fin.
"Pick someone on the Reds you want me to hit with a 102 mph heater and we'll call it even."
INTREPID READER TONKER: How about that gobby cunt Votto?
"Gobby"? As I said. The older I get the less I understand.
Quote from: CBStew on November 18, 2015, 02:46:47 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 18, 2015, 02:27:59 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 18, 2015, 02:23:15 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 18, 2015, 02:05:02 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 18, 2015, 02:03:54 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 18, 2015, 01:18:11 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 18, 2015, 01:15:57 PM
Coghlan needs to stay if only so I have someone to hate next year. As it stands a lineup of Montero/Rizzo/CastroBaez/Russell/Bryant/Schwarber/UNKNOWN CF/Soler is way too likeable. I mean, I expect Miggy's bat to continue to degrade and make me sad but I can't see myself straight up hating that guy.
Deep down, in places I don't admit at parties, I need Coghlan and his stupid asshole face on that team.
He should also be fairly valuable in relation to what he'll cost. Getting a player of his ilk on the open market will eat into resources that could be used elsewhere.
For a team that's planning on competing for a World Series, he's a really good asset to have for a 4th OF. Unless The Reds want give up Chapman for him straight up.
A clubhouse with Chapman and Rizzo should be a reality show.
I'm willing to be that would be solved with like two seconds of "oh hey sorry I threw at your teammate" "yeah it's baseball, that shit happens". Fin.
"Pick someone on the Reds you want me to hit with a 102 mph heater and we'll call it even."
INTREPID READER TONKER: How about that gobby cunt Votto?
"Gobby"? As I said. The older I get the less I understand.
I don't know if it's an age obstacle stew, I think it's more of how familiar you are with Australo-Welsh slang.
Quote from: SKO on November 18, 2015, 01:19:32 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 18, 2015, 01:18:11 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 18, 2015, 01:15:57 PM
Coghlan needs to stay if only so I have someone to hate next year. As it stands a lineup of Montero/Rizzo/CastroBaez/Russell/Bryant/Schwarber/UNKNOWN CF/Soler is way too likeable. I mean, I expect Miggy's bat to continue to degrade and make me sad but I can't see myself straight up hating that guy.
Deep down, in places I don't admit at parties, I need Coghlan and his stupid asshole face on that team.
He should also be fairly valuable in relation to what he'll cost. Getting a player of his ilk on the open market will eat into resources that could be used elsewhere.
For a team that's planning on competing for a World Series, he's a really good asset to have for a 4th OF. Unless The Reds want give up Chapman for him straight up.
Plus I get to chuckle each time he's not in the lineup at the visual Eli put in my head of David Ross trying to comfort Coghlan with a noogie and Coghlan losing his shit.
This mental image is outstanding.
Quote from: SKO on November 18, 2015, 02:27:59 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 18, 2015, 02:23:15 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 18, 2015, 02:05:02 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 18, 2015, 02:03:54 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 18, 2015, 01:18:11 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 18, 2015, 01:15:57 PM
Coghlan needs to stay if only so I have someone to hate next year. As it stands a lineup of Montero/Rizzo/CastroBaez/Russell/Bryant/Schwarber/UNKNOWN CF/Soler is way too likeable. I mean, I expect Miggy's bat to continue to degrade and make me sad but I can't see myself straight up hating that guy.
Deep down, in places I don't admit at parties, I need Coghlan and his stupid asshole face on that team.
He should also be fairly valuable in relation to what he'll cost. Getting a player of his ilk on the open market will eat into resources that could be used elsewhere.
For a team that's planning on competing for a World Series, he's a really good asset to have for a 4th OF. Unless The Reds want give up Chapman for him straight up.
A clubhouse with Chapman and Rizzo should be a reality show.
I'm willing to be that would be solved with like two seconds of "oh hey sorry I threw at your teammate" "yeah it's baseball, that shit happens". Fin.
"Pick someone on the Reds you want me to hit with a 102 mph heater and we'll call it even."
INTREPID READER TONKER: How about that gobby cunt Votto?
I literally couldn't have said this better myself.
What's the feeling around trying to acquire Shelby Miller as 4th starter, assuming The Cubs also sign one of the top-tier FAs? He probably wouldn't cost as much as Carrasco or Ross but also isn't as good.
I'm pretty sure last year was his ceiling but, who knows?
Quote from: Oleg on November 19, 2015, 09:59:02 AM
What's the feeling around trying to acquire Shelby Miller as 4th starter, assuming The Cubs also sign one of the top-tier FAs? He probably wouldn't cost as much as Carrasco or Ross but also isn't as good.
I'm pretty sure last year was his ceiling but, who knows?
I've been wondering if there's a fit with any of the young Rays pitchers. Odorizzi, Smyly, Karns all would make sense, but I wouldn't give up Soler for any of the three, and that seems to be who the Rays would want.
Quote from: Oleg on November 19, 2015, 09:59:02 AM
What's the feeling around trying to acquire Shelby Miller as 4th starter, assuming The Cubs also sign one of the top-tier FAs? He probably wouldn't cost as much as Carrasco or Ross but also isn't as good.
I'm pretty sure last year was his ceiling but, who knows?
Possibly worthless stat: Kyle Hendricks has been worth a win more than Shelby Miller the last two years, despite starting about 20 fewer games and pitching 120 fewer innings.
Quote from: SKO on November 19, 2015, 10:31:36 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 19, 2015, 09:59:02 AM
What's the feeling around trying to acquire Shelby Miller as 4th starter, assuming The Cubs also sign one of the top-tier FAs? He probably wouldn't cost as much as Carrasco or Ross but also isn't as good.
I'm pretty sure last year was his ceiling but, who knows?
I've been wondering if there's a fit with any of the young Rays pitchers. Odorizzi, Smyly, Karns all would make sense, but I wouldn't give up Soler for any of the three, and that seems to be who the Rays would want.
Getting Karns from The Rays would be, literally, impossible. He's now a Mariner.
Quote from: Oleg on November 19, 2015, 10:57:31 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 19, 2015, 10:31:36 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 19, 2015, 09:59:02 AM
What's the feeling around trying to acquire Shelby Miller as 4th starter, assuming The Cubs also sign one of the top-tier FAs? He probably wouldn't cost as much as Carrasco or Ross but also isn't as good.
I'm pretty sure last year was his ceiling but, who knows?
I've been wondering if there's a fit with any of the young Rays pitchers. Odorizzi, Smyly, Karns all would make sense, but I wouldn't give up Soler for any of the three, and that seems to be who the Rays would want.
Getting Karns from The Rays would be, literally, impossible. He's now a Mariner.
Oh wow I totally missed that. Well jeez I feel like if that package got Karns, a perfectly respectable #4 type, the Cubs should be able to land a quality starter without even touching Soler or Baez.
Quote from: SKO on November 19, 2015, 11:02:33 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 19, 2015, 10:57:31 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 19, 2015, 10:31:36 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 19, 2015, 09:59:02 AM
What's the feeling around trying to acquire Shelby Miller as 4th starter, assuming The Cubs also sign one of the top-tier FAs? He probably wouldn't cost as much as Carrasco or Ross but also isn't as good.
I'm pretty sure last year was his ceiling but, who knows?
I've been wondering if there's a fit with any of the young Rays pitchers. Odorizzi, Smyly, Karns all would make sense, but I wouldn't give up Soler for any of the three, and that seems to be who the Rays would want.
Getting Karns from The Rays would be, literally, impossible. He's now a Mariner.
Oh wow I totally missed that. Well jeez I feel like if that package got Karns, a perfectly respectable #4 type, the Cubs should be able to land a quality starter without even touching Soler or Baez.
Odorizzi is interesting. Not expensive, probably. Not sure what The rays would need but someone should ask Hendry's secretary to lob a call. Maybe McKinney plus? Probably more, huh?
Quote from: Oleg on November 19, 2015, 11:07:50 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 19, 2015, 11:02:33 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 19, 2015, 10:57:31 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 19, 2015, 10:31:36 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 19, 2015, 09:59:02 AM
What's the feeling around trying to acquire Shelby Miller as 4th starter, assuming The Cubs also sign one of the top-tier FAs? He probably wouldn't cost as much as Carrasco or Ross but also isn't as good.
I'm pretty sure last year was his ceiling but, who knows?
I've been wondering if there's a fit with any of the young Rays pitchers. Odorizzi, Smyly, Karns all would make sense, but I wouldn't give up Soler for any of the three, and that seems to be who the Rays would want.
Getting Karns from The Rays would be, literally, impossible. He's now a Mariner.
Oh wow I totally missed that. Well jeez I feel like if that package got Karns, a perfectly respectable #4 type, the Cubs should be able to land a quality starter without even touching Soler or Baez.
Odorizzi is interesting. Not expensive, probably. Not sure what The rays would need but someone should ask Hendry's secretary to lob a call. Maybe McKinney plus? Probably more, huh?
Don't the Rays have a reputation of being almost impossible to trade with because their asking prices are so high? I feel like I've heard this, even after Friedman left.
Quote from: Eli on November 19, 2015, 11:24:04 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 19, 2015, 11:07:50 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 19, 2015, 11:02:33 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 19, 2015, 10:57:31 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 19, 2015, 10:31:36 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 19, 2015, 09:59:02 AM
What's the feeling around trying to acquire Shelby Miller as 4th starter, assuming The Cubs also sign one of the top-tier FAs? He probably wouldn't cost as much as Carrasco or Ross but also isn't as good.
I'm pretty sure last year was his ceiling but, who knows?
I've been wondering if there's a fit with any of the young Rays pitchers. Odorizzi, Smyly, Karns all would make sense, but I wouldn't give up Soler for any of the three, and that seems to be who the Rays would want.
Getting Karns from The Rays would be, literally, impossible. He's now a Mariner.
Oh wow I totally missed that. Well jeez I feel like if that package got Karns, a perfectly respectable #4 type, the Cubs should be able to land a quality starter without even touching Soler or Baez.
Odorizzi is interesting. Not expensive, probably. Not sure what The rays would need but someone should ask Hendry's secretary to lob a call. Maybe McKinney plus? Probably more, huh?
Don't the Rays have a reputation of being almost impossible to trade with because their asking prices are so high? I feel like I've heard this, even after Friedman left.
Well Karns didn't seem to cost much, otherwise I guess I don't know. I wasn't even aware that was Friedman's reputation, although he certainly seems to have done well in the trades I can remember him pulling off (Price/Shields/Garza (sigh)). I do remember the Rays being despised in the Pre-Friedman days for unrealistic asking prices, which is why Aubrey Huff languished there forever.
Jake! Leathersnitch! (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/11/cubs-claim-jack-leathersich-waivers.html) The Cubs finally get one of those young Mets pitchers.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 19, 2015, 03:09:19 PM
Jake! Leathersnitch! (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/11/cubs-claim-jack-leathersich-waivers.html) The Cubs finally get one of those young Mets pitchers.
Between this and Andury Acevedo, the Cubs nabbed a couple low-risk guys with the potential of nice return on investment. Not bad.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 19, 2015, 03:34:05 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 19, 2015, 03:09:19 PM
Jake! Leathersnitch! (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/11/cubs-claim-jack-leathersich-waivers.html) The Cubs finally get one of those young Mets pitchers.
Between this and Andury Acevedo, the Cubs nabbed a couple low-risk guys with the potential of nice return on investment. Not bad.
Except they all have to go on the 40 man roster and their 40-man roster crunch is well documented. Epstink is up to something.
Quote from: Oleg on November 19, 2015, 03:44:53 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 19, 2015, 03:34:05 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 19, 2015, 03:09:19 PM
Jake! Leathersnitch! (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/11/cubs-claim-jack-leathersich-waivers.html) The Cubs finally get one of those young Mets pitchers.
Between this and Andury Acevedo, the Cubs nabbed a couple low-risk guys with the potential of nice return on investment. Not bad.
Except they all have to go on the 40 man roster and their 40-man roster crunch is well documented. Epstink is up to something.
Think I read the 40 man is at 32 today.
Yep. 31 once Leatherface is added to the 60-day DL.
Quote from: Oleg on November 19, 2015, 03:44:53 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 19, 2015, 03:34:05 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 19, 2015, 03:09:19 PM
Jake! Leathersnitch! (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/11/cubs-claim-jack-leathersich-waivers.html) The Cubs finally get one of those young Mets pitchers.
Between this and Andury Acevedo, the Cubs nabbed a couple low-risk guys with the potential of nice return on investment. Not bad.
Except they all have to go on the 40 man roster and their 40-man roster crunch is well documented. Epstink is up to something.
If by "something" you mean "putting together a team for 2016", then yeah.
Holy crap, Cumberbatch has averaged 15.2 K/9 in the minors. Here's hoping Chris Bosio and company can fix his control issues (4.9 BB/9) and turn him into another bullpen monster picked up on the cheap.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 19, 2015, 04:22:56 PM
Holy crap, Cumberbatch has averaged 15.2 K/9 in the minors. Here's hoping Chris Bosio and company can fix his control issues (4.9 BB/9) and turn him into another bullpen monster picked up on the cheap.
NO
Quote from: PenFoe on November 19, 2015, 05:19:09 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 19, 2015, 04:22:56 PM
Holy crap, Cumberbatch has averaged 15.2 K/9 in the minors. Here's hoping Chris Bosio and company can fix his control issues (4.9 BB/9) and turn him into another bullpen monster picked up on the cheap.
NO
How can you even type with Snork's dong hanging out of your mouth?
As a general rule I don't believe anything Dave Kaplan says. (http://www.bleachernation.com/2015/11/23/dave-kaplan-busts-out-the-rumors-price-heyward-samardzija-montero-lackey-more/)
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 23, 2015, 11:47:59 PM
As a general rule I don't believe anything Dave Kaplan says. (http://www.bleachernation.com/2015/11/23/dave-kaplan-busts-out-the-rumors-price-heyward-samardzija-montero-lackey-more/)
Actually Kaplan is usually pretty locked in on rumors. He reported that the Cubs had offered Lester 7 years and 135 million+ early in the offseason last year and stood by it as Gordo said he heard it was nowhere near that blah blah.
It's Kaplan's opinion that's completely fucking worthless.
DPD, but I am going to hope they floated the Lackey rumors just to get us all willing to accept Snork back with open arms, because fuck John Lackey.
Quote from: SKO on November 24, 2015, 07:24:50 AM
DPD, but I am going to hope they floated the Lackey rumors just to get us all willing to accept Snork back with open arms, because fuck John Lackey.
Would rather have Lackey than Snork. Would rather have both than part with Soler.
Quote from: InternetApex on November 24, 2015, 07:53:27 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 24, 2015, 07:24:50 AM
DPD, but I am going to hope they floated the Lackey rumors just to get us all willing to accept Snork back with open arms, because fuck John Lackey.
Would rather have Lackey than Snork. Would rather have both than part with Soler.
I really don't think Jorge will be traded.
Quote from: SKO on November 24, 2015, 07:54:52 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on November 24, 2015, 07:53:27 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 24, 2015, 07:24:50 AM
DPD, but I am going to hope they floated the Lackey rumors just to get us all willing to accept Snork back with open arms, because fuck John Lackey.
Would rather have Lackey than Snork. Would rather have both than part with Soler.
I really don't think Jorge will be traded.
I think he might, but the Cubs would have to get a cost-controlled top-of-the-rotation guy to come in and be the #3. And I'm not sure any team that has one of those would give him up for a guy with great hitting skills and twangy hamstrings.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 24, 2015, 08:10:38 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 24, 2015, 07:54:52 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on November 24, 2015, 07:53:27 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 24, 2015, 07:24:50 AM
DPD, but I am going to hope they floated the Lackey rumors just to get us all willing to accept Snork back with open arms, because fuck John Lackey.
Would rather have Lackey than Snork. Would rather have both than part with Soler.
I really don't think Jorge will be traded.
I think he might, but the Cubs would have to get a cost-controlled top-of-the-rotation guy to come in and be the #3. And I'm not sure any team that has one of those would give him up for a guy with great hitting skills and twangy hamstrings.
Which would obviously set up the play action
Great arm, some declining velocity, little command/control. Sounds like the perfect Bosio reclamation project. (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/11/rex-brothers-trade-rockies-cubs.html)
Quote from: Oleg on November 25, 2015, 01:35:37 PM
Great arm, some declining velocity, little command/control. Sounds like the perfect Bosio reclamation project. (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/11/rex-brothers-trade-rockies-cubs.html)
I like Brothers. (pause) This does seem a perfect fit for Bosio to work his Wizardry. Or not. What's the risk?
Quote from: InternetApex on November 25, 2015, 01:48:08 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 25, 2015, 01:35:37 PM
Great arm, some declining velocity, little command/control. Sounds like the perfect Bosio reclamation project. (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/11/rex-brothers-trade-rockies-cubs.html)
I like Brothers. (pause) This does seem a perfect fit for Bosio to work his Wizardry. Or not. What's the risk?
Nothing.
Quote from: Oleg on November 25, 2015, 01:35:37 PM
Great arm, some declining velocity, little command/control. Sounds like the perfect Bosio reclamation project. (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/11/rex-brothers-trade-rockies-cubs.html)
This is a trade by Theo Epstein. The name of this trade is Brothers.
I don't understand. Cubs acquire Rex Brothers, yet as as far as I can make out, there's only one of them.
Quote from: Tonker on November 25, 2015, 02:47:56 PM
I don't understand. Cubs acquire Rex Brothers, yet as as far as I can make out, there's only one of them.
The second one appears after your fourth Malort.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 23, 2015, 11:47:59 PM
As a general rule I don't believe anything Dave Kaplan says. (http://www.bleachernation.com/2015/11/23/dave-kaplan-busts-out-the-rumors-price-heyward-samardzija-montero-lackey-more/)
Bonertime is back on.
QuoteThe Cubs, Cardinals, Dodgers, Giants and Red Sox are showing the most interest in left-hander David Price, reports Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports. Rosenthal adds that while Price enjoyed his time in Toronto, the Blue Jays "are not expected to be a major factor in his free agency," which isn't necessarily a surprise considering the team's previous reluctance to commit the type of expenditure Price will command to any player.
Quote from: Tonker on November 25, 2015, 02:47:56 PM
I don't understand. Cubs acquire Rex Brothers, yet as as far as I can make out, there's only one of them.
For some reason, when I first read this I assumed that it was Stew who'd authored it.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 25, 2015, 06:21:35 PM
Quote... which isn't necessarily a surprise considering the team's previous reluctance to commit the type of expenditure Price will command to any player.
This would have been a good candidate for the Totally Unreadable thread.
Quote from: Eli on November 26, 2015, 10:44:29 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 25, 2015, 06:21:35 PM
... which isn't necessarily a surprise considering the team's previous reluctance to commit the type of expenditure Price will command to any player.
This would have been a good candidate for the Totally Unreadable thread.
Which thread is for omitting the quote to make it look like I wrote it?
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 26, 2015, 11:21:37 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 26, 2015, 10:44:29 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 25, 2015, 06:21:35 PM
... which isn't necessarily a surprise considering the team's previous reluctance to commit the type of expenditure Price will command to any player.
This would have been a good candidate for the Totally Unreadable thread.
Which thread is for omitting the quote to make it look like I wrote it?
The one where we assume people won't remember something from two posts ago, I guess. But I fixed it anyway because I don't want to hurt your #brand around these parts. Happy Thanksgiving.
Quote from: Eli on November 26, 2015, 11:28:42 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 26, 2015, 11:21:37 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 26, 2015, 10:44:29 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 25, 2015, 06:21:35 PM
... which isn't necessarily a surprise considering the team's previous reluctance to commit the type of expenditure Price will command to any player.
This would have been a good candidate for the Totally Unreadable thread.
Which thread is for omitting the quote to make it look like I wrote it?
The one where we assume people won't remember something from two posts ago, I guess. But I fixed it anyway because I don't want to hurt your #brand around these parts. Happy Thanksgiving.
I'm just here for the Price party, that's all. Happy Thanksgiving.
Zimmerman got 5/100 from the Tigers. Hap got 3/36 from Toronto.
Guessing Snork slots in closer to Happ.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 30, 2015, 08:33:30 AM
Zimmerman got 5/100 from the Tigers. Hap got 3/36 from Toronto.
Guessing Snork slots in closer to Happ.
I hate Snork but not even I think he's only going to get 3/36.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 30, 2015, 08:33:30 AM
Zimmerman got 5/110 from the Tigers. Hap got 3/36 from Toronto.
Guessing Snork slots in closer to Happ.
Minor correction, but yes.
The Cubs TV deal not being up until the end of 2019 looks to be a potential problem. (Second item (http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/jordan-zimmermann-signs-with-detroit-tigers-hot-stove-rumors-free-agency-cubs-cardinals-112915))
Jim Duquette over at mlb.com has a Cubs/Braves trade proposal (http://m.mlb.com/news/article/158170980/5-mlb-trades-that-make-sense) that I'd hope Jepstink would do in a heartbeat.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 30, 2015, 11:07:15 AM
Jim Duquette over at mlb.com has a Cubs/Braves trade proposal (http://m.mlb.com/news/article/158170980/5-mlb-trades-that-make-sense) that I'd hope Jepstink would do in a heartbeat.
I hate the idea of giving up Contreras--since I don't think Schwarber will pan out at Catcher-- but I don't hate the idea of acquiring a 25-year old Shelby Miller.
Quote from: PANK! on November 30, 2015, 11:24:26 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 30, 2015, 11:07:15 AM
Jim Duquette over at mlb.com has a Cubs/Braves trade proposal (http://m.mlb.com/news/article/158170980/5-mlb-trades-that-make-sense) that I'd hope Jepstink would do in a heartbeat.
I hate the idea of giving up Contreras--since I don't think Schwarber will pan out at Catcher-- but I don't hate the idea of acquiring a 25-year old Shelby Miller.
I would absolutely make that trade. I'm still not sure how good Contreras is, given that he blossomed so late (I think there's more to his sucess than him simply tearing up AA because he's 23, and scouts do seem to like him, but I still question if
some of his success might just come from being older than most guys at that level), but I think parting for him to get a quality #3 with multiple years of control left is worth it.
Quote from: PANK! on November 30, 2015, 11:24:26 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 30, 2015, 11:07:15 AM
Jim Duquette over at mlb.com has a Cubs/Braves trade proposal (http://m.mlb.com/news/article/158170980/5-mlb-trades-that-make-sense) that I'd hope Jepstink would do in a heartbeat.
I hate the idea of giving up Contreras--since I don't think Schwarber will pan out at Catcher-- but I don't hate the idea of acquiring a 25-year old Shelby Miller.
The objective of a farm system is to provide players to the major league club. This trade would do that.
Contreras is still at least one full season away. Miller can step into the #3 spot now.
Quote from: PANK! on November 30, 2015, 11:24:26 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 30, 2015, 11:07:15 AM
Jim Duquette over at mlb.com has a Cubs/Braves trade proposal (http://m.mlb.com/news/article/158170980/5-mlb-trades-that-make-sense) that I'd hope Jepstink would do in a heartbeat.
I hate the idea of giving up Contreras--since I don't think Schwarber will pan out at Catcher-- but I don't hate the idea of acquiring a 25-year old Shelby Miller.
I don't have much insight on Contreras beyond his recent hype, but he's really the only long-term catching option in the organization at the moment. I'd imagine they're really hesitant to give him up.
Quote from: Eli on November 30, 2015, 11:29:47 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 30, 2015, 11:24:26 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 30, 2015, 11:07:15 AM
Jim Duquette over at mlb.com has a Cubs/Braves trade proposal (http://m.mlb.com/news/article/158170980/5-mlb-trades-that-make-sense) that I'd hope Jepstink would do in a heartbeat.
I hate the idea of giving up Contreras--since I don't think Schwarber will pan out at Catcher-- but I don't hate the idea of acquiring a 25-year old Shelby Miller.
I don't have much insight on Contreras beyond his recent hype, but he's really the only long-term catching option in the organization at the moment. I'd imagine they're really hesitant to give him up.
Shelby Miller? Meh.
2015 Miller - 3.45 FIP; 7.5/3.2 K/BB; 205 IP; 3.02 ERA
2015 Hendricks - 3.36 FIP; 8.3/2.2 K/BB; 180 IP; 3.54 ERA
I think it may be a good trade but I think The Cubs could do better at #3.
Quote from: Eli on November 30, 2015, 11:29:47 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 30, 2015, 11:24:26 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 30, 2015, 11:07:15 AM
Jim Duquette over at mlb.com has a Cubs/Braves trade proposal (http://m.mlb.com/news/article/158170980/5-mlb-trades-that-make-sense) that I'd hope Jepstink would do in a heartbeat.
I hate the idea of giving up Contreras--since I don't think Schwarber will pan out at Catcher-- but I don't hate the idea of acquiring a 25-year old Shelby Miller.
I don't have much insight on Contreras beyond his recent hype, but he's really the only long-term catching option in the organization at the moment. I'd imagine they're really hesitant to give him up.
Yeah. I would have to assume any trade like this would be predicated on a second deal for some form of catching prospect also being set up simultaneously.
Quote from: Eli on November 30, 2015, 11:29:47 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 30, 2015, 11:24:26 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 30, 2015, 11:07:15 AM
Jim Duquette over at mlb.com has a Cubs/Braves trade proposal (http://m.mlb.com/news/article/158170980/5-mlb-trades-that-make-sense) that I'd hope Jepstink would do in a heartbeat.
I hate the idea of giving up Contreras--since I don't think Schwarber will pan out at Catcher-- but I don't hate the idea of acquiring a 25-year old Shelby Miller.
I don't have much insight on Contreras beyond his recent hype, but he's really the only long-term catching option in the organization at the moment. I'd imagine they're really hesitant to give him up.
They also have Victor Caratini in their system. I don't know if he projects as quite the offensive player that Contreras does, but with a team that has Rizzo, Schwarber, Bryant et.al. that may not be necessary. And besides, Caratini already seems to have good plate discipline (.342 OBP last year to go with a .257 BA and a .372 SLG (woof)). It's possible that he might have some pop by the time he arrives. He'll be 22 next year.
Can I request that we stop comparing all pitchers to Kyle Hendricks to make a point about either that pitcher or Kyle Hendricks because I think we should all just agree that Kyle Hendricks numbers are fucking bullshit.
Quote from: PANK! on November 30, 2015, 11:46:43 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 30, 2015, 11:29:47 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 30, 2015, 11:24:26 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 30, 2015, 11:07:15 AM
Jim Duquette over at mlb.com has a Cubs/Braves trade proposal (http://m.mlb.com/news/article/158170980/5-mlb-trades-that-make-sense) that I'd hope Jepstink would do in a heartbeat.
I hate the idea of giving up Contreras--since I don't think Schwarber will pan out at Catcher-- but I don't hate the idea of acquiring a 25-year old Shelby Miller.
I don't have much insight on Contreras beyond his recent hype, but he's really the only long-term catching option in the organization at the moment. I'd imagine they're really hesitant to give him up.
They also have Victor Caratini in their system. I don't know if he projects as quite the offensive player that Contreras does, but with a team that has Rizzo, Schwarber, Bryant et.al. that may not be necessary. And besides, Caratini already seems to have good plate discipline (.342 OBP last year to go with a .257 BA and a .372 SLG (woof)). It's possible that he might have some pop by the time he arrives. He'll be 22 next year.
If there's some sort of catching equivalent for Chris Bosio, get him and tie him to Schwarber. Man, if he can be a passable catcher, the world is wide open.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 30, 2015, 11:48:32 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 30, 2015, 11:46:43 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 30, 2015, 11:29:47 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 30, 2015, 11:24:26 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 30, 2015, 11:07:15 AM
Jim Duquette over at mlb.com has a Cubs/Braves trade proposal (http://m.mlb.com/news/article/158170980/5-mlb-trades-that-make-sense) that I'd hope Jepstink would do in a heartbeat.
I hate the idea of giving up Contreras--since I don't think Schwarber will pan out at Catcher-- but I don't hate the idea of acquiring a 25-year old Shelby Miller.
I don't have much insight on Contreras beyond his recent hype, but he's really the only long-term catching option in the organization at the moment. I'd imagine they're really hesitant to give him up.
They also have Victor Caratini in their system. I don't know if he projects as quite the offensive player that Contreras does, but with a team that has Rizzo, Schwarber, Bryant et.al. that may not be necessary. And besides, Caratini already seems to have good plate discipline (.342 OBP last year to go with a .257 BA and a .372 SLG (woof)). It's possible that he might have some pop by the time he arrives. He'll be 22 next year.
If there's some sort of catching equivalent for Chris Bosio, get him and tie him to Schwarber. Man, if he can be a passable catcher, the world is wide open.
I don't see this happening mainly because the timing is not right. Schwarber's bat got him to the bigs way before he had a chance to learn to play catcher and I don't think they'll be able to make him a catcher in 1 Spring Training. I'd rather they let that ship sail and focus on Kyle camping under 25,000 fly balls between now and Opening Day in the hopes that he can just play left for several years.
Forcing him to catch will also shorten his career and I don't think you want to do that with his bat. Put him in left and hope he can hold it down for longer than Eli expects. If not, pray that the DH arrives by the time he's useless out there.
Quote from: SKO on November 30, 2015, 11:47:26 AM
Can I request that we stop comparing all pitchers to Kyle Hendricks to make a point about either that pitcher or Kyle Hendricks because I think we should all just agree that Kyle Hendricks numbers are fucking bullshit.
What makes his numbers bullshit?
I compared them because Hendricks is a good comp. Hendricks was far less "lucky" last year than Miller and Miller's peripherals have been in a bit of a decline since his rookie year. I'm sorry that comp doesn't match you narrative (for whatever reason) but The Cubs already have a Shelby Miller.
because really I don't care how meatball it is I think it's fair to say there is a difference between Shelby Miller and Kyle Hendricks even if their FIPs are similar or even if some peripherals favor Hendricks because Miller has an actual major league fastball and he doesn't have the mogwai-esque set of rules one needs to coax the most out of Kyle Hendricks (don't ever let him face a better three times, remove him before the 7th inning even if he's only thrown 75 pitches because he will get hammered regardless, don't pitch him when the wind is blowing out, don't feed him after midnight, don't tell him that Dartmouth lost to Princeton in squash or he'll get that sad puppy dog face).
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 30, 2015, 11:48:32 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 30, 2015, 11:46:43 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 30, 2015, 11:29:47 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 30, 2015, 11:24:26 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 30, 2015, 11:07:15 AM
Jim Duquette over at mlb.com has a Cubs/Braves trade proposal (http://m.mlb.com/news/article/158170980/5-mlb-trades-that-make-sense) that I'd hope Jepstink would do in a heartbeat.
I hate the idea of giving up Contreras--since I don't think Schwarber will pan out at Catcher-- but I don't hate the idea of acquiring a 25-year old Shelby Miller.
I don't have much insight on Contreras beyond his recent hype, but he's really the only long-term catching option in the organization at the moment. I'd imagine they're really hesitant to give him up.
They also have Victor Caratini in their system. I don't know if he projects as quite the offensive player that Contreras does, but with a team that has Rizzo, Schwarber, Bryant et.al. that may not be necessary. And besides, Caratini already seems to have good plate discipline (.342 OBP last year to go with a .257 BA and a .372 SLG (woof)). It's possible that he might have some pop by the time he arrives. He'll be 22 next year.
If there's some sort of catching equivalent for Chris Bosio, get him and tie him to Schwarber. Man, if he can be a passable catcher, the world is wide open.
I want Schwarber to focus 100% on becoming passable in left field. Trying to fix his problems at multiple positions is only going to delay his improvement.
Quote from: SKO on November 30, 2015, 11:54:04 AM
because really I don't care how meatball it is I think it's fair to say there is a difference between Shelby Miller and Kyle Hendricks even if their FIPs are similar or even if some peripherals favor Hendricks because Miller has an actual major league fastball and he doesn't have the mogwai-esque set of rules one needs to coax the most out of Kyle Hendricks (don't ever let him face a better three times, remove him before the 7th inning even if he's only thrown 75 pitches because he will get hammered regardless, don't pitch him when the wind is blowing out, don't feed him after midnight, don't tell him that Dartmouth lost to Princeton in squash or he'll get that sad puppy dog face).
I don't care how meatball you are. But I very much care about how unmeatball the FO is.
And, if Miller's fastball is so much better than Hendricks's, why isn't he getting the results one would expect compared to Hendricks?
By the way, Miller has similar issues 3rd time through the order that Hendricks does, just not as pronounced.
Quote from: Oleg on November 30, 2015, 12:02:39 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 30, 2015, 11:54:04 AM
because really I don't care how meatball it is I think it's fair to say there is a difference between Shelby Miller and Kyle Hendricks even if their FIPs are similar or even if some peripherals favor Hendricks because Miller has an actual major league fastball and he doesn't have the mogwai-esque set of rules one needs to coax the most out of Kyle Hendricks (don't ever let him face a better three times, remove him before the 7th inning even if he's only thrown 75 pitches because he will get hammered regardless, don't pitch him when the wind is blowing out, don't feed him after midnight, don't tell him that Dartmouth lost to Princeton in squash or he'll get that sad puppy dog face).
I don't care how meatball you are. But I very much care about how unmeatball the FO is.
And, if Miller's fastball is so much better than Hendricks's, why isn't he getting the results one would expect compared to Hendricks?
By the way, Miller has similar issues 3rd time through the order that Hendricks does, just not as pronounced.
Is it wrong that is what I want? To me that difference between 180 IP and 205 IP between the two is kinda big. I feel like the Cubs really need that third guy they can count to get 6 innings after Lester and Arrieta. I won't deny that Hendricks can be tremendously valuable in those 5 innings that he does pitch, but after seeing the mounting strain that came in the second half and in the playoffs from constantly needing 15+ outs from the bullpen, I'd like at least one more guy that can go deeper into games, even if his peripherals say he's not really "better" than Kyle.
I also want that because I just don't expect the Cubs to get the flukishly great long relief that they got last year out of guys like Cahill/Wood/Richard. Even if they bring some or all of those guys back, I just don't buy that they can consistently win as many games as they did last year while getting 5 IP or fewer from their starters so often.
So yeah, meatball or no I think it's fine to consider Miller a better pitcher than Hendricks, however negligible the difference in their peripherals may be, just becuase he's managed to go deeper into games on a more consistent basis.
Quote from: SKO on November 30, 2015, 12:07:57 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 30, 2015, 12:02:39 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 30, 2015, 11:54:04 AM
because really I don't care how meatball it is I think it's fair to say there is a difference between Shelby Miller and Kyle Hendricks even if their FIPs are similar or even if some peripherals favor Hendricks because Miller has an actual major league fastball and he doesn't have the mogwai-esque set of rules one needs to coax the most out of Kyle Hendricks (don't ever let him face a better three times, remove him before the 7th inning even if he's only thrown 75 pitches because he will get hammered regardless, don't pitch him when the wind is blowing out, don't feed him after midnight, don't tell him that Dartmouth lost to Princeton in squash or he'll get that sad puppy dog face).
I don't care how meatball you are. But I very much care about how unmeatball the FO is.
And, if Miller's fastball is so much better than Hendricks's, why isn't he getting the results one would expect compared to Hendricks?
By the way, Miller has similar issues 3rd time through the order that Hendricks does, just not as pronounced.
Is it wrong that is what I want? To me that difference between 180 IP and 205 IP between the two is kinda big. I feel like the Cubs really need that third guy they can count to get 6 innings after Lester and Arrieta. I won't deny that Hendricks can be tremendously valuable in those 5 innings that he does pitch, but after seeing the mounting strain that came in the second half and in the playoffs from constantly needing 15+ outs from the bullpen, I'd like at least one more guy that can go deeper into games, even if his peripherals say he's not really "better" than Kyle.
I also want that because I just don't expect the Cubs to get the flukishly great long relief that they got last year out of guys like Cahill/Wood/Richard. Even if they bring some or all of those guys back, I just don't buy that they can consistently win as many games as they did last year while getting 5 IP or fewer from their starters so often.
So yeah, meatball or no I think it's fine to consider Miller a better pitcher than Hendricks, however negligible the difference in their peripherals may be, just becuase he's managed to go deeper into games on a more consistent basis.
I think it's great to want that. I want that too. I just don't think that Miller is that guy. I want someone better.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 30, 2015, 11:48:32 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 30, 2015, 11:46:43 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 30, 2015, 11:29:47 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 30, 2015, 11:24:26 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 30, 2015, 11:07:15 AM
Jim Duquette over at mlb.com has a Cubs/Braves trade proposal (http://m.mlb.com/news/article/158170980/5-mlb-trades-that-make-sense) that I'd hope Jepstink would do in a heartbeat.
I hate the idea of giving up Contreras--since I don't think Schwarber will pan out at Catcher-- but I don't hate the idea of acquiring a 25-year old Shelby Miller.
I don't have much insight on Contreras beyond his recent hype, but he's really the only long-term catching option in the organization at the moment. I'd imagine they're really hesitant to give him up.
They also have Victor Caratini in their system. I don't know if he projects as quite the offensive player that Contreras does, but with a team that has Rizzo, Schwarber, Bryant et.al. that may not be necessary. And besides, Caratini already seems to have good plate discipline (.342 OBP last year to go with a .257 BA and a .372 SLG (woof)). It's possible that he might have some pop by the time he arrives. He'll be 22 next year.
If there's some sort of catching equivalent for Chris Bosio, get him and tie him to Schwarber. Man, if he can be a passable catcher, the world is wide open.
(http://www.desipio.com/images/blanco_henry.JPG)
Quote from: Oleg on November 30, 2015, 12:13:54 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 30, 2015, 12:07:57 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 30, 2015, 12:02:39 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 30, 2015, 11:54:04 AM
because really I don't care how meatball it is I think it's fair to say there is a difference between Shelby Miller and Kyle Hendricks even if their FIPs are similar or even if some peripherals favor Hendricks because Miller has an actual major league fastball and he doesn't have the mogwai-esque set of rules one needs to coax the most out of Kyle Hendricks (don't ever let him face a better three times, remove him before the 7th inning even if he's only thrown 75 pitches because he will get hammered regardless, don't pitch him when the wind is blowing out, don't feed him after midnight, don't tell him that Dartmouth lost to Princeton in squash or he'll get that sad puppy dog face).
I don't care how meatball you are. But I very much care about how unmeatball the FO is.
And, if Miller's fastball is so much better than Hendricks's, why isn't he getting the results one would expect compared to Hendricks?
By the way, Miller has similar issues 3rd time through the order that Hendricks does, just not as pronounced.
Is it wrong that is what I want? To me that difference between 180 IP and 205 IP between the two is kinda big. I feel like the Cubs really need that third guy they can count to get 6 innings after Lester and Arrieta. I won't deny that Hendricks can be tremendously valuable in those 5 innings that he does pitch, but after seeing the mounting strain that came in the second half and in the playoffs from constantly needing 15+ outs from the bullpen, I'd like at least one more guy that can go deeper into games, even if his peripherals say he's not really "better" than Kyle.
I also want that because I just don't expect the Cubs to get the flukishly great long relief that they got last year out of guys like Cahill/Wood/Richard. Even if they bring some or all of those guys back, I just don't buy that they can consistently win as many games as they did last year while getting 5 IP or fewer from their starters so often.
So yeah, meatball or no I think it's fine to consider Miller a better pitcher than Hendricks, however negligible the difference in their peripherals may be, just becuase he's managed to go deeper into games on a more consistent basis.
I think it's great to want that. I want that too. I just don't think that Miller is that guy. I want someone better.
This. I really don't want Shelby Miller or Jeff Samardzija to be the best starter the Cubs acquire this offseason. I want someone like that to be the 2nd best starter they acquire.
Quote from: Eli on November 30, 2015, 11:54:13 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 30, 2015, 11:48:32 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 30, 2015, 11:46:43 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 30, 2015, 11:29:47 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 30, 2015, 11:24:26 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 30, 2015, 11:07:15 AM
Jim Duquette over at mlb.com has a Cubs/Braves trade proposal (http://m.mlb.com/news/article/158170980/5-mlb-trades-that-make-sense) that I'd hope Jepstink would do in a heartbeat.
I hate the idea of giving up Contreras--since I don't think Schwarber will pan out at Catcher-- but I don't hate the idea of acquiring a 25-year old Shelby Miller.
I don't have much insight on Contreras beyond his recent hype, but he's really the only long-term catching option in the organization at the moment. I'd imagine they're really hesitant to give him up.
They also have Victor Caratini in their system. I don't know if he projects as quite the offensive player that Contreras does, but with a team that has Rizzo, Schwarber, Bryant et.al. that may not be necessary. And besides, Caratini already seems to have good plate discipline (.342 OBP last year to go with a .257 BA and a .372 SLG (woof)). It's possible that he might have some pop by the time he arrives. He'll be 22 next year.
If there's some sort of catching equivalent for Chris Bosio, get him and tie him to Schwarber. Man, if he can be a passable catcher, the world is wide open.
I want Schwarber to focus 100% on becoming passable in left field. Trying to fix his problems at multiple positions is only going to delay his improvement.
This. And I wish people understood the concept that catchers tend to get beaten up so badly that putting a guy with 50-homer potential behind the dish is dumber than owl shit. Stop doing this.
Quote from: R-V on November 30, 2015, 01:17:19 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 30, 2015, 12:13:54 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 30, 2015, 12:07:57 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 30, 2015, 12:02:39 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 30, 2015, 11:54:04 AM
because really I don't care how meatball it is I think it's fair to say there is a difference between Shelby Miller and Kyle Hendricks even if their FIPs are similar or even if some peripherals favor Hendricks because Miller has an actual major league fastball and he doesn't have the mogwai-esque set of rules one needs to coax the most out of Kyle Hendricks (don't ever let him face a better three times, remove him before the 7th inning even if he's only thrown 75 pitches because he will get hammered regardless, don't pitch him when the wind is blowing out, don't feed him after midnight, don't tell him that Dartmouth lost to Princeton in squash or he'll get that sad puppy dog face).
I don't care how meatball you are. But I very much care about how unmeatball the FO is.
And, if Miller's fastball is so much better than Hendricks's, why isn't he getting the results one would expect compared to Hendricks?
By the way, Miller has similar issues 3rd time through the order that Hendricks does, just not as pronounced.
Is it wrong that is what I want? To me that difference between 180 IP and 205 IP between the two is kinda big. I feel like the Cubs really need that third guy they can count to get 6 innings after Lester and Arrieta. I won't deny that Hendricks can be tremendously valuable in those 5 innings that he does pitch, but after seeing the mounting strain that came in the second half and in the playoffs from constantly needing 15+ outs from the bullpen, I'd like at least one more guy that can go deeper into games, even if his peripherals say he's not really "better" than Kyle.
I also want that because I just don't expect the Cubs to get the flukishly great long relief that they got last year out of guys like Cahill/Wood/Richard. Even if they bring some or all of those guys back, I just don't buy that they can consistently win as many games as they did last year while getting 5 IP or fewer from their starters so often.
So yeah, meatball or no I think it's fine to consider Miller a better pitcher than Hendricks, however negligible the difference in their peripherals may be, just becuase he's managed to go deeper into games on a more consistent basis.
I think it's great to want that. I want that too. I just don't think that Miller is that guy. I want someone better.
This. I really don't want Shelby Miller or Jeff Samardzija to be the best starter the Cubs acquire this offseason. I want someone like that to be the 2nd best starter they acquire.
That.
I also don't buy the crap about the Cubs not having the money to do anything but sign a Samardzija and hope for the best. The Rickettses have buttloads of money and the championship window is now open. This is not the time to start fucking around and pinching pennies. If a guy fills a need and is a fit for what they're trying to do, then do it. I trust this front office to get it right more often than not.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 30, 2015, 01:45:56 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 30, 2015, 01:17:19 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 30, 2015, 12:13:54 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 30, 2015, 12:07:57 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 30, 2015, 12:02:39 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 30, 2015, 11:54:04 AM
because really I don't care how meatball it is I think it's fair to say there is a difference between Shelby Miller and Kyle Hendricks even if their FIPs are similar or even if some peripherals favor Hendricks because Miller has an actual major league fastball and he doesn't have the mogwai-esque set of rules one needs to coax the most out of Kyle Hendricks (don't ever let him face a better three times, remove him before the 7th inning even if he's only thrown 75 pitches because he will get hammered regardless, don't pitch him when the wind is blowing out, don't feed him after midnight, don't tell him that Dartmouth lost to Princeton in squash or he'll get that sad puppy dog face).
I don't care how meatball you are. But I very much care about how unmeatball the FO is.
And, if Miller's fastball is so much better than Hendricks's, why isn't he getting the results one would expect compared to Hendricks?
By the way, Miller has similar issues 3rd time through the order that Hendricks does, just not as pronounced.
Is it wrong that is what I want? To me that difference between 180 IP and 205 IP between the two is kinda big. I feel like the Cubs really need that third guy they can count to get 6 innings after Lester and Arrieta. I won't deny that Hendricks can be tremendously valuable in those 5 innings that he does pitch, but after seeing the mounting strain that came in the second half and in the playoffs from constantly needing 15+ outs from the bullpen, I'd like at least one more guy that can go deeper into games, even if his peripherals say he's not really "better" than Kyle.
I also want that because I just don't expect the Cubs to get the flukishly great long relief that they got last year out of guys like Cahill/Wood/Richard. Even if they bring some or all of those guys back, I just don't buy that they can consistently win as many games as they did last year while getting 5 IP or fewer from their starters so often.
So yeah, meatball or no I think it's fine to consider Miller a better pitcher than Hendricks, however negligible the difference in their peripherals may be, just becuase he's managed to go deeper into games on a more consistent basis.
I think it's great to want that. I want that too. I just don't think that Miller is that guy. I want someone better.
This. I really don't want Shelby Miller or Jeff Samardzija to be the best starter the Cubs acquire this offseason. I want someone like that to be the 2nd best starter they acquire.
That.
I also don't buy the crap about the Cubs not having the money to do anything but sign a Samardzija and hope for the best. The Rickettses have buttloads of money and the championship window is now open. This is not the time to start fucking around and pinching pennies. If a guy fills a need and is a fit for what they're trying to do, then do it. I trust this front office to get it right more often than not.
You shouldn't, because no one with intelligence or without an agenda is saying this.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 30, 2015, 01:52:29 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 30, 2015, 01:45:56 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 30, 2015, 01:17:19 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 30, 2015, 12:13:54 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 30, 2015, 12:07:57 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 30, 2015, 12:02:39 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 30, 2015, 11:54:04 AM
because really I don't care how meatball it is I think it's fair to say there is a difference between Shelby Miller and Kyle Hendricks even if their FIPs are similar or even if some peripherals favor Hendricks because Miller has an actual major league fastball and he doesn't have the mogwai-esque set of rules one needs to coax the most out of Kyle Hendricks (don't ever let him face a better three times, remove him before the 7th inning even if he's only thrown 75 pitches because he will get hammered regardless, don't pitch him when the wind is blowing out, don't feed him after midnight, don't tell him that Dartmouth lost to Princeton in squash or he'll get that sad puppy dog face).
I don't care how meatball you are. But I very much care about how unmeatball the FO is.
And, if Miller's fastball is so much better than Hendricks's, why isn't he getting the results one would expect compared to Hendricks?
By the way, Miller has similar issues 3rd time through the order that Hendricks does, just not as pronounced.
Is it wrong that is what I want? To me that difference between 180 IP and 205 IP between the two is kinda big. I feel like the Cubs really need that third guy they can count to get 6 innings after Lester and Arrieta. I won't deny that Hendricks can be tremendously valuable in those 5 innings that he does pitch, but after seeing the mounting strain that came in the second half and in the playoffs from constantly needing 15+ outs from the bullpen, I'd like at least one more guy that can go deeper into games, even if his peripherals say he's not really "better" than Kyle.
I also want that because I just don't expect the Cubs to get the flukishly great long relief that they got last year out of guys like Cahill/Wood/Richard. Even if they bring some or all of those guys back, I just don't buy that they can consistently win as many games as they did last year while getting 5 IP or fewer from their starters so often.
So yeah, meatball or no I think it's fine to consider Miller a better pitcher than Hendricks, however negligible the difference in their peripherals may be, just becuase he's managed to go deeper into games on a more consistent basis.
I think it's great to want that. I want that too. I just don't think that Miller is that guy. I want someone better.
This. I really don't want Shelby Miller or Jeff Samardzija to be the best starter the Cubs acquire this offseason. I want someone like that to be the 2nd best starter they acquire.
That.
I also don't buy the crap about the Cubs not having the money to do anything but sign a Samardzija and hope for the best. The Rickettses have buttloads of money and the championship window is now open. This is not the time to start fucking around and pinching pennies. If a guy fills a need and is a fit for what they're trying to do, then do it. I trust this front office to get it right more often than not.
You shouldn't, because no one with intelligence or without an agenda is saying this.
Ken Rosenthal's sources are, and it's on BN right now. It's been a steady drumbeat all offseason.
Quote from: InternetApex on November 30, 2015, 01:34:52 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 30, 2015, 11:54:13 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 30, 2015, 11:48:32 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 30, 2015, 11:46:43 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 30, 2015, 11:29:47 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 30, 2015, 11:24:26 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 30, 2015, 11:07:15 AM
Jim Duquette over at mlb.com has a Cubs/Braves trade proposal (http://m.mlb.com/news/article/158170980/5-mlb-trades-that-make-sense) that I'd hope Jepstink would do in a heartbeat.
I hate the idea of giving up Contreras--since I don't think Schwarber will pan out at Catcher-- but I don't hate the idea of acquiring a 25-year old Shelby Miller.
I don't have much insight on Contreras beyond his recent hype, but he's really the only long-term catching option in the organization at the moment. I'd imagine they're really hesitant to give him up.
They also have Victor Caratini in their system. I don't know if he projects as quite the offensive player that Contreras does, but with a team that has Rizzo, Schwarber, Bryant et.al. that may not be necessary. And besides, Caratini already seems to have good plate discipline (.342 OBP last year to go with a .257 BA and a .372 SLG (woof)). It's possible that he might have some pop by the time he arrives. He'll be 22 next year.
If there's some sort of catching equivalent for Chris Bosio, get him and tie him to Schwarber. Man, if he can be a passable catcher, the world is wide open.
I want Schwarber to focus 100% on becoming passable in left field. Trying to fix his problems at multiple positions is only going to delay his improvement.
This. And I wish people understood the concept that catchers tend to get beaten up so badly that putting a guy with 50-homer potential behind the dish is dumber than owl shit. Stop doing this.
This. Left Field isn't that hard, and by all accounts Schwarber has a good work ethic. He'll never be great, but he can be passable. And him having his bat and a passable glove should make him a consistent 5+ win player. Keep those knees healthy.
Quote from: Eli on November 30, 2015, 11:29:47 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 30, 2015, 11:24:26 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 30, 2015, 11:07:15 AM
Jim Duquette over at mlb.com has a Cubs/Braves trade proposal (http://m.mlb.com/news/article/158170980/5-mlb-trades-that-make-sense) that I'd hope Jepstink would do in a heartbeat.
I hate the idea of giving up Contreras--since I don't think Schwarber will pan out at Catcher-- but I don't hate the idea of acquiring a 25-year old Shelby Miller.
I don't have much insight on Contreras beyond his recent hype, but he's really the only long-term catching option in the organization at the moment. I'd imagine they're really hesitant to give him up.
Some interesting tidbits about Contreras (http://www.bleachernation.com/2015/12/01/cubs-prospects-progress-part-1-willson-contreras/) from Brett, who thankfully managed for once to not drive his readers to perpetual ennui by including pointless milquetoast factoids about his personal life.
--Contreras was so far off people's radar last year that he was exposed in the Rule V and nobody took him.
-- He had been exposed to Rule V in previous years also
--He was on nobody's Top Prospect list last season and now he's #2.
I now find myself a little concerned about Conterars' sudden ascension (*cough*cough*performance enhancers? *cough*cough*) and am curious to see if last season was an out-of-the-blue anomaly or if he really just arrived--even though not a single scout saw it coming.
In any event consider me a little concerned about his ability to repeat his performance from last year which I suppose means I'm not as attached to him as I was when I woke up today.
Quote from: PANK! on December 01, 2015, 11:28:00 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 30, 2015, 11:29:47 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 30, 2015, 11:24:26 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 30, 2015, 11:07:15 AM
Jim Duquette over at mlb.com has a Cubs/Braves trade proposal (http://m.mlb.com/news/article/158170980/5-mlb-trades-that-make-sense) that I'd hope Jepstink would do in a heartbeat.
I hate the idea of giving up Contreras--since I don't think Schwarber will pan out at Catcher-- but I don't hate the idea of acquiring a 25-year old Shelby Miller.
I don't have much insight on Contreras beyond his recent hype, but he's really the only long-term catching option in the organization at the moment. I'd imagine they're really hesitant to give him up.
Some interesting tidbits about Contreras (http://www.bleachernation.com/2015/12/01/cubs-prospects-progress-part-1-willson-contreras/) from Brett, who thankfully managed for once to not drive his readers to perpetual ennui by including pointless milquetoast factoids about his personal life.
--Contreras was so far off people's radar last year that he was exposed in the Rule V and nobody took him.
-- He had been exposed to Rule V in previous years also
--He was on nobody's Top Prospect list last season and now he's #2.
I now find myself a little concerned about Conterars' sudden ascension (*cough*cough*performance enhancers? *cough*cough*) and am curious to see if last season was an out-of-the-blue anomaly or if he really just arrived--even though not a single scout saw it coming.
In any event consider me a little concerned about his ability to repeat his performance from last year which I suppose means I'm not as attached to him as I was when I woke up today.
Yeah, like I mentioned yesterday, a good part of his success might just come from being a 23 year old in AA who finally started hitting after 6 years of adjusting to pro ball. People seem to like his tools, but there are legitimate question marks, too.
Quote from: PANK! on December 01, 2015, 11:28:00 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 30, 2015, 11:29:47 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 30, 2015, 11:24:26 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on November 30, 2015, 11:07:15 AM
Jim Duquette over at mlb.com has a Cubs/Braves trade proposal (http://m.mlb.com/news/article/158170980/5-mlb-trades-that-make-sense) that I'd hope Jepstink would do in a heartbeat.
I hate the idea of giving up Contreras--since I don't think Schwarber will pan out at Catcher-- but I don't hate the idea of acquiring a 25-year old Shelby Miller.
I don't have much insight on Contreras beyond his recent hype, but he's really the only long-term catching option in the organization at the moment. I'd imagine they're really hesitant to give him up.
Some interesting tidbits about Contreras (http://www.bleachernation.com/2015/12/01/cubs-prospects-progress-part-1-willson-contreras/) from Brett, who thankfully managed for once to not drive his readers to perpetual ennui by including pointless milquetoast factoids about his personal life.
--Contreras was so far off people's radar last year that he was exposed in the Rule V and nobody took him.
-- He had been exposed to Rule V in previous years also
--He was on nobody's Top Prospect list last season and now he's #2.
I now find myself a little concerned about Conterars' sudden ascension (*cough*cough*performance enhancers? *cough*cough*) and am curious to see if last season was an out-of-the-blue anomaly or if he really just arrived--even though not a single scout saw it coming.
In any event consider me a little concerned about his ability to repeat his performance from last year which I suppose means I'm not as attached to him as I was when I woke up today.
Brett didn't write that post, so that *could* explain why there are no factoids about Brett's personal life in it.
Anyway, I'll be damned if I let you wieners temper my enthusiasm about a good defensive catcher with good contact skills and an excellent walk rate, and who Miggy loves (https://twitter.com/miggymont26/status/628775142236229633).
The Braves can fuck right off with their Soler for Miller talk, by God.
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 01:54:28 PM
The Braves can fuck right off with their Soler for Miller talk, by God.
If the Cubs decide to move Soler, it's going to be for a fuckload more than Miller.
Miller's worth maybe Coghlan/Wood and a warm body from the system, or two mid-level prospects.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 02:07:10 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 01:54:28 PM
The Braves can fuck right off with their Soler for Miller talk, by God.
If the Cubs decide to move Soler, it's going to be for a fuckload more than Miller.
Miller's worth maybe Coghlan/Wood and a warm body from the system, or two mid-level prospects.
I would never hate a Cubs player more than the white guy they'd get back for Soler.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 02:07:10 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 01:54:28 PM
The Braves can fuck right off with their Soler for Miller talk, by God.
If the Cubs decide to move Soler, it's going to be for a fuckload more than Miller.
Miller's worth maybe Coghlan/Wood and a warm body from the system, or two mid-level prospects.
For once in my life I wish one of us actually
could get a GM's secretary on the phone because I want to hear the laughter from the Braves GM if you called and offered them Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood for Shelby Miller.
You should have to call into The Score to propose this trade offer, that's where it belongs.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 02:07:10 PM
Miller's worth maybe Coghlan/Wood and a warm body from the system, or two mid-level prospects.
Nice try.
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 02:09:35 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 02:07:10 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 01:54:28 PM
The Braves can fuck right off with their Soler for Miller talk, by God.
If the Cubs decide to move Soler, it's going to be for a fuckload more than Miller.
Miller's worth maybe Coghlan/Wood and a warm body from the system, or two mid-level prospects.
For once in my life I wish one of us actually could get a GM's secretary on the phone because I want to hear the laughter from the Braves GM if you called and offered them Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood for Shelby Miller.
You should have to call into The Score to propose this trade offer, that's where it belongs.
Miller's a #3 on a contender. That's worth a starting OF and a #5 starter.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:15:16 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 02:09:35 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 02:07:10 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 01:54:28 PM
The Braves can fuck right off with their Soler for Miller talk, by God.
If the Cubs decide to move Soler, it's going to be for a fuckload more than Miller.
Miller's worth maybe Coghlan/Wood and a warm body from the system, or two mid-level prospects.
For once in my life I wish one of us actually could get a GM's secretary on the phone because I want to hear the laughter from the Braves GM if you called and offered them Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood for Shelby Miller.
You should have to call into The Score to propose this trade offer, that's where it belongs.
Miller's a #3 on a contender. That's worth a starting OF and a #5 starter.
We're talking about Wade Miller right? That's how much I give a shit about this Miller trade talk.
Quote from: InternetApex on December 01, 2015, 03:16:42 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:15:16 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 02:09:35 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 02:07:10 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 01:54:28 PM
The Braves can fuck right off with their Soler for Miller talk, by God.
If the Cubs decide to move Soler, it's going to be for a fuckload more than Miller.
Miller's worth maybe Coghlan/Wood and a warm body from the system, or two mid-level prospects.
For once in my life I wish one of us actually could get a GM's secretary on the phone because I want to hear the laughter from the Braves GM if you called and offered them Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood for Shelby Miller.
You should have to call into The Score to propose this trade offer, that's where it belongs.
Miller's a #3 on a contender. That's worth a starting OF and a #5 starter.
We're talking about Wade Miller right? That's how much I give a shit about this Miller trade talk.
Yeah, it might as well be. Miller's WAR last season was 3.4, same as the Quality Start Machine.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:15:16 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 02:09:35 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 02:07:10 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 01:54:28 PM
The Braves can fuck right off with their Soler for Miller talk, by God.
If the Cubs decide to move Soler, it's going to be for a fuckload more than Miller.
Miller's worth maybe Coghlan/Wood and a warm body from the system, or two mid-level prospects.
For once in my life I wish one of us actually could get a GM's secretary on the phone because I want to hear the laughter from the Braves GM if you called and offered them Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood for Shelby Miller.
You should have to call into The Score to propose this trade offer, that's where it belongs.
Miller's a #3 on a contender. That's worth a starting OF and a #5 starter.
Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood are neither of those things, which is beside the point, which is that there's no reason on earth why a rebuilding team like the Braves would trade a young, quality starting pitcher with multiple years of control left for a 31 year old greasy chested malcontent or a 29 year old long reliever (both of whom are free agents after this season).
And also, no, just no.
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 03:23:55 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:15:16 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 02:09:35 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 02:07:10 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 01:54:28 PM
The Braves can fuck right off with their Soler for Miller talk, by God.
If the Cubs decide to move Soler, it's going to be for a fuckload more than Miller.
Miller's worth maybe Coghlan/Wood and a warm body from the system, or two mid-level prospects.
For once in my life I wish one of us actually could get a GM's secretary on the phone because I want to hear the laughter from the Braves GM if you called and offered them Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood for Shelby Miller.
You should have to call into The Score to propose this trade offer, that's where it belongs.
Miller's a #3 on a contender. That's worth a starting OF and a #5 starter.
Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood are neither of those things, which is beside the point, which is that there's no reason on earth why a rebuilding team like the Braves would trade a young, quality starting pitcher with multiple years of control left for a 31 year old greasey chested malcontent or a 29 year old long reliever (both of whom are free agents after this season).
And also, no, just no.
For the same reason the Cubs kept getting the Scott Feldmans of the world - they become pieces that contenders will use to plug holes for the stretch run and will be happy to give up prospects for. You turn one Kyle Hendricks-level pitcher into 3-4 prospects at about the same level you'd get 2 for in a straight trade. The impending free agency makes them more attractive as trade pieces at mid-season.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:27:54 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 03:23:55 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:15:16 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 02:09:35 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 02:07:10 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 01:54:28 PM
The Braves can fuck right off with their Soler for Miller talk, by God.
If the Cubs decide to move Soler, it's going to be for a fuckload more than Miller.
Miller's worth maybe Coghlan/Wood and a warm body from the system, or two mid-level prospects.
For once in my life I wish one of us actually could get a GM's secretary on the phone because I want to hear the laughter from the Braves GM if you called and offered them Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood for Shelby Miller.
You should have to call into The Score to propose this trade offer, that's where it belongs.
Miller's a #3 on a contender. That's worth a starting OF and a #5 starter.
Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood are neither of those things, which is beside the point, which is that there's no reason on earth why a rebuilding team like the Braves would trade a young, quality starting pitcher with multiple years of control left for a 31 year old greasey chested malcontent or a 29 year old long reliever (both of whom are free agents after this season).
And also, no, just no.
For the same reason the Cubs kept getting the Scott Feldmans of the world - they become pieces that contenders will use to plug holes for the stretch run and will be happy to give up prospects for. You turn one Kyle Hendricks-level pitcher into 3-4 prospects at about the same level you'd get 2 for in a straight trade. The impending free agency makes them more attractive as trade pieces at mid-season.
At no point did the Cubs give up a good, young, controllable asset in order to acquire a Scott Feldman type they could then flip to get more good, young, controllable assets. They picked those guys up for basically nothing in FA so there'd be no risk if they went tits up like Jose Veras. If Travis Wood puts up another 5.00+ ERA as a starter (as he's done in 40+ starts over the last two years) or Coghlan regresses back to 2010-2013 Coghlan now that he's over 30, they'd have gotten rid of Shelby Miller for nothing, which is why no sane person would ever do that.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:27:54 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 03:23:55 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:15:16 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 02:09:35 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 02:07:10 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 01:54:28 PM
The Braves can fuck right off with their Soler for Miller talk, by God.
If the Cubs decide to move Soler, it's going to be for a fuckload more than Miller.
Miller's worth maybe Coghlan/Wood and a warm body from the system, or two mid-level prospects.
For once in my life I wish one of us actually could get a GM's secretary on the phone because I want to hear the laughter from the Braves GM if you called and offered them Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood for Shelby Miller.
You should have to call into The Score to propose this trade offer, that's where it belongs.
Miller's a #3 on a contender. That's worth a starting OF and a #5 starter.
Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood are neither of those things, which is beside the point, which is that there's no reason on earth why a rebuilding team like the Braves would trade a young, quality starting pitcher with multiple years of control left for a 31 year old greasey chested malcontent or a 29 year old long reliever (both of whom are free agents after this season).
And also, no, just no.
For the same reason the Cubs kept getting the Scott Feldmans of the world - they become pieces that contenders will use to plug holes for the stretch run and will be happy to give up prospects for. You turn one Kyle Hendricks-level pitcher into 3-4 prospects at about the same level you'd get 2 for in a straight trade. The impending free agency makes them more attractive as trade pieces at mid-season.
This is a bit convoluted. Why would The Braves trade a controllable, 25 year old pitcher for a chance to flip a couple of veterans at the deadline for some prospects who probably wouldn't be good enough to get you the 25 year old pitcher in the first place?
Let's keep in mind that the Feldman trade was a pretty giant exception to the rule (as was the Russell/McKinney deal). The Braves just signed Jim Johnson and Bud Norris to try to do exactly that anyway.
The market for Miller is going to be steep. If they want Soler, I just hope The Cubs say no and move on.
I think I'd rather have Teheran anyway and even he's probably not worth Soler.
Quote from: Oleg on December 01, 2015, 03:33:01 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:27:54 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 03:23:55 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:15:16 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 02:09:35 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 02:07:10 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 01:54:28 PM
The Braves can fuck right off with their Soler for Miller talk, by God.
If the Cubs decide to move Soler, it's going to be for a fuckload more than Miller.
Miller's worth maybe Coghlan/Wood and a warm body from the system, or two mid-level prospects.
For once in my life I wish one of us actually could get a GM's secretary on the phone because I want to hear the laughter from the Braves GM if you called and offered them Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood for Shelby Miller.
You should have to call into The Score to propose this trade offer, that's where it belongs.
Miller's a #3 on a contender. That's worth a starting OF and a #5 starter.
Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood are neither of those things, which is beside the point, which is that there's no reason on earth why a rebuilding team like the Braves would trade a young, quality starting pitcher with multiple years of control left for a 31 year old greasey chested malcontent or a 29 year old long reliever (both of whom are free agents after this season).
And also, no, just no.
For the same reason the Cubs kept getting the Scott Feldmans of the world - they become pieces that contenders will use to plug holes for the stretch run and will be happy to give up prospects for. You turn one Kyle Hendricks-level pitcher into 3-4 prospects at about the same level you'd get 2 for in a straight trade. The impending free agency makes them more attractive as trade pieces at mid-season.
This is a bit convoluted. Why would The Braves trade a controllable, 25 year old pitcher for a chance to flip a couple of veterans at the deadline for some prospects who probably wouldn't be good enough to get you the 25 year old pitcher in the first place?
Let's keep in mind that the Feldman trade was a pretty giant exception to the rule (as was the Russell/McKinney deal). The Braves just signed Jim Johnson and Bud Norris to try to do exactly that anyway.
The market for Miller is going to be steep. If they want Soler, I just hope The Cubs say no and move on.
I think I'd rather have Teheran anyway and even he's probably not worth Soler.
I think I want Teheran more anyway for that precise reason. His struggles this year might leave him undervalued, and I think there's more upside there than with Miller. I think we saw the best possible version of Miller this year. Teheran would be a nice project for Bosio, I'd just still hope they'd hedge their bets by adding another consistent veteran starter in FA.
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 03:31:44 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:27:54 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 03:23:55 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:15:16 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 02:09:35 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 02:07:10 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 01:54:28 PM
The Braves can fuck right off with their Soler for Miller talk, by God.
If the Cubs decide to move Soler, it's going to be for a fuckload more than Miller.
Miller's worth maybe Coghlan/Wood and a warm body from the system, or two mid-level prospects.
For once in my life I wish one of us actually could get a GM's secretary on the phone because I want to hear the laughter from the Braves GM if you called and offered them Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood for Shelby Miller.
You should have to call into The Score to propose this trade offer, that's where it belongs.
Miller's a #3 on a contender. That's worth a starting OF and a #5 starter.
Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood are neither of those things, which is beside the point, which is that there's no reason on earth why a rebuilding team like the Braves would trade a young, quality starting pitcher with multiple years of control left for a 31 year old greasey chested malcontent or a 29 year old long reliever (both of whom are free agents after this season).
And also, no, just no.
For the same reason the Cubs kept getting the Scott Feldmans of the world - they become pieces that contenders will use to plug holes for the stretch run and will be happy to give up prospects for. You turn one Kyle Hendricks-level pitcher into 3-4 prospects at about the same level you'd get 2 for in a straight trade. The impending free agency makes them more attractive as trade pieces at mid-season.
At no point did the Cubs give up a good, young, controllable asset in order to acquire a Scott Feldman type they could then flip to get more good, young, controllable assets. They picked those guys up for basically nothing in FA so there'd be no risk if they went tits up like Jose Veras. If Travis Wood puts up another 5.00+ ERA as a starter (as he's done in 40+ starts over the last two years) or Coghlan regresses back to 2010-2013 Coghlan now that he's over 30, they'd have gotten rid of Shelby Miller for nothing, which is why no sane person would ever do that.
Again, I don't think Miller's going to bring the lush haul you seem to think he will. Among the young cost-controlled starters out there, he's not exactly the top of the heap.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:37:31 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 03:31:44 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:27:54 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 03:23:55 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:15:16 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 02:09:35 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 02:07:10 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 01:54:28 PM
The Braves can fuck right off with their Soler for Miller talk, by God.
If the Cubs decide to move Soler, it's going to be for a fuckload more than Miller.
Miller's worth maybe Coghlan/Wood and a warm body from the system, or two mid-level prospects.
For once in my life I wish one of us actually could get a GM's secretary on the phone because I want to hear the laughter from the Braves GM if you called and offered them Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood for Shelby Miller.
You should have to call into The Score to propose this trade offer, that's where it belongs.
Miller's a #3 on a contender. That's worth a starting OF and a #5 starter.
Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood are neither of those things, which is beside the point, which is that there's no reason on earth why a rebuilding team like the Braves would trade a young, quality starting pitcher with multiple years of control left for a 31 year old greasey chested malcontent or a 29 year old long reliever (both of whom are free agents after this season).
And also, no, just no.
For the same reason the Cubs kept getting the Scott Feldmans of the world - they become pieces that contenders will use to plug holes for the stretch run and will be happy to give up prospects for. You turn one Kyle Hendricks-level pitcher into 3-4 prospects at about the same level you'd get 2 for in a straight trade. The impending free agency makes them more attractive as trade pieces at mid-season.
At no point did the Cubs give up a good, young, controllable asset in order to acquire a Scott Feldman type they could then flip to get more good, young, controllable assets. They picked those guys up for basically nothing in FA so there'd be no risk if they went tits up like Jose Veras. If Travis Wood puts up another 5.00+ ERA as a starter (as he's done in 40+ starts over the last two years) or Coghlan regresses back to 2010-2013 Coghlan now that he's over 30, they'd have gotten rid of Shelby Miller for nothing, which is why no sane person would ever do that.
Again, I don't think Miller's going to bring the lush haul you seem to think he will. Among the young cost-controlled starters out there, he's not exactly the top of the heap.
You were willing to trade a top 100 prospect outfielder and a likely top 100 prospect catcher for him yesterday.
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 03:40:37 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:37:31 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 03:31:44 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:27:54 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 03:23:55 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:15:16 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 02:09:35 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 02:07:10 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 01:54:28 PM
The Braves can fuck right off with their Soler for Miller talk, by God.
If the Cubs decide to move Soler, it's going to be for a fuckload more than Miller.
Miller's worth maybe Coghlan/Wood and a warm body from the system, or two mid-level prospects.
For once in my life I wish one of us actually could get a GM's secretary on the phone because I want to hear the laughter from the Braves GM if you called and offered them Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood for Shelby Miller.
You should have to call into The Score to propose this trade offer, that's where it belongs.
Miller's a #3 on a contender. That's worth a starting OF and a #5 starter.
Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood are neither of those things, which is beside the point, which is that there's no reason on earth why a rebuilding team like the Braves would trade a young, quality starting pitcher with multiple years of control left for a 31 year old greasey chested malcontent or a 29 year old long reliever (both of whom are free agents after this season).
And also, no, just no.
For the same reason the Cubs kept getting the Scott Feldmans of the world - they become pieces that contenders will use to plug holes for the stretch run and will be happy to give up prospects for. You turn one Kyle Hendricks-level pitcher into 3-4 prospects at about the same level you'd get 2 for in a straight trade. The impending free agency makes them more attractive as trade pieces at mid-season.
At no point did the Cubs give up a good, young, controllable asset in order to acquire a Scott Feldman type they could then flip to get more good, young, controllable assets. They picked those guys up for basically nothing in FA so there'd be no risk if they went tits up like Jose Veras. If Travis Wood puts up another 5.00+ ERA as a starter (as he's done in 40+ starts over the last two years) or Coghlan regresses back to 2010-2013 Coghlan now that he's over 30, they'd have gotten rid of Shelby Miller for nothing, which is why no sane person would ever do that.
Again, I don't think Miller's going to bring the lush haul you seem to think he will. Among the young cost-controlled starters out there, he's not exactly the top of the heap.
You were willing to trade a top 100 prospect outfielder and a likely top 100 prospect catcher for him yesterday.
Bottom line...if The Cubs are trading Soler, it better be for Carrasco or Ross, neither of whom are white. Just for Apex's sake.
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 03:40:37 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:37:31 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 03:31:44 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:27:54 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 03:23:55 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:15:16 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 02:09:35 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 02:07:10 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 01:54:28 PM
The Braves can fuck right off with their Soler for Miller talk, by God.
If the Cubs decide to move Soler, it's going to be for a fuckload more than Miller.
Miller's worth maybe Coghlan/Wood and a warm body from the system, or two mid-level prospects.
For once in my life I wish one of us actually could get a GM's secretary on the phone because I want to hear the laughter from the Braves GM if you called and offered them Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood for Shelby Miller.
You should have to call into The Score to propose this trade offer, that's where it belongs.
Miller's a #3 on a contender. That's worth a starting OF and a #5 starter.
Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood are neither of those things, which is beside the point, which is that there's no reason on earth why a rebuilding team like the Braves would trade a young, quality starting pitcher with multiple years of control left for a 31 year old greasey chested malcontent or a 29 year old long reliever (both of whom are free agents after this season).
And also, no, just no.
For the same reason the Cubs kept getting the Scott Feldmans of the world - they become pieces that contenders will use to plug holes for the stretch run and will be happy to give up prospects for. You turn one Kyle Hendricks-level pitcher into 3-4 prospects at about the same level you'd get 2 for in a straight trade. The impending free agency makes them more attractive as trade pieces at mid-season.
At no point did the Cubs give up a good, young, controllable asset in order to acquire a Scott Feldman type they could then flip to get more good, young, controllable assets. They picked those guys up for basically nothing in FA so there'd be no risk if they went tits up like Jose Veras. If Travis Wood puts up another 5.00+ ERA as a starter (as he's done in 40+ starts over the last two years) or Coghlan regresses back to 2010-2013 Coghlan now that he's over 30, they'd have gotten rid of Shelby Miller for nothing, which is why no sane person would ever do that.
Again, I don't think Miller's going to bring the lush haul you seem to think he will. Among the young cost-controlled starters out there, he's not exactly the top of the heap.
You were willing to trade a top 100 prospect outfielder and a likely top 100 prospect catcher for him yesterday.
I think Fork is messing with you.
Quote from: Eli on December 01, 2015, 03:43:09 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 03:40:37 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:37:31 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 03:31:44 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:27:54 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 03:23:55 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:15:16 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 02:09:35 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 02:07:10 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 01:54:28 PM
The Braves can fuck right off with their Soler for Miller talk, by God.
If the Cubs decide to move Soler, it's going to be for a fuckload more than Miller.
Miller's worth maybe Coghlan/Wood and a warm body from the system, or two mid-level prospects.
For once in my life I wish one of us actually could get a GM's secretary on the phone because I want to hear the laughter from the Braves GM if you called and offered them Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood for Shelby Miller.
You should have to call into The Score to propose this trade offer, that's where it belongs.
Miller's a #3 on a contender. That's worth a starting OF and a #5 starter.
Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood are neither of those things, which is beside the point, which is that there's no reason on earth why a rebuilding team like the Braves would trade a young, quality starting pitcher with multiple years of control left for a 31 year old greasey chested malcontent or a 29 year old long reliever (both of whom are free agents after this season).
And also, no, just no.
For the same reason the Cubs kept getting the Scott Feldmans of the world - they become pieces that contenders will use to plug holes for the stretch run and will be happy to give up prospects for. You turn one Kyle Hendricks-level pitcher into 3-4 prospects at about the same level you'd get 2 for in a straight trade. The impending free agency makes them more attractive as trade pieces at mid-season.
At no point did the Cubs give up a good, young, controllable asset in order to acquire a Scott Feldman type they could then flip to get more good, young, controllable assets. They picked those guys up for basically nothing in FA so there'd be no risk if they went tits up like Jose Veras. If Travis Wood puts up another 5.00+ ERA as a starter (as he's done in 40+ starts over the last two years) or Coghlan regresses back to 2010-2013 Coghlan now that he's over 30, they'd have gotten rid of Shelby Miller for nothing, which is why no sane person would ever do that.
Again, I don't think Miller's going to bring the lush haul you seem to think he will. Among the young cost-controlled starters out there, he's not exactly the top of the heap.
You were willing to trade a top 100 prospect outfielder and a likely top 100 prospect catcher for him yesterday.
I think Fork is messing with you.
I think you give him far too much credit. But he will play it off as such when he finally realizes how dumb he sounds?
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 03:40:37 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:37:31 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 03:31:44 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:27:54 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 03:23:55 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:15:16 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 02:09:35 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 02:07:10 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 01:54:28 PM
The Braves can fuck right off with their Soler for Miller talk, by God.
If the Cubs decide to move Soler, it's going to be for a fuckload more than Miller.
Miller's worth maybe Coghlan/Wood and a warm body from the system, or two mid-level prospects.
For once in my life I wish one of us actually could get a GM's secretary on the phone because I want to hear the laughter from the Braves GM if you called and offered them Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood for Shelby Miller.
You should have to call into The Score to propose this trade offer, that's where it belongs.
Miller's a #3 on a contender. That's worth a starting OF and a #5 starter.
Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood are neither of those things, which is beside the point, which is that there's no reason on earth why a rebuilding team like the Braves would trade a young, quality starting pitcher with multiple years of control left for a 31 year old greasey chested malcontent or a 29 year old long reliever (both of whom are free agents after this season).
And also, no, just no.
For the same reason the Cubs kept getting the Scott Feldmans of the world - they become pieces that contenders will use to plug holes for the stretch run and will be happy to give up prospects for. You turn one Kyle Hendricks-level pitcher into 3-4 prospects at about the same level you'd get 2 for in a straight trade. The impending free agency makes them more attractive as trade pieces at mid-season.
At no point did the Cubs give up a good, young, controllable asset in order to acquire a Scott Feldman type they could then flip to get more good, young, controllable assets. They picked those guys up for basically nothing in FA so there'd be no risk if they went tits up like Jose Veras. If Travis Wood puts up another 5.00+ ERA as a starter (as he's done in 40+ starts over the last two years) or Coghlan regresses back to 2010-2013 Coghlan now that he's over 30, they'd have gotten rid of Shelby Miller for nothing, which is why no sane person would ever do that.
Again, I don't think Miller's going to bring the lush haul you seem to think he will. Among the young cost-controlled starters out there, he's not exactly the top of the heap.
You were willing to trade a top 100 prospect outfielder and a likely top 100 prospect catcher for him yesterday.
Yeah, but both of them stacked on top of each other will be as good as Soler, which is where this discussion began. We've been over the sudden spike in Contreras' productivity, and McKinney's lack of power has been Murtonesque.
I also saw someone floating Miller for Baez, and I wouldn't make that trade either.
Let's pretend you're Beltless Theo. What do you give up for Shelby Miller right now?
Quote from: Oleg on December 01, 2015, 03:42:21 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 03:40:37 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:37:31 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 03:31:44 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:27:54 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 03:23:55 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:15:16 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 02:09:35 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 02:07:10 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 01:54:28 PM
The Braves can fuck right off with their Soler for Miller talk, by God.
If the Cubs decide to move Soler, it's going to be for a fuckload more than Miller.
Miller's worth maybe Coghlan/Wood and a warm body from the system, or two mid-level prospects.
For once in my life I wish one of us actually could get a GM's secretary on the phone because I want to hear the laughter from the Braves GM if you called and offered them Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood for Shelby Miller.
You should have to call into The Score to propose this trade offer, that's where it belongs.
Miller's a #3 on a contender. That's worth a starting OF and a #5 starter.
Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood are neither of those things, which is beside the point, which is that there's no reason on earth why a rebuilding team like the Braves would trade a young, quality starting pitcher with multiple years of control left for a 31 year old greasey chested malcontent or a 29 year old long reliever (both of whom are free agents after this season).
And also, no, just no.
For the same reason the Cubs kept getting the Scott Feldmans of the world - they become pieces that contenders will use to plug holes for the stretch run and will be happy to give up prospects for. You turn one Kyle Hendricks-level pitcher into 3-4 prospects at about the same level you'd get 2 for in a straight trade. The impending free agency makes them more attractive as trade pieces at mid-season.
At no point did the Cubs give up a good, young, controllable asset in order to acquire a Scott Feldman type they could then flip to get more good, young, controllable assets. They picked those guys up for basically nothing in FA so there'd be no risk if they went tits up like Jose Veras. If Travis Wood puts up another 5.00+ ERA as a starter (as he's done in 40+ starts over the last two years) or Coghlan regresses back to 2010-2013 Coghlan now that he's over 30, they'd have gotten rid of Shelby Miller for nothing, which is why no sane person would ever do that.
Again, I don't think Miller's going to bring the lush haul you seem to think he will. Among the young cost-controlled starters out there, he's not exactly the top of the heap.
You were willing to trade a top 100 prospect outfielder and a likely top 100 prospect catcher for him yesterday.
Bottom line...if The Cubs are trading Soler, it better be for Carrasco or Ross, neither of whom are white. Just for Apex's sake.
You're half-right. Tyson Ross looks at least half-white.
*runs out of the room*
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:46:09 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 03:40:37 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:37:31 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 03:31:44 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:27:54 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 03:23:55 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:15:16 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 02:09:35 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 02:07:10 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 01:54:28 PM
The Braves can fuck right off with their Soler for Miller talk, by God.
If the Cubs decide to move Soler, it's going to be for a fuckload more than Miller.
Miller's worth maybe Coghlan/Wood and a warm body from the system, or two mid-level prospects.
For once in my life I wish one of us actually could get a GM's secretary on the phone because I want to hear the laughter from the Braves GM if you called and offered them Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood for Shelby Miller.
You should have to call into The Score to propose this trade offer, that's where it belongs.
Miller's a #3 on a contender. That's worth a starting OF and a #5 starter.
Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood are neither of those things, which is beside the point, which is that there's no reason on earth why a rebuilding team like the Braves would trade a young, quality starting pitcher with multiple years of control left for a 31 year old greasey chested malcontent or a 29 year old long reliever (both of whom are free agents after this season).
And also, no, just no.
For the same reason the Cubs kept getting the Scott Feldmans of the world - they become pieces that contenders will use to plug holes for the stretch run and will be happy to give up prospects for. You turn one Kyle Hendricks-level pitcher into 3-4 prospects at about the same level you'd get 2 for in a straight trade. The impending free agency makes them more attractive as trade pieces at mid-season.
At no point did the Cubs give up a good, young, controllable asset in order to acquire a Scott Feldman type they could then flip to get more good, young, controllable assets. They picked those guys up for basically nothing in FA so there'd be no risk if they went tits up like Jose Veras. If Travis Wood puts up another 5.00+ ERA as a starter (as he's done in 40+ starts over the last two years) or Coghlan regresses back to 2010-2013 Coghlan now that he's over 30, they'd have gotten rid of Shelby Miller for nothing, which is why no sane person would ever do that.
Again, I don't think Miller's going to bring the lush haul you seem to think he will. Among the young cost-controlled starters out there, he's not exactly the top of the heap.
You were willing to trade a top 100 prospect outfielder and a likely top 100 prospect catcher for him yesterday.
Yeah, but both of them stacked on top of each other will be as good as Soler, which is where this discussion began. We've been over the sudden spike in Contreras' productivity, and McKinney's lack of power has been Murtonesque.
I also saw someone floating Miller for Baez, and I wouldn't make that trade either.
Let's pretend you're Beltless Theo. What do you give up for Shelby Miller right now?
Admittedly I think I like Shelby Miller more than others do, but I'd give up Gleyber and Zagunis for him. Is that enough?
Granted, I would shop around Gleyber before I did this to see if I could get anyone better, but I'd part with him for Miller.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:46:09 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 03:40:37 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:37:31 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 03:31:44 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:27:54 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 03:23:55 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:15:16 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 02:09:35 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 02:07:10 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 01:54:28 PM
The Braves can fuck right off with their Soler for Miller talk, by God.
If the Cubs decide to move Soler, it's going to be for a fuckload more than Miller.
Miller's worth maybe Coghlan/Wood and a warm body from the system, or two mid-level prospects.
For once in my life I wish one of us actually could get a GM's secretary on the phone because I want to hear the laughter from the Braves GM if you called and offered them Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood for Shelby Miller.
You should have to call into The Score to propose this trade offer, that's where it belongs.
Miller's a #3 on a contender. That's worth a starting OF and a #5 starter.
Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood are neither of those things, which is beside the point, which is that there's no reason on earth why a rebuilding team like the Braves would trade a young, quality starting pitcher with multiple years of control left for a 31 year old greasey chested malcontent or a 29 year old long reliever (both of whom are free agents after this season).
And also, no, just no.
For the same reason the Cubs kept getting the Scott Feldmans of the world - they become pieces that contenders will use to plug holes for the stretch run and will be happy to give up prospects for. You turn one Kyle Hendricks-level pitcher into 3-4 prospects at about the same level you'd get 2 for in a straight trade. The impending free agency makes them more attractive as trade pieces at mid-season.
At no point did the Cubs give up a good, young, controllable asset in order to acquire a Scott Feldman type they could then flip to get more good, young, controllable assets. They picked those guys up for basically nothing in FA so there'd be no risk if they went tits up like Jose Veras. If Travis Wood puts up another 5.00+ ERA as a starter (as he's done in 40+ starts over the last two years) or Coghlan regresses back to 2010-2013 Coghlan now that he's over 30, they'd have gotten rid of Shelby Miller for nothing, which is why no sane person would ever do that.
Again, I don't think Miller's going to bring the lush haul you seem to think he will. Among the young cost-controlled starters out there, he's not exactly the top of the heap.
You were willing to trade a top 100 prospect outfielder and a likely top 100 prospect catcher for him yesterday.
Yeah, but both of them stacked on top of each other will be as good as Soler, which is where this discussion began. We've been over the sudden spike in Contreras' productivity, and McKinney's lack of power has been Murtonesque.
I also saw someone floating Miller for Baez, and I wouldn't make that trade either.
Let's pretend you're Beltless Theo. What do you give up for Shelby Miller right now?
This conversation began with me saying that Miller wasn't worth Soler, so I don't know why you need to tell me how Miller isn't worth Soler. The conversation then evolved into me making fun of your hilariously terrible Coghlan/Wood for Miller idea, which is still hilariously terrible.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 02:07:10 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 01:54:28 PM
The Braves can fuck right off with their Soler for Miller talk, by God.
If the Cubs decide to move Soler, it's going to be for a fuckload more than Miller.
Miller's worth maybe Coghlan/Wood and a warm body from the system, or two mid-level prospects.
Dave Littlefield's not walking through that door, dude.
DPD.
What SKO said.
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 04:18:05 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:46:09 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 03:40:37 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:37:31 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 03:31:44 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:27:54 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 03:23:55 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:15:16 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 02:09:35 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 02:07:10 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 01:54:28 PM
The Braves can fuck right off with their Soler for Miller talk, by God.
If the Cubs decide to move Soler, it's going to be for a fuckload more than Miller.
Miller's worth maybe Coghlan/Wood and a warm body from the system, or two mid-level prospects.
For once in my life I wish one of us actually could get a GM's secretary on the phone because I want to hear the laughter from the Braves GM if you called and offered them Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood for Shelby Miller.
You should have to call into The Score to propose this trade offer, that's where it belongs.
Miller's a #3 on a contender. That's worth a starting OF and a #5 starter.
Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood are neither of those things, which is beside the point, which is that there's no reason on earth why a rebuilding team like the Braves would trade a young, quality starting pitcher with multiple years of control left for a 31 year old greasey chested malcontent or a 29 year old long reliever (both of whom are free agents after this season).
And also, no, just no.
For the same reason the Cubs kept getting the Scott Feldmans of the world - they become pieces that contenders will use to plug holes for the stretch run and will be happy to give up prospects for. You turn one Kyle Hendricks-level pitcher into 3-4 prospects at about the same level you'd get 2 for in a straight trade. The impending free agency makes them more attractive as trade pieces at mid-season.
At no point did the Cubs give up a good, young, controllable asset in order to acquire a Scott Feldman type they could then flip to get more good, young, controllable assets. They picked those guys up for basically nothing in FA so there'd be no risk if they went tits up like Jose Veras. If Travis Wood puts up another 5.00+ ERA as a starter (as he's done in 40+ starts over the last two years) or Coghlan regresses back to 2010-2013 Coghlan now that he's over 30, they'd have gotten rid of Shelby Miller for nothing, which is why no sane person would ever do that.
Again, I don't think Miller's going to bring the lush haul you seem to think he will. Among the young cost-controlled starters out there, he's not exactly the top of the heap.
You were willing to trade a top 100 prospect outfielder and a likely top 100 prospect catcher for him yesterday.
Yeah, but both of them stacked on top of each other will be as good as Soler, which is where this discussion began. We've been over the sudden spike in Contreras' productivity, and McKinney's lack of power has been Murtonesque.
I also saw someone floating Miller for Baez, and I wouldn't make that trade either.
Let's pretend you're Beltless Theo. What do you give up for Shelby Miller right now?
This conversation began with me saying that Miller wasn't worth Soler, so I don't know why you need to tell me how Miller isn't worth Soler. The conversation then evolved into me making fun of your hilariously terrible Coghlan/Wood for Miller idea, which is still hilariously terrible.
I still don't see how the Cubs giving up 5 wins for 3 and a half is hilariously terrible.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 04:47:40 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 04:18:05 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:46:09 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 03:40:37 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:37:31 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 03:31:44 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:27:54 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 03:23:55 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:15:16 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 02:09:35 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 02:07:10 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 01:54:28 PM
The Braves can fuck right off with their Soler for Miller talk, by God.
If the Cubs decide to move Soler, it's going to be for a fuckload more than Miller.
Miller's worth maybe Coghlan/Wood and a warm body from the system, or two mid-level prospects.
For once in my life I wish one of us actually could get a GM's secretary on the phone because I want to hear the laughter from the Braves GM if you called and offered them Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood for Shelby Miller.
You should have to call into The Score to propose this trade offer, that's where it belongs.
Miller's a #3 on a contender. That's worth a starting OF and a #5 starter.
Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood are neither of those things, which is beside the point, which is that there's no reason on earth why a rebuilding team like the Braves would trade a young, quality starting pitcher with multiple years of control left for a 31 year old greasey chested malcontent or a 29 year old long reliever (both of whom are free agents after this season).
And also, no, just no.
For the same reason the Cubs kept getting the Scott Feldmans of the world - they become pieces that contenders will use to plug holes for the stretch run and will be happy to give up prospects for. You turn one Kyle Hendricks-level pitcher into 3-4 prospects at about the same level you'd get 2 for in a straight trade. The impending free agency makes them more attractive as trade pieces at mid-season.
At no point did the Cubs give up a good, young, controllable asset in order to acquire a Scott Feldman type they could then flip to get more good, young, controllable assets. They picked those guys up for basically nothing in FA so there'd be no risk if they went tits up like Jose Veras. If Travis Wood puts up another 5.00+ ERA as a starter (as he's done in 40+ starts over the last two years) or Coghlan regresses back to 2010-2013 Coghlan now that he's over 30, they'd have gotten rid of Shelby Miller for nothing, which is why no sane person would ever do that.
Again, I don't think Miller's going to bring the lush haul you seem to think he will. Among the young cost-controlled starters out there, he's not exactly the top of the heap.
You were willing to trade a top 100 prospect outfielder and a likely top 100 prospect catcher for him yesterday.
Yeah, but both of them stacked on top of each other will be as good as Soler, which is where this discussion began. We've been over the sudden spike in Contreras' productivity, and McKinney's lack of power has been Murtonesque.
I also saw someone floating Miller for Baez, and I wouldn't make that trade either.
Let's pretend you're Beltless Theo. What do you give up for Shelby Miller right now?
This conversation began with me saying that Miller wasn't worth Soler, so I don't know why you need to tell me how Miller isn't worth Soler. The conversation then evolved into me making fun of your hilariously terrible Coghlan/Wood for Miller idea, which is still hilariously terrible.
I still don't see how the Cubs giving up 5 wins for 3 and a half is hilariously terrible.
I think the bigger concern with this "offer" was that the Braves are rebuilding and the Cubs are "going for it" in which case why would the Braves give up a young, cost-controlled pitcher for two old dudes?
Never mind that those old dudes are pretty crappy overall, which is important but of secondary importance here, I believe.
Quote from: PenFoe on December 01, 2015, 04:51:12 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 04:47:40 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 04:18:05 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:46:09 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 03:40:37 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:37:31 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 03:31:44 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:27:54 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 03:23:55 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 03:15:16 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 02:09:35 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 01, 2015, 02:07:10 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 01:54:28 PM
The Braves can fuck right off with their Soler for Miller talk, by God.
If the Cubs decide to move Soler, it's going to be for a fuckload more than Miller.
Miller's worth maybe Coghlan/Wood and a warm body from the system, or two mid-level prospects.
For once in my life I wish one of us actually could get a GM's secretary on the phone because I want to hear the laughter from the Braves GM if you called and offered them Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood for Shelby Miller.
You should have to call into The Score to propose this trade offer, that's where it belongs.
Miller's a #3 on a contender. That's worth a starting OF and a #5 starter.
Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood are neither of those things, which is beside the point, which is that there's no reason on earth why a rebuilding team like the Braves would trade a young, quality starting pitcher with multiple years of control left for a 31 year old greasey chested malcontent or a 29 year old long reliever (both of whom are free agents after this season).
And also, no, just no.
For the same reason the Cubs kept getting the Scott Feldmans of the world - they become pieces that contenders will use to plug holes for the stretch run and will be happy to give up prospects for. You turn one Kyle Hendricks-level pitcher into 3-4 prospects at about the same level you'd get 2 for in a straight trade. The impending free agency makes them more attractive as trade pieces at mid-season.
At no point did the Cubs give up a good, young, controllable asset in order to acquire a Scott Feldman type they could then flip to get more good, young, controllable assets. They picked those guys up for basically nothing in FA so there'd be no risk if they went tits up like Jose Veras. If Travis Wood puts up another 5.00+ ERA as a starter (as he's done in 40+ starts over the last two years) or Coghlan regresses back to 2010-2013 Coghlan now that he's over 30, they'd have gotten rid of Shelby Miller for nothing, which is why no sane person would ever do that.
Again, I don't think Miller's going to bring the lush haul you seem to think he will. Among the young cost-controlled starters out there, he's not exactly the top of the heap.
You were willing to trade a top 100 prospect outfielder and a likely top 100 prospect catcher for him yesterday.
Yeah, but both of them stacked on top of each other will be as good as Soler, which is where this discussion began. We've been over the sudden spike in Contreras' productivity, and McKinney's lack of power has been Murtonesque.
I also saw someone floating Miller for Baez, and I wouldn't make that trade either.
Let's pretend you're Beltless Theo. What do you give up for Shelby Miller right now?
This conversation began with me saying that Miller wasn't worth Soler, so I don't know why you need to tell me how Miller isn't worth Soler. The conversation then evolved into me making fun of your hilariously terrible Coghlan/Wood for Miller idea, which is still hilariously terrible.
I still don't see how the Cubs giving up 5 wins for 3 and a half is hilariously terrible.
I think the bigger concern with this "offer" was that the Braves are rebuilding and the Cubs are "going for it" in which case why would the Braves give up a young, cost-controlled pitcher for two old dudes?
Never mind that those old dudes are pretty crappy overall, which is important but of secondary importance here, I believe.
Because Theo once traded Scott Feldman for Arrieta. Pay the fuck attention
So is there anything that would prevent the Cubs from re-signing Fowler? I'm merely a caveman with only a vague understanding of the free agency rules so I figured I'll risk getting pointed at and laughed at by asking the question.
Quote from: PANK! on December 01, 2015, 05:28:44 PM
So is there anything that would prevent the Cubs from re-signing Fowler? I'm merely a caveman with only a vague understanding of the free agency rules so I figured I'll risk getting pointed at and laughed at by asking the question.
Apparently they have no money but that's cool because would you want any of these free agents at those prices? Woof too rich for my blood
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 05:43:08 PM
Quote from: PANK! on December 01, 2015, 05:28:44 PM
So is there anything that would prevent the Cubs from re-signing Fowler? I'm merely a caveman with only a vague understanding of the free agency rules so I figured I'll risk getting pointed at and laughed at by asking the question.
Apparently they have no money but that's cool because would you want any of these free agents at those prices? Woof too rich for my blood
That doesn't answer my question.
Quote from: PANK! on December 01, 2015, 05:47:31 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 05:43:08 PM
Quote from: PANK! on December 01, 2015, 05:28:44 PM
So is there anything that would prevent the Cubs from re-signing Fowler? I'm merely a caveman with only a vague understanding of the free agency rules so I figured I'll risk getting pointed at and laughed at by asking the question.
Apparently they have no money but that's cool because would you want any of these free agents at those prices? Woof too rich for my blood
That doesn't answer my question.
There is not.
Quote from: Eli on December 01, 2015, 07:16:12 PM
Quote from: PANK! on December 01, 2015, 05:47:31 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 05:43:08 PM
Quote from: PANK! on December 01, 2015, 05:28:44 PM
So is there anything that would prevent the Cubs from re-signing Fowler? I'm merely a caveman with only a vague understanding of the free agency rules so I figured I'll risk getting pointed at and laughed at by asking the question.
Apparently they have no money but that's cool because would you want any of these free agents at those prices? Woof too rich for my blood
That doesn't answer my question.
There is not.
He's pretty much the only person whose BMI even falls within the scale of people who can play CF.
Coghlan and Travis Wood for Shelby Miller? Did Fork write this too? (http://sportsmockery.com/2015/11/fix-white-sox-bring-fans-back-maintain-payroll-become-contender/)
Quote from: PANK! on December 01, 2015, 05:28:44 PM
So is there anything that would prevent the Cubs from re-signing Fowler? I'm merely a caveman with only a vague understanding of the free agency rules so I figured I'll risk getting pointed at and laughed at by asking the question.
Declining a qualifying offer does not mean that the free agent can't re-sign with his previous team, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the Cubs bring Fowler back.
To be fair, Fork offering Coghlan/Wood for Miller is only the third dumbest trade proposal involving Shelby Miller I heard yesterday, with the Braves apparently real offers of Shelby Miller for AJ Pollock, or Shelby Miller/Arodys Vizcaino for Pollock and one of the Diamondbacks top ten prospects taking the cake.
At least Fork understood WAR enough to know the Cubs should offer a package that was worth more wins than Miller alone was, the Braves apparently decided to offer Miller's 3.4 WAR as a middle of the rotation starter for a guy that was worth nearly 7 wins in CF.
It's going to take more effort than it's worth to talk them down from thinking Miller is worth Pollock to thinking Miller is worth something less than Jorge Soler. Pass.
Quote from: Brownie on December 01, 2015, 10:18:26 PM
Coghlan and Travis Wood for Shelby Miller? Did Fork write this too? (http://sportsmockery.com/2015/11/fix-white-sox-bring-fans-back-maintain-payroll-become-contender/)
Sports Mockery is a partial birth abortion of a web site.
Quote from: SKO on December 02, 2015, 07:50:47 AM
To be fair, Fork offering Coghlan/Wood for Miller is only the third dumbest trade proposal involving Shelby Miller I heard yesterday, with the Braves apparently real offers of Shelby Miller for AJ Pollock, or Shelby Miller/Arodys Vizcaino for Pollock and one of the Diamondbacks top ten prospects taking the cake.
At least Fork understood WAR enough to know the Cubs should offer a package that was worth more wins than Miller alone was, the Braves apparently decided to offer Miller's 3.4 WAR as a middle of the rotation starter for a guy that was worth nearly 7 wins in CF.
It's going to take more effort than it's worth to talk them down from thinking Miller is worth Pollock to thinking Miller is worth something less than Jorge Soler. Pass.
Just spitballing, but would anyone here trade Schwarber or Russell for Pollock?
Quote from: Eli on December 02, 2015, 08:36:28 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 02, 2015, 07:50:47 AM
To be fair, Fork offering Coghlan/Wood for Miller is only the third dumbest trade proposal involving Shelby Miller I heard yesterday, with the Braves apparently real offers of Shelby Miller for AJ Pollock, or Shelby Miller/Arodys Vizcaino for Pollock and one of the Diamondbacks top ten prospects taking the cake.
At least Fork understood WAR enough to know the Cubs should offer a package that was worth more wins than Miller alone was, the Braves apparently decided to offer Miller's 3.4 WAR as a middle of the rotation starter for a guy that was worth nearly 7 wins in CF.
It's going to take more effort than it's worth to talk them down from thinking Miller is worth Pollock to thinking Miller is worth something less than Jorge Soler. Pass.
Just spitballing, but would anyone here trade Schwarber or Russell for Pollock?
Not me. SKO would.
Quote from: Eli on December 02, 2015, 08:36:28 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 02, 2015, 07:50:47 AM
To be fair, Fork offering Coghlan/Wood for Miller is only the third dumbest trade proposal involving Shelby Miller I heard yesterday, with the Braves apparently real offers of Shelby Miller for AJ Pollock, or Shelby Miller/Arodys Vizcaino for Pollock and one of the Diamondbacks top ten prospects taking the cake.
At least Fork understood WAR enough to know the Cubs should offer a package that was worth more wins than Miller alone was, the Braves apparently decided to offer Miller's 3.4 WAR as a middle of the rotation starter for a guy that was worth nearly 7 wins in CF.
It's going to take more effort than it's worth to talk them down from thinking Miller is worth Pollock to thinking Miller is worth something less than Jorge Soler. Pass.
Just spitballing, but would anyone here trade Schwarber or Russell for Pollock?
I'd rather they keep those two and re-sign Fowler myself.
Quote from: Eli on December 02, 2015, 08:36:28 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 02, 2015, 07:50:47 AM
To be fair, Fork offering Coghlan/Wood for Miller is only the third dumbest trade proposal involving Shelby Miller I heard yesterday, with the Braves apparently real offers of Shelby Miller for AJ Pollock, or Shelby Miller/Arodys Vizcaino for Pollock and one of the Diamondbacks top ten prospects taking the cake.
At least Fork understood WAR enough to know the Cubs should offer a package that was worth more wins than Miller alone was, the Braves apparently decided to offer Miller's 3.4 WAR as a middle of the rotation starter for a guy that was worth nearly 7 wins in CF.
It's going to take more effort than it's worth to talk them down from thinking Miller is worth Pollock to thinking Miller is worth something less than Jorge Soler. Pass.
Just spitballing, but would anyone here trade Schwarber or Russell for Pollock?
I'd probably trade Schwarber for Pollock. I don't know about Russell.
Quote from: PANK! on December 02, 2015, 08:39:42 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 02, 2015, 08:36:28 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 02, 2015, 07:50:47 AM
To be fair, Fork offering Coghlan/Wood for Miller is only the third dumbest trade proposal involving Shelby Miller I heard yesterday, with the Braves apparently real offers of Shelby Miller for AJ Pollock, or Shelby Miller/Arodys Vizcaino for Pollock and one of the Diamondbacks top ten prospects taking the cake.
At least Fork understood WAR enough to know the Cubs should offer a package that was worth more wins than Miller alone was, the Braves apparently decided to offer Miller's 3.4 WAR as a middle of the rotation starter for a guy that was worth nearly 7 wins in CF.
It's going to take more effort than it's worth to talk them down from thinking Miller is worth Pollock to thinking Miller is worth something less than Jorge Soler. Pass.
Just spitballing, but would anyone here trade Schwarber or Russell for Pollock?
I'd rather they keep those two and re-sign Fowler myself.
DPD, but I'd probably rather they do that as well, I think Eli was just trying to determine how much we valued Schwarber or Russell. Hard to say that a nearly 7 WAR CF isn't worth either of those guys, frankly.
Quote from: SKO on December 02, 2015, 08:49:00 AM
Quote from: PANK! on December 02, 2015, 08:39:42 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 02, 2015, 08:36:28 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 02, 2015, 07:50:47 AM
To be fair, Fork offering Coghlan/Wood for Miller is only the third dumbest trade proposal involving Shelby Miller I heard yesterday, with the Braves apparently real offers of Shelby Miller for AJ Pollock, or Shelby Miller/Arodys Vizcaino for Pollock and one of the Diamondbacks top ten prospects taking the cake.
At least Fork understood WAR enough to know the Cubs should offer a package that was worth more wins than Miller alone was, the Braves apparently decided to offer Miller's 3.4 WAR as a middle of the rotation starter for a guy that was worth nearly 7 wins in CF.
It's going to take more effort than it's worth to talk them down from thinking Miller is worth Pollock to thinking Miller is worth something less than Jorge Soler. Pass.
Just spitballing, but would anyone here trade Schwarber or Russell for Pollock?
I'd rather they keep those two and re-sign Fowler myself.
DPD, but I'd probably rather they do that as well, I think Eli was just trying to determine how much we valued Schwarber or Russell. Hard to say that a nearly 7 WAR CF isn't worth either of those guys, frankly.
In his prime, with three years of team control left. I don't think most people realize how good he is.
Quote from: Eli on December 02, 2015, 08:55:15 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 02, 2015, 08:49:00 AM
Quote from: PANK! on December 02, 2015, 08:39:42 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 02, 2015, 08:36:28 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 02, 2015, 07:50:47 AM
To be fair, Fork offering Coghlan/Wood for Miller is only the third dumbest trade proposal involving Shelby Miller I heard yesterday, with the Braves apparently real offers of Shelby Miller for AJ Pollock, or Shelby Miller/Arodys Vizcaino for Pollock and one of the Diamondbacks top ten prospects taking the cake.
At least Fork understood WAR enough to know the Cubs should offer a package that was worth more wins than Miller alone was, the Braves apparently decided to offer Miller's 3.4 WAR as a middle of the rotation starter for a guy that was worth nearly 7 wins in CF.
It's going to take more effort than it's worth to talk them down from thinking Miller is worth Pollock to thinking Miller is worth something less than Jorge Soler. Pass.
Just spitballing, but would anyone here trade Schwarber or Russell for Pollock?
I'd rather they keep those two and re-sign Fowler myself.
DPD, but I'd probably rather they do that as well, I think Eli was just trying to determine how much we valued Schwarber or Russell. Hard to say that a nearly 7 WAR CF isn't worth either of those guys, frankly.
In his prime, with three years of team control left. I don't think most people realize how good he is.
No he's definitely underrated. Hell it took this year for most people to realize Paul Goldschmidt was as good as he is. Not a lot of attention paid to the Diamondbacks. Probably rightfully so.
Quote from: SKO on December 02, 2015, 08:49:00 AM
Quote from: PANK! on December 02, 2015, 08:39:42 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 02, 2015, 08:36:28 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 02, 2015, 07:50:47 AM
To be fair, Fork offering Coghlan/Wood for Miller is only the third dumbest trade proposal involving Shelby Miller I heard yesterday, with the Braves apparently real offers of Shelby Miller for AJ Pollock, or Shelby Miller/Arodys Vizcaino for Pollock and one of the Diamondbacks top ten prospects taking the cake.
At least Fork understood WAR enough to know the Cubs should offer a package that was worth more wins than Miller alone was, the Braves apparently decided to offer Miller's 3.4 WAR as a middle of the rotation starter for a guy that was worth nearly 7 wins in CF.
It's going to take more effort than it's worth to talk them down from thinking Miller is worth Pollock to thinking Miller is worth something less than Jorge Soler. Pass.
Just spitballing, but would anyone here trade Schwarber or Russell for Pollock?
I'd rather they keep those two and re-sign Fowler myself.
DPD, but I'd probably rather they do that as well, I think Eli was just trying to determine how much we valued Schwarber or Russell. Hard to say that a nearly 7 WAR CF isn't worth either of those guys, frankly.
Agreed, but the improvement from Fowler to Pollock doesn't quite cover the dropoff from Schwarber to...Coghlan?
I guess Russell would make more sense since Baez could replace him, but I have a sneaking suspicion that Russell may still develop into a special player. Since the Cubs haven't spent any money yet I'd prefer they keep their younguns for now and buy themselves a solid CF like Fowler or Span.
Quote from: Eli on December 02, 2015, 08:55:15 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 02, 2015, 08:49:00 AM
Quote from: PANK! on December 02, 2015, 08:39:42 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 02, 2015, 08:36:28 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 02, 2015, 07:50:47 AM
To be fair, Fork offering Coghlan/Wood for Miller is only the third dumbest trade proposal involving Shelby Miller I heard yesterday, with the Braves apparently real offers of Shelby Miller for AJ Pollock, or Shelby Miller/Arodys Vizcaino for Pollock and one of the Diamondbacks top ten prospects taking the cake.
At least Fork understood WAR enough to know the Cubs should offer a package that was worth more wins than Miller alone was, the Braves apparently decided to offer Miller's 3.4 WAR as a middle of the rotation starter for a guy that was worth nearly 7 wins in CF.
It's going to take more effort than it's worth to talk them down from thinking Miller is worth Pollock to thinking Miller is worth something less than Jorge Soler. Pass.
Just spitballing, but would anyone here trade Schwarber or Russell for Pollock?
I'd rather they keep those two and re-sign Fowler myself.
DPD, but I'd probably rather they do that as well, I think Eli was just trying to determine how much we valued Schwarber or Russell. Hard to say that a nearly 7 WAR CF isn't worth either of those guys, frankly.
In his prime, with three years of team control left. I don't think most people realize how good he is.
DPD...this is fair. I, myself, hadn't realized how good Pollock was until I looked at his BB-Ref page.
Still, after re-calibrating my assessment of Pollock, I stand by my answer.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 02, 2015, 08:38:10 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 02, 2015, 08:36:28 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 02, 2015, 07:50:47 AM
To be fair, Fork offering Coghlan/Wood for Miller is only the third dumbest trade proposal involving Shelby Miller I heard yesterday, with the Braves apparently real offers of Shelby Miller for AJ Pollock, or Shelby Miller/Arodys Vizcaino for Pollock and one of the Diamondbacks top ten prospects taking the cake.
At least Fork understood WAR enough to know the Cubs should offer a package that was worth more wins than Miller alone was, the Braves apparently decided to offer Miller's 3.4 WAR as a middle of the rotation starter for a guy that was worth nearly 7 wins in CF.
It's going to take more effort than it's worth to talk them down from thinking Miller is worth Pollock to thinking Miller is worth something less than Jorge Soler. Pass.
Just spitballing, but would anyone here trade Schwarber or Russell for Pollock?
Not me. SKO would.
You probably wouldn't trade either of those guys for Bryce Harper though.
Quote from: Eli on December 02, 2015, 09:05:25 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 02, 2015, 08:38:10 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 02, 2015, 08:36:28 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 02, 2015, 07:50:47 AM
To be fair, Fork offering Coghlan/Wood for Miller is only the third dumbest trade proposal involving Shelby Miller I heard yesterday, with the Braves apparently real offers of Shelby Miller for AJ Pollock, or Shelby Miller/Arodys Vizcaino for Pollock and one of the Diamondbacks top ten prospects taking the cake.
At least Fork understood WAR enough to know the Cubs should offer a package that was worth more wins than Miller alone was, the Braves apparently decided to offer Miller's 3.4 WAR as a middle of the rotation starter for a guy that was worth nearly 7 wins in CF.
It's going to take more effort than it's worth to talk them down from thinking Miller is worth Pollock to thinking Miller is worth something less than Jorge Soler. Pass.
Just spitballing, but would anyone here trade Schwarber or Russell for Pollock?
Not me. SKO would.
You probably wouldn't trade either of those guys for Bryce Harper though.
Too pasty.
Quote from: Eli on December 02, 2015, 09:05:25 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 02, 2015, 08:38:10 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 02, 2015, 08:36:28 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 02, 2015, 07:50:47 AM
To be fair, Fork offering Coghlan/Wood for Miller is only the third dumbest trade proposal involving Shelby Miller I heard yesterday, with the Braves apparently real offers of Shelby Miller for AJ Pollock, or Shelby Miller/Arodys Vizcaino for Pollock and one of the Diamondbacks top ten prospects taking the cake.
At least Fork understood WAR enough to know the Cubs should offer a package that was worth more wins than Miller alone was, the Braves apparently decided to offer Miller's 3.4 WAR as a middle of the rotation starter for a guy that was worth nearly 7 wins in CF.
It's going to take more effort than it's worth to talk them down from thinking Miller is worth Pollock to thinking Miller is worth something less than Jorge Soler. Pass.
Just spitballing, but would anyone here trade Schwarber or Russell for Pollock?
Not me. SKO would.
You probably wouldn't trade either of those guys for Bryce Harper though.
Clown question, bro.
Quote from: Eli on December 02, 2015, 08:36:28 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 02, 2015, 07:50:47 AM
To be fair, Fork offering Coghlan/Wood for Miller is only the third dumbest trade proposal involving Shelby Miller I heard yesterday, with the Braves apparently real offers of Shelby Miller for AJ Pollock, or Shelby Miller/Arodys Vizcaino for Pollock and one of the Diamondbacks top ten prospects taking the cake.
At least Fork understood WAR enough to know the Cubs should offer a package that was worth more wins than Miller alone was, the Braves apparently decided to offer Miller's 3.4 WAR as a middle of the rotation starter for a guy that was worth nearly 7 wins in CF.
It's going to take more effort than it's worth to talk them down from thinking Miller is worth Pollock to thinking Miller is worth something less than Jorge Soler. Pass.
Just spitballing, but would anyone here trade Schwarber or Russell for Pollock?
No on Russell. Yes on Schwarber.
Can I also have Shipley or Blair? Only because if they trade Schwarber, I'd like them to get a good pitcher back, even if it's just a top prospect. I'd even consider Corbin or Bradley but those injuries are scary.
Quote from: Oleg on December 02, 2015, 10:10:06 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 02, 2015, 08:36:28 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 02, 2015, 07:50:47 AM
To be fair, Fork offering Coghlan/Wood for Miller is only the third dumbest trade proposal involving Shelby Miller I heard yesterday, with the Braves apparently real offers of Shelby Miller for AJ Pollock, or Shelby Miller/Arodys Vizcaino for Pollock and one of the Diamondbacks top ten prospects taking the cake.
At least Fork understood WAR enough to know the Cubs should offer a package that was worth more wins than Miller alone was, the Braves apparently decided to offer Miller's 3.4 WAR as a middle of the rotation starter for a guy that was worth nearly 7 wins in CF.
It's going to take more effort than it's worth to talk them down from thinking Miller is worth Pollock to thinking Miller is worth something less than Jorge Soler. Pass.
Just spitballing, but would anyone here trade Schwarber or Russell for Pollock?
No on Russell. Yes on Schwarber.
Can I also have Shipley or Blair? Only because if they trade Schwarber, I'd like them to get a good pitcher back, even if it's just a top prospect. I'd even consider Corbin or Bradley but those injuries are scary.
Pretty much this. I'd put Schwarber on the table if it meant getting some serious pitching coming back. But as good as Pollock is, the Cubs would be better off re-signing Fowler knowing he'll regress to his standard career levels and keep a potential 40+ HR bat.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 03, 2015, 11:53:22 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 02, 2015, 10:10:06 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 02, 2015, 08:36:28 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 02, 2015, 07:50:47 AM
To be fair, Fork offering Coghlan/Wood for Miller is only the third dumbest trade proposal involving Shelby Miller I heard yesterday, with the Braves apparently real offers of Shelby Miller for AJ Pollock, or Shelby Miller/Arodys Vizcaino for Pollock and one of the Diamondbacks top ten prospects taking the cake.
At least Fork understood WAR enough to know the Cubs should offer a package that was worth more wins than Miller alone was, the Braves apparently decided to offer Miller's 3.4 WAR as a middle of the rotation starter for a guy that was worth nearly 7 wins in CF.
It's going to take more effort than it's worth to talk them down from thinking Miller is worth Pollock to thinking Miller is worth something less than Jorge Soler. Pass.
Just spitballing, but would anyone here trade Schwarber or Russell for Pollock?
No on Russell. Yes on Schwarber.
Can I also have Shipley or Blair? Only because if they trade Schwarber, I'd like them to get a good pitcher back, even if it's just a top prospect. I'd even consider Corbin or Bradley but those injuries are scary.
Pretty much this. I'd put Schwarber on the table if it meant getting some serious pitching coming back. But as good as Pollock is, the Cubs would be better off re-signing Fowler knowing he'll regress to his standard career levels and keep a potential 40+ HR bat.
This is like the third time you've made some comment like this and I have no idea what you mean by it. Fowler posted BA/OBP/SLG all below his career norms this year, and his wRC+ and wOBA were also lower than they were the year before. Is it just the home run total you look at? That would explain the reluctance to trade Schwarber I suppose.
Fowler posted a career high WAR this year but that was almost entirely due to his defensive improvements, which can probably be chalked up to playing in Wrigley's CF and not Houston or Colorado where CF is a nightmare. I don't see any reason to expect Fowler to be worse than last year. He might even be a bit better, albeit with maybe fewer home runs.
Quote from: SKO on December 03, 2015, 12:01:59 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 03, 2015, 11:53:22 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 02, 2015, 10:10:06 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 02, 2015, 08:36:28 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 02, 2015, 07:50:47 AM
To be fair, Fork offering Coghlan/Wood for Miller is only the third dumbest trade proposal involving Shelby Miller I heard yesterday, with the Braves apparently real offers of Shelby Miller for AJ Pollock, or Shelby Miller/Arodys Vizcaino for Pollock and one of the Diamondbacks top ten prospects taking the cake.
At least Fork understood WAR enough to know the Cubs should offer a package that was worth more wins than Miller alone was, the Braves apparently decided to offer Miller's 3.4 WAR as a middle of the rotation starter for a guy that was worth nearly 7 wins in CF.
It's going to take more effort than it's worth to talk them down from thinking Miller is worth Pollock to thinking Miller is worth something less than Jorge Soler. Pass.
Just spitballing, but would anyone here trade Schwarber or Russell for Pollock?
No on Russell. Yes on Schwarber.
Can I also have Shipley or Blair? Only because if they trade Schwarber, I'd like them to get a good pitcher back, even if it's just a top prospect. I'd even consider Corbin or Bradley but those injuries are scary.
Pretty much this. I'd put Schwarber on the table if it meant getting some serious pitching coming back. But as good as Pollock is, the Cubs would be better off re-signing Fowler knowing he'll regress to his standard career levels and keep a potential 40+ HR bat.
This is like the third time you've made some comment like this and I have no idea what you mean by it. Fowler posted BA/OBP/SLG all below his career norms this year, and his wRC+ and wOBA were also lower than they were the year before. Is it just the home run total you look at? That would explain the reluctance to trade Schwarber I suppose.
Fowler posted a career high WAR this year but that was almost entirely due to his defensive improvements, which can probably be chalked up to playing in Wrigley's CF and not the Houston or Colorado where CF is a nightmare. I don't see any reason to expect Fowler to be worse than last year. He might even be a bit better, albeit with maybe fewer home runs.
Yeah I thought homeruns was the only area where Fowler improved on his career totals (not counting defense obvi). Y'all might recall that he was actually sucking some major ass through mid-July before getting hotter than shit and restoring his numbers. All told, his final numbers from last year (homeruns aside) were still below his career norms--.250/.346/.411 in 2015 vs. a career slash line of .267/.363/.418...even with reaching a career high in homeruns, Fowler's SLG % on the year was below his career average.
Quote from: PANK! on December 03, 2015, 12:11:06 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 03, 2015, 12:01:59 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 03, 2015, 11:53:22 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 02, 2015, 10:10:06 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 02, 2015, 08:36:28 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 02, 2015, 07:50:47 AM
To be fair, Fork offering Coghlan/Wood for Miller is only the third dumbest trade proposal involving Shelby Miller I heard yesterday, with the Braves apparently real offers of Shelby Miller for AJ Pollock, or Shelby Miller/Arodys Vizcaino for Pollock and one of the Diamondbacks top ten prospects taking the cake.
At least Fork understood WAR enough to know the Cubs should offer a package that was worth more wins than Miller alone was, the Braves apparently decided to offer Miller's 3.4 WAR as a middle of the rotation starter for a guy that was worth nearly 7 wins in CF.
It's going to take more effort than it's worth to talk them down from thinking Miller is worth Pollock to thinking Miller is worth something less than Jorge Soler. Pass.
Just spitballing, but would anyone here trade Schwarber or Russell for Pollock?
No on Russell. Yes on Schwarber.
Can I also have Shipley or Blair? Only because if they trade Schwarber, I'd like them to get a good pitcher back, even if it's just a top prospect. I'd even consider Corbin or Bradley but those injuries are scary.
Pretty much this. I'd put Schwarber on the table if it meant getting some serious pitching coming back. But as good as Pollock is, the Cubs would be better off re-signing Fowler knowing he'll regress to his standard career levels and keep a potential 40+ HR bat.
This is like the third time you've made some comment like this and I have no idea what you mean by it. Fowler posted BA/OBP/SLG all below his career norms this year, and his wRC+ and wOBA were also lower than they were the year before. Is it just the home run total you look at? That would explain the reluctance to trade Schwarber I suppose.
Fowler posted a career high WAR this year but that was almost entirely due to his defensive improvements, which can probably be chalked up to playing in Wrigley's CF and not the Houston or Colorado where CF is a nightmare. I don't see any reason to expect Fowler to be worse than last year. He might even be a bit better, albeit with maybe fewer home runs.
Yeah I thought homeruns was the only area where Fowler improved on his career totals (not counting defense obvi). Y'all might recall that he was actually sucking some major ass through mid-July before getting hotter than shit and restoring his numbers. All told, his final numbers from last year (homeruns aside) were still below his career norms--.250/.346/.411 in 2015 vs. a career slash line of .267/.363/.418...even with reaching a career high in homeruns, Fowler's SLG % on the year was below his career average.
Ahem
QuoteFowler posted BA/OBP/SLG all below his career norms this year, and his wRC+ and wOBA were also lower than they were the year before
Pay the fuck attention, Seamus.
Quote from: SKO on December 03, 2015, 12:14:23 PM
Quote from: PANK! on December 03, 2015, 12:11:06 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 03, 2015, 12:01:59 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 03, 2015, 11:53:22 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 02, 2015, 10:10:06 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 02, 2015, 08:36:28 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 02, 2015, 07:50:47 AM
To be fair, Fork offering Coghlan/Wood for Miller is only the third dumbest trade proposal involving Shelby Miller I heard yesterday, with the Braves apparently real offers of Shelby Miller for AJ Pollock, or Shelby Miller/Arodys Vizcaino for Pollock and one of the Diamondbacks top ten prospects taking the cake.
At least Fork understood WAR enough to know the Cubs should offer a package that was worth more wins than Miller alone was, the Braves apparently decided to offer Miller's 3.4 WAR as a middle of the rotation starter for a guy that was worth nearly 7 wins in CF.
It's going to take more effort than it's worth to talk them down from thinking Miller is worth Pollock to thinking Miller is worth something less than Jorge Soler. Pass.
Just spitballing, but would anyone here trade Schwarber or Russell for Pollock?
No on Russell. Yes on Schwarber.
Can I also have Shipley or Blair? Only because if they trade Schwarber, I'd like them to get a good pitcher back, even if it's just a top prospect. I'd even consider Corbin or Bradley but those injuries are scary.
Pretty much this. I'd put Schwarber on the table if it meant getting some serious pitching coming back. But as good as Pollock is, the Cubs would be better off re-signing Fowler knowing he'll regress to his standard career levels and keep a potential 40+ HR bat.
This is like the third time you've made some comment like this and I have no idea what you mean by it. Fowler posted BA/OBP/SLG all below his career norms this year, and his wRC+ and wOBA were also lower than they were the year before. Is it just the home run total you look at? That would explain the reluctance to trade Schwarber I suppose.
Fowler posted a career high WAR this year but that was almost entirely due to his defensive improvements, which can probably be chalked up to playing in Wrigley's CF and not the Houston or Colorado where CF is a nightmare. I don't see any reason to expect Fowler to be worse than last year. He might even be a bit better, albeit with maybe fewer home runs.
Yeah I thought homeruns was the only area where Fowler improved on his career totals (not counting defense obvi). Y'all might recall that he was actually sucking some major ass through mid-July before getting hotter than shit and restoring his numbers. All told, his final numbers from last year (homeruns aside) were still below his career norms--.250/.346/.411 in 2015 vs. a career slash line of .267/.363/.418...even with reaching a career high in homeruns, Fowler's SLG % on the year was below his career average.
Ahem
QuoteFowler posted BA/OBP/SLG all below his career norms this year, and his wRC+ and wOBA were also lower than they were the year before
Pay the fuck attention, Seamus.
It's almost like nobody reads any of these posts except for Fork's.
Quote from: SKO on December 03, 2015, 12:14:23 PM
Quote from: PANK! on December 03, 2015, 12:11:06 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 03, 2015, 12:01:59 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 03, 2015, 11:53:22 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 02, 2015, 10:10:06 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 02, 2015, 08:36:28 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 02, 2015, 07:50:47 AM
To be fair, Fork offering Coghlan/Wood for Miller is only the third dumbest trade proposal involving Shelby Miller I heard yesterday, with the Braves apparently real offers of Shelby Miller for AJ Pollock, or Shelby Miller/Arodys Vizcaino for Pollock and one of the Diamondbacks top ten prospects taking the cake.
At least Fork understood WAR enough to know the Cubs should offer a package that was worth more wins than Miller alone was, the Braves apparently decided to offer Miller's 3.4 WAR as a middle of the rotation starter for a guy that was worth nearly 7 wins in CF.
It's going to take more effort than it's worth to talk them down from thinking Miller is worth Pollock to thinking Miller is worth something less than Jorge Soler. Pass.
Just spitballing, but would anyone here trade Schwarber or Russell for Pollock?
No on Russell. Yes on Schwarber.
Can I also have Shipley or Blair? Only because if they trade Schwarber, I'd like them to get a good pitcher back, even if it's just a top prospect. I'd even consider Corbin or Bradley but those injuries are scary.
Pretty much this. I'd put Schwarber on the table if it meant getting some serious pitching coming back. But as good as Pollock is, the Cubs would be better off re-signing Fowler knowing he'll regress to his standard career levels and keep a potential 40+ HR bat.
This is like the third time you've made some comment like this and I have no idea what you mean by it. Fowler posted BA/OBP/SLG all below his career norms this year, and his wRC+ and wOBA were also lower than they were the year before. Is it just the home run total you look at? That would explain the reluctance to trade Schwarber I suppose.
Fowler posted a career high WAR this year but that was almost entirely due to his defensive improvements, which can probably be chalked up to playing in Wrigley's CF and not the Houston or Colorado where CF is a nightmare. I don't see any reason to expect Fowler to be worse than last year. He might even be a bit better, albeit with maybe fewer home runs.
Yeah I thought homeruns was the only area where Fowler improved on his career totals (not counting defense obvi). Y'all might recall that he was actually sucking some major ass through mid-July before getting hotter than shit and restoring his numbers. All told, his final numbers from last year (homeruns aside) were still below his career norms--.250/.346/.411 in 2015 vs. a career slash line of .267/.363/.418...even with reaching a career high in homeruns, Fowler's SLG % on the year was below his career average.
Ahem
QuoteFowler posted BA/OBP/SLG all below his career norms this year, and his wRC+ and wOBA were also lower than they were the year before
Pay the fuck attention, Seamus.
I think he was just agreeing with you and using stats that don't need an advanced degree in Fangraphs to explain his reasoning. That's how I read it.
Quote from: Oleg on December 03, 2015, 12:20:26 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 03, 2015, 12:14:23 PM
Quote from: PANK! on December 03, 2015, 12:11:06 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 03, 2015, 12:01:59 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 03, 2015, 11:53:22 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 02, 2015, 10:10:06 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 02, 2015, 08:36:28 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 02, 2015, 07:50:47 AM
To be fair, Fork offering Coghlan/Wood for Miller is only the third dumbest trade proposal involving Shelby Miller I heard yesterday, with the Braves apparently real offers of Shelby Miller for AJ Pollock, or Shelby Miller/Arodys Vizcaino for Pollock and one of the Diamondbacks top ten prospects taking the cake.
At least Fork understood WAR enough to know the Cubs should offer a package that was worth more wins than Miller alone was, the Braves apparently decided to offer Miller's 3.4 WAR as a middle of the rotation starter for a guy that was worth nearly 7 wins in CF.
It's going to take more effort than it's worth to talk them down from thinking Miller is worth Pollock to thinking Miller is worth something less than Jorge Soler. Pass.
Just spitballing, but would anyone here trade Schwarber or Russell for Pollock?
No on Russell. Yes on Schwarber.
Can I also have Shipley or Blair? Only because if they trade Schwarber, I'd like them to get a good pitcher back, even if it's just a top prospect. I'd even consider Corbin or Bradley but those injuries are scary.
Pretty much this. I'd put Schwarber on the table if it meant getting some serious pitching coming back. But as good as Pollock is, the Cubs would be better off re-signing Fowler knowing he'll regress to his standard career levels and keep a potential 40+ HR bat.
This is like the third time you've made some comment like this and I have no idea what you mean by it. Fowler posted BA/OBP/SLG all below his career norms this year, and his wRC+ and wOBA were also lower than they were the year before. Is it just the home run total you look at? That would explain the reluctance to trade Schwarber I suppose.
Fowler posted a career high WAR this year but that was almost entirely due to his defensive improvements, which can probably be chalked up to playing in Wrigley's CF and not the Houston or Colorado where CF is a nightmare. I don't see any reason to expect Fowler to be worse than last year. He might even be a bit better, albeit with maybe fewer home runs.
Yeah I thought homeruns was the only area where Fowler improved on his career totals (not counting defense obvi). Y'all might recall that he was actually sucking some major ass through mid-July before getting hotter than shit and restoring his numbers. All told, his final numbers from last year (homeruns aside) were still below his career norms--.250/.346/.411 in 2015 vs. a career slash line of .267/.363/.418...even with reaching a career high in homeruns, Fowler's SLG % on the year was below his career average.
Ahem
QuoteFowler posted BA/OBP/SLG all below his career norms this year, and his wRC+ and wOBA were also lower than they were the year before
Pay the fuck attention, Seamus.
I think he was just agreeing with you and using stats that don't need an advanced degree in Fangraphs to explain his reasoning. That's how I read it.
Hey I put BA/OBP/SLG first and I just wanted to yell at Huey. I regret nothing.
Quote from: SKO on December 03, 2015, 12:14:23 PM
Quote from: PANK! on December 03, 2015, 12:11:06 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 03, 2015, 12:01:59 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 03, 2015, 11:53:22 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 02, 2015, 10:10:06 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 02, 2015, 08:36:28 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 02, 2015, 07:50:47 AM
To be fair, Fork offering Coghlan/Wood for Miller is only the third dumbest trade proposal involving Shelby Miller I heard yesterday, with the Braves apparently real offers of Shelby Miller for AJ Pollock, or Shelby Miller/Arodys Vizcaino for Pollock and one of the Diamondbacks top ten prospects taking the cake.
At least Fork understood WAR enough to know the Cubs should offer a package that was worth more wins than Miller alone was, the Braves apparently decided to offer Miller's 3.4 WAR as a middle of the rotation starter for a guy that was worth nearly 7 wins in CF.
It's going to take more effort than it's worth to talk them down from thinking Miller is worth Pollock to thinking Miller is worth something less than Jorge Soler. Pass.
Just spitballing, but would anyone here trade Schwarber or Russell for Pollock?
No on Russell. Yes on Schwarber.
Can I also have Shipley or Blair? Only because if they trade Schwarber, I'd like them to get a good pitcher back, even if it's just a top prospect. I'd even consider Corbin or Bradley but those injuries are scary.
Pretty much this. I'd put Schwarber on the table if it meant getting some serious pitching coming back. But as good as Pollock is, the Cubs would be better off re-signing Fowler knowing he'll regress to his standard career levels and keep a potential 40+ HR bat.
This is like the third time you've made some comment like this and I have no idea what you mean by it. Fowler posted BA/OBP/SLG all below his career norms this year, and his wRC+ and wOBA were also lower than they were the year before. Is it just the home run total you look at? That would explain the reluctance to trade Schwarber I suppose.
Fowler posted a career high WAR this year but that was almost entirely due to his defensive improvements, which can probably be chalked up to playing in Wrigley's CF and not the Houston or Colorado where CF is a nightmare. I don't see any reason to expect Fowler to be worse than last year. He might even be a bit better, albeit with maybe fewer home runs.
Yeah I thought homeruns was the only area where Fowler improved on his career totals (not counting defense obvi). Y'all might recall that he was actually sucking some major ass through mid-July before getting hotter than shit and restoring his numbers. All told, his final numbers from last year (homeruns aside) were still below his career norms--.250/.346/.411 in 2015 vs. a career slash line of .267/.363/.418...even with reaching a career high in homeruns, Fowler's SLG % on the year was below his career average.
Ahem
QuoteFowler posted BA/OBP/SLG all below his career norms this year, and his wRC+ and wOBA were also lower than they were the year before
Pay the fuck attention, Seamus.
His God-awful September drove his numbers down. But he was in full Salary Drive mode in July and August.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 03, 2015, 12:23:14 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 03, 2015, 12:14:23 PM
Quote from: PANK! on December 03, 2015, 12:11:06 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 03, 2015, 12:01:59 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 03, 2015, 11:53:22 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 02, 2015, 10:10:06 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 02, 2015, 08:36:28 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 02, 2015, 07:50:47 AM
To be fair, Fork offering Coghlan/Wood for Miller is only the third dumbest trade proposal involving Shelby Miller I heard yesterday, with the Braves apparently real offers of Shelby Miller for AJ Pollock, or Shelby Miller/Arodys Vizcaino for Pollock and one of the Diamondbacks top ten prospects taking the cake.
At least Fork understood WAR enough to know the Cubs should offer a package that was worth more wins than Miller alone was, the Braves apparently decided to offer Miller's 3.4 WAR as a middle of the rotation starter for a guy that was worth nearly 7 wins in CF.
It's going to take more effort than it's worth to talk them down from thinking Miller is worth Pollock to thinking Miller is worth something less than Jorge Soler. Pass.
Just spitballing, but would anyone here trade Schwarber or Russell for Pollock?
No on Russell. Yes on Schwarber.
Can I also have Shipley or Blair? Only because if they trade Schwarber, I'd like them to get a good pitcher back, even if it's just a top prospect. I'd even consider Corbin or Bradley but those injuries are scary.
Pretty much this. I'd put Schwarber on the table if it meant getting some serious pitching coming back. But as good as Pollock is, the Cubs would be better off re-signing Fowler knowing he'll regress to his standard career levels and keep a potential 40+ HR bat.
This is like the third time you've made some comment like this and I have no idea what you mean by it. Fowler posted BA/OBP/SLG all below his career norms this year, and his wRC+ and wOBA were also lower than they were the year before. Is it just the home run total you look at? That would explain the reluctance to trade Schwarber I suppose.
Fowler posted a career high WAR this year but that was almost entirely due to his defensive improvements, which can probably be chalked up to playing in Wrigley's CF and not the Houston or Colorado where CF is a nightmare. I don't see any reason to expect Fowler to be worse than last year. He might even be a bit better, albeit with maybe fewer home runs.
Yeah I thought homeruns was the only area where Fowler improved on his career totals (not counting defense obvi). Y'all might recall that he was actually sucking some major ass through mid-July before getting hotter than shit and restoring his numbers. All told, his final numbers from last year (homeruns aside) were still below his career norms--.250/.346/.411 in 2015 vs. a career slash line of .267/.363/.418...even with reaching a career high in homeruns, Fowler's SLG % on the year was below his career average.
Ahem
QuoteFowler posted BA/OBP/SLG all below his career norms this year, and his wRC+ and wOBA were also lower than they were the year before
Pay the fuck attention, Seamus.
His God-awful September drove his numbers down. But he was in full Salary Drive mode in July and August.
Do you understand how seasons work
Was Fowler really god-awful in September? I don't recall that. I do recall he was god-awful in May and June and into July.
Quote from: PANK! on December 03, 2015, 12:29:31 PM
Was Fowler really god-awful in September? I don't recall that. I do recall he was god-awful in May and June and into July.
OPS by month:
April: .814
May: .670
June: .641
July: .806
August: .995
September: .640
DPD, but while his highs were higher (at least in August) and lows were lower, that actually seems to be Fowler's average season in terms of hot/cold months:
(http://i.imgur.com/EHPWaeX.png)
How much is the message board paying SKO for his full-time position of Guy Who Responds to Every Fork Post? I think we need to consider shifting him from Hourly+OT to Salary for 2016.
Quote from: R-V on December 03, 2015, 12:43:37 PM
How much is the message board paying SKO for his full-time position of Guy Who Responds to Every Fork Post? I think we need to consider shifting him from Hourly+OT to Salary for 2016.
I am very bored right now and this is the first fall in six years where I haven't filled my argument quota by yelling at people who hate Jay Cutler. I need my fix, man.
Quote from: SKO on December 03, 2015, 12:47:17 PM
Quote from: R-V on December 03, 2015, 12:43:37 PM
How much is the message board paying SKO for his full-time position of Guy Who Responds to Every Fork Post? I think we need to consider shifting him from Hourly+OT to Salary for 2016.
I am very bored right now and this is the first fall in six years where I haven't filled my argument quota by yelling at people who hate Jay Cutler. I need my fix, man.
Looks like it's time for me to have some very strong opinions about Star Wars.
Well, some new very strong opinions.
Quote from: Bort on December 03, 2015, 01:07:00 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 03, 2015, 12:47:17 PM
Quote from: R-V on December 03, 2015, 12:43:37 PM
How much is the message board paying SKO for his full-time position of Guy Who Responds to Every Fork Post? I think we need to consider shifting him from Hourly+OT to Salary for 2016.
I am very bored right now and this is the first fall in six years where I haven't filled my argument quota by yelling at people who hate Jay Cutler. I need my fix, man.
Looks like it's time for me to have some very strong opinions about Star Wars.
Well, some new very strong opinions.
Now we're talking.
Quote from: SKO on December 03, 2015, 01:07:38 PM
Quote from: Bort on December 03, 2015, 01:07:00 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 03, 2015, 12:47:17 PM
Quote from: R-V on December 03, 2015, 12:43:37 PM
How much is the message board paying SKO for his full-time position of Guy Who Responds to Every Fork Post? I think we need to consider shifting him from Hourly+OT to Salary for 2016.
I am very bored right now and this is the first fall in six years where I haven't filled my argument quota by yelling at people who hate Jay Cutler. I need my fix, man.
Looks like it's time for me to have some very strong opinions about Star Wars.
Well, some new very strong opinions.
Now we're talking.
Looking forward to when Leia dies, Han screams, "KHAAAANNNN!!!!" into a sea of lens flares.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 03, 2015, 01:12:04 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 03, 2015, 01:07:38 PM
Quote from: Bort on December 03, 2015, 01:07:00 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 03, 2015, 12:47:17 PM
Quote from: R-V on December 03, 2015, 12:43:37 PM
How much is the message board paying SKO for his full-time position of Guy Who Responds to Every Fork Post? I think we need to consider shifting him from Hourly+OT to Salary for 2016.
I am very bored right now and this is the first fall in six years where I haven't filled my argument quota by yelling at people who hate Jay Cutler. I need my fix, man.
Looks like it's time for me to have some very strong opinions about Star Wars.
Well, some new very strong opinions.
Now we're talking.
Looking forward to when Leia dies, Han screams, "KHAAAANNNN!!!!" into a sea of lens flares.
You are literally the worst.
A new candidate just shot to the top of Apex's most desired free agents (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/12/kenta-maeda-posted-mlb.html). Not to mention this one can be acquired without trading Jorge.
Quote from: SKO on December 04, 2015, 08:16:59 AM
A new candidate just shot to the top of Apex's most desired free agents (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/12/kenta-maeda-posted-mlb.html). Not to mention this one can be acquired without trading Jorge.
No picks, no players, just money.
Now is when we find out just how big the Cubs' budget really is.
Take this for what it's worth but...
I was listening to MLB Network on XM on the drive home yesterday and Peter Gammons was sure The Cubs would wind up signing Lackey to a two year deal, trading Soler for Miller, and signing Gordon for the OF.
Quote from: Oleg on December 04, 2015, 09:12:42 AM
Take this for what it's worth but...
I was listening to MLB Network on XM on the drive home yesterday and Peter Gammons was sure The Cubs would wind up signing Lackey to a two year deal, trading Soler for Miller, and signing Gordon for the OF.
Rationally, I know that would make the team quite a bit better. But I'd find it all kind of underwhelming.
Quote from: Eli on December 04, 2015, 09:20:38 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 04, 2015, 09:12:42 AM
Take this for what it's worth but...
I was listening to MLB Network on XM on the drive home yesterday and Peter Gammons was sure The Cubs would wind up signing Lackey to a two year deal, trading Soler for Miller, and signing Gordon for the OF.
Rationally, I know that would make the team quite a bit better. But I'd find it all kind of underwhelming.
Racist.
Quote from: Oleg on December 04, 2015, 09:12:42 AM
Take this for what it's worth but...
I was listening to MLB Network on XM on the drive home yesterday and Peter Gammons was sure The Cubs would wind up signing Lackey to a two year deal, trading Soler for Miller, and signing Gordon for the OF.
Lackey for two years is great. Does Gordon have the arm for RF?
Great. Lackey may be the only redass, mouthbreathing, Innsmouth dweller I irrationally dislike even more than Snork.
Quote from: Bort on December 04, 2015, 11:17:04 AM
Great. Lackey may be the only redass, mouthbreathing, Innsmouth dweller I irrationally dislike even more than Snork.
But he's much better at what he does for a living.
But anything more than two years stinks worse than a sack of rotting assholes.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 04, 2015, 11:18:36 AM
Quote from: Bort on December 04, 2015, 11:17:04 AM
Great. Lackey may be the only redass, mouthbreathing, Innsmouth dweller I irrationally dislike even more than Snork.
But he's he has been much better at what he does for a living.
But anything more than two years stinks worse than a sack of rotting assholes.
The issue with Lackey is that he's 37 damn years old. It'd be great if he pitched like he has the last 3 years, for the next 2 years. But there's a good chance a guy at that age could just fall off a cliff and become terrible.
Quote from: R-V on December 04, 2015, 11:49:18 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 04, 2015, 11:18:36 AM
Quote from: Bort on December 04, 2015, 11:17:04 AM
Great. Lackey may be the only redass, mouthbreathing, Innsmouth dweller I irrationally dislike even more than Snork.
But he's he has been much better at what he does for a living.
But anything more than two years stinks worse than a sack of rotting assholes.
The issue with Lackey is that he's 37 damn years old. It'd be great if he pitched like he has the last 3 years, for the next 2 years. But there's a good chance a guy at that age could just fall off a cliff and become terrible.
I would much prefer gambling on Scott Kazmir than John Lackey.
Quote from: R-V on December 04, 2015, 11:49:18 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 04, 2015, 11:18:36 AM
Quote from: Bort on December 04, 2015, 11:17:04 AM
Great. Lackey may be the only redass, mouthbreathing, Innsmouth dweller I irrationally dislike even more than Snork.
But he's he has been much better at what he does for a living.
But anything more than two years stinks worse than a sack of rotting assholes.
The issue with Lackey is that he's 37 damn years old. It'd be great if he pitched like he has the last 3 years, for the next 2 years. But there's a good chance a guy at that age could just fall off a cliff and become terrible.
This scares me too. Hasn't he been on borrowed time for a few seasons now?
Quote from: Tony on December 04, 2015, 12:23:21 PM
Quote from: R-V on December 04, 2015, 11:49:18 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 04, 2015, 11:18:36 AM
Quote from: Bort on December 04, 2015, 11:17:04 AM
Great. Lackey may be the only redass, mouthbreathing, Innsmouth dweller I irrationally dislike even more than Snork.
But he's he has been much better at what he does for a living.
But anything more than two years stinks worse than a sack of rotting assholes.
The issue with Lackey is that he's 37 damn years old. It'd be great if he pitched like he has the last 3 years, for the next 2 years. But there's a good chance a guy at that age could just fall off a cliff and become terrible.
This scares me too. Hasn't he been on borrowed time for a few seasons now?
HGH is a helluva drug. With one more contract in the bank, I could see him coasting into retirement clean and serene with an 88 mph fastball and a mouthful of his own stinking breath.
Quote from: InternetApex on December 04, 2015, 12:26:19 PM
Quote from: Tony on December 04, 2015, 12:23:21 PM
Quote from: R-V on December 04, 2015, 11:49:18 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 04, 2015, 11:18:36 AM
Quote from: Bort on December 04, 2015, 11:17:04 AM
Great. Lackey may be the only redass, mouthbreathing, Innsmouth dweller I irrationally dislike even more than Snork.
But he's he has been much better at what he does for a living.
But anything more than two years stinks worse than a sack of rotting assholes.
The issue with Lackey is that he's 37 damn years old. It'd be great if he pitched like he has the last 3 years, for the next 2 years. But there's a good chance a guy at that age could just fall off a cliff and become terrible.
This scares me too. Hasn't he been on borrowed time for a few seasons now?
HGH is a helluva drug. With one more contract in the bank, I could see him coasting into retirement clean and serene with an 88 mph fastball and a mouthful of his own stinking breath.
I hate Lackey and I don't want him on the Cubs at all.
Quote from: PenFoe on December 04, 2015, 12:28:06 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on December 04, 2015, 12:26:19 PM
Quote from: Tony on December 04, 2015, 12:23:21 PM
Quote from: R-V on December 04, 2015, 11:49:18 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 04, 2015, 11:18:36 AM
Quote from: Bort on December 04, 2015, 11:17:04 AM
Great. Lackey may be the only redass, mouthbreathing, Innsmouth dweller I irrationally dislike even more than Snork.
But he's he has been much better at what he does for a living.
But anything more than two years stinks worse than a sack of rotting assholes.
The issue with Lackey is that he's 37 damn years old. It'd be great if he pitched like he has the last 3 years, for the next 2 years. But there's a good chance a guy at that age could just fall off a cliff and become terrible.
This scares me too. Hasn't he been on borrowed time for a few seasons now?
HGH is a helluva drug. With one more contract in the bank, I could see him coasting into retirement clean and serene with an 88 mph fastball and a mouthful of his own stinking breath.
I hate Lackey and I don't want him on the Cubs at all.
Snork
Lackey
Shelby Miller
Alex Gordon
No Soler. How many more tears Theo?
Quote from: InternetApex on December 04, 2015, 12:29:01 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on December 04, 2015, 12:28:06 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on December 04, 2015, 12:26:19 PM
Quote from: Tony on December 04, 2015, 12:23:21 PM
Quote from: R-V on December 04, 2015, 11:49:18 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 04, 2015, 11:18:36 AM
Quote from: Bort on December 04, 2015, 11:17:04 AM
Great. Lackey may be the only redass, mouthbreathing, Innsmouth dweller I irrationally dislike even more than Snork.
But he's he has been much better at what he does for a living.
But anything more than two years stinks worse than a sack of rotting assholes.
The issue with Lackey is that he's 37 damn years old. It'd be great if he pitched like he has the last 3 years, for the next 2 years. But there's a good chance a guy at that age could just fall off a cliff and become terrible.
This scares me too. Hasn't he been on borrowed time for a few seasons now?
HGH is a helluva drug. With one more contract in the bank, I could see him coasting into retirement clean and serene with an 88 mph fastball and a mouthful of his own stinking breath.
I hate Lackey and I don't want him on the Cubs at all.
Snork
Lackey
Shelby Miller
Alex Gordon
No Soler. How many more tears Theo?
Here's what's going happen:
Cueto 6/$130
Span 3/$40
Ross/Carrasco/Miller/Cost Controlled Young Pitcher in exchange for prospect that I'll get sad about
And we'll all be happy.
Quote from: PenFoe on December 04, 2015, 12:35:31 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on December 04, 2015, 12:29:01 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on December 04, 2015, 12:28:06 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on December 04, 2015, 12:26:19 PM
Quote from: Tony on December 04, 2015, 12:23:21 PM
Quote from: R-V on December 04, 2015, 11:49:18 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 04, 2015, 11:18:36 AM
Quote from: Bort on December 04, 2015, 11:17:04 AM
Great. Lackey may be the only redass, mouthbreathing, Innsmouth dweller I irrationally dislike even more than Snork.
But he's he has been much better at what he does for a living.
But anything more than two years stinks worse than a sack of rotting assholes.
The issue with Lackey is that he's 37 damn years old. It'd be great if he pitched like he has the last 3 years, for the next 2 years. But there's a good chance a guy at that age could just fall off a cliff and become terrible.
This scares me too. Hasn't he been on borrowed time for a few seasons now?
HGH is a helluva drug. With one more contract in the bank, I could see him coasting into retirement clean and serene with an 88 mph fastball and a mouthful of his own stinking breath.
I hate Lackey and I don't want him on the Cubs at all.
Snork
Lackey
Shelby Miller
Alex Gordon
No Soler. How many more tears Theo?
Here's what's going happen:
Cueto 6/$130
Span 3/$40
Ross/Carrasco/Miller/Cost Controlled Young Pitcher in exchange for prospect that I'll get sad about
And we'll all be happy.
Has there been any movement on Cueto at all? I've been seeing lots of rumors and discussion about slapdicks like Snork and Lackey but nothing about Cueto. Don't the Cardinals hate him too? Sign me up.
Quote from: PenFoe on December 04, 2015, 12:35:31 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on December 04, 2015, 12:29:01 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on December 04, 2015, 12:28:06 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on December 04, 2015, 12:26:19 PM
Quote from: Tony on December 04, 2015, 12:23:21 PM
Quote from: R-V on December 04, 2015, 11:49:18 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 04, 2015, 11:18:36 AM
Quote from: Bort on December 04, 2015, 11:17:04 AM
Great. Lackey may be the only redass, mouthbreathing, Innsmouth dweller I irrationally dislike even more than Snork.
But he's he has been much better at what he does for a living.
But anything more than two years stinks worse than a sack of rotting assholes.
The issue with Lackey is that he's 37 damn years old. It'd be great if he pitched like he has the last 3 years, for the next 2 years. But there's a good chance a guy at that age could just fall off a cliff and become terrible.
This scares me too. Hasn't he been on borrowed time for a few seasons now?
HGH is a helluva drug. With one more contract in the bank, I could see him coasting into retirement clean and serene with an 88 mph fastball and a mouthful of his own stinking breath.
I hate Lackey and I don't want him on the Cubs at all.
Snork
Lackey
Shelby Miller
Alex Gordon
No Soler. How many more tears Theo?
Here's what's going happen:
Cueto 6/$130
Span 3/$40
Ross/Carrasco/Miller/Cost Controlled Young Pitcher in exchange for prospect that I'll get sad about
And we'll all be happy.
Carrasco is worth pretty much any prospect not named Schwarber or Russell. Hell, for him and Salazar, I'd offer up Schwarber and QSM.
Quote from: R-V on December 04, 2015, 12:37:30 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on December 04, 2015, 12:35:31 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on December 04, 2015, 12:29:01 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on December 04, 2015, 12:28:06 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on December 04, 2015, 12:26:19 PM
Quote from: Tony on December 04, 2015, 12:23:21 PM
Quote from: R-V on December 04, 2015, 11:49:18 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 04, 2015, 11:18:36 AM
Quote from: Bort on December 04, 2015, 11:17:04 AM
Great. Lackey may be the only redass, mouthbreathing, Innsmouth dweller I irrationally dislike even more than Snork.
But he's he has been much better at what he does for a living.
But anything more than two years stinks worse than a sack of rotting assholes.
The issue with Lackey is that he's 37 damn years old. It'd be great if he pitched like he has the last 3 years, for the next 2 years. But there's a good chance a guy at that age could just fall off a cliff and become terrible.
This scares me too. Hasn't he been on borrowed time for a few seasons now?
HGH is a helluva drug. With one more contract in the bank, I could see him coasting into retirement clean and serene with an 88 mph fastball and a mouthful of his own stinking breath.
I hate Lackey and I don't want him on the Cubs at all.
Snork
Lackey
Shelby Miller
Alex Gordon
No Soler. How many more tears Theo?
Here's what's going happen:
Cueto 6/$130
Span 3/$40
Ross/Carrasco/Miller/Cost Controlled Young Pitcher in exchange for prospect that I'll get sad about
And we'll all be happy.
Has there been any movement on Cueto at all? I've been seeing lots of rumors and discussion about slapdicks like Snork and Lackey but nothing about Cueto. Don't the Cardinals hate him too? Sign me up.
I don't get that either. Am I missing something? Why is Cueto the forgotten guy this off season?
Quote from: R-V on December 04, 2015, 12:37:30 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on December 04, 2015, 12:35:31 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on December 04, 2015, 12:29:01 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on December 04, 2015, 12:28:06 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on December 04, 2015, 12:26:19 PM
Quote from: Tony on December 04, 2015, 12:23:21 PM
Quote from: R-V on December 04, 2015, 11:49:18 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 04, 2015, 11:18:36 AM
Quote from: Bort on December 04, 2015, 11:17:04 AM
Great. Lackey may be the only redass, mouthbreathing, Innsmouth dweller I irrationally dislike even more than Snork.
But he's he has been much better at what he does for a living.
But anything more than two years stinks worse than a sack of rotting assholes.
The issue with Lackey is that he's 37 damn years old. It'd be great if he pitched like he has the last 3 years, for the next 2 years. But there's a good chance a guy at that age could just fall off a cliff and become terrible.
This scares me too. Hasn't he been on borrowed time for a few seasons now?
HGH is a helluva drug. With one more contract in the bank, I could see him coasting into retirement clean and serene with an 88 mph fastball and a mouthful of his own stinking breath.
I hate Lackey and I don't want him on the Cubs at all.
Snork
Lackey
Shelby Miller
Alex Gordon
No Soler. How many more tears Theo?
Here's what's going happen:
Cueto 6/$130
Span 3/$40
Ross/Carrasco/Miller/Cost Controlled Young Pitcher in exchange for prospect that I'll get sad about
And we'll all be happy.
Has there been any movement on Cueto at all? I've been seeing lots of rumors and discussion about slapdicks like Snork and Lackey but nothing about Cueto. Don't the Cardinals hate him too? Sign me up.
Cueto's arm is going to fall off. If The Cubs didn't go after Zimmermann or Price, there's no way they're giving Cueto 20MM+ per.
What's Cal-cu-lus?
(http://easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded/1038/9634330570.png)
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 04, 2015, 12:54:56 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on December 04, 2015, 12:35:31 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on December 04, 2015, 12:29:01 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on December 04, 2015, 12:28:06 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on December 04, 2015, 12:26:19 PM
Quote from: Tony on December 04, 2015, 12:23:21 PM
Quote from: R-V on December 04, 2015, 11:49:18 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 04, 2015, 11:18:36 AM
Quote from: Bort on December 04, 2015, 11:17:04 AM
Great. Lackey may be the only redass, mouthbreathing, Innsmouth dweller I irrationally dislike even more than Snork.
But he's he has been much better at what he does for a living.
But anything more than two years stinks worse than a sack of rotting assholes.
The issue with Lackey is that he's 37 damn years old. It'd be great if he pitched like he has the last 3 years, for the next 2 years. But there's a good chance a guy at that age could just fall off a cliff and become terrible.
This scares me too. Hasn't he been on borrowed time for a few seasons now?
HGH is a helluva drug. With one more contract in the bank, I could see him coasting into retirement clean and serene with an 88 mph fastball and a mouthful of his own stinking breath.
I hate Lackey and I don't want him on the Cubs at all.
Snork
Lackey
Shelby Miller
Alex Gordon
No Soler. How many more tears Theo?
Here's what's going happen:
Cueto 6/$130
Span 3/$40
Ross/Carrasco/Miller/Cost Controlled Young Pitcher in exchange for prospect that I'll get sad about
And we'll all be happy.
Carrasco is worth pretty much any prospect not named Schwarber or Russell. Hell, for him and Salazar, I'd offer up Schwarber and QSM.
Schwarber/Hendricks for Carrasco AND Salazar? Please stop this.
Quote from: Eli on December 04, 2015, 01:43:20 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 04, 2015, 12:54:56 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on December 04, 2015, 12:35:31 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on December 04, 2015, 12:29:01 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on December 04, 2015, 12:28:06 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on December 04, 2015, 12:26:19 PM
Quote from: Tony on December 04, 2015, 12:23:21 PM
Quote from: R-V on December 04, 2015, 11:49:18 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 04, 2015, 11:18:36 AM
Quote from: Bort on December 04, 2015, 11:17:04 AM
Great. Lackey may be the only redass, mouthbreathing, Innsmouth dweller I irrationally dislike even more than Snork.
But he's he has been much better at what he does for a living.
But anything more than two years stinks worse than a sack of rotting assholes.
The issue with Lackey is that he's 37 damn years old. It'd be great if he pitched like he has the last 3 years, for the next 2 years. But there's a good chance a guy at that age could just fall off a cliff and become terrible.
This scares me too. Hasn't he been on borrowed time for a few seasons now?
HGH is a helluva drug. With one more contract in the bank, I could see him coasting into retirement clean and serene with an 88 mph fastball and a mouthful of his own stinking breath.
I hate Lackey and I don't want him on the Cubs at all.
Snork
Lackey
Shelby Miller
Alex Gordon
No Soler. How many more tears Theo?
Here's what's going happen:
Cueto 6/$130
Span 3/$40
Ross/Carrasco/Miller/Cost Controlled Young Pitcher in exchange for prospect that I'll get sad about
And we'll all be happy.
Carrasco is worth pretty much any prospect not named Schwarber or Russell. Hell, for him and Salazar, I'd offer up Schwarber and QSM.
Schwarber/Hendricks for Carrasco AND Salazar? Please stop this.
I thought we stipulated all trades also included Coghlan and Wood.
According to the Ginger Hair (https://twitter.com/GDubCub/status/672885560529313798)and Ginger Skin (https://twitter.com/thekapman/status/672882026119348224), the Cubs are going to give Javier Baez a look in centerfield.
Are we going to be discussing BMI again?
Quote from: PANK! on December 04, 2015, 03:35:08 PM
According to the Ginger Hair (https://twitter.com/GDubCub/status/672885560529313798)and Ginger Skin (https://twitter.com/thekapman/status/672882026119348224), the Cubs are going to give Javier Baez a look in centerfield.
Are we going to be discussing BMI again?
Since he's being mentored by Doug Dascenzo, that means added bullpen depth as well.
So, with the report that Javy is going to learn CF in Puerto Rico this winter, if they make no significant moves on offense, how do you do the lineup? Now you no longer have a guy that seems prototypical for the leadoff.
By OBP:
Rizzo, .387
Bryant, .369
Schwarber, .355
Montero, .345
Coghlan, .341 (but he doesn't fit in the fake everyday lineup)
Soler, .324 (aside from the fact that he's basically traded already)
EDIT: Fuck you, PankFACE
Quote from: Yeti on December 04, 2015, 03:44:36 PM
So, with the report that Javy is going to learn CF in Puerto Rico this winter, if they make no significant moves on offense, how do you do the lineup? Now you no longer have a guy that seems prototypical for the leadoff.
By OBP:
Rizzo, .387
Bryant, .369
Schwarber, .355
Montero, .345
Coghlan, .341 (but he doesn't fit in the fake everyday lineup)
Soler, .324 (aside from the fact that he's basically traded already)
EDIT: Fuck you, PankFACE
What do the nerds say about hitting the power guys 3rd, 4th, or 5th? Is that a thing still? Or do you just put the best hitters at the top? What I'm saying is hit Bryant first so he gets the most plate appearances.
Or just put Russell 1st because only middle infielders or centerfielders hit leadoff.
John Lackey. A Cub. (http://www.bleachernation.com/2015/12/04/report-cubs-agree-to-two-year-deal-with-john-lackey/)
Liking the two-year deal. If all the other guys who were on the Cubs' radar as prospective #3s sign elsewhere for over 20, like can become love.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 04, 2015, 04:41:42 PM
John Lackey. A Cub. (http://www.bleachernation.com/2015/12/04/report-cubs-agree-to-two-year-deal-with-john-lackey/)
Liking the two-year deal. If all the other guys who were on the Cubs' radar as prospective #3s sign elsewhere for over 20, like can become love.
Edmonds managed to make me not hate his stupid face so much. But I really fucking hate Lackey. It's going to take a lot to budge the needle. (||)
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 04, 2015, 04:41:42 PM
John Lackey. A Cub. (http://www.bleachernation.com/2015/12/04/report-cubs-agree-to-two-year-deal-with-john-lackey/)
Liking the two-year deal. If all the other guys who were on the Cubs' radar as prospective #3s sign elsewhere for over 20, like can become love.
So the Cubs are going to pay him $15.5 million more than the Cards did for two seasons that are likely to be at least marginally worse than last year's? Awesome.
I don't mind the deal given what's out there and, more importantly, what's on the roster. But it's still tough to accept that the cupboard is so bare of SP that there aren't some viable options within the organization, given that the Cardinals only seem to ever call up guys who pitch at or above their pedigree and will likely replace him with someone who is better and probably about 15 years younger.
I guess the silver lining here is that burning a 1st round pick on Lackey indicates the Cubs are going to sign at least one other qualifying offer dude. In other words, if you know you're going to give up a 1st and 2nd round pick, it doesn't matter what order you do it in. Right? RIGHT?
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on December 04, 2015, 05:02:10 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 04, 2015, 04:41:42 PM
John Lackey. A Cub. (http://www.bleachernation.com/2015/12/04/report-cubs-agree-to-two-year-deal-with-john-lackey/)
Liking the two-year deal. If all the other guys who were on the Cubs' radar as prospective #3s sign elsewhere for over 20, like can become love.
So the Cubs are going to pay him $15.5 million more than the Cards did for two seasons that are likely to be at least marginally worse than last year's? Awesome.
I don't mind the deal given what's out there and, more importantly, what's on the roster. But it's still tough to accept that the cupboard is so bare of SP that there aren't some viable options within the organization, given that the Cardinals only seem to ever call up guys who pitch at or above their pedigree and will likely replace him with someone who is better and probably about 15 years younger.
They should have totally taken Mark Appel instead of Kris Bryant. Thanks a lot, Epstink.
Quote from: ChuckD on December 04, 2015, 04:48:55 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 04, 2015, 04:41:42 PM
John Lackey. A Cub. (http://www.bleachernation.com/2015/12/04/report-cubs-agree-to-two-year-deal-with-john-lackey/)
Liking the two-year deal. If all the other guys who were on the Cubs' radar as prospective #3s sign elsewhere for over 20, like can become love.
Edmonds managed to make me not hate his stupid face so much. But I really fucking hate Lackey. It's going to take a lot to budge the needle. (||)
Grinds teeth... Ehhh, who am I kidding... fuck I don't know how to feel.
2 years and just win baby? Yeah that'll probably work but I still feel like I need a shower.
I'm kind of supportive of this signing, except for where I'm not. Lackey brings a post season presence to a rotation that needs one, aside from the fact that he's pretty old and his past success is not indicative of any future victories in October. But he brings a solid arm to the rotation and probably will throw around 200 innings, assuming he doesn't get hurt. So I guess this signing is ok, unless he's the only pitcher the Cubs acquire this winter.
(for the record, I intentionally tried to make this as KrutEavns a post as possible, short of adding an image of Lackey wearing a tophat or while bursting from a pile of leaves in some bizarre lobster outfit)
$206.5 M for six years of creepy, weird Zack Greinke. /sour grapes.
Quote from: ChuckD on December 04, 2015, 04:48:55 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 04, 2015, 04:41:42 PM
John Lackey. A Cub. (http://www.bleachernation.com/2015/12/04/report-cubs-agree-to-two-year-deal-with-john-lackey/)
Liking the two-year deal. If all the other guys who were on the Cubs' radar as prospective #3s sign elsewhere for over 20, like can become love.
Edmonds managed to make me not hate his stupid face so much. But I really fucking hate Lackey. It's going to take a lot to budge the needle. (||)
Just one pennant.
Quote from: Canadouche on December 04, 2015, 06:14:47 PM
I'm kind of supportive of this signing, except for where I'm not. Lackey brings a post season presence to a rotation that needs one, aside from the fact that he's pretty old and his past success is not indicative of any future victories in October. But he brings a solid arm to the rotation and probably will throw around 200 innings, assuming he doesn't get hurt. So I guess this signing is ok, unless he's the only pitcher the Cubs acquire this winter.
(for the record, I intentionally tried to make this as KrutEavns a post as possible, short of adding an image of Lackey wearing a tophat or while bursting from a pile of leaves in some bizarre lobster outfit)
THE CUBS PITCHERS ALL HAVE POST SEASON PITCHING EXPERIENCE!!!!
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/Ivychat/Capture_zpsrgmotjkx.png)
Quote from: Shooter on December 04, 2015, 10:05:56 PM
$206.5 M for six years of creepy, weird Zack Greinke. /sour grapes.
Arizona offered him the deepest, most spacious bunker to hide bodies in of any team.
Quote from: Canadouche on December 04, 2015, 06:14:47 PM
I'm kind of supportive of this signing, except for where I'm not. Lackey brings a post season presence to a rotation that needs one, aside from the fact that he's pretty old and his past success is not indicative of any future victories in October. But he brings a solid arm to the rotation and probably will throw around 200 innings, assuming he doesn't get hurt. So I guess this signing is ok, unless he's the only pitcher the Cubs acquire this winter.
(for the record, I intentionally tried to make this as KrutEavns a post as possible, short of adding an image of Lackey wearing a tophat or while bursting from a pile of leaves in some bizarre lobster outfit)
Well, you succeeded.
Quote from: Bort on December 05, 2015, 04:48:09 PM
Quote from: Shooter on December 04, 2015, 10:05:56 PM
$206.5 M for six years of creepy, weird Zack Greinke. /sour grapes.
Arizona offered him the deepest, most spacious bunker to hide bodies in of any team.
Yeah, but the Cubs have Ted Lilly on the payroll.
Quote from: Yeti on December 04, 2015, 03:44:36 PM
So, with the report that Javy is going to learn CF in Puerto Rico this winter, if they make no significant moves on offense, how do you do the lineup? Now you no longer have a guy that seems prototypical for the leadoff.
By OBP:
Rizzo, .387
Bryant, .369
Schwarber, .355
Montero, .345
Coghlan, .341 (but he doesn't fit in the fake everyday lineup)
Soler, .324 (aside from the fact that he's basically traded already)
EDIT: Fuck you, PankFACE
Maybe the Cubs think Russell can lower his K rate and bump up his OPB?
My other thought is if Baez moves out to CF, he wouldn't be the infield supersub that he wound up being last season.
If he's out in CF, and if Coghlan isn't still around, does LaStella slide into that role of being Zobrist-lite?
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 07, 2015, 08:23:28 AM
Quote from: Yeti on December 04, 2015, 03:44:36 PM
So, with the report that Javy is going to learn CF in Puerto Rico this winter, if they make no significant moves on offense, how do you do the lineup? Now you no longer have a guy that seems prototypical for the leadoff.
By OBP:
Rizzo, .387
Bryant, .369
Schwarber, .355
Montero, .345
Coghlan, .341 (but he doesn't fit in the fake everyday lineup)
Soler, .324 (aside from the fact that he's basically traded already)
EDIT: Fuck you, PankFACE
Maybe the Cubs think Russell can lower his K rate and bump up his OPB?
My other thought is if Baez moves out to CF, he wouldn't be the infield supersub that he wound up being last season.
If he's out in CF, and if Coghlan isn't still around, does LaStella slide into that role of being Zobrist-lite?
Also known as a "utility infielder." I mean, La Stella is probably Zobrist-Lite in the way Jose Macias was Zobrist-Lite. I think we can agree that Zobrist doesn't have some kind of monopoly on being the first dude to play multiple infield positions.
Quote from: SKO on December 07, 2015, 08:27:24 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 07, 2015, 08:23:28 AM
Quote from: Yeti on December 04, 2015, 03:44:36 PM
So, with the report that Javy is going to learn CF in Puerto Rico this winter, if they make no significant moves on offense, how do you do the lineup? Now you no longer have a guy that seems prototypical for the leadoff.
By OBP:
Rizzo, .387
Bryant, .369
Schwarber, .355
Montero, .345
Coghlan, .341 (but he doesn't fit in the fake everyday lineup)
Soler, .324 (aside from the fact that he's basically traded already)
EDIT: Fuck you, PankFACE
Maybe the Cubs think Russell can lower his K rate and bump up his OPB?
My other thought is if Baez moves out to CF, he wouldn't be the infield supersub that he wound up being last season.
If he's out in CF, and if Coghlan isn't still around, does LaStella slide into that role of being Zobrist-lite?
Also known as a "utility infielder." I mean, La Stella is probably Zobrist-Lite in the way Jose Macias was Zobrist-Lite. I think we can agree that Zobrist doesn't have some kind of monopoly on being the first dude to play multiple infield positions.
You're doing it again.
Quote from: PANK! on December 07, 2015, 08:37:16 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 07, 2015, 08:27:24 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 07, 2015, 08:23:28 AM
Quote from: Yeti on December 04, 2015, 03:44:36 PM
So, with the report that Javy is going to learn CF in Puerto Rico this winter, if they make no significant moves on offense, how do you do the lineup? Now you no longer have a guy that seems prototypical for the leadoff.
By OBP:
Rizzo, .387
Bryant, .369
Schwarber, .355
Montero, .345
Coghlan, .341 (but he doesn't fit in the fake everyday lineup)
Soler, .324 (aside from the fact that he's basically traded already)
EDIT: Fuck you, PankFACE
Maybe the Cubs think Russell can lower his K rate and bump up his OPB?
My other thought is if Baez moves out to CF, he wouldn't be the infield supersub that he wound up being last season.
If he's out in CF, and if Coghlan isn't still around, does LaStella slide into that role of being Zobrist-lite?
Also known as a "utility infielder." I mean, La Stella is probably Zobrist-Lite in the way Jose Macias was Zobrist-Lite. I think we can agree that Zobrist doesn't have some kind of monopoly on being the first dude to play multiple infield positions.
You're doing it again.
I'm sorry. I need help.
Tubby Cahill back at 1 year, 4.25 mildo per Rosenthal.
Quote from: SKO on December 07, 2015, 11:58:48 AM
Tubby Cahill back at 1 year, 4.25 mildo per Rosenthal.
Cahill is the new Motte?
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 07, 2015, 12:06:19 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 07, 2015, 11:58:48 AM
Tubby Cahill back at 1 year, 4.25 mildo per Rosenthal.
Cahill is the new Motte?
I'll take this one so SKO can sit this play out.
No, Fork. Cahill has more than one effective Major League pitch so he's actually a useful player whereas Motte was a mascot who inexplicably got hitters out for a few weeks last year. Maddon rode his hot hand and even tossed up a couple of heat checks and when Motte flamed out, he was chained to the bench to lead the stomp, clap parade with Herrera. Cahill can do stuff to hitters with that changeup that make the deal the Cubs gave him a very cool neat thing that Jepstink did.
Cakehill
Easy, guys. Cahill might not be the skinniest guy in the clubhouse, but he's no Baez.
Quote from: Tonker on December 08, 2015, 01:50:19 AM
Easy, guys. Cahill might not be the skinniest guy in the clubhouse, but he's no Baez.
That's OK, the Cubs are clearly looking to trade Baez to keep their postgame catering costs down.
Quote from: Tonker on December 08, 2015, 01:50:19 AM
Easy, guys. Cahill might not be the skinniest guy in the clubhouse, but he's no Baez.
Does this mean Cahill can play CF on his off days?
Since there are tons of rumors about Shelby Miller, if you want to get excited about potentially acquiring him, Jeff Sullivan compares him to Arrieta right before Arrieta broke out (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/shelby-miller-pseudo-prospect/).
QuoteThe best cutter last year, among starting pitchers, belonged to Jake Arrieta. The second-best cutter belonged to Corey Kluber. The third-best belonged to Shelby Miller. Out of nowhere, the pitch didn't just fold itself in to Miller's mix; it became maybe the best thing he throws.
QuoteI really don't want to make too much of this, because it's not the sort of thing you can just expect, but there are some parallels between Miller and Jake Arrieta, right as he was preparing to break out. Arrieta has turned into one of the top five or so starting pitchers in the game, and no team would figure Miller's in line to follow, but you could see him on a similar general path, where last year might've been kind of like Arrieta's 2013. Miller has shown the signs, and now it's time to put it all together. His repertoire has become similar to Arrieta's. Arrieta throws his slider/cutter hybrid a bit faster, but Miller showed a velocity uptick in the second half. Maybe he won't become a seven-win pitcher, but he could become a five-win pitcher. He seems to have what he needs.
Quote from: Eli on December 08, 2015, 08:52:37 AM
Since there are tons of rumors about Shelby Miller, if you want to get excited about potentially acquiring him, Jeff Sullivan compares him to Arrieta right before Arrieta broke out (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/shelby-miller-pseudo-prospect/).
QuoteThe best cutter last year, among starting pitchers, belonged to Jake Arrieta. The second-best cutter belonged to Corey Kluber. The third-best belonged to Shelby Miller. Out of nowhere, the pitch didn't just fold itself in to Miller's mix; it became maybe the best thing he throws.
QuoteI really don't want to make too much of this, because it's not the sort of thing you can just expect, but there are some parallels between Miller and Jake Arrieta, right as he was preparing to break out. Arrieta has turned into one of the top five or so starting pitchers in the game, and no team would figure Miller's in line to follow, but you could see him on a similar general path, where last year might've been kind of like Arrieta's 2013. Miller has shown the signs, and now it's time to put it all together. His repertoire has become similar to Arrieta's. Arrieta throws his slider/cutter hybrid a bit faster, but Miller showed a velocity uptick in the second half. Maybe he won't become a seven-win pitcher, but he could become a five-win pitcher. He seems to have what he needs.
Fine, fine. Coghlan, Wood, AND Almora.
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 08:58:07 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 08, 2015, 08:52:37 AM
Since there are tons of rumors about Shelby Miller, if you want to get excited about potentially acquiring him, Jeff Sullivan compares him to Arrieta right before Arrieta broke out (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/shelby-miller-pseudo-prospect/).
QuoteThe best cutter last year, among starting pitchers, belonged to Jake Arrieta. The second-best cutter belonged to Corey Kluber. The third-best belonged to Shelby Miller. Out of nowhere, the pitch didn't just fold itself in to Miller's mix; it became maybe the best thing he throws.
QuoteI really don't want to make too much of this, because it's not the sort of thing you can just expect, but there are some parallels between Miller and Jake Arrieta, right as he was preparing to break out. Arrieta has turned into one of the top five or so starting pitchers in the game, and no team would figure Miller's in line to follow, but you could see him on a similar general path, where last year might've been kind of like Arrieta's 2013. Miller has shown the signs, and now it's time to put it all together. His repertoire has become similar to Arrieta's. Arrieta throws his slider/cutter hybrid a bit faster, but Miller showed a velocity uptick in the second half. Maybe he won't become a seven-win pitcher, but he could become a five-win pitcher. He seems to have what he needs.
Fine, fine. Coghlan, Wood, AND Almora.
Anybody but LaZobrist.
Quote from: Eli on December 08, 2015, 08:52:37 AM
Since there are tons of rumors about Shelby Miller, if you want to get excited about potentially acquiring him, Jeff Sullivan compares him to Arrieta right before Arrieta broke out (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/shelby-miller-pseudo-prospect/).
QuoteThe best cutter last year, among starting pitchers, belonged to Jake Arrieta. The second-best cutter belonged to Corey Kluber. The third-best belonged to Shelby Miller. Out of nowhere, the pitch didn't just fold itself in to Miller's mix; it became maybe the best thing he throws.
QuoteI really don't want to make too much of this, because it's not the sort of thing you can just expect, but there are some parallels between Miller and Jake Arrieta, right as he was preparing to break out. Arrieta has turned into one of the top five or so starting pitchers in the game, and no team would figure Miller's in line to follow, but you could see him on a similar general path, where last year might've been kind of like Arrieta's 2013. Miller has shown the signs, and now it's time to put it all together. His repertoire has become similar to Arrieta's. Arrieta throws his slider/cutter hybrid a bit faster, but Miller showed a velocity uptick in the second half. Maybe he won't become a seven-win pitcher, but he could become a five-win pitcher. He seems to have what he needs.
You know...there would be the added--albeit superfluous-benefit of Miller blossoming and shoving it up St. Louis' hiney for a good while. Maybe
then the BFIB will be upset with Oscar Tavares for murdering his girlfriend.
Apparently Rosenthal just said on MLBN that the Cubs are out of the Miller sweepstakes so someone else can enjoy Jake Arrieta 2.0 I suppose.
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 09:14:21 AM
Apparently Rosenthal just said on MLBN that the Cubs are out of the Miller sweepstakes so someone else can enjoy Jake Arrieta 2.0 I suppose.
Well then there goes
my rationalizing/bargaining/acceptance of losing Soler or Baez. Phew.
Quote from: PANK! on December 08, 2015, 09:16:22 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 09:14:21 AM
Apparently Rosenthal just said on MLBN that the Cubs are out of the Miller sweepstakes so someone else can enjoy Jake Arrieta 2.0 I suppose.
Well then there goes my rationalizing/bargaining/acceptance of losing Soler or Baez. Phew.
I'm sure those names are still coming up in any trade with Tampa or Cleveland or San Diego for pitching.
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 09:14:21 AM
Apparently Rosenthal just said on MLBN that the Cubs are out of the Miller sweepstakes so someone else can enjoy Jake Arrieta 2.0 I suppose.
Hopefully they can talk to Cleveland about Carrasco. (non SKOpoke) I think Baez and QSM can get that done.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 08, 2015, 09:30:44 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 09:14:21 AM
Apparently Rosenthal just said on MLBN that the Cubs are out of the Miller sweepstakes so someone else can enjoy Jake Arrieta 2.0 I suppose.
Hopefully they can talk to Cleveland about Carrasco. (non SKOpoke) I think Baez and QSM can get that done.
I'll be much less butthurt if Baez or Soler go to an American League team. I don't even want to see Castro with the Reds or some shit like that.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 08, 2015, 09:30:44 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 09:14:21 AM
Apparently Rosenthal just said on MLBN that the Cubs are out of the Miller sweepstakes so someone else can enjoy Jake Arrieta 2.0 I suppose.
Hopefully they can talk to Cleveland about Carrasco. (non SKOpoke) I think Baez and QSM can get that done.
I think they want to hang onto Hendricks. My harebrained theory is they'll trade for a young arm, dump Hammel's salary and sign Heyward.
Quote from: Eli on December 08, 2015, 10:00:26 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 08, 2015, 09:30:44 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 09:14:21 AM
Apparently Rosenthal just said on MLBN that the Cubs are out of the Miller sweepstakes so someone else can enjoy Jake Arrieta 2.0 I suppose.
Hopefully they can talk to Cleveland about Carrasco. (non SKOpoke) I think Baez and QSM can get that done.
I think they want to hang onto Hendricks. My harebrained theory is they'll trade for a young arm, dump Hammel's salary and sign Heyward.
I think they'd do it for Carrasco, that would mean 3 5-win pitchers at the top of the rotation.
Quote from: Eli on December 08, 2015, 10:00:26 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 08, 2015, 09:30:44 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 09:14:21 AM
Apparently Rosenthal just said on MLBN that the Cubs are out of the Miller sweepstakes so someone else can enjoy Jake Arrieta 2.0 I suppose.
Hopefully they can talk to Cleveland about Carrasco. (non SKOpoke) I think Baez and QSM can get that done.
I think they want to hang onto Hendricks. My harebrained theory is they'll trade for a young arm, dump Hammel's salary and sign Heyward.
Yeah I don't think they trade Hendricks. The key thing that Jepstink keeps harping on is pitching depth. They sound like they'd be more inclined to add another Hendicks-ish #3/4 type than to trade Hendricks as part of a package to get a 1/2 type. It seems like the breakdowns at the end of last year convinced them more than anything that they need 6 quality starting pitchers more than they need 3 really good ones and meh at the bottom of the rotation. I can't say I disagree.
I'd honestly be fine with whatever Rays starter they can pry without giving up Soler, or if they can get Gausman from the Orioles without giving up Baez or Soler (either seems like too much to give up for a guy an unproven starter, however talented).
Quote from: Eli on December 08, 2015, 10:00:26 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 08, 2015, 09:30:44 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 09:14:21 AM
Apparently Rosenthal just said on MLBN that the Cubs are out of the Miller sweepstakes so someone else can enjoy Jake Arrieta 2.0 I suppose.
Hopefully they can talk to Cleveland about Carrasco. (non SKOpoke) I think Baez and QSM can get that done.
I think they want to hang onto Hendricks. My harebrained theory is they'll trade for a young arm, dump Hammel's salary and sign Heyward.
DPD, but this is a good thought. I bet there's a tanking team out there willing to take on one year of Hammel's salary if the Cubs offer actual prospects along with him, especially since said team could probably flip Hammel anyway if he has another first half like he did last year.
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 10:45:13 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 08, 2015, 10:00:26 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 08, 2015, 09:30:44 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 09:14:21 AM
Apparently Rosenthal just said on MLBN that the Cubs are out of the Miller sweepstakes so someone else can enjoy Jake Arrieta 2.0 I suppose.
Hopefully they can talk to Cleveland about Carrasco. (non SKOpoke) I think Baez and QSM can get that done.
I think they want to hang onto Hendricks. My harebrained theory is they'll trade for a young arm, dump Hammel's salary and sign Heyward.
DPD, but this is a good thought. I bet there's a tanking team out there willing to take on one year of Hammel's salary if the Cubs offer actual prospects along with him, especially since said team could probably flip Hammel anyway if he has another first half like he did last year.
Or at the very least, even tanking teams need to fill out a roster.
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 10:45:13 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 08, 2015, 10:00:26 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 08, 2015, 09:30:44 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 09:14:21 AM
Apparently Rosenthal just said on MLBN that the Cubs are out of the Miller sweepstakes so someone else can enjoy Jake Arrieta 2.0 I suppose.
Hopefully they can talk to Cleveland about Carrasco. (non SKOpoke) I think Baez and QSM can get that done.
I think they want to hang onto Hendricks. My harebrained theory is they'll trade for a young arm, dump Hammel's salary and sign Heyward.
DPD, but this is a good thought. I bet there's a tanking team out there willing to take on one year of Hammel's salary if the Cubs offer actual prospects along with him, especially since said team could probably flip Hammel anyway if he has another first half like he did last year.
If you want a salary dump, the guy to dump is Montero. $14mm/2. Add in the $11mm that drops off from Edwin Jackson and it makes Heywood nearly free.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 08, 2015, 10:51:40 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 10:45:13 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 08, 2015, 10:00:26 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 08, 2015, 09:30:44 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 09:14:21 AM
Apparently Rosenthal just said on MLBN that the Cubs are out of the Miller sweepstakes so someone else can enjoy Jake Arrieta 2.0 I suppose.
Hopefully they can talk to Cleveland about Carrasco. (non SKOpoke) I think Baez and QSM can get that done.
I think they want to hang onto Hendricks. My harebrained theory is they'll trade for a young arm, dump Hammel's salary and sign Heyward.
DPD, but this is a good thought. I bet there's a tanking team out there willing to take on one year of Hammel's salary if the Cubs offer actual prospects along with him, especially since said team could probably flip Hammel anyway if he has another first half like he did last year.
If you want a salary dump, the guy to dump is Montero. $14mm/2. Add in the $11mm that drops off from Edwin Jackson and it makes Heywood nearly free.
Yeah and plus that clears up a spot at catcher for
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 08, 2015, 10:50:20 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 10:45:13 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 08, 2015, 10:00:26 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 08, 2015, 09:30:44 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 09:14:21 AM
Apparently Rosenthal just said on MLBN that the Cubs are out of the Miller sweepstakes so someone else can enjoy Jake Arrieta 2.0 I suppose.
Hopefully they can talk to Cleveland about Carrasco. (non SKOpoke) I think Baez and QSM can get that done.
I think they want to hang onto Hendricks. My harebrained theory is they'll trade for a young arm, dump Hammel's salary and sign Heyward.
DPD, but this is a good thought. I bet there's a tanking team out there willing to take on one year of Hammel's salary if the Cubs offer actual prospects along with him, especially since said team could probably flip Hammel anyway if he has another first half like he did last year.
Or at the very least, even tanking teams need to fill out a roster.
Yeah but they can fill out a roster for a lot cheaper than 9 million dollars. To get someone to take on Hammel you'd have to give them something of value. Probably at least one semi-legitimate prospect and some guys that are worth taking chances on. Nobody the Cubs would miss but this is the kind of thing you can afford to do with a loaded system and blocked prospects.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 08, 2015, 10:51:40 AM
If you want a salary dump, the guy to dump is Montero. $14mm/2. Add in the $11mm that drops off from Edwin Jackson and it makes Heywood nearly free.
It also makes the catcher spot free of a starting catcher.
Quote from: Eli on December 08, 2015, 11:01:01 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 08, 2015, 10:51:40 AM
If you want a salary dump, the guy to dump is Montero. $14mm/2. Add in the $11mm that drops off from Edwin Jackson and it makes Heywood nearly free.
It also makes the catcher spot free of a starting catcher.
Well they still have to pay Edlose for 2016 but it'll drop off eventually. Just like Lester's will. Eventually.
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 10:55:26 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 08, 2015, 10:50:20 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 10:45:13 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 08, 2015, 10:00:26 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 08, 2015, 09:30:44 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 09:14:21 AM
Apparently Rosenthal just said on MLBN that the Cubs are out of the Miller sweepstakes so someone else can enjoy Jake Arrieta 2.0 I suppose.
Hopefully they can talk to Cleveland about Carrasco. (non SKOpoke) I think Baez and QSM can get that done.
I think they want to hang onto Hendricks. My harebrained theory is they'll trade for a young arm, dump Hammel's salary and sign Heyward.
DPD, but this is a good thought. I bet there's a tanking team out there willing to take on one year of Hammel's salary if the Cubs offer actual prospects along with him, especially since said team could probably flip Hammel anyway if he has another first half like he did last year.
Or at the very least, even tanking teams need to fill out a roster.
Yeah but they can fill out a roster for a lot cheaper than 9 million dollars. To get someone to take on Hammel you'd have to give them something of value. Probably at least one semi-legitimate prospect and some guys that are worth taking chances on. Nobody the Cubs would miss but this is the kind of thing you can afford to do with a loaded system and blocked prospects.
VOGELBACH!!!
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 10:54:00 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 08, 2015, 10:51:40 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 10:45:13 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 08, 2015, 10:00:26 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 08, 2015, 09:30:44 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 09:14:21 AM
Apparently Rosenthal just said on MLBN that the Cubs are out of the Miller sweepstakes so someone else can enjoy Jake Arrieta 2.0 I suppose.
Hopefully they can talk to Cleveland about Carrasco. (non SKOpoke) I think Baez and QSM can get that done.
I think they want to hang onto Hendricks. My harebrained theory is they'll trade for a young arm, dump Hammel's salary and sign Heyward.
DPD, but this is a good thought. I bet there's a tanking team out there willing to take on one year of Hammel's salary if the Cubs offer actual prospects along with him, especially since said team could probably flip Hammel anyway if he has another first half like he did last year.
If you want a salary dump, the guy to dump is Montero. $14mm/2. Add in the $11mm that drops off from Edwin Jackson and it makes Heywood nearly free.
Yeah and plus that clears up a spot at catcher for
Isn't this, technically speaking, a complaint about David Ross? Convene the Desipio tribunal.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 08, 2015, 11:33:01 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 10:54:00 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 08, 2015, 10:51:40 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 10:45:13 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 08, 2015, 10:00:26 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 08, 2015, 09:30:44 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 09:14:21 AM
Apparently Rosenthal just said on MLBN that the Cubs are out of the Miller sweepstakes so someone else can enjoy Jake Arrieta 2.0 I suppose.
Hopefully they can talk to Cleveland about Carrasco. (non SKOpoke) I think Baez and QSM can get that done.
I think they want to hang onto Hendricks. My harebrained theory is they'll trade for a young arm, dump Hammel's salary and sign Heyward.
DPD, but this is a good thought. I bet there's a tanking team out there willing to take on one year of Hammel's salary if the Cubs offer actual prospects along with him, especially since said team could probably flip Hammel anyway if he has another first half like he did last year.
If you want a salary dump, the guy to dump is Montero. $14mm/2. Add in the $11mm that drops off from Edwin Jackson and it makes Heywood nearly free.
Yeah and plus that clears up a spot at catcher for
Isn't this, technically speaking, a complaint about David Ross? Convene the Desipio tribunal.
I don't think anyone wants Ross to be an everyday starter, so I vore to give SKO a pass.
Quote from: Bort on December 08, 2015, 11:39:58 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 08, 2015, 11:33:01 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 10:54:00 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 08, 2015, 10:51:40 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 10:45:13 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 08, 2015, 10:00:26 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 08, 2015, 09:30:44 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 09:14:21 AM
Apparently Rosenthal just said on MLBN that the Cubs are out of the Miller sweepstakes so someone else can enjoy Jake Arrieta 2.0 I suppose.
Hopefully they can talk to Cleveland about Carrasco. (non SKOpoke) I think Baez and QSM can get that done.
I think they want to hang onto Hendricks. My harebrained theory is they'll trade for a young arm, dump Hammel's salary and sign Heyward.
DPD, but this is a good thought. I bet there's a tanking team out there willing to take on one year of Hammel's salary if the Cubs offer actual prospects along with him, especially since said team could probably flip Hammel anyway if he has another first half like he did last year.
If you want a salary dump, the guy to dump is Montero. $14mm/2. Add in the $11mm that drops off from Edwin Jackson and it makes Heywood nearly free.
Yeah and plus that clears up a spot at catcher for
Isn't this, technically speaking, a complaint about David Ross? Convene the Desipio tribunal.
I don't think anyone wants Ross to be an everyday starter, so I vore to give SKO a pass.
The whole vore? That's not allowed.
Quote from: Bort on December 08, 2015, 11:39:58 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 08, 2015, 11:33:01 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 10:54:00 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 08, 2015, 10:51:40 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 10:45:13 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 08, 2015, 10:00:26 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 08, 2015, 09:30:44 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 09:14:21 AM
Apparently Rosenthal just said on MLBN that the Cubs are out of the Miller sweepstakes so someone else can enjoy Jake Arrieta 2.0 I suppose.
Hopefully they can talk to Cleveland about Carrasco. (non SKOpoke) I think Baez and QSM can get that done.
I think they want to hang onto Hendricks. My harebrained theory is they'll trade for a young arm, dump Hammel's salary and sign Heyward.
DPD, but this is a good thought. I bet there's a tanking team out there willing to take on one year of Hammel's salary if the Cubs offer actual prospects along with him, especially since said team could probably flip Hammel anyway if he has another first half like he did last year.
If you want a salary dump, the guy to dump is Montero. $14mm/2. Add in the $11mm that drops off from Edwin Jackson and it makes Heywood nearly free.
Yeah and plus that clears up a spot at catcher for
Isn't this, technically speaking, a complaint about David Ross? Convene the Desipio tribunal.
I don't think anyone wants Ross to be an everyday starter, so I vore to give SKO a pass.
To be fair, I don't even think Chuck is so dumb as to suggest David Ross as the primary catcher, but he does seem to think Schwarber can be a full time catcher through the power of positive thinking or something. Or he really has a ton of faith in Willson Contreras AA All Star appearance.
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 11:41:42 AM
Quote from: Bort on December 08, 2015, 11:39:58 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 08, 2015, 11:33:01 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 10:54:00 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 08, 2015, 10:51:40 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 10:45:13 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 08, 2015, 10:00:26 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 08, 2015, 09:30:44 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 09:14:21 AM
Apparently Rosenthal just said on MLBN that the Cubs are out of the Miller sweepstakes so someone else can enjoy Jake Arrieta 2.0 I suppose.
Hopefully they can talk to Cleveland about Carrasco. (non SKOpoke) I think Baez and QSM can get that done.
I think they want to hang onto Hendricks. My harebrained theory is they'll trade for a young arm, dump Hammel's salary and sign Heyward.
DPD, but this is a good thought. I bet there's a tanking team out there willing to take on one year of Hammel's salary if the Cubs offer actual prospects along with him, especially since said team could probably flip Hammel anyway if he has another first half like he did last year.
If you want a salary dump, the guy to dump is Montero. $14mm/2. Add in the $11mm that drops off from Edwin Jackson and it makes Heywood nearly free.
Yeah and plus that clears up a spot at catcher for
Isn't this, technically speaking, a complaint about David Ross? Convene the Desipio tribunal.
I don't think anyone wants Ross to be an everyday starter, so I vore to give SKO a pass.
To be fair, I don't even think Chuck is so dumb as to suggest David Ross as the primary catcher, but he does seem to think Schwarber can be a full time catcher through the power of positive thinking or something. Or he really has a ton of faith in Willson Contreras AA All Star appearance.
Tyler Flowers is still available. (throws up)
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 11:41:42 AM
Quote from: Bort on December 08, 2015, 11:39:58 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 08, 2015, 11:33:01 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 10:54:00 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 08, 2015, 10:51:40 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 10:45:13 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 08, 2015, 10:00:26 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 08, 2015, 09:30:44 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 09:14:21 AM
Apparently Rosenthal just said on MLBN that the Cubs are out of the Miller sweepstakes so someone else can enjoy Jake Arrieta 2.0 I suppose.
Hopefully they can talk to Cleveland about Carrasco. (non SKOpoke) I think Baez and QSM can get that done.
I think they want to hang onto Hendricks. My harebrained theory is they'll trade for a young arm, dump Hammel's salary and sign Heyward.
DPD, but this is a good thought. I bet there's a tanking team out there willing to take on one year of Hammel's salary if the Cubs offer actual prospects along with him, especially since said team could probably flip Hammel anyway if he has another first half like he did last year.
If you want a salary dump, the guy to dump is Montero. $14mm/2. Add in the $11mm that drops off from Edwin Jackson and it makes Heywood nearly free.
Yeah and plus that clears up a spot at catcher for
Isn't this, technically speaking, a complaint about David Ross? Convene the Desipio tribunal.
I don't think anyone wants Ross to be an everyday starter, so I vore to give SKO a pass.
To be fair, I don't even think Chuck is so dumb as to suggest David Ross as the primary catcher, but he does seem to think Schwarber can be a full time catcher through the power of positive thinking or something. Or he really has a ton of faith in Willson Contreras AA All Star appearance.
More like "really hope." If Schwarber can catch for a few years, it makes a whole bunch of other moves massively easier. I'm not counting on that, but to have Montero's money and have left field open? Splooge.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 08, 2015, 01:32:50 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 11:41:42 AM
Quote from: Bort on December 08, 2015, 11:39:58 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 08, 2015, 11:33:01 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 10:54:00 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 08, 2015, 10:51:40 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 10:45:13 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 08, 2015, 10:00:26 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 08, 2015, 09:30:44 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 09:14:21 AM
Apparently Rosenthal just said on MLBN that the Cubs are out of the Miller sweepstakes so someone else can enjoy Jake Arrieta 2.0 I suppose.
Hopefully they can talk to Cleveland about Carrasco. (non SKOpoke) I think Baez and QSM can get that done.
I think they want to hang onto Hendricks. My harebrained theory is they'll trade for a young arm, dump Hammel's salary and sign Heyward.
DPD, but this is a good thought. I bet there's a tanking team out there willing to take on one year of Hammel's salary if the Cubs offer actual prospects along with him, especially since said team could probably flip Hammel anyway if he has another first half like he did last year.
If you want a salary dump, the guy to dump is Montero. $14mm/2. Add in the $11mm that drops off from Edwin Jackson and it makes Heywood nearly free.
Yeah and plus that clears up a spot at catcher for
Isn't this, technically speaking, a complaint about David Ross? Convene the Desipio tribunal.
I don't think anyone wants Ross to be an everyday starter, so I vore to give SKO a pass.
To be fair, I don't even think Chuck is so dumb as to suggest David Ross as the primary catcher, but he does seem to think Schwarber can be a full time catcher through the power of positive thinking or something. Or he really has a ton of faith in Willson Contreras AA All Star appearance.
More like "really hope." If Schwarber can catch for a few years, it makes a whole bunch of other moves massively easier. I'm not counting on that, but to have Montero's money and have left field open? Splooge.
Maybe at some point Schwarber could be an adequate big league catcher. But the point isn't here.
Zobrist a Cub?
Quote from: Canadouche on December 08, 2015, 06:45:35 PM
Zobrist a Cub?
$14 million per for four years is much more palatable than what was being reported. Not crazy about the fourth year, though. And if this takes them out of the running for Heyward, I'll be reaching for the keys to the firebarn.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 08, 2015, 06:56:47 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on December 08, 2015, 06:45:35 PM
Zobrist a Cub?
$14 million per for four years is much more palatable than what was being reported. Not crazy about the fourth year, though. And if this takes them out of the running for Heyward, I'll be reaching for the keys to the firebarn.
If they trade Castro to the Yankees, as rumored, I'd hope that this wouldn't have an impact on a Heyward signing.
Quote from: Canadouche on December 08, 2015, 06:45:35 PM
Zobrist a Cub?
And Starlin a Yankee...Pending a physical.
I can't believe what the Braves just got for Shelby fucking Miller. Talk about trade rape...
So according to the dudes on MLB Network, signing Zobrist comes with the added bonus of fucking the Mets.
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on December 08, 2015, 07:58:02 PM
I can't believe what the Braves just got for Shelby fucking Miller. Talk about trade rape...
This is your first cogent post.
Adam Warren looks pretty freaking solid. Here's a really good 2015 highlight package/breakdown (http://m.mlb.com/chc/video/v526195783/2015-player-profile-adam-warren). They can definitely use a guy like this. And I'm pretty sure I'd already rather see him start Game 3 than Jason Hammel.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 08, 2015, 09:54:11 PM
Adam Warren looks pretty freaking solid. Here's a really good 2015 highlight package/breakdown (http://m.mlb.com/chc/video/v526195783/2015-player-profile-adam-warren). They can definitely use a guy like this. And I'm pretty sure I'd already rather see him start Game 3 than Jason Hammel.
I don't know how accurate ZiPs is but holy shit would this be awesome: https://twitter.com/DSzymborski/status/674435358336004096
Quote from: SKO on December 08, 2015, 10:00:17 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 08, 2015, 09:54:11 PM
Adam Warren looks pretty freaking solid. Here's a really good 2015 highlight package/breakdown (http://m.mlb.com/chc/video/v526195783/2015-player-profile-adam-warren). They can definitely use a guy like this. And I'm pretty sure I'd already rather see him start Game 3 than Jason Hammel.
I don't know how accurate ZiPs is but holy shit would this be awesome: https://twitter.com/DSzymborski/status/674435358336004096
*hearts for eyes emoji*
40 man is full.
So if the Cubs go all-in on Heyward, the Cogswood combo will still get launched.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 09, 2015, 07:35:28 AM
40 man is full.
So if the Cubs go all-in on Heyward, the Cogswood combo will still get launched.
Unless they DFA Andury Acevedo, Dallas Beeler, Eric Jokisch, Yoervis Medina, or Edward James Olmos, aka guys with no actual major league value, unlike Wood or Coghlan.
Interesting (https://twitter.com/ESPNChiCubs/status/674430427411517441), since Theo doesn't usually say things just to say them:
QuoteTheo on syncing up another trade and FA: "There is still the potential for that again." Internet go nuts in 3-2-1.
Quote from: Eli on December 09, 2015, 08:25:48 AM
Interesting (https://twitter.com/ESPNChiCubs/status/674430427411517441), since Theo doesn't usually say things just to say them:
QuoteTheo on syncing up another trade and FA: "There is still the potential for that again." Internet go nuts in 3-2-1.
Trade Hammel to clear salary, sign Heyward. YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Quote from: SKO on December 09, 2015, 08:30:22 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 09, 2015, 08:25:48 AM
Interesting (https://twitter.com/ESPNChiCubs/status/674430427411517441), since Theo doesn't usually say things just to say them:
QuoteTheo on syncing up another trade and FA: "There is still the potential for that again." Internet go nuts in 3-2-1.
Trade Hammel to clear salary, sign Heyward. YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
I think they really, really want Heyward. That doesn't mean it'll work out, but Theo is clearly swinging for the fences.
Quote from: Eli on December 09, 2015, 08:38:48 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 09, 2015, 08:30:22 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 09, 2015, 08:25:48 AM
Interesting (https://twitter.com/ESPNChiCubs/status/674430427411517441), since Theo doesn't usually say things just to say them:
QuoteTheo on syncing up another trade and FA: "There is still the potential for that again." Internet go nuts in 3-2-1.
Trade Hammel to clear salary, sign Heyward. YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
I think they really, really want Heyward. That doesn't mean it'll work out, but Theo is clearly swinging for the fences.
I'm just hoping if they swing and miss there that they end up with Fowler. I'm hoping the "Cubs in on Gerardo Parra" rumor is their fallback if the fallback fails.
Imagine this lineup opening day next year:
Zobrist 2B
Heyward or Fowler CF
Rizzo 1B
Bryant 3B
Schwarber LF
Soler RF
Russell SS
Arrieta P
Montero C
Quote from: SKO on December 09, 2015, 08:46:19 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 09, 2015, 08:38:48 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 09, 2015, 08:30:22 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 09, 2015, 08:25:48 AM
Interesting (https://twitter.com/ESPNChiCubs/status/674430427411517441), since Theo doesn't usually say things just to say them:
QuoteTheo on syncing up another trade and FA: "There is still the potential for that again." Internet go nuts in 3-2-1.
Trade Hammel to clear salary, sign Heyward. YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
I think they really, really want Heyward. That doesn't mean it'll work out, but Theo is clearly swinging for the fences.
I'm just hoping if they swing and miss there that they end up with Fowler. I'm hoping the "Cubs in on Gerardo Parra" rumor is their fallback if the fallback fails.
Imagine this lineup opening day next year:
Zobrist 2B
Heyward or Fowler CF
Rizzo 1B
Bryant 3B
Schwarber LF
Soler RF
Russell SS
Arrieta P
Montero C
Where you fitting in Baez? 1 day per week for Zobrist?
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 09, 2015, 09:31:43 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 09, 2015, 08:46:19 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 09, 2015, 08:38:48 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 09, 2015, 08:30:22 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 09, 2015, 08:25:48 AM
Interesting (https://twitter.com/ESPNChiCubs/status/674430427411517441), since Theo doesn't usually say things just to say them:
QuoteTheo on syncing up another trade and FA: "There is still the potential for that again." Internet go nuts in 3-2-1.
Trade Hammel to clear salary, sign Heyward. YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
I think they really, really want Heyward. That doesn't mean it'll work out, but Theo is clearly swinging for the fences.
I'm just hoping if they swing and miss there that they end up with Fowler. I'm hoping the "Cubs in on Gerardo Parra" rumor is their fallback if the fallback fails.
Imagine this lineup opening day next year:
Zobrist 2B
Heyward or Fowler CF
Rizzo 1B
Bryant 3B
Schwarber LF
Soler RF
Russell SS
Arrieta P
Montero C
Where you fitting in Baez? 1 day per week for Zobrist?
The way Joe shuffles guys around in the late innings? Baez can get into 130 games without starting any.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 09, 2015, 09:38:17 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 09, 2015, 09:31:43 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 09, 2015, 08:46:19 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 09, 2015, 08:38:48 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 09, 2015, 08:30:22 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 09, 2015, 08:25:48 AM
Interesting (https://twitter.com/ESPNChiCubs/status/674430427411517441), since Theo doesn't usually say things just to say them:
QuoteTheo on syncing up another trade and FA: "There is still the potential for that again." Internet go nuts in 3-2-1.
Trade Hammel to clear salary, sign Heyward. YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
I think they really, really want Heyward. That doesn't mean it'll work out, but Theo is clearly swinging for the fences.
I'm just hoping if they swing and miss there that they end up with Fowler. I'm hoping the "Cubs in on Gerardo Parra" rumor is their fallback if the fallback fails.
Imagine this lineup opening day next year:
Zobrist 2B
Heyward or Fowler CF
Rizzo 1B
Bryant 3B
Schwarber LF
Soler RF
Russell SS
Arrieta P
Montero C
Where you fitting in Baez? 1 day per week for Zobrist?
The way Joe shuffles guys around in the late innings? Baez can get into 130 games without starting any.
Yeah, Baez can get a couple starts a week at 3B, SS, 2B, and some OF. He's apparently playing CF in winter ball. If he starts looking like 30 Home Run Potential Javy they'll find a way to make sure he plays every day.
Quote from: SKO on December 09, 2015, 10:12:22 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 09, 2015, 09:38:17 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 09, 2015, 09:31:43 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 09, 2015, 08:46:19 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 09, 2015, 08:38:48 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 09, 2015, 08:30:22 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 09, 2015, 08:25:48 AM
Interesting (https://twitter.com/ESPNChiCubs/status/674430427411517441), since Theo doesn't usually say things just to say them:
QuoteTheo on syncing up another trade and FA: "There is still the potential for that again." Internet go nuts in 3-2-1.
Trade Hammel to clear salary, sign Heyward. YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
I think they really, really want Heyward. That doesn't mean it'll work out, but Theo is clearly swinging for the fences.
I'm just hoping if they swing and miss there that they end up with Fowler. I'm hoping the "Cubs in on Gerardo Parra" rumor is their fallback if the fallback fails.
Imagine this lineup opening day next year:
Zobrist 2B
Heyward or Fowler CF
Rizzo 1B
Bryant 3B
Schwarber LF
Soler RF
Russell SS
Arrieta P
Montero C
Where you fitting in Baez? 1 day per week for Zobrist?
The way Joe shuffles guys around in the late innings? Baez can get into 130 games without starting any.
Yeah, Baez can get a couple starts a week at 3B, SS, 2B, and some OF. He's apparently playing CF in winter ball. If he starts looking like 30 Home Run Potential Javy they'll find a way to make sure he plays every day.
What I'd love to see is somebody get some reps at 1B. I don't think giving Rizzo a game off every 3 weeks would cost the Cubs the pennant.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 09, 2015, 10:21:46 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 09, 2015, 10:12:22 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 09, 2015, 09:38:17 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 09, 2015, 09:31:43 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 09, 2015, 08:46:19 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 09, 2015, 08:38:48 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 09, 2015, 08:30:22 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 09, 2015, 08:25:48 AM
Interesting (https://twitter.com/ESPNChiCubs/status/674430427411517441), since Theo doesn't usually say things just to say them:
QuoteTheo on syncing up another trade and FA: "There is still the potential for that again." Internet go nuts in 3-2-1.
Trade Hammel to clear salary, sign Heyward. YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
I think they really, really want Heyward. That doesn't mean it'll work out, but Theo is clearly swinging for the fences.
I'm just hoping if they swing and miss there that they end up with Fowler. I'm hoping the "Cubs in on Gerardo Parra" rumor is their fallback if the fallback fails.
Imagine this lineup opening day next year:
Zobrist 2B
Heyward or Fowler CF
Rizzo 1B
Bryant 3B
Schwarber LF
Soler RF
Russell SS
Arrieta P
Montero C
Where you fitting in Baez? 1 day per week for Zobrist?
The way Joe shuffles guys around in the late innings? Baez can get into 130 games without starting any.
Yeah, Baez can get a couple starts a week at 3B, SS, 2B, and some OF. He's apparently playing CF in winter ball. If he starts looking like 30 Home Run Potential Javy they'll find a way to make sure he plays every day.
What I'd love to see is somebody get some reps at 1B. I don't think giving Rizzo a game off every 3 weeks would cost the Cubs the pennant.
Bryant got a start there last year, wouldn't be a bad idea to get him some offseason work there. They could play Baez at third and Bryant at first. Schwarber would also seem like a fairly logical choice to be a backup first baseman, but they may not want to overload him as they focus on making him a half decent left fielder while also trying to make him a half decent catcher.
According to mlbtraderumors, the Giants and Nats both beat the Cubs' offer for Zobrist, and the Mets were "confident they would get a deal done". Heh heh.
Quote from: SKO on December 09, 2015, 10:25:45 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 09, 2015, 10:21:46 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 09, 2015, 10:12:22 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 09, 2015, 09:38:17 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 09, 2015, 09:31:43 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 09, 2015, 08:46:19 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 09, 2015, 08:38:48 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 09, 2015, 08:30:22 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 09, 2015, 08:25:48 AM
Interesting (https://twitter.com/ESPNChiCubs/status/674430427411517441), since Theo doesn't usually say things just to say them:
QuoteTheo on syncing up another trade and FA: "There is still the potential for that again." Internet go nuts in 3-2-1.
Trade Hammel to clear salary, sign Heyward. YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
I think they really, really want Heyward. That doesn't mean it'll work out, but Theo is clearly swinging for the fences.
I'm just hoping if they swing and miss there that they end up with Fowler. I'm hoping the "Cubs in on Gerardo Parra" rumor is their fallback if the fallback fails.
Imagine this lineup opening day next year:
Zobrist 2B
Heyward or Fowler CF
Rizzo 1B
Bryant 3B
Schwarber LF
Soler RF
Russell SS
Arrieta P
Montero C
Where you fitting in Baez? 1 day per week for Zobrist?
The way Joe shuffles guys around in the late innings? Baez can get into 130 games without starting any.
Yeah, Baez can get a couple starts a week at 3B, SS, 2B, and some OF. He's apparently playing CF in winter ball. If he starts looking like 30 Home Run Potential Javy they'll find a way to make sure he plays every day.
What I'd love to see is somebody get some reps at 1B. I don't think giving Rizzo a game off every 3 weeks would cost the Cubs the pennant.
Bryant got a start there last year, wouldn't be a bad idea to get him some offseason work there. They could play Baez at third and Bryant at first. Schwarber would also seem like a fairly logical choice to be a backup first baseman, but they may not want to overload him as they focus on making him a half decent left fielder while also trying to make him a half decent catcher.
I was at the game where Bryant played first. Trust me, reliving that wouldn't be good for anyone.
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on December 08, 2015, 07:58:02 PM
I can't believe what the Braves just got for Shelby fucking Miller. Talk about trade rape...
The Braves weren't shy about setting a high price tag for Miller (http://chicago.suntimes.com/sports/7/71/1167066/cubs-fans-couldnt-stop-laughing-heard-braves-tried-pry-kris-bryant-cubs).
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 09, 2015, 12:02:29 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 09, 2015, 10:25:45 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 09, 2015, 10:21:46 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 09, 2015, 10:12:22 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 09, 2015, 09:38:17 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 09, 2015, 09:31:43 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 09, 2015, 08:46:19 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 09, 2015, 08:38:48 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 09, 2015, 08:30:22 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 09, 2015, 08:25:48 AM
Interesting (https://twitter.com/ESPNChiCubs/status/674430427411517441), since Theo doesn't usually say things just to say them:
QuoteTheo on syncing up another trade and FA: "There is still the potential for that again." Internet go nuts in 3-2-1.
Trade Hammel to clear salary, sign Heyward. YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
I think they really, really want Heyward. That doesn't mean it'll work out, but Theo is clearly swinging for the fences.
I'm just hoping if they swing and miss there that they end up with Fowler. I'm hoping the "Cubs in on Gerardo Parra" rumor is their fallback if the fallback fails.
Imagine this lineup opening day next year:
Zobrist 2B
Heyward or Fowler CF
Rizzo 1B
Bryant 3B
Schwarber LF
Soler RF
Russell SS
Arrieta P
Montero C
Where you fitting in Baez? 1 day per week for Zobrist?
The way Joe shuffles guys around in the late innings? Baez can get into 130 games without starting any.
Yeah, Baez can get a couple starts a week at 3B, SS, 2B, and some OF. He's apparently playing CF in winter ball. If he starts looking like 30 Home Run Potential Javy they'll find a way to make sure he plays every day.
What I'd love to see is somebody get some reps at 1B. I don't think giving Rizzo a game off every 3 weeks would cost the Cubs the pennant.
Bryant got a start there last year, wouldn't be a bad idea to get him some offseason work there. They could play Baez at third and Bryant at first. Schwarber would also seem like a fairly logical choice to be a backup first baseman, but they may not want to overload him as they focus on making him a half decent left fielder while also trying to make him a half decent catcher.
I was at the game where Bryant played first. Trust me, reliving that wouldn't be good for anyone.
When ScoutFork is speaking, buckle up and pay attention, guys.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 09, 2015, 12:02:29 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 09, 2015, 10:25:45 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 09, 2015, 10:21:46 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 09, 2015, 10:12:22 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 09, 2015, 09:38:17 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 09, 2015, 09:31:43 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 09, 2015, 08:46:19 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 09, 2015, 08:38:48 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 09, 2015, 08:30:22 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 09, 2015, 08:25:48 AM
Interesting (https://twitter.com/ESPNChiCubs/status/674430427411517441), since Theo doesn't usually say things just to say them:
QuoteTheo on syncing up another trade and FA: "There is still the potential for that again." Internet go nuts in 3-2-1.
Trade Hammel to clear salary, sign Heyward. YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
I think they really, really want Heyward. That doesn't mean it'll work out, but Theo is clearly swinging for the fences.
I'm just hoping if they swing and miss there that they end up with Fowler. I'm hoping the "Cubs in on Gerardo Parra" rumor is their fallback if the fallback fails.
Imagine this lineup opening day next year:
Zobrist 2B
Heyward or Fowler CF
Rizzo 1B
Bryant 3B
Schwarber LF
Soler RF
Russell SS
Arrieta P
Montero C
Where you fitting in Baez? 1 day per week for Zobrist?
The way Joe shuffles guys around in the late innings? Baez can get into 130 games without starting any.
Yeah, Baez can get a couple starts a week at 3B, SS, 2B, and some OF. He's apparently playing CF in winter ball. If he starts looking like 30 Home Run Potential Javy they'll find a way to make sure he plays every day.
What I'd love to see is somebody get some reps at 1B. I don't think giving Rizzo a game off every 3 weeks would cost the Cubs the pennant.
Bryant got a start there last year, wouldn't be a bad idea to get him some offseason work there. They could play Baez at third and Bryant at first. Schwarber would also seem like a fairly logical choice to be a backup first baseman, but they may not want to overload him as they focus on making him a half decent left fielder while also trying to make him a half decent catcher.
I was at the game where Bryant played first. Trust me, reliving that wouldn't be good for anyone.
That smell when Fork is at Wrigley...
Quote from: Tonker on December 09, 2015, 01:35:43 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 09, 2015, 12:02:29 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 09, 2015, 10:25:45 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 09, 2015, 10:21:46 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 09, 2015, 10:12:22 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 09, 2015, 09:38:17 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 09, 2015, 09:31:43 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 09, 2015, 08:46:19 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 09, 2015, 08:38:48 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 09, 2015, 08:30:22 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 09, 2015, 08:25:48 AM
Interesting (https://twitter.com/ESPNChiCubs/status/674430427411517441), since Theo doesn't usually say things just to say them:
QuoteTheo on syncing up another trade and FA: "There is still the potential for that again." Internet go nuts in 3-2-1.
Trade Hammel to clear salary, sign Heyward. YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
I think they really, really want Heyward. That doesn't mean it'll work out, but Theo is clearly swinging for the fences.
I'm just hoping if they swing and miss there that they end up with Fowler. I'm hoping the "Cubs in on Gerardo Parra" rumor is their fallback if the fallback fails.
Imagine this lineup opening day next year:
Zobrist 2B
Heyward or Fowler CF
Rizzo 1B
Bryant 3B
Schwarber LF
Soler RF
Russell SS
Arrieta P
Montero C
Where you fitting in Baez? 1 day per week for Zobrist?
The way Joe shuffles guys around in the late innings? Baez can get into 130 games without starting any.
Yeah, Baez can get a couple starts a week at 3B, SS, 2B, and some OF. He's apparently playing CF in winter ball. If he starts looking like 30 Home Run Potential Javy they'll find a way to make sure he plays every day.
What I'd love to see is somebody get some reps at 1B. I don't think giving Rizzo a game off every 3 weeks would cost the Cubs the pennant.
Bryant got a start there last year, wouldn't be a bad idea to get him some offseason work there. They could play Baez at third and Bryant at first. Schwarber would also seem like a fairly logical choice to be a backup first baseman, but they may not want to overload him as they focus on making him a half decent left fielder while also trying to make him a half decent catcher.
I was at the game where Bryant played first. Trust me, reliving that wouldn't be good for anyone.
When ScoutFork is speaking, buckle up and pay attention, guys.
There were 40,000 scouts all groaning as he was flailing at grounders.
Now, maybe if you had a game where Hendricks were pitching to a lineup full of righthanded pull hitters...
Quote from: Armchair_QB on December 08, 2015, 08:10:27 PM
So according to the dudes on MLB Network, signing Zobrist comes with the added bonus of fucking the Mets.
The Mets offered 4/32. Any fucking was self-inflicted.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 09, 2015, 02:56:21 PM
There were 40,000 scouts all groaning as he was flailing at grounders.
If he can handle a ground ball at 3B, he can probably handle a ground ball at 1B. And he got two chances in that game and handled them both, so I'm skeptical that 40,000 people were groaning about it.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 09, 2015, 12:02:29 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 09, 2015, 10:25:45 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 09, 2015, 10:21:46 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 09, 2015, 10:12:22 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 09, 2015, 09:38:17 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 09, 2015, 09:31:43 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 09, 2015, 08:46:19 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 09, 2015, 08:38:48 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 09, 2015, 08:30:22 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 09, 2015, 08:25:48 AM
Interesting (https://twitter.com/ESPNChiCubs/status/674430427411517441), since Theo doesn't usually say things just to say them:
QuoteTheo on syncing up another trade and FA: "There is still the potential for that again." Internet go nuts in 3-2-1.
Trade Hammel to clear salary, sign Heyward. YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
I think they really, really want Heyward. That doesn't mean it'll work out, but Theo is clearly swinging for the fences.
I'm just hoping if they swing and miss there that they end up with Fowler. I'm hoping the "Cubs in on Gerardo Parra" rumor is their fallback if the fallback fails.
Imagine this lineup opening day next year:
Zobrist 2B
Heyward or Fowler CF
Rizzo 1B
Bryant 3B
Schwarber LF
Soler RF
Russell SS
Arrieta P
Montero C
Where you fitting in Baez? 1 day per week for Zobrist?
The way Joe shuffles guys around in the late innings? Baez can get into 130 games without starting any.
Yeah, Baez can get a couple starts a week at 3B, SS, 2B, and some OF. He's apparently playing CF in winter ball. If he starts looking like 30 Home Run Potential Javy they'll find a way to make sure he plays every day.
What I'd love to see is somebody get some reps at 1B. I don't think giving Rizzo a game off every 3 weeks would cost the Cubs the pennant.
Bryant got a start there last year, wouldn't be a bad idea to get him some offseason work there. They could play Baez at third and Bryant at first. Schwarber would also seem like a fairly logical choice to be a backup first baseman, but they may not want to overload him as they focus on making him a half decent left fielder while also trying to make him a half decent catcher.
I was at the game where Bryant played first. Trust me, reliving that wouldn't be good for anyone.
I'm not exactly fired up about the idea of watching Schwarber play first base either.
Quote from: Eli on December 09, 2015, 03:48:08 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 09, 2015, 02:56:21 PM
There were 40,000 scouts all groaning as he was flailing at grounders.
If he can handle a ground ball at 3B, he can probably handle a ground ball at 1B. And he got two chances in that game and handled them both, so I'm skeptical that 40,000 people were groaning about it.
+1
Quote from: Yeti on December 09, 2015, 09:33:47 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 09, 2015, 03:48:08 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 09, 2015, 02:56:21 PM
There were 40,000 scouts all groaning as he was flailing at grounders.
If he can handle a ground ball at 3B, he can probably handle a ground ball at 1B. And he got two chances in that game and handled them both, so I'm skeptical that 40,000 people were groaning about it.
+1
Fork saw him play, dammit, and he was the worst defensive first baseman he'd seen since Jimbo Dumbledick managed to throw a ball into left field on a play where they had the runner dead to rights on a pickoff at second back in '68. Fork remembers because he was wearing an onion on his belt that day, which was the style at the time.
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 07:40:19 AM
Quote from: Yeti on December 09, 2015, 09:33:47 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 09, 2015, 03:48:08 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 09, 2015, 02:56:21 PM
There were 40,000 scouts all groaning as he was flailing at grounders.
If he can handle a ground ball at 3B, he can probably handle a ground ball at 1B. And he got two chances in that game and handled them both, so I'm skeptical that 40,000 people were groaning about it.
+1
Fork saw him play, dammit, and he was the worst defensive first baseman he'd seen since Jimbo Dumbledick managed to throw a ball into left field on a play where they had the runner dead to rights on a pickoff at second back in '68. Fork remembers because he was wearing an onion on his belt that day, which was the style at the time.
He missed a couple fairly easy grounders that didn't go in as chances. But sure, if he gets some reps in during Spring Training he can at least be better than McStiff ever was, so I guess that's OK for spot duty. Zobrist has 17 games in his career there as well. Did not attend any of those.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 10, 2015, 08:13:48 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 07:40:19 AM
Quote from: Yeti on December 09, 2015, 09:33:47 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 09, 2015, 03:48:08 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 09, 2015, 02:56:21 PM
There were 40,000 scouts all groaning as he was flailing at grounders.
If he can handle a ground ball at 3B, he can probably handle a ground ball at 1B. And he got two chances in that game and handled them both, so I'm skeptical that 40,000 people were groaning about it.
+1
Fork saw him play, dammit, and he was the worst defensive first baseman he'd seen since Jimbo Dumbledick managed to throw a ball into left field on a play where they had the runner dead to rights on a pickoff at second back in '68. Fork remembers because he was wearing an onion on his belt that day, which was the style at the time.
He missed a couple fairly easy grounders that didn't go in as chances. But sure, if he gets some reps in during Spring Training he can at least be better than McStiff ever was, so I guess that's OK for spot duty. Zobrist has 17 games in his career there as well. Did not attend any of those.
He played 6 innings at first base in that game, and in those 6 innings Kyle Hendricks gave up 2 hits, one of which was a GB through the SS/2B hole, one of which was a double past second base. Will you just admit you're full of shit?
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 08:17:42 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 10, 2015, 08:13:48 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 07:40:19 AM
Quote from: Yeti on December 09, 2015, 09:33:47 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 09, 2015, 03:48:08 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 09, 2015, 02:56:21 PM
There were 40,000 scouts all groaning as he was flailing at grounders.
If he can handle a ground ball at 3B, he can probably handle a ground ball at 1B. And he got two chances in that game and handled them both, so I'm skeptical that 40,000 people were groaning about it.
+1
Fork saw him play, dammit, and he was the worst defensive first baseman he'd seen since Jimbo Dumbledick managed to throw a ball into left field on a play where they had the runner dead to rights on a pickoff at second back in '68. Fork remembers because he was wearing an onion on his belt that day, which was the style at the time.
He missed a couple fairly easy grounders that didn't go in as chances. But sure, if he gets some reps in during Spring Training he can at least be better than McStiff ever was, so I guess that's OK for spot duty. Zobrist has 17 games in his career there as well. Did not attend any of those.
He played 6 innings at first base in that game, and in those 6 innings Kyle Hendricks gave up 2 hits, one of which was a GB through the SS/2B hole, one of which was a double past second base. Will you just admit you're full of shit?
So you're admitting that Kyle Hendricks is good? Just want to make sure we're all on the same page.
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 08:17:42 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 10, 2015, 08:13:48 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 07:40:19 AM
Quote from: Yeti on December 09, 2015, 09:33:47 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 09, 2015, 03:48:08 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 09, 2015, 02:56:21 PM
There were 40,000 scouts all groaning as he was flailing at grounders.
If he can handle a ground ball at 3B, he can probably handle a ground ball at 1B. And he got two chances in that game and handled them both, so I'm skeptical that 40,000 people were groaning about it.
+1
Fork saw him play, dammit, and he was the worst defensive first baseman he'd seen since Jimbo Dumbledick managed to throw a ball into left field on a play where they had the runner dead to rights on a pickoff at second back in '68. Fork remembers because he was wearing an onion on his belt that day, which was the style at the time.
He missed a couple fairly easy grounders that didn't go in as chances. But sure, if he gets some reps in during Spring Training he can at least be better than McStiff ever was, so I guess that's OK for spot duty. Zobrist has 17 games in his career there as well. Did not attend any of those.
He played 6 innings at first base in that game, and in those 6 innings Kyle Hendricks gave up 2 hits, one of which was a GB through the SS/2B hole, one of which was a double past second base. Will you just admit you're full of shit?
I saw him dive and miss a ball, and he just didn't have a handle on getting over to the bag. I'm full of shit about a bunch of stuff, just not this.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 10, 2015, 09:07:05 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 08:17:42 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 10, 2015, 08:13:48 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 07:40:19 AM
Quote from: Yeti on December 09, 2015, 09:33:47 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 09, 2015, 03:48:08 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 09, 2015, 02:56:21 PM
There were 40,000 scouts all groaning as he was flailing at grounders.
If he can handle a ground ball at 3B, he can probably handle a ground ball at 1B. And he got two chances in that game and handled them both, so I'm skeptical that 40,000 people were groaning about it.
+1
Fork saw him play, dammit, and he was the worst defensive first baseman he'd seen since Jimbo Dumbledick managed to throw a ball into left field on a play where they had the runner dead to rights on a pickoff at second back in '68. Fork remembers because he was wearing an onion on his belt that day, which was the style at the time.
He missed a couple fairly easy grounders that didn't go in as chances. But sure, if he gets some reps in during Spring Training he can at least be better than McStiff ever was, so I guess that's OK for spot duty. Zobrist has 17 games in his career there as well. Did not attend any of those.
He played 6 innings at first base in that game, and in those 6 innings Kyle Hendricks gave up 2 hits, one of which was a GB through the SS/2B hole, one of which was a double past second base. Will you just admit you're full of shit?
I saw him dive and miss a ball, and he just didn't have a handle on getting over to the bag. I'm full of shit about a bunch of stuff, just not this.
No, you didn't, this has been conclusively proven. There were 2 hits and no errors while Kris Bryant was at first. That means there were TWO balls put in play that were not fielded cleanly. We know FROM THE BOX SCORE that neither of those two balls were near first base. Maybe he dove at the double that the box score listed as being a "double to 2B" but the very fact that they listed it as a "double to 2B" would indicate that he was far enough away from it that no box scorer would have reasonably expected ANY first baseman to make a play, let alone a dude making his first ever start there.
You are absolutely full of shit about this.
Also, let's concede that you are right and Bryant fucked up one ball (but actually I am not conceding this at all because you are 100% decidedly, absolutely, conclusively wrong), you're still rendering a judgment about an above-average defensive third baseman's ability to play a competent first base based on one play (that did not fucking happen, we must not lose sight of this) in his FIRST EVER career start at first base. This is as dumb as lying about seeing Kris Bryant fuck up a play at first base and not backing down when proven conclusively wrong.
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 09:10:45 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 10, 2015, 09:07:05 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 08:17:42 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 10, 2015, 08:13:48 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 07:40:19 AM
Quote from: Yeti on December 09, 2015, 09:33:47 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 09, 2015, 03:48:08 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 09, 2015, 02:56:21 PM
There were 40,000 scouts all groaning as he was flailing at grounders.
If he can handle a ground ball at 3B, he can probably handle a ground ball at 1B. And he got two chances in that game and handled them both, so I'm skeptical that 40,000 people were groaning about it.
+1
Fork saw him play, dammit, and he was the worst defensive first baseman he'd seen since Jimbo Dumbledick managed to throw a ball into left field on a play where they had the runner dead to rights on a pickoff at second back in '68. Fork remembers because he was wearing an onion on his belt that day, which was the style at the time.
He missed a couple fairly easy grounders that didn't go in as chances. But sure, if he gets some reps in during Spring Training he can at least be better than McStiff ever was, so I guess that's OK for spot duty. Zobrist has 17 games in his career there as well. Did not attend any of those.
He played 6 innings at first base in that game, and in those 6 innings Kyle Hendricks gave up 2 hits, one of which was a GB through the SS/2B hole, one of which was a double past second base. Will you just admit you're full of shit?
I saw him dive and miss a ball, and he just didn't have a handle on getting over to the bag. I'm full of shit about a bunch of stuff, just not this.
No, you didn't, this has been conclusively proven. There were 2 hits and no errors while Kris Bryant was at first. That means there were TWO balls put in play that were not fielded cleanly. We know FROM THE BOX SCORE that neither of those two balls were near first base. Maybe he dove at the double that the box score listed as being a "double to 2B" but the very fact that they listed it as a "double to 2B" would indicate that he was far enough away from it that no box scorer would have reasonably expected ANY first baseman to make a play, let alone a dude making his first ever start there.
You are absolutely full of shit about this.
Also, let's concede that you are right and Bryant fucked up one ball (but actually I am not conceding this at all because you are 100% decidedly, absolutely, conclusively wrong), you're still rendering a judgment about an above-average defensive third baseman's ability to play a competent first base based on one play (that did not fucking happen, we must not lose sight of this) in his FIRST EVER career start at first base. This is as dumb as lying about seeing Kris Bryant fuck up a play at first base and not backing down when proven conclusively wrong.
You make it all so easy.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 10, 2015, 09:16:47 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 09:10:45 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 10, 2015, 09:07:05 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 08:17:42 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 10, 2015, 08:13:48 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 07:40:19 AM
Quote from: Yeti on December 09, 2015, 09:33:47 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 09, 2015, 03:48:08 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 09, 2015, 02:56:21 PM
There were 40,000 scouts all groaning as he was flailing at grounders.
If he can handle a ground ball at 3B, he can probably handle a ground ball at 1B. And he got two chances in that game and handled them both, so I'm skeptical that 40,000 people were groaning about it.
+1
Fork saw him play, dammit, and he was the worst defensive first baseman he'd seen since Jimbo Dumbledick managed to throw a ball into left field on a play where they had the runner dead to rights on a pickoff at second back in '68. Fork remembers because he was wearing an onion on his belt that day, which was the style at the time.
He missed a couple fairly easy grounders that didn't go in as chances. But sure, if he gets some reps in during Spring Training he can at least be better than McStiff ever was, so I guess that's OK for spot duty. Zobrist has 17 games in his career there as well. Did not attend any of those.
He played 6 innings at first base in that game, and in those 6 innings Kyle Hendricks gave up 2 hits, one of which was a GB through the SS/2B hole, one of which was a double past second base. Will you just admit you're full of shit?
I saw him dive and miss a ball, and he just didn't have a handle on getting over to the bag. I'm full of shit about a bunch of stuff, just not this.
No, you didn't, this has been conclusively proven. There were 2 hits and no errors while Kris Bryant was at first. That means there were TWO balls put in play that were not fielded cleanly. We know FROM THE BOX SCORE that neither of those two balls were near first base. Maybe he dove at the double that the box score listed as being a "double to 2B" but the very fact that they listed it as a "double to 2B" would indicate that he was far enough away from it that no box scorer would have reasonably expected ANY first baseman to make a play, let alone a dude making his first ever start there.
You are absolutely full of shit about this.
Also, let's concede that you are right and Bryant fucked up one ball (but actually I am not conceding this at all because you are 100% decidedly, absolutely, conclusively wrong), you're still rendering a judgment about an above-average defensive third baseman's ability to play a competent first base based on one play (that did not fucking happen, we must not lose sight of this) in his FIRST EVER career start at first base. This is as dumb as lying about seeing Kris Bryant fuck up a play at first base and not backing down when proven conclusively wrong.
You make it all so easy.
No, you don't get to do this. You were not trolling. You made up some scout Fork bullshit, you got called on it, you dug in, and once decisively proven to be wrong you do not get to go I WAS JUZ JOKEIN JEEZ .
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 09:18:14 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 10, 2015, 09:16:47 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 09:10:45 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 10, 2015, 09:07:05 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 08:17:42 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 10, 2015, 08:13:48 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 07:40:19 AM
Quote from: Yeti on December 09, 2015, 09:33:47 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 09, 2015, 03:48:08 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 09, 2015, 02:56:21 PM
There were 40,000 scouts all groaning as he was flailing at grounders.
If he can handle a ground ball at 3B, he can probably handle a ground ball at 1B. And he got two chances in that game and handled them both, so I'm skeptical that 40,000 people were groaning about it.
+1
Fork saw him play, dammit, and he was the worst defensive first baseman he'd seen since Jimbo Dumbledick managed to throw a ball into left field on a play where they had the runner dead to rights on a pickoff at second back in '68. Fork remembers because he was wearing an onion on his belt that day, which was the style at the time.
He missed a couple fairly easy grounders that didn't go in as chances. But sure, if he gets some reps in during Spring Training he can at least be better than McStiff ever was, so I guess that's OK for spot duty. Zobrist has 17 games in his career there as well. Did not attend any of those.
He played 6 innings at first base in that game, and in those 6 innings Kyle Hendricks gave up 2 hits, one of which was a GB through the SS/2B hole, one of which was a double past second base. Will you just admit you're full of shit?
I saw him dive and miss a ball, and he just didn't have a handle on getting over to the bag. I'm full of shit about a bunch of stuff, just not this.
No, you didn't, this has been conclusively proven. There were 2 hits and no errors while Kris Bryant was at first. That means there were TWO balls put in play that were not fielded cleanly. We know FROM THE BOX SCORE that neither of those two balls were near first base. Maybe he dove at the double that the box score listed as being a "double to 2B" but the very fact that they listed it as a "double to 2B" would indicate that he was far enough away from it that no box scorer would have reasonably expected ANY first baseman to make a play, let alone a dude making his first ever start there.
You are absolutely full of shit about this.
Also, let's concede that you are right and Bryant fucked up one ball (but actually I am not conceding this at all because you are 100% decidedly, absolutely, conclusively wrong), you're still rendering a judgment about an above-average defensive third baseman's ability to play a competent first base based on one play (that did not fucking happen, we must not lose sight of this) in his FIRST EVER career start at first base. This is as dumb as lying about seeing Kris Bryant fuck up a play at first base and not backing down when proven conclusively wrong.
You make it all so easy.
No, you don't get to do this. You were not trolling. You made up some scout Fork bullshit, you got called on it, you dug in, and once decisively proven to be wrong you do not get to go I WAS JUZ JOKEIN JEEZ .
On the other hand, you do make it easy for him. I mean, you're not wrong...
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 09:18:14 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 10, 2015, 09:16:47 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 09:10:45 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 10, 2015, 09:07:05 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 08:17:42 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 10, 2015, 08:13:48 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 07:40:19 AM
Quote from: Yeti on December 09, 2015, 09:33:47 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 09, 2015, 03:48:08 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 09, 2015, 02:56:21 PM
There were 40,000 scouts all groaning as he was flailing at grounders.
If he can handle a ground ball at 3B, he can probably handle a ground ball at 1B. And he got two chances in that game and handled them both, so I'm skeptical that 40,000 people were groaning about it.
+1
Fork saw him play, dammit, and he was the worst defensive first baseman he'd seen since Jimbo Dumbledick managed to throw a ball into left field on a play where they had the runner dead to rights on a pickoff at second back in '68. Fork remembers because he was wearing an onion on his belt that day, which was the style at the time.
He missed a couple fairly easy grounders that didn't go in as chances. But sure, if he gets some reps in during Spring Training he can at least be better than McStiff ever was, so I guess that's OK for spot duty. Zobrist has 17 games in his career there as well. Did not attend any of those.
He played 6 innings at first base in that game, and in those 6 innings Kyle Hendricks gave up 2 hits, one of which was a GB through the SS/2B hole, one of which was a double past second base. Will you just admit you're full of shit?
I saw him dive and miss a ball, and he just didn't have a handle on getting over to the bag. I'm full of shit about a bunch of stuff, just not this.
No, you didn't, this has been conclusively proven. There were 2 hits and no errors while Kris Bryant was at first. That means there were TWO balls put in play that were not fielded cleanly. We know FROM THE BOX SCORE that neither of those two balls were near first base. Maybe he dove at the double that the box score listed as being a "double to 2B" but the very fact that they listed it as a "double to 2B" would indicate that he was far enough away from it that no box scorer would have reasonably expected ANY first baseman to make a play, let alone a dude making his first ever start there.
You are absolutely full of shit about this.
Also, let's concede that you are right and Bryant fucked up one ball (but actually I am not conceding this at all because you are 100% decidedly, absolutely, conclusively wrong), you're still rendering a judgment about an above-average defensive third baseman's ability to play a competent first base based on one play (that did not fucking happen, we must not lose sight of this) in his FIRST EVER career start at first base. This is as dumb as lying about seeing Kris Bryant fuck up a play at first base and not backing down when proven conclusively wrong.
You make it all so easy.
No, you don't get to do this. You were not trolling. You made up some scout Fork bullshit, you got called on it, you dug in, and once decisively proven to be wrong you do not get to go I WAS JUZ JOKEIN JEEZ .
I've been doing this all fall. The LaStella/Zobrist thing was even a called shot.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 10, 2015, 09:27:45 AM
I've been doing this all fall. The LaStella/Zobrist thing was even a called shot.
I don't understand this. What does LaStaella have to do with it?
If you're going to be intentionally stupid about things to provoke a reaction (and I still think you're mostly just saying that rather than admit you're saying dumb things becuase you believe them), can I recommend reddit or something? Because it's just irritating here.
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 09:52:02 AM
If you're going to be intentionally stupid about things to provoke a reaction (and I still think you're mostly just saying that rather than admit you're saying dumb things becuase you believe them), can I recommend reddit or something? Because it's just irritating here.
It's my new favorite superhero team:
Time To Post Man and his sidekick Well, Actually Boy
Quote from: CT III on December 10, 2015, 10:02:01 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 09:52:02 AM
If you're going to be intentionally stupid about things to provoke a reaction (and I still think you're mostly just saying that rather than admit you're saying dumb things becuase you believe them), can I recommend reddit or something? Because it's just irritating here.
It's my new favorite superhero team:
Time To Post Man and his sidekick Well, Actually Boy, The Beltless Wonder
Quote from: CT III on December 10, 2015, 10:02:01 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 09:52:02 AM
If you're going to be intentionally stupid about things to provoke a reaction (and I still think you're mostly just saying that rather than admit you're saying dumb things becuase you believe them), can I recommend reddit or something? Because it's just irritating here.
It's my new favorite superhero team:
Time To Post Man and his sidekick Well, Actually Boy
While our heroes argue, the evil villain sends David Ross out to play catcher in the top of the first inning.
C'MON, YOU GUYS! SPRING TRAINING IS LESS THAN 90 DAYS AWAY!
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 09:18:14 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 10, 2015, 09:16:47 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 09:10:45 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 10, 2015, 09:07:05 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 08:17:42 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 10, 2015, 08:13:48 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 07:40:19 AM
Quote from: Yeti on December 09, 2015, 09:33:47 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 09, 2015, 03:48:08 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 09, 2015, 02:56:21 PM
There were 40,000 scouts all groaning as he was flailing at grounders.
If he can handle a ground ball at 3B, he can probably handle a ground ball at 1B. And he got two chances in that game and handled them both, so I'm skeptical that 40,000 people were groaning about it.
+1
Fork saw him play, dammit, and he was the worst defensive first baseman he'd seen since Jimbo Dumbledick managed to throw a ball into left field on a play where they had the runner dead to rights on a pickoff at second back in '68. Fork remembers because he was wearing an onion on his belt that day, which was the style at the time.
He missed a couple fairly easy grounders that didn't go in as chances. But sure, if he gets some reps in during Spring Training he can at least be better than McStiff ever was, so I guess that's OK for spot duty. Zobrist has 17 games in his career there as well. Did not attend any of those.
He played 6 innings at first base in that game, and in those 6 innings Kyle Hendricks gave up 2 hits, one of which was a GB through the SS/2B hole, one of which was a double past second base. Will you just admit you're full of shit?
I saw him dive and miss a ball, and he just didn't have a handle on getting over to the bag. I'm full of shit about a bunch of stuff, just not this.
No, you didn't, this has been conclusively proven. There were 2 hits and no errors while Kris Bryant was at first. That means there were TWO balls put in play that were not fielded cleanly. We know FROM THE BOX SCORE that neither of those two balls were near first base. Maybe he dove at the double that the box score listed as being a "double to 2B" but the very fact that they listed it as a "double to 2B" would indicate that he was far enough away from it that no box scorer would have reasonably expected ANY first baseman to make a play, let alone a dude making his first ever start there.
You are absolutely full of shit about this.
Also, let's concede that you are right and Bryant fucked up one ball (but actually I am not conceding this at all because you are 100% decidedly, absolutely, conclusively wrong), you're still rendering a judgment about an above-average defensive third baseman's ability to play a competent first base based on one play (that did not fucking happen, we must not lose sight of this) in his FIRST EVER career start at first base. This is as dumb as lying about seeing Kris Bryant fuck up a play at first base and not backing down when proven conclusively wrong.
You make it all so easy.
No, you don't get to do this. You were not trolling. You made up some scout Fork bullshit, you got called on it, you dug in, and once decisively proven to be wrong you do not get to go I WAS JUZ JOKEIN JEEZ .
If I really have nothing better to do this evening, I'm going to look up that game on mlb.tv and watch six half-innings of Cubs baseball.
Quote from: Tonker on December 10, 2015, 11:06:22 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 09:18:14 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 10, 2015, 09:16:47 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 09:10:45 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 10, 2015, 09:07:05 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 08:17:42 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 10, 2015, 08:13:48 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 07:40:19 AM
Quote from: Yeti on December 09, 2015, 09:33:47 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 09, 2015, 03:48:08 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 09, 2015, 02:56:21 PM
There were 40,000 scouts all groaning as he was flailing at grounders.
If he can handle a ground ball at 3B, he can probably handle a ground ball at 1B. And he got two chances in that game and handled them both, so I'm skeptical that 40,000 people were groaning about it.
+1
Fork saw him play, dammit, and he was the worst defensive first baseman he'd seen since Jimbo Dumbledick managed to throw a ball into left field on a play where they had the runner dead to rights on a pickoff at second back in '68. Fork remembers because he was wearing an onion on his belt that day, which was the style at the time.
He missed a couple fairly easy grounders that didn't go in as chances. But sure, if he gets some reps in during Spring Training he can at least be better than McStiff ever was, so I guess that's OK for spot duty. Zobrist has 17 games in his career there as well. Did not attend any of those.
He played 6 innings at first base in that game, and in those 6 innings Kyle Hendricks gave up 2 hits, one of which was a GB through the SS/2B hole, one of which was a double past second base. Will you just admit you're full of shit?
I saw him dive and miss a ball, and he just didn't have a handle on getting over to the bag. I'm full of shit about a bunch of stuff, just not this.
No, you didn't, this has been conclusively proven. There were 2 hits and no errors while Kris Bryant was at first. That means there were TWO balls put in play that were not fielded cleanly. We know FROM THE BOX SCORE that neither of those two balls were near first base. Maybe he dove at the double that the box score listed as being a "double to 2B" but the very fact that they listed it as a "double to 2B" would indicate that he was far enough away from it that no box scorer would have reasonably expected ANY first baseman to make a play, let alone a dude making his first ever start there.
You are absolutely full of shit about this.
Also, let's concede that you are right and Bryant fucked up one ball (but actually I am not conceding this at all because you are 100% decidedly, absolutely, conclusively wrong), you're still rendering a judgment about an above-average defensive third baseman's ability to play a competent first base based on one play (that did not fucking happen, we must not lose sight of this) in his FIRST EVER career start at first base. This is as dumb as lying about seeing Kris Bryant fuck up a play at first base and not backing down when proven conclusively wrong.
You make it all so easy.
No, you don't get to do this. You were not trolling. You made up some scout Fork bullshit, you got called on it, you dug in, and once decisively proven to be wrong you do not get to go I WAS JUZ JOKEIN JEEZ .
If I really have nothing better to do this evening, I'm going to look up that game on mlb.tv and watch six half-innings of Cubs baseball.
(non-SKOpoke)Watch the whole thing. It was a helluva game.
Quote from: Oleg on December 10, 2015, 09:40:37 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 10, 2015, 09:27:45 AM
I've been doing this all fall. The LaStella/Zobrist thing was even a called shot.
I don't understand this. What does LaStaella have to do with it?
Fork gonna Fork
Top 1st, Bryant routinely takes a routine toss from second for the third out. He is otherwise uninvolved in the inning.
Top 2nd, Bryant is entirely uninvolved in the inning.
Quote from: Tonker on December 10, 2015, 11:45:36 AM
Top 1st, Bryant routinely takes a routine toss from second for the third out. He is otherwise uninvolved in the inning.
Top 2nd, Bryant is entirely uninvolved in the inning.
Bless your heart.
*pulls up chair, grabs popcorn*
Top 3rd, Bryant routinely takes a routine toss from second for the first out. He is otherwise uninvolved in the inning.
Quote from: Tonker on December 10, 2015, 11:49:59 AM
Top 3rd, Bryant routinely takes a routine toss from second for the first out. He is otherwise uninvolved in the inning.
I appreciate that you're doing this but Fork is going hardcore on pretending he never meant anything he said anyway, so this will prove nothing.
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 11:51:17 AM
Quote from: Tonker on December 10, 2015, 11:49:59 AM
Top 3rd, Bryant routinely takes a routine toss from second for the first out. He is otherwise uninvolved in the inning.
I appreciate that you're doing this but Fork is going hardcore on pretending he never meant anything he said anyway, so this will prove nothing.
Pipe down, I want to see how this plays out.
Quote from: CT III on December 10, 2015, 11:51:56 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 11:51:17 AM
Quote from: Tonker on December 10, 2015, 11:49:59 AM
Top 3rd, Bryant routinely takes a routine toss from second for the first out. He is otherwise uninvolved in the inning.
I appreciate that you're doing this but Fork is going hardcore on pretending he never meant anything he said anyway, so this will prove nothing.
Pipe down, I want to see how this plays out.
CT IS RIGHT
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 11:51:17 AM
Quote from: Tonker on December 10, 2015, 11:49:59 AM
Top 3rd, Bryant routinely takes a routine toss from second for the first out. He is otherwise uninvolved in the inning.
I appreciate that you're doing this but Fork is going hardcore on pretending he never meant anything he said anyway, so this will prove nothing.
Thanks a lot, asshole. He stopped doing it.
Quote from: PANK! on December 10, 2015, 12:11:44 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 11:51:17 AM
Quote from: Tonker on December 10, 2015, 11:49:59 AM
Top 3rd, Bryant routinely takes a routine toss from second for the first out. He is otherwise uninvolved in the inning.
I appreciate that you're doing this but Fork is going hardcore on pretending he never meant anything he said anyway, so this will prove nothing.
Thanks a lot, asshole. He stopped doing it.
My bad. GIVE US THE BIG FINISH, TONK.
Hmm... top of the fourth, Moustakis pulls a sharp line drive over the corner of the bag. Bryant is fairly tight to the line, and leaves his feet to meet the ball a foot or two into foul territory, but can't glove it and the ball ricochets off into the KC bullpen. Ruled a hit...
EDIT: For the third out, he fields a bouncing grounder and tosses to Hendricks for the out. He is otherwise uninvolved in the inning.
Quote from: Tonker on December 10, 2015, 12:31:20 PM
Hmm... top of the fourth, Moustakis pulls a sharp line drive over the corner of the bag. Bryant is fairly tight to the line, and leaves his feet to meet the ball a foot or two into foul territory, but can't glove it and the ball ricochets off into the KC bullpen. Ruled a hit...
EDIT: For the third out, he fields a bouncing grounder and tosses to Hendricks for the out. He is otherwise uninvolved in the inning.
That's odd..the box score calls that a double to second base. Either way, doesn't sound like an abysmal play by Bryant by any stretch.
Top of the fifth: homing in on a towering pop-up into the stands beyond the visitors' dug-out, Bryant steps up on to the tarp and catches the ball a good three feet into the seats, before falling into the fans. Because he caught the ball before leaving the tarp, though, it's ruled an out.
Just kidding. Hendricks catches a sharp comebacker and strikes out two in a 1-2-3 inning. Bryant is completely uninvolved.
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 12:38:34 PM
Quote from: Tonker on December 10, 2015, 12:31:20 PM
Hmm... top of the fourth, Moustakis pulls a sharp line drive over the corner of the bag. Bryant is fairly tight to the line, and leaves his feet to meet the ball a foot or two into foul territory, but can't glove it and the ball ricochets off into the KC bullpen. Ruled a hit...
EDIT: For the third out, he fields a bouncing grounder and tosses to Hendricks for the out. He is otherwise uninvolved in the inning.
That's odd..the box score calls that a double to second base. Either way, doesn't sound like an abysmal play by Bryant by any stretch.
Tonker has left out the audio evidence of 40k fans collectively groaning tho.
Quote from: PANK! on December 10, 2015, 12:45:39 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 12:38:34 PM
Quote from: Tonker on December 10, 2015, 12:31:20 PM
Hmm... top of the fourth, Moustakis pulls a sharp line drive over the corner of the bag. Bryant is fairly tight to the line, and leaves his feet to meet the ball a foot or two into foul territory, but can't glove it and the ball ricochets off into the KC bullpen. Ruled a hit...
EDIT: For the third out, he fields a bouncing grounder and tosses to Hendricks for the out. He is otherwise uninvolved in the inning.
That's odd..the box score calls that a double to second base. Either way, doesn't sound like an abysmal play by Bryant by any stretch.
Tonker has left out the audio evidence of 40k fans collectively groaning tho.
It did initially sound like there was a lot of booing, but I actually think it was KC fans shouting "Moooooooos", or something along those lines.
Quote from: Tonker on December 10, 2015, 12:48:43 PM
Quote from: PANK! on December 10, 2015, 12:45:39 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 12:38:34 PM
Quote from: Tonker on December 10, 2015, 12:31:20 PM
Hmm... top of the fourth, Moustakis pulls a sharp line drive over the corner of the bag. Bryant is fairly tight to the line, and leaves his feet to meet the ball a foot or two into foul territory, but can't glove it and the ball ricochets off into the KC bullpen. Ruled a hit...
EDIT: For the third out, he fields a bouncing grounder and tosses to Hendricks for the out. He is otherwise uninvolved in the inning.
That's odd..the box score calls that a double to second base. Either way, doesn't sound like an abysmal play by Bryant by any stretch.
Tonker has left out the audio evidence of 40k fans collectively groaning tho.
It did initially sound like there was a lot of booing, but I actually think it was KC fans shouting "Moooooooos", or something along those lines.
We need a screen shot of the moment Bryant is diving for the ball so we can assess how groanworthy the defensive stab was, like it's the goddamn Zapruder film or something.
Top of the sixth: K, F9, K. Bryant is completely uninvolved in the inning.
So, two simple putouts, one simple assist, and one sharp chance missed in six innings. "There were 40,000 scouts all groaning as he was flailing at grounders."? Nah.
Quote from: Tonker on December 10, 2015, 12:51:37 PM
Top of the sixth: K, F9, K. Bryant is completely uninvolved in the inning.
So, two simple putouts, one simple assist, and one sharp chance missed in six innings. "There were 40,000 scouts all groaning as he was flailing at grounders."? Nah.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 10, 2015, 09:07:05 AM
I saw him dive and miss a ball, and he just didn't have a handle on getting over to the bag. I'm full of shit about a bunch of stuff, just not this.
Quote from: Tonker on December 10, 2015, 12:48:43 PM
Quote from: PANK! on December 10, 2015, 12:45:39 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 12:38:34 PM
Quote from: Tonker on December 10, 2015, 12:31:20 PM
Hmm... top of the fourth, Moustakis pulls a sharp line drive over the corner of the bag. Bryant is fairly tight to the line, and leaves his feet to meet the ball a foot or two into foul territory, but can't glove it and the ball ricochets off into the KC bullpen. Ruled a hit...
EDIT: For the third out, he fields a bouncing grounder and tosses to Hendricks for the out. He is otherwise uninvolved in the inning.
That's odd..the box score calls that a double to second base. Either way, doesn't sound like an abysmal play by Bryant by any stretch.
Tonker has left out the audio evidence of 40k fans collectively groaning tho.
It did initially sound like there was a lot of booing, but I actually think it was KC fans shouting "Moooooooos", or something along those lines.
Royals fans came out to Wrigley in droves this year.
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 12:49:50 PM
Quote from: Tonker on December 10, 2015, 12:48:43 PM
Quote from: PANK! on December 10, 2015, 12:45:39 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 12:38:34 PM
Quote from: Tonker on December 10, 2015, 12:31:20 PM
Hmm... top of the fourth, Moustakis pulls a sharp line drive over the corner of the bag. Bryant is fairly tight to the line, and leaves his feet to meet the ball a foot or two into foul territory, but can't glove it and the ball ricochets off into the KC bullpen. Ruled a hit...
EDIT: For the third out, he fields a bouncing grounder and tosses to Hendricks for the out. He is otherwise uninvolved in the inning.
That's odd..the box score calls that a double to second base. Either way, doesn't sound like an abysmal play by Bryant by any stretch.
Tonker has left out the audio evidence of 40k fans collectively groaning tho.
It did initially sound like there was a lot of booing, but I actually think it was KC fans shouting "Moooooooos", or something along those lines.
We need a screen shot of the moment Bryant is diving for the ball so we can assess how groanworthy the defensive stab was, like it's the goddamn Zapruder film or something.
(http://i.imgur.com/gHUZSgF.jpg?1)
Quote from: Tonker on December 10, 2015, 12:56:16 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 12:49:50 PM
Quote from: Tonker on December 10, 2015, 12:48:43 PM
Quote from: PANK! on December 10, 2015, 12:45:39 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 12:38:34 PM
Quote from: Tonker on December 10, 2015, 12:31:20 PM
Hmm... top of the fourth, Moustakis pulls a sharp line drive over the corner of the bag. Bryant is fairly tight to the line, and leaves his feet to meet the ball a foot or two into foul territory, but can't glove it and the ball ricochets off into the KC bullpen. Ruled a hit...
EDIT: For the third out, he fields a bouncing grounder and tosses to Hendricks for the out. He is otherwise uninvolved in the inning.
That's odd..the box score calls that a double to second base. Either way, doesn't sound like an abysmal play by Bryant by any stretch.
Tonker has left out the audio evidence of 40k fans collectively groaning tho.
It did initially sound like there was a lot of booing, but I actually think it was KC fans shouting "Moooooooos", or something along those lines.
We need a screen shot of the moment Bryant is diving for the ball so we can assess how groanworthy the defensive stab was, like it's the goddamn Zapruder film or something.
(http://i.imgur.com/gHUZSgF.jpg?1)
Doesn't exactly look like the worst attempt at fielding a sharply hit ball down the line I've seen.
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 01:05:07 PM
Quote from: Tonker on December 10, 2015, 12:56:16 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 12:49:50 PM
Quote from: Tonker on December 10, 2015, 12:48:43 PM
Quote from: PANK! on December 10, 2015, 12:45:39 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 12:38:34 PM
Quote from: Tonker on December 10, 2015, 12:31:20 PM
Hmm... top of the fourth, Moustakis pulls a sharp line drive over the corner of the bag. Bryant is fairly tight to the line, and leaves his feet to meet the ball a foot or two into foul territory, but can't glove it and the ball ricochets off into the KC bullpen. Ruled a hit...
EDIT: For the third out, he fields a bouncing grounder and tosses to Hendricks for the out. He is otherwise uninvolved in the inning.
That's odd..the box score calls that a double to second base. Either way, doesn't sound like an abysmal play by Bryant by any stretch.
Tonker has left out the audio evidence of 40k fans collectively groaning tho.
It did initially sound like there was a lot of booing, but I actually think it was KC fans shouting "Moooooooos", or something along those lines.
We need a screen shot of the moment Bryant is diving for the ball so we can assess how groanworthy the defensive stab was, like it's the goddamn Zapruder film or something.
(http://i.imgur.com/gHUZSgF.jpg?1)
Doesn't exactly look like the worst attempt at fielding a sharply hit ball down the line I've seen.
*groan*
He doesn't exactly look smooth in that shot but again...it was his first fucking time playing the position and it was a hard-hit ball. I love that Fork can take 1 play and make up his mind that he's not an option there, in spite of the fact that said ballplayer proved over and over again, over the course of a lovely, memorable 6 months, what a terrific athlete he is.
DPD I have no stake in Bryant playing 1st by the way. On days that Tony needs a blow, I'd prefer they have Schwarbs jump in. Bryant--because of his aforementioned athleticism-- can play the outfield if need be but there's no need to have him play 1st if Schwarber can IMO.
Quote from: Tonker on December 10, 2015, 12:51:37 PM
Top of the sixth: K, F9, K. Bryant is completely uninvolved in the inning.
So, two simple putouts, one simple assist, and one sharp chance missed in six innings. "There were 40,000 scouts all groaning as he was flailing at grounders."? Nah.
What happened after the sixth? Did Troy Glaus come in to play 1B?
Quote from: Oleg on December 10, 2015, 01:34:07 PM
Quote from: Tonker on December 10, 2015, 12:51:37 PM
Top of the sixth: K, F9, K. Bryant is completely uninvolved in the inning.
So, two simple putouts, one simple assist, and one sharp chance missed in six innings. "There were 40,000 scouts all groaning as he was flailing at grounders."? Nah.
What happened after the sixth? Did Troy Glaus come in to play 1B?
Julio Zuleta.
Quote from: Tonker on December 10, 2015, 01:44:51 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 10, 2015, 01:34:07 PM
Quote from: Tonker on December 10, 2015, 12:51:37 PM
Top of the sixth: K, F9, K. Bryant is completely uninvolved in the inning.
So, two simple putouts, one simple assist, and one sharp chance missed in six innings. "There were 40,000 scouts all groaning as he was flailing at grounders."? Nah.
What happened after the sixth? Did Troy Glaus come in to play 1B?
Julio Zuleta.
Scot Thompson.
I hope the Cubs build a team that is better than this thread.
Quote from: Eli on December 10, 2015, 02:13:11 PM
I hope the Cubs build a team that is better than this thread.
You're just greedy. This isn't a video game.
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 02:13:40 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 10, 2015, 02:13:11 PM
I hope the Cubs build a team that is better than this thread.
You're just greedy. This isn't a video game.
I like Stan a lot. I just don't get where he's coming from there though.
Quote from: Eli on December 10, 2015, 02:18:02 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 02:13:40 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 10, 2015, 02:13:11 PM
I hope the Cubs build a team that is better than this thread.
You're just greedy. This isn't a video game.
I like Stan a lot. I just don't get where he's coming from there though.
He's great, he's just over-attached to the prospects. I get it, I like the idea of Jorge Soler a lot, and after spending the last few years envisioning him as a Vlad Guerrero-esque monster in the center of their multiple series winning lineups it's hard to let go of that, but anyone who doesn't think signing Heyward and flipping Soler for Carrasco or whatever would make the Cubs a vastly better team in 2016 is really kidding themselves, and thinking that these things are realistic things the Cubs could actually do to make their team better right now is not exactly being greedy.
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 02:21:06 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 10, 2015, 02:18:02 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 02:13:40 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 10, 2015, 02:13:11 PM
I hope the Cubs build a team that is better than this thread.
You're just greedy. This isn't a video game.
I like Stan a lot. I just don't get where he's coming from there though.
He's great, he's just over-attached to the prospects. I get it, I like the idea of Jorge Soler a lot, and after spending the last few years envisioning him as a Vlad Guerrero-esque monster in the center of their multiple series winning lineups it's hard to let go of that, but anyone who doesn't think signing Heyward and flipping Soler for Carrasco or whatever would make the Cubs a vastly better team in 2016 is really kidding themselves, and thinking that these things are realistic things the Cubs could actually do to make their team better right now is not exactly being greedy.
Do you two have some sort of secret language like twins? Who the hell is Stan?
Quote from: Oleg on December 10, 2015, 02:32:42 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 02:21:06 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 10, 2015, 02:18:02 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 02:13:40 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 10, 2015, 02:13:11 PM
I hope the Cubs build a team that is better than this thread.
You're just greedy. This isn't a video game.
I like Stan a lot. I just don't get where he's coming from there though.
He's great, he's just over-attached to the prospects. I get it, I like the idea of Jorge Soler a lot, and after spending the last few years envisioning him as a Vlad Guerrero-esque monster in the center of their multiple series winning lineups it's hard to let go of that, but anyone who doesn't think signing Heyward and flipping Soler for Carrasco or whatever would make the Cubs a vastly better team in 2016 is really kidding themselves, and thinking that these things are realistic things the Cubs could actually do to make their team better right now is not exactly being greedy.
Do you two have some sort of secret language like twins? Who the hell is Stan?
I like to subtweet people on desipio sometimes. Stan is @crewsett on Twitter. He's a good follow but he's pretty consistently in the Fork school of Never Trade Prospects for Anyone camp, and he referred to trading Soler for Carrasco if the Cubs sign Heyward as "getting greedy" and "making moves just to make them." Which is dumb.
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 01:05:07 PM
Quote from: Tonker on December 10, 2015, 12:56:16 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 12:49:50 PM
Quote from: Tonker on December 10, 2015, 12:48:43 PM
Quote from: PANK! on December 10, 2015, 12:45:39 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 12:38:34 PM
Quote from: Tonker on December 10, 2015, 12:31:20 PM
Hmm... top of the fourth, Moustakis pulls a sharp line drive over the corner of the bag. Bryant is fairly tight to the line, and leaves his feet to meet the ball a foot or two into foul territory, but can't glove it and the ball ricochets off into the KC bullpen. Ruled a hit...
EDIT: For the third out, he fields a bouncing grounder and tosses to Hendricks for the out. He is otherwise uninvolved in the inning.
That's odd..the box score calls that a double to second base. Either way, doesn't sound like an abysmal play by Bryant by any stretch.
Tonker has left out the audio evidence of 40k fans collectively groaning tho.
It did initially sound like there was a lot of booing, but I actually think it was KC fans shouting "Moooooooos", or something along those lines.
We need a screen shot of the moment Bryant is diving for the ball so we can assess how groanworthy the defensive stab was, like it's the goddamn Zapruder film or something.
(http://i.imgur.com/gHUZSgF.jpg?1)
Doesn't exactly look like the worst attempt at fielding a sharply hit ball down the line I've seen.
Soriano was worse.
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 02:21:06 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 10, 2015, 02:18:02 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 02:13:40 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 10, 2015, 02:13:11 PM
I hope the Cubs build a team that is better than this thread.
You're just greedy. This isn't a video game.
I like Stan a lot. I just don't get where he's coming from there though.
He's great, he's just over-attached to the prospects. I get it, I like the idea of Jorge Soler a lot, and after spending the last few years envisioning him as a Vlad Guerrero-esque monster in the center of their multiple series winning lineups it's hard to let go of that, but anyone who doesn't think signing Heyward and flipping Soler for Carrasco or whatever would make the Cubs a vastly better team in 2016 is really kidding themselves, and thinking that these things are realistic things the Cubs could actually do to make their team better right now is not exactly being greedy.
If the Cubs sign Heyward, they basically just hit the fast-forward button on Soler. Flip Soler for a quality arm and get a serviceable CF. Easy peasy.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 10, 2015, 02:42:28 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 01:05:07 PM
Quote from: Tonker on December 10, 2015, 12:56:16 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 12:49:50 PM
Quote from: Tonker on December 10, 2015, 12:48:43 PM
Quote from: PANK! on December 10, 2015, 12:45:39 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 12:38:34 PM
Quote from: Tonker on December 10, 2015, 12:31:20 PM
Hmm... top of the fourth, Moustakis pulls a sharp line drive over the corner of the bag. Bryant is fairly tight to the line, and leaves his feet to meet the ball a foot or two into foul territory, but can't glove it and the ball ricochets off into the KC bullpen. Ruled a hit...
EDIT: For the third out, he fields a bouncing grounder and tosses to Hendricks for the out. He is otherwise uninvolved in the inning.
That's odd..the box score calls that a double to second base. Either way, doesn't sound like an abysmal play by Bryant by any stretch.
Tonker has left out the audio evidence of 40k fans collectively groaning tho.
It did initially sound like there was a lot of booing, but I actually think it was KC fans shouting "Moooooooos", or something along those lines.
We need a screen shot of the moment Bryant is diving for the ball so we can assess how groanworthy the defensive stab was, like it's the goddamn Zapruder film or something.
(http://i.imgur.com/gHUZSgF.jpg?1)
Doesn't exactly look like the worst attempt at fielding a sharply hit ball down the line I've seen.
Soriano was worse.
Considering your no-value Castro just netted a 28-year old, very useful, 2-win pitcher, you should really refrain from being overly critical about anyone at this point.
Quote from: Oleg on December 10, 2015, 02:50:15 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 10, 2015, 02:42:28 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 01:05:07 PM
Quote from: Tonker on December 10, 2015, 12:56:16 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 12:49:50 PM
Quote from: Tonker on December 10, 2015, 12:48:43 PM
Quote from: PANK! on December 10, 2015, 12:45:39 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 12:38:34 PM
Quote from: Tonker on December 10, 2015, 12:31:20 PM
Hmm... top of the fourth, Moustakis pulls a sharp line drive over the corner of the bag. Bryant is fairly tight to the line, and leaves his feet to meet the ball a foot or two into foul territory, but can't glove it and the ball ricochets off into the KC bullpen. Ruled a hit...
EDIT: For the third out, he fields a bouncing grounder and tosses to Hendricks for the out. He is otherwise uninvolved in the inning.
That's odd..the box score calls that a double to second base. Either way, doesn't sound like an abysmal play by Bryant by any stretch.
Tonker has left out the audio evidence of 40k fans collectively groaning tho.
It did initially sound like there was a lot of booing, but I actually think it was KC fans shouting "Moooooooos", or something along those lines.
We need a screen shot of the moment Bryant is diving for the ball so we can assess how groanworthy the defensive stab was, like it's the goddamn Zapruder film or something.
(http://i.imgur.com/gHUZSgF.jpg?1)
Doesn't exactly look like the worst attempt at fielding a sharply hit ball down the line I've seen.
Soriano was worse.
Considering your no-value Castro just netted a 28-year old, very useful, 2-win pitcher, you should really refrain from being overly critical about anyone at this point.
Remember when Chuck said the Cubs should trade Castro for James Shields and eat Shield's contract as well.
Quote from: Eli on December 10, 2015, 02:18:02 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 02:13:40 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 10, 2015, 02:13:11 PM
I hope the Cubs build a team that is better than this thread.
You're just greedy. This isn't a video game.
I like Stan a lot. I just don't get where he's coming from there though.
I'm biased, but he's a bitch
Quote from: Yeti on December 10, 2015, 03:35:40 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 10, 2015, 02:18:02 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 02:13:40 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 10, 2015, 02:13:11 PM
I hope the Cubs build a team that is better than this thread.
You're just greedy. This isn't a video game.
I like Stan a lot. I just don't get where he's coming from there though.
I'm biased, but he's a bitch
They can't all be White Sox Diaries
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 02:37:00 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 10, 2015, 02:32:42 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 02:21:06 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 10, 2015, 02:18:02 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 02:13:40 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 10, 2015, 02:13:11 PM
I hope the Cubs build a team that is better than this thread.
You're just greedy. This isn't a video game.
I like Stan a lot. I just don't get where he's coming from there though.
He's great, he's just over-attached to the prospects. I get it, I like the idea of Jorge Soler a lot, and after spending the last few years envisioning him as a Vlad Guerrero-esque monster in the center of their multiple series winning lineups it's hard to let go of that, but anyone who doesn't think signing Heyward and flipping Soler for Carrasco or whatever would make the Cubs a vastly better team in 2016 is really kidding themselves, and thinking that these things are realistic things the Cubs could actually do to make their team better right now is not exactly being greedy.
Do you two have some sort of secret language like twins? Who the hell is Stan?
I like to subtweet people on desipio sometimes. Stan is @crewsett on Twitter. He's a good follow but he's pretty consistently in the Fork school of Never Trade Prospects for Anyone camp, and he referred to trading Soler for Carrasco if the Cubs sign Heyward as "getting greedy" and "making moves just to make them." Which is dumb.
That dude blocked Yeti for constantly trolling him.
He's alright about the Cubs, but he's a pedantic asshat.
Quote from: PenFoe on December 10, 2015, 03:40:01 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 02:37:00 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 10, 2015, 02:32:42 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 02:21:06 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 10, 2015, 02:18:02 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 02:13:40 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 10, 2015, 02:13:11 PM
I hope the Cubs build a team that is better than this thread.
You're just greedy. This isn't a video game.
I like Stan a lot. I just don't get where he's coming from there though.
He's great, he's just over-attached to the prospects. I get it, I like the idea of Jorge Soler a lot, and after spending the last few years envisioning him as a Vlad Guerrero-esque monster in the center of their multiple series winning lineups it's hard to let go of that, but anyone who doesn't think signing Heyward and flipping Soler for Carrasco or whatever would make the Cubs a vastly better team in 2016 is really kidding themselves, and thinking that these things are realistic things the Cubs could actually do to make their team better right now is not exactly being greedy.
Do you two have some sort of secret language like twins? Who the hell is Stan?
I like to subtweet people on desipio sometimes. Stan is @crewsett on Twitter. He's a good follow but he's pretty consistently in the Fork school of Never Trade Prospects for Anyone camp, and he referred to trading Soler for Carrasco if the Cubs sign Heyward as "getting greedy" and "making moves just to make them." Which is dumb.
That dude blocked Yeti for constantly trolling him.
He's alright about the Cubs, but he's a pedantic asshat.
He blocked me because he was being cunthair about "You can't used Soler Power for Jorge cause Soler is pronounced Sol-air, not the same way Solar is pronounced"
And then there was the time he said "I'm offended when people mispronounce my last name. Have the respect to ask me how to pronounce it." Get the fuck over yourself, dude.
*note: paraphrased, but still, fuck him
Quote from: Yeti on December 10, 2015, 03:42:22 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on December 10, 2015, 03:40:01 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 02:37:00 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 10, 2015, 02:32:42 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 02:21:06 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 10, 2015, 02:18:02 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 02:13:40 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 10, 2015, 02:13:11 PM
I hope the Cubs build a team that is better than this thread.
You're just greedy. This isn't a video game.
I like Stan a lot. I just don't get where he's coming from there though.
He's great, he's just over-attached to the prospects. I get it, I like the idea of Jorge Soler a lot, and after spending the last few years envisioning him as a Vlad Guerrero-esque monster in the center of their multiple series winning lineups it's hard to let go of that, but anyone who doesn't think signing Heyward and flipping Soler for Carrasco or whatever would make the Cubs a vastly better team in 2016 is really kidding themselves, and thinking that these things are realistic things the Cubs could actually do to make their team better right now is not exactly being greedy.
Do you two have some sort of secret language like twins? Who the hell is Stan?
I like to subtweet people on desipio sometimes. Stan is @crewsett on Twitter. He's a good follow but he's pretty consistently in the Fork school of Never Trade Prospects for Anyone camp, and he referred to trading Soler for Carrasco if the Cubs sign Heyward as "getting greedy" and "making moves just to make them." Which is dumb.
That dude blocked Yeti for constantly trolling him.
He's alright about the Cubs, but he's a pedantic asshat.
He blocked me because he was being cunthair about "You can't used Soler Power for Jorge cause Soler is pronounced Sol-air, not the same way Solar is pronounced"
And then there was the time he said "I'm offended when people mispronounce my last name. Have the respect to ask me how to pronounce it." Get the fuck over yourself, dude.
*note: paraphrased, but still, fuck him
Me : Crewsett :: Huey : DeRosa
Quote from: Yeti on December 10, 2015, 03:49:52 PM
Quote from: Yeti on December 10, 2015, 03:42:22 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on December 10, 2015, 03:40:01 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 02:37:00 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 10, 2015, 02:32:42 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 02:21:06 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 10, 2015, 02:18:02 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 02:13:40 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 10, 2015, 02:13:11 PM
I hope the Cubs build a team that is better than this thread.
You're just greedy. This isn't a video game.
I like Stan a lot. I just don't get where he's coming from there though.
He's great, he's just over-attached to the prospects. I get it, I like the idea of Jorge Soler a lot, and after spending the last few years envisioning him as a Vlad Guerrero-esque monster in the center of their multiple series winning lineups it's hard to let go of that, but anyone who doesn't think signing Heyward and flipping Soler for Carrasco or whatever would make the Cubs a vastly better team in 2016 is really kidding themselves, and thinking that these things are realistic things the Cubs could actually do to make their team better right now is not exactly being greedy.
Do you two have some sort of secret language like twins? Who the hell is Stan?
I like to subtweet people on desipio sometimes. Stan is @crewsett on Twitter. He's a good follow but he's pretty consistently in the Fork school of Never Trade Prospects for Anyone camp, and he referred to trading Soler for Carrasco if the Cubs sign Heyward as "getting greedy" and "making moves just to make them." Which is dumb.
That dude blocked Yeti for constantly trolling him.
He's alright about the Cubs, but he's a pedantic asshat.
He blocked me because he was being cunthair about "You can't used Soler Power for Jorge cause Soler is pronounced Sol-air, not the same way Solar is pronounced"
And then there was the time he said "I'm offended when people mispronounce my last name. Have the respect to ask me how to pronounce it." Get the fuck over yourself, dude.
*note: paraphrased, but still, fuck him
Me : Crewsett :: Huey : DeRosa
#isupportyeti
He's annoying but then again I'm old and am annoyed by everyone on Twitter eventually.
Quote from: Tonker on December 10, 2015, 12:56:16 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 12:49:50 PM
Quote from: Tonker on December 10, 2015, 12:48:43 PM
Quote from: PANK! on December 10, 2015, 12:45:39 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 12:38:34 PM
Quote from: Tonker on December 10, 2015, 12:31:20 PM
Hmm... top of the fourth, Moustakis pulls a sharp line drive over the corner of the bag. Bryant is fairly tight to the line, and leaves his feet to meet the ball a foot or two into foul territory, but can't glove it and the ball ricochets off into the KC bullpen. Ruled a hit...
EDIT: For the third out, he fields a bouncing grounder and tosses to Hendricks for the out. He is otherwise uninvolved in the inning.
That's odd..the box score calls that a double to second base. Either way, doesn't sound like an abysmal play by Bryant by any stretch.
Tonker has left out the audio evidence of 40k fans collectively groaning tho.
It did initially sound like there was a lot of booing, but I actually think it was KC fans shouting "Moooooooos", or something along those lines.
We need a screen shot of the moment Bryant is diving for the ball so we can assess how groanworthy the defensive stab was, like it's the goddamn Zapruder film or something.
(http://i.imgur.com/gHUZSgF.jpg?1)
You know, this whole thing has caused me to rethink everything I thought I knew about Fork, and to question the endorsement he made of me a few months ago on these forums. Thank you for the diligence, Tonker. I now recognize that I'm an obnoxious asshole after all.
Quote from: Yeti on December 10, 2015, 03:42:22 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on December 10, 2015, 03:40:01 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 02:37:00 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 10, 2015, 02:32:42 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 02:21:06 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 10, 2015, 02:18:02 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 10, 2015, 02:13:40 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 10, 2015, 02:13:11 PM
I hope the Cubs build a team that is better than this thread.
You're just greedy. This isn't a video game.
I like Stan a lot. I just don't get where he's coming from there though.
He's great, he's just over-attached to the prospects. I get it, I like the idea of Jorge Soler a lot, and after spending the last few years envisioning him as a Vlad Guerrero-esque monster in the center of their multiple series winning lineups it's hard to let go of that, but anyone who doesn't think signing Heyward and flipping Soler for Carrasco or whatever would make the Cubs a vastly better team in 2016 is really kidding themselves, and thinking that these things are realistic things the Cubs could actually do to make their team better right now is not exactly being greedy.
Do you two have some sort of secret language like twins? Who the hell is Stan?
I like to subtweet people on desipio sometimes. Stan is @crewsett on Twitter. He's a good follow but he's pretty consistently in the Fork school of Never Trade Prospects for Anyone camp, and he referred to trading Soler for Carrasco if the Cubs sign Heyward as "getting greedy" and "making moves just to make them." Which is dumb.
That dude blocked Yeti for constantly trolling him.
He's alright about the Cubs, but he's a pedantic asshat.
He blocked me because he was being cunthair about "You can't used Soler Power for Jorge cause Soler is pronounced Sol-air, not the same way Solar is pronounced"
And then there was the time he said "I'm offended when people mispronounce my last name. Have the respect to ask me how to pronounce it." Get the fuck over yourself, dude.
*note: paraphrased, but still, fuck him
Hmm. Yes. *Stan* sure seems like the asshole here
Was hoping Jason Heyward would sign today. If I was Theo I'd just play the tape of Dusty's winter meetings press conference, bring out Joe to say hi, then turn my attention to talking him off the Cardinals.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 10, 2015, 07:49:49 PM
Was hoping Jason Heyward would sign today. If I was Theo I'd just play the tape of Dusty's winter meetings press conference, bring out Joe to say hi, then turn my attention to talking him off the Cardinals.
But had you considered that Jason might have a burning desire to play CF and lead off?
Quote from: thehawk on December 11, 2015, 09:41:09 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 10, 2015, 07:49:49 PM
Was hoping Jason Heyward would sign today. If I was Theo I'd just play the tape of Dusty's winter meetings press conference, bring out Joe to say hi, then turn my attention to talking him off the Cardinals.
But had you considered that Jason might have a burning desire to play CF and lead off?
Oh, fuck. Soriano II?
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 11, 2015, 10:07:51 AM
Quote from: thehawk on December 11, 2015, 09:41:09 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 10, 2015, 07:49:49 PM
Was hoping Jason Heyward would sign today. If I was Theo I'd just play the tape of Dusty's winter meetings press conference, bring out Joe to say hi, then turn my attention to talking him off the Cardinals.
But had you considered that Jason might have a burning desire to play CF and lead off?
Oh, fuck. Soriano II?
I thought Castro was Soriano II.
Quote from: thehawk on December 11, 2015, 09:41:09 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 10, 2015, 07:49:49 PM
Was hoping Jason Heyward would sign today. If I was Theo I'd just play the tape of Dusty's winter meetings press conference, bring out Joe to say hi, then turn my attention to talking him off the Cardinals.
But had you considered that Jason might have a burning desire to play CF and lead off?
Fine with me: Zobrist and Jason can draw straws for leadoff or something. Nothing to see here, nope.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 11, 2015, 10:15:58 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 11, 2015, 10:07:51 AM
Quote from: thehawk on December 11, 2015, 09:41:09 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 10, 2015, 07:49:49 PM
Was hoping Jason Heyward would sign today. If I was Theo I'd just play the tape of Dusty's winter meetings press conference, bring out Joe to say hi, then turn my attention to talking him off the Cardinals.
But had you considered that Jason might have a burning desire to play CF and lead off?
Oh, fuck. Soriano II?
I thought Castro was Soriano II.
Burn this thread to the ground. It's the only way to remove the Chorkstench.
Hopes rising? (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/12/jason-heyward-makes-decision-team-not-yet-reported.html)
Rosenthal, Morosi, and the best Cards beat writer all say Cards out on Heyward, but Cubs still in. Even if they don't get him, him NOT going to St. Louis is very much a win.
Quote from: SKO on December 11, 2015, 11:58:05 AM
Rosenthal, Morosi, and the best Cards beat writer all say Cards out on Heyward, but Cubs still in. Even if they don't get him, him NOT going to St. Louis is very much a win.
10 seconds, man. Just ten seconds sooner...
Quote from: SKO on December 11, 2015, 11:58:05 AM
Rosenthal, Morosi, and the best Cards beat writer all say Cards out on Heyward, but Cubs still in. Even if they don't get him, him NOT going to St. Louis is very much a win.
If Gordo says it (https://twitter.com/GDubCub/status/675376266493693953), we must be prepared for plan B.
Quote from: Oleg on December 11, 2015, 12:09:14 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 11, 2015, 11:58:05 AM
Rosenthal, Morosi, and the best Cards beat writer all say Cards out on Heyward, but Cubs still in. Even if they don't get him, him NOT going to St. Louis is very much a win.
If Gordo says it (https://twitter.com/GDubCub/status/675376266493693953), we must be prepared for plan B.
HEYMAN AND ROSENTHAL CONFIRM. THE PANTS ARE GONE BOYS.
I don't know which I'm more excited about: Heyward signing with the Cubs, or checking out @BestFansStLouis later on tonight.
EDIT: It's started already (https://twitter.com/BestFansStLouis)! Hee hee! I am literally rubbing my hands with glee, here.
Holy shitballs.
The Cubs just got their Marian Hossa.
They're winning the whole fucking thing.
Quote from: Tonker on December 11, 2015, 12:19:32 PM
I don't know which I'm more excited about: Heyward signing with the Cubs, or checking out @BestFansStLouis later on tonight.
Both are equally wonderful. I love all of the "ANOTHER LOOSER WHO CHOSE MONEY OVER WINNING" tweets when it would appear he took LESS money to be a Cub, specifically because they're better than the fucking Cardinals. YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
Lots of reports on Twitter of "they're not done." Working on a trade for a pitcher -- sounds like another signing/trade sync-up.
Quote from: SKO on December 11, 2015, 12:25:50 PM
Quote from: Tonker on December 11, 2015, 12:19:32 PM
I don't know which I'm more excited about: Heyward signing with the Cubs, or checking out @BestFansStLouis later on tonight.
Both are equally wonderful. I love all of the "ANOTHER LOOSER WHO CHOSE MONEY OVER WINNING" tweets when it would appear he took LESS money to be a Cub, specifically because they're better than the fucking Cardinals. YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
The butthurt is delicious.
Quote from: Eli on December 11, 2015, 12:28:56 PM
Lots of reports on Twitter of "they're not done." Working on a trade for a pitcher -- sounds like another signing/trade sync-up.
Probably saying good bye to Jorge. I will deal with that later.
Quote from: SKO on December 11, 2015, 12:30:07 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 11, 2015, 12:28:56 PM
Lots of reports on Twitter of "they're not done." Working on a trade for a pitcher -- sounds like another signing/trade sync-up.
Probably saying good bye to Jorge. I will deal with that later.
Has to be.
So, at some point next year, Joe could post the following lineup:
2B Zobrist
RF Heyward
3B Bryant
1B Rizzo
LF Schwarber
CF Baez
C Montero
P Arrieta
SS Russell
Time for a wank, I think.
Quote from: Tonker on December 11, 2015, 12:37:14 PM
So, at some point next year, Joe could post the following lineup:
2B Zobrist
RF Heyward
3B Bryant
1B Rizzo
LF Schwarber
CF Baez
C Montero
P Arrieta
SS Russell
Time for a wank, I think.
Heyman seems to think the Cubs could still get Fowler or Span if they trade Jorge for pitching. That would be unbelieveable. But either way, very wank-worthy.
Quote from: SKO on December 11, 2015, 12:38:13 PM
Quote from: Tonker on December 11, 2015, 12:37:14 PM
So, at some point next year, Joe could post the following lineup:
2B Zobrist
RF Heyward
3B Bryant
1B Rizzo
LF Schwarber
CF Baez
C Montero
P Arrieta
SS Russell
Time for a wank, I think.
Heyman seems to think the Cubs could still get Fowler or Span if they trade Jorge for pitching. That would be unbelieveable. But either way, very wank-worthy.
WHAT IN THE HELL'S GOING ON I CAN'T EVEN COMPREHEND
Quote from: Eli on December 11, 2015, 12:28:56 PM
Lots of reports on Twitter of "they're not done." Working on a trade for a pitcher -- sounds like another signing/trade sync-up.
Hello, Cleveland.
Quote from: SKO on December 11, 2015, 12:30:07 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 11, 2015, 12:28:56 PM
Lots of reports on Twitter of "they're not done." Working on a trade for a pitcher -- sounds like another signing/trade sync-up.
Probably saying good bye to Jorge. I will deal with that later.
Gordo is saying Heyward will stay in CF and Jorge wont' be moved. He's still probably wrong but I like that I am 100% okay with either scenario at this point. They won't move Jorge unless they get the right deal.
I don't care if they don't do a single other thing this offseason.
I'm good.
Quote from: PenFoe on December 11, 2015, 12:54:55 PM
I don't care if they don't do a single other thing this offseason.
I'm good.
Me too. Not that I don't appreciate these pleasant surprises but I'm thinking their next trade will be in July and I'm ready for the season to start.
Remember 2 months ago when the Cubs didn't have any money to spend?
Good times.
Quote from: Tonker on December 11, 2015, 12:19:32 PM
I don't know which I'm more excited about: Heyward signing with the Cubs, or checking out @BestFansStLouis later on tonight.
EDIT: It's started already (https://twitter.com/BestFansStLouis)! Hee hee! I am literally rubbing my hands with glee, here.
The BFiB calling anyone who spurns St. Louis a "trader" continues to be an endless source of amusement.
In a sea of tweets calling him a trader and wishing that he would suffer a debilitating injury, I enjoyed this one the most:
https://twitter.com/Stlknight25/status/675159302777253889
Quote from: CT III on December 11, 2015, 01:22:11 PM
In a sea of tweets calling him a trader and wishing that he would suffer a debilitating injury, I enjoyed this one the most:
https://twitter.com/Stlknight25/status/675159302777253889
"Baseball insider. Speaker of Truth. Voice of Reason. Champion for Justice and the American Way."
Great article about Heyward in CF: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/jason-heyward-as-a-center-fielder/
Basically, he's been a +20 DRS RF, and even if he loses about 10 DRS in CF, as the average player does moving from RF to CF (and he's pretty clearly not an average player so it may not be that big a drop off, plus Wrigley's CF is the 4th smallest in baseball), his bat goes from above-average in RF to downright elite in CF, so he'd probably still be a 5 win player easily.
Quote from: SKO on December 11, 2015, 01:39:32 PM
Great article about Heyward in CF: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/jason-heyward-as-a-center-fielder/
Basically, he's been a +20 DRS RF, and even if he loses about 10 DRS in CF, as the average player does moving from RF to CF (and he's pretty clearly not an average player so it may not be that big a drop off, plus Wrigley's CF is the 4th smallest in baseball), his bat goes from above-average in RF to downright elite in CF, so he'd probably still be a 5 win player easily.
So you're saying that his bat plays better in CF, in the abstract?
Wither art thou, BC?
Jesus, when I heard they got him for less than $200mm, I assumed it was over 7 years.
$184/8 is a bargain.
Quote from: ChuckD on December 11, 2015, 02:05:42 PM
Jesus, when I heard they got him for less than $200mm, I assumed it was over 7 years.
$184/8 is a bargain.
2 opt outs, apparently, first after 3 years. I'm good with it. 3 years, 69 million for Heyward is great. Their window is as open as it can get right now, take advantage.
Quote from: SKO on December 11, 2015, 02:08:54 PM
I'm good with it. 3 years, 69 million for Heyward is great.
It's also NICE.
Quote from: Eli on December 11, 2015, 02:20:27 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 11, 2015, 02:08:54 PM
I'm good with it. 3 years, 69 million for Heyward is great.
It's also NICE.
Oh man. I have to resign from the internet in shame now that I missed that. I forgot that 69 is the sex number.
Quote from: SKO on December 11, 2015, 02:26:28 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 11, 2015, 02:20:27 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 11, 2015, 02:08:54 PM
I'm good with it. 3 years, 69 million for Heyward is great.
It's also NICE.
Oh man. I have to resign from the internet in shame now that I missed that. I forgot that 69 is the sex number.
A big-time one.
So opening night is in Anaheim, let's say they don't trade Soler:
LF Zobrist
1B Rizzo
3B Bryant
DH Schwarber
CF Heyward
RF Soler
SS Russell
2B Baez
C Montero
Boing.
No big deal.
(http://easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded/1045/6304888342.jpg)
Quote from: PenFoe on December 11, 2015, 03:17:36 PM
No big deal.
(http://easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded/1045/6304888342.jpg)
I like the "took less to play for the Cubs" narrative but I'm also guessing the two opt outs had more to do with it than anything. Will have to see if St. Louis also offered him the chance to bolt in 3-4 years.
Quote from: SKO on December 11, 2015, 03:18:47 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on December 11, 2015, 03:17:36 PM
No big deal.
(http://easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded/1045/6304888342.jpg)
I like the "took less to play for the Cubs" narrative but I'm also guessing the two opt outs had more to do with it than anything. Will have to see if St. Louis also offered him the chance to bolt in 3-4 years.
I'd also guess that the 200MM offers were for 9 or 10 years.
Quote from: Oleg on December 11, 2015, 03:26:41 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 11, 2015, 03:18:47 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on December 11, 2015, 03:17:36 PM
No big deal.
(http://easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded/1045/6304888342.jpg)
I like the "took less to play for the Cubs" narrative but I'm also guessing the two opt outs had more to do with it than anything. Will have to see if St. Louis also offered him the chance to bolt in 3-4 years.
I'd also guess that the 200MM offers were for 9 or 10 years.
STOP RUINING MY NARRATIVE YOU FUCKING NERDS
Get amp'd for the most creative thing since the 2004 NSBB pitching staff shirts:
http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/2015/12/12/9927990/welcome-cubs-jason-heyward-hey-jude-parody
(http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/2015/12/12/9927990/welcome-cubs-jason-heyward-hey-jude-parody)
Quote from: D. Doluntap on December 14, 2015, 09:19:35 AM
Get amp'd for the most creative thing since the 2004 NSBB pitching staff shirts:
http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/2015/12/12/9927990/welcome-cubs-jason-heyward-hey-jude-parody
(http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/2015/12/12/9927990/welcome-cubs-jason-heyward-hey-jude-parody)
Only Alvin and his band of idiots could ruin both the Heyward signing and the Beatles.
Quote from: InternetApex on December 14, 2015, 08:00:53 AM
Quote from: PANK! on December 12, 2015, 07:30:56 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 12, 2015, 12:43:23 AM
Quote from: Shooter on December 11, 2015, 10:40:47 PM
QuoteJason Hammel ✔ @HammelTime39
Welcome aboard @JasonHeyward, Zobie-Wan Zobrist & dat Johnny Lackey!! Gonna b a fun ride! #Cubs #FlyTheW #HellYes! #BleedCubbieBlue #162-0
Hell no. Zobie-Wan Kenzobi at least fits the pattern of the original.
Zobanzo Beans?
BCB as a hashtag? Al no doubt jerked it to that, at least twice. Trade Hammel ASAP.
Yeah that's just another nail in Hammel's coffin in my book. Pfft...like he's going to be around in August anyway.
Hopefully, the scuttlebutt about his balky knee contributing to his second half swoon is correct and we get a healthy first-half 2015 of version Hammel next Spring. So they can trade him.
Yup. Barring any surprises in Mesa I see one of two outcomes to the rotation come Opening Day. Either Hammel and Warren are both starters with Hendricks pitching in Iowa or Hammel and Hendricks are in the rotation with Warren in the bullpen. Either scenario has Hammel in the rotation because hopefully he can pitch well enough to be flipped, and the the rotation would finish with Warren and Hendricks at 4/5. By all means they can improve on Hendricks but that's a helluva lot better than what they had going into last year.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 14, 2015, 09:45:40 AM
Quote from: D. Doluntap on December 14, 2015, 09:19:35 AM
Get amp'd for the most creative thing since the 2004 NSBB pitching staff shirts:
http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/2015/12/12/9927990/welcome-cubs-jason-heyward-hey-jude-parody
(http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/2015/12/12/9927990/welcome-cubs-jason-heyward-hey-jude-parody)
Only Alvin and his band of idiots could ruin both the Heyward signing and the Beatles.
I generally avoid the hatred/annoyance/whatever by folks on these forums toward Al, but reading the first two verses of this parody actually made me angry. Then I quit reading them and immediately started feeling better. Hopefully I'll forget about the entire eye-scorch by the end of the day.
Quote from: Canadouche on December 14, 2015, 09:53:03 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 14, 2015, 09:45:40 AM
Quote from: D. Doluntap on December 14, 2015, 09:19:35 AM
Get amp'd for the most creative thing since the 2004 NSBB pitching staff shirts:
http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/2015/12/12/9927990/welcome-cubs-jason-heyward-hey-jude-parody
(http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/2015/12/12/9927990/welcome-cubs-jason-heyward-hey-jude-parody)
Only Alvin and his band of idiots could ruin both the Heyward signing and the Beatles.
I generally avoid the hatred/annoyance/whatever by folks on these forums toward Al, but reading the first two verses of this parody actually made me angry. Then I quit reading them and immediately started feeling better. Hopefully I'll forget about the entire eye-scorch by the end of the day.
i want to go egg whichever Potbelly this guy is probably singing in.
Quote from: Canadouche on December 14, 2015, 09:53:03 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 14, 2015, 09:45:40 AM
Quote from: D. Doluntap on December 14, 2015, 09:19:35 AM
Get amp'd for the most creative thing since the 2004 NSBB pitching staff shirts:
http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/2015/12/12/9927990/welcome-cubs-jason-heyward-hey-jude-parody
(http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/2015/12/12/9927990/welcome-cubs-jason-heyward-hey-jude-parody)
Only Alvin and his band of idiots could ruin both the Heyward signing and the Beatles.
I generally avoid the hatred/annoyance/whatever by folks on these forums toward Al, but reading the first two verses of this parody actually made me angry. Then I quit reading them and immediately started feeling better. Hopefully I'll forget about the entire eye-scorch by the end of the day.
Throughout all this fun, I completely forgot about finding his moronic views. And I feel better for him not being on my radar. Back in November, I did check to see if he did a "Building a winner" post like he did when he pined for Jeff Franceour, but no luck. Haven't been back since.
Quote from: PANK! on December 14, 2015, 09:48:02 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on December 14, 2015, 08:00:53 AM
Quote from: PANK! on December 12, 2015, 07:30:56 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 12, 2015, 12:43:23 AM
Quote from: Shooter on December 11, 2015, 10:40:47 PM
QuoteJason Hammel ✔ @HammelTime39
Welcome aboard @JasonHeyward, Zobie-Wan Zobrist & dat Johnny Lackey!! Gonna b a fun ride! #Cubs #FlyTheW #HellYes! #BleedCubbieBlue #162-0
Hell no. Zobie-Wan Kenzobi at least fits the pattern of the original.
Zobanzo Beans?
BCB as a hashtag? Al no doubt jerked it to that, at least twice. Trade Hammel ASAP.
Yeah that's just another nail in Hammel's coffin in my book. Pfft...like he's going to be around in August anyway.
Hopefully, the scuttlebutt about his balky knee contributing to his second half swoon is correct and we get a healthy first-half 2015 of version Hammel next Spring. So they can trade him.
Yup. Barring any surprises in Mesa I see one of two outcomes to the rotation come Opening Day. Either Hammel and Warren are both starters with Hendricks pitching in Iowa or Hammel and Hendricks are in the rotation with Warren in the bullpen. Either scenario has Hammel in the rotation because hopefully he can pitch well enough to be flipped, and the the rotation would finish with Warren and Hendricks at 4/5. By all means they can improve on Hendricks but that's a helluva lot better than what they had going into last year.
What about Tyson Ross?
Quote from: Oleg on December 14, 2015, 10:29:11 AM
Quote from: PANK! on December 14, 2015, 09:48:02 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on December 14, 2015, 08:00:53 AM
Quote from: PANK! on December 12, 2015, 07:30:56 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 12, 2015, 12:43:23 AM
Quote from: Shooter on December 11, 2015, 10:40:47 PM
QuoteJason Hammel ✔ @HammelTime39
Welcome aboard @JasonHeyward, Zobie-Wan Zobrist & dat Johnny Lackey!! Gonna b a fun ride! #Cubs #FlyTheW #HellYes! #BleedCubbieBlue #162-0
Hell no. Zobie-Wan Kenzobi at least fits the pattern of the original.
Zobanzo Beans?
BCB as a hashtag? Al no doubt jerked it to that, at least twice. Trade Hammel ASAP.
Yeah that's just another nail in Hammel's coffin in my book. Pfft...like he's going to be around in August anyway.
Hopefully, the scuttlebutt about his balky knee contributing to his second half swoon is correct and we get a healthy first-half 2015 of version Hammel next Spring. So they can trade him.
Yup. Barring any surprises in Mesa I see one of two outcomes to the rotation come Opening Day. Either Hammel and Warren are both starters with Hendricks pitching in Iowa or Hammel and Hendricks are in the rotation with Warren in the bullpen. Either scenario has Hammel in the rotation because hopefully he can pitch well enough to be flipped, and the the rotation would finish with Warren and Hendricks at 4/5. By all means they can improve on Hendricks but that's a helluva lot better than what they had going into last year.
What about Tyson Ross?
The trade market would have to plummet for the cost of acquiring Ross to drop to where I think Theo and Jed would do it. I don't think Soler+prospects would get it done, and frankly while I'd trade Soler for him I'm not sure he's worth Soler and Gleyber, etc (and it sounds like the Cubs may very well have offered Soler+prospects in July and were rebuffed anyway, and the cost certainly hasn't gone down since).
I know you're hoping that teams will realize that Boston and Arizona giving up the farm for Kimbrel and Miller is the exception rather than the rule and prices will eventually drop, but so far it doesn't sound like anyone has lowered their asking prices yet.
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 10:32:55 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 14, 2015, 10:29:11 AM
Quote from: PANK! on December 14, 2015, 09:48:02 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on December 14, 2015, 08:00:53 AM
Quote from: PANK! on December 12, 2015, 07:30:56 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 12, 2015, 12:43:23 AM
Quote from: Shooter on December 11, 2015, 10:40:47 PM
QuoteJason Hammel ✔ @HammelTime39
Welcome aboard @JasonHeyward, Zobie-Wan Zobrist & dat Johnny Lackey!! Gonna b a fun ride! #Cubs #FlyTheW #HellYes! #BleedCubbieBlue #162-0
Hell no. Zobie-Wan Kenzobi at least fits the pattern of the original.
Zobanzo Beans?
BCB as a hashtag? Al no doubt jerked it to that, at least twice. Trade Hammel ASAP.
Yeah that's just another nail in Hammel's coffin in my book. Pfft...like he's going to be around in August anyway.
Hopefully, the scuttlebutt about his balky knee contributing to his second half swoon is correct and we get a healthy first-half 2015 of version Hammel next Spring. So they can trade him.
Yup. Barring any surprises in Mesa I see one of two outcomes to the rotation come Opening Day. Either Hammel and Warren are both starters with Hendricks pitching in Iowa or Hammel and Hendricks are in the rotation with Warren in the bullpen. Either scenario has Hammel in the rotation because hopefully he can pitch well enough to be flipped, and the the rotation would finish with Warren and Hendricks at 4/5. By all means they can improve on Hendricks but that's a helluva lot better than what they had going into last year.
What about Tyson Ross?
The trade market would have to plummet for the cost of acquiring Ross to drop to where I think Theo and Jed would do it. I don't think Soler+prospects would get it done, and frankly while I'd trade Soler for him I'm not sure he's worth Soler and Gleyber, etc (and it sounds like the Cubs may very well have offered Soler+prospects in July and were rebuffed anyway, and the cost certainly hasn't gone down since).
I know you're hoping that teams will realize that Boston and Arizona giving up the farm for Kimbrel and Miller is the exception rather than the rule and prices will eventually drop, but so far it doesn't sound like anyone has lowered their asking prices yet.
It blows my mind that the pitching seems to be what people are overpaying for when hitting is the commodity.
Quote from: Slaky on December 14, 2015, 10:39:06 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 10:32:55 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 14, 2015, 10:29:11 AM
Quote from: PANK! on December 14, 2015, 09:48:02 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on December 14, 2015, 08:00:53 AM
Quote from: PANK! on December 12, 2015, 07:30:56 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 12, 2015, 12:43:23 AM
Quote from: Shooter on December 11, 2015, 10:40:47 PM
QuoteJason Hammel ✔ @HammelTime39
Welcome aboard @JasonHeyward, Zobie-Wan Zobrist & dat Johnny Lackey!! Gonna b a fun ride! #Cubs #FlyTheW #HellYes! #BleedCubbieBlue #162-0
Hell no. Zobie-Wan Kenzobi at least fits the pattern of the original.
Zobanzo Beans?
BCB as a hashtag? Al no doubt jerked it to that, at least twice. Trade Hammel ASAP.
Yeah that's just another nail in Hammel's coffin in my book. Pfft...like he's going to be around in August anyway.
Hopefully, the scuttlebutt about his balky knee contributing to his second half swoon is correct and we get a healthy first-half 2015 of version Hammel next Spring. So they can trade him.
Yup. Barring any surprises in Mesa I see one of two outcomes to the rotation come Opening Day. Either Hammel and Warren are both starters with Hendricks pitching in Iowa or Hammel and Hendricks are in the rotation with Warren in the bullpen. Either scenario has Hammel in the rotation because hopefully he can pitch well enough to be flipped, and the the rotation would finish with Warren and Hendricks at 4/5. By all means they can improve on Hendricks but that's a helluva lot better than what they had going into last year.
What about Tyson Ross?
The trade market would have to plummet for the cost of acquiring Ross to drop to where I think Theo and Jed would do it. I don't think Soler+prospects would get it done, and frankly while I'd trade Soler for him I'm not sure he's worth Soler and Gleyber, etc (and it sounds like the Cubs may very well have offered Soler+prospects in July and were rebuffed anyway, and the cost certainly hasn't gone down since).
I know you're hoping that teams will realize that Boston and Arizona giving up the farm for Kimbrel and Miller is the exception rather than the rule and prices will eventually drop, but so far it doesn't sound like anyone has lowered their asking prices yet.
It blows my mind that the pitching seems to be what people are overpaying for when hitting is the commodity.
Pitching Wins Championships has been beaten into people for so long that it's going to take awhile to disabuse most front offices of that notion. Hell, people will point to what the Mets did to the Cubs as evidence that arms are still more valuable than bats, and maybe they still are in a short playoff series, but it's hard to see the Mets sustaining their success if they don't find consistent offense somewhere. They're not going to be able to count on a Cespedes arriving midseason ever year or the Nats imploding (well, maybe they can).
Heck, the Royals had one of the weakest rotations in baseball last year, but their deep lineup of irritatingly good contact hitters and a shut down bullpen carried them to the championship.
Does it make me a hypocrite to talk about how valuable Heyward is but not want to trade Soler for Inciarte? I know what WAR says and all but it feels like Inciarte was at the peak of his value in 2015, which is a 3 win player mostly thanks to defense, and I feel like Soler's potential is still greater than that. To me the value lost by playing Heyward in CF (if there really is any, and I'm not convinced there is given how small Wrigley's CF is anyway and how much better Heyward's bat plays there) to keep Soler is less than the value lost by selling low on Jorge.
I dunno. Call me an idiot.
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 11:21:57 AM
Does it make me a hypocrite to talk about how valuable Heyward is but not want to trade Soler for Inciarte? I know what WAR says and all but it feels like Inciarte was at the peak of his value in 2015, which is a 3 win player mostly thanks to defense, and I feel like Soler's potential is still greater than that. To me the value lost by playing Heyward in CF (if there really is any, and I'm not convinced there is given how small Wrigley's CF is anyway and how much better Heyward's bat plays there) to keep Soler is less than the value lost by selling low on Jorge.
I dunno. Call me an idiot.
Wait...is trading Soler for Inciarte really a thing? I don't think I'd want to do that deal, objectively speaking. I'm not sure what the marginal wins added are in that deal.
Having said that, here's another piece of awesomeness (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-fascinating-jason-heyward-contract/) about the Heyward deal. It's probably the first time ever that Cameron has even suggested that an opt-out may be a win for the team giving it.
Quote from: Oleg on December 14, 2015, 11:26:12 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 11:21:57 AM
Does it make me a hypocrite to talk about how valuable Heyward is but not want to trade Soler for Inciarte? I know what WAR says and all but it feels like Inciarte was at the peak of his value in 2015, which is a 3 win player mostly thanks to defense, and I feel like Soler's potential is still greater than that. To me the value lost by playing Heyward in CF (if there really is any, and I'm not convinced there is given how small Wrigley's CF is anyway and how much better Heyward's bat plays there) to keep Soler is less than the value lost by selling low on Jorge.
I dunno. Call me an idiot.
Wait...is trading Soler for Inciarte really a thing? I don't think I'd want to do that deal, objectively speaking. I'm not sure what the marginal wins added are in that deal.
Having said that, here's another piece of awesomeness (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-fascinating-jason-heyward-contract/) about the Heyward deal. It's probably the first time ever that Cameron has even suggested that an opt-out may be a win for the team giving it.
Yeah, supposedly the Cubs have inquired on Inciarte. Inciarte was 5.3 bWAR player, Fangraphs had him as a 3.3. So I mean if you're just using WAR he's inarguably better than what Soler was (0.1). But I feel like we saw the worst version of Jorge and the best version of Inciarte this year. I know there are very realistic reasons for thinking Jorge will never reach his peak, but I'd still rather keep him than trade him for a scrappy center fielder coming off a career year. If they're going to move him I'd prefer it be part of a package for a high end starter.
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 11:31:30 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 14, 2015, 11:26:12 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 11:21:57 AM
Does it make me a hypocrite to talk about how valuable Heyward is but not want to trade Soler for Inciarte? I know what WAR says and all but it feels like Inciarte was at the peak of his value in 2015, which is a 3 win player mostly thanks to defense, and I feel like Soler's potential is still greater than that. To me the value lost by playing Heyward in CF (if there really is any, and I'm not convinced there is given how small Wrigley's CF is anyway and how much better Heyward's bat plays there) to keep Soler is less than the value lost by selling low on Jorge.
I dunno. Call me an idiot.
Wait...is trading Soler for Inciarte really a thing? I don't think I'd want to do that deal, objectively speaking. I'm not sure what the marginal wins added are in that deal.
Having said that, here's another piece of awesomeness (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-fascinating-jason-heyward-contract/) about the Heyward deal. It's probably the first time ever that Cameron has even suggested that an opt-out may be a win for the team giving it.
Yeah, supposedly the Cubs have inquired on Inciarte. Inciarte was 5.3 bWAR player, Fangraphs had him as a 3.3. So I mean if you're just using WAR he's inarguably better than what Soler was (0.1). But I feel like we saw the worst version of Jorge and the best version of Inciarte this year. I know there are very realistic reasons for thinking Jorge will never reach his peak, but I'd still rather keep him than trade him for a scrappy center fielder coming off a career year. If they're going to move him I'd prefer it be part of a package for a high end starter.
I think I'd have Apex levels of butthurt if they traded Soler for Inciarte.
Quote from: Oleg on December 14, 2015, 11:48:41 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 11:31:30 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 14, 2015, 11:26:12 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 11:21:57 AM
Does it make me a hypocrite to talk about how valuable Heyward is but not want to trade Soler for Inciarte? I know what WAR says and all but it feels like Inciarte was at the peak of his value in 2015, which is a 3 win player mostly thanks to defense, and I feel like Soler's potential is still greater than that. To me the value lost by playing Heyward in CF (if there really is any, and I'm not convinced there is given how small Wrigley's CF is anyway and how much better Heyward's bat plays there) to keep Soler is less than the value lost by selling low on Jorge.
I dunno. Call me an idiot.
Wait...is trading Soler for Inciarte really a thing? I don't think I'd want to do that deal, objectively speaking. I'm not sure what the marginal wins added are in that deal.
Having said that, here's another piece of awesomeness (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-fascinating-jason-heyward-contract/) about the Heyward deal. It's probably the first time ever that Cameron has even suggested that an opt-out may be a win for the team giving it.
Yeah, supposedly the Cubs have inquired on Inciarte. Inciarte was 5.3 bWAR player, Fangraphs had him as a 3.3. So I mean if you're just using WAR he's inarguably better than what Soler was (0.1). But I feel like we saw the worst version of Jorge and the best version of Inciarte this year. I know there are very realistic reasons for thinking Jorge will never reach his peak, but I'd still rather keep him than trade him for a scrappy center fielder coming off a career year. If they're going to move him I'd prefer it be part of a package for a high end starter.
I think I'd have Apex levels of butthurt if they traded Soler for Inciarte.
Oh good, well that just leaves Eli to tell us all how dumb we are.
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 11:52:58 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 14, 2015, 11:48:41 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 11:31:30 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 14, 2015, 11:26:12 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 11:21:57 AM
Does it make me a hypocrite to talk about how valuable Heyward is but not want to trade Soler for Inciarte? I know what WAR says and all but it feels like Inciarte was at the peak of his value in 2015, which is a 3 win player mostly thanks to defense, and I feel like Soler's potential is still greater than that. To me the value lost by playing Heyward in CF (if there really is any, and I'm not convinced there is given how small Wrigley's CF is anyway and how much better Heyward's bat plays there) to keep Soler is less than the value lost by selling low on Jorge.
I dunno. Call me an idiot.
Wait...is trading Soler for Inciarte really a thing? I don't think I'd want to do that deal, objectively speaking. I'm not sure what the marginal wins added are in that deal.
Having said that, here's another piece of awesomeness (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-fascinating-jason-heyward-contract/) about the Heyward deal. It's probably the first time ever that Cameron has even suggested that an opt-out may be a win for the team giving it.
Yeah, supposedly the Cubs have inquired on Inciarte. Inciarte was 5.3 bWAR player, Fangraphs had him as a 3.3. So I mean if you're just using WAR he's inarguably better than what Soler was (0.1). But I feel like we saw the worst version of Jorge and the best version of Inciarte this year. I know there are very realistic reasons for thinking Jorge will never reach his peak, but I'd still rather keep him than trade him for a scrappy center fielder coming off a career year. If they're going to move him I'd prefer it be part of a package for a high end starter.
I think I'd have Apex levels of butthurt if they traded Soler for Inciarte.
Oh good, well that just leaves Eli to tell us all how dumb we are.
What if it's for Inciarte and Teheran? I'm not sure I'm OK with that either but it's probably not an option anyway.
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 11:52:58 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 14, 2015, 11:48:41 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 11:31:30 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 14, 2015, 11:26:12 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 11:21:57 AM
Does it make me a hypocrite to talk about how valuable Heyward is but not want to trade Soler for Inciarte? I know what WAR says and all but it feels like Inciarte was at the peak of his value in 2015, which is a 3 win player mostly thanks to defense, and I feel like Soler's potential is still greater than that. To me the value lost by playing Heyward in CF (if there really is any, and I'm not convinced there is given how small Wrigley's CF is anyway and how much better Heyward's bat plays there) to keep Soler is less than the value lost by selling low on Jorge.
I dunno. Call me an idiot.
Wait...is trading Soler for Inciarte really a thing? I don't think I'd want to do that deal, objectively speaking. I'm not sure what the marginal wins added are in that deal.
Having said that, here's another piece of awesomeness (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-fascinating-jason-heyward-contract/) about the Heyward deal. It's probably the first time ever that Cameron has even suggested that an opt-out may be a win for the team giving it.
Yeah, supposedly the Cubs have inquired on Inciarte. Inciarte was 5.3 bWAR player, Fangraphs had him as a 3.3. So I mean if you're just using WAR he's inarguably better than what Soler was (0.1). But I feel like we saw the worst version of Jorge and the best version of Inciarte this year. I know there are very realistic reasons for thinking Jorge will never reach his peak, but I'd still rather keep him than trade him for a scrappy center fielder coming off a career year. If they're going to move him I'd prefer it be part of a package for a high end starter.
I think I'd have Apex levels of butthurt if they traded Soler for Inciarte.
Oh good, well that just leaves Eli to tell us all how dumb we are.
I don't really think there's a dumb side to this one. I think it depends what they're after. If they're really trying to maximize this next 2-3 years, Inciarte is a safer bet to provide value because he has a clearly established skill. Soler hasn't really proven he can do anything consistently well in the majors, besides look really good in a baseball uniform. But there's obviously reason to believe in his upside.
It's just a matter of floors and ceilings. Inciarte's a safe bet to be worth 2ish wins, and Jorge could probably range anywhere from 0 to 4 wins. I'm not sure I'd be all that thrilled about giving up Jorge for Inciarte but I can see the appeal, especially if it lets them have an elite defensive outfield at 2/3 spots and help cover for Schwarber's shortcomings out there.
Quote from: Eli on December 14, 2015, 12:00:55 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 11:52:58 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 14, 2015, 11:48:41 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 11:31:30 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 14, 2015, 11:26:12 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 11:21:57 AM
Does it make me a hypocrite to talk about how valuable Heyward is but not want to trade Soler for Inciarte? I know what WAR says and all but it feels like Inciarte was at the peak of his value in 2015, which is a 3 win player mostly thanks to defense, and I feel like Soler's potential is still greater than that. To me the value lost by playing Heyward in CF (if there really is any, and I'm not convinced there is given how small Wrigley's CF is anyway and how much better Heyward's bat plays there) to keep Soler is less than the value lost by selling low on Jorge.
I dunno. Call me an idiot.
Wait...is trading Soler for Inciarte really a thing? I don't think I'd want to do that deal, objectively speaking. I'm not sure what the marginal wins added are in that deal.
Having said that, here's another piece of awesomeness (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-fascinating-jason-heyward-contract/) about the Heyward deal. It's probably the first time ever that Cameron has even suggested that an opt-out may be a win for the team giving it.
Yeah, supposedly the Cubs have inquired on Inciarte. Inciarte was 5.3 bWAR player, Fangraphs had him as a 3.3. So I mean if you're just using WAR he's inarguably better than what Soler was (0.1). But I feel like we saw the worst version of Jorge and the best version of Inciarte this year. I know there are very realistic reasons for thinking Jorge will never reach his peak, but I'd still rather keep him than trade him for a scrappy center fielder coming off a career year. If they're going to move him I'd prefer it be part of a package for a high end starter.
I think I'd have Apex levels of butthurt if they traded Soler for Inciarte.
Oh good, well that just leaves Eli to tell us all how dumb we are.
I don't really think there's a dumb side to this one. I think it depends what they're after. If they're really trying to maximize this next 2-3 years, Inciarte is a safer bet to provide value because he has a clearly established skill. Soler hasn't really proven he can do anything consistently well in the majors, besides look really good in a baseball uniform. But there's obviously reason to believe in his upside.
It's just a matter of floors and ceilings. Inciarte's a safe bet to be worth 2ish wins, and Jorge could probably range anywhere from 0 to 4 wins. I'm not sure I'd be all that thrilled about giving up Jorge for Inciarte but I can see the appeal, especially if it lets them have an elite defensive outfield at 2/3 spots and help cover for Schwarber's shortcomings out there.
Fair enough. I'm at the point now where I'd rather they wait till July 31st before they make a decision on trading Jorge. See how Heyward and Jorge together is working out (along with how Javy's bat and transition to playing some OF is coming along) before deciding you feel comfortable or not moving Jorge, and see if prices come down on starting pitching by then as well.
I know a shitty first half or another Jorge injury could really hurt his trade value even more, but I'll bet on him being better than last year rather than selling kinda low on him right now.
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 12:06:23 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 14, 2015, 12:00:55 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 11:52:58 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 14, 2015, 11:48:41 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 11:31:30 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 14, 2015, 11:26:12 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 11:21:57 AM
Does it make me a hypocrite to talk about how valuable Heyward is but not want to trade Soler for Inciarte? I know what WAR says and all but it feels like Inciarte was at the peak of his value in 2015, which is a 3 win player mostly thanks to defense, and I feel like Soler's potential is still greater than that. To me the value lost by playing Heyward in CF (if there really is any, and I'm not convinced there is given how small Wrigley's CF is anyway and how much better Heyward's bat plays there) to keep Soler is less than the value lost by selling low on Jorge.
I dunno. Call me an idiot.
Wait...is trading Soler for Inciarte really a thing? I don't think I'd want to do that deal, objectively speaking. I'm not sure what the marginal wins added are in that deal.
Having said that, here's another piece of awesomeness (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-fascinating-jason-heyward-contract/) about the Heyward deal. It's probably the first time ever that Cameron has even suggested that an opt-out may be a win for the team giving it.
Yeah, supposedly the Cubs have inquired on Inciarte. Inciarte was 5.3 bWAR player, Fangraphs had him as a 3.3. So I mean if you're just using WAR he's inarguably better than what Soler was (0.1). But I feel like we saw the worst version of Jorge and the best version of Inciarte this year. I know there are very realistic reasons for thinking Jorge will never reach his peak, but I'd still rather keep him than trade him for a scrappy center fielder coming off a career year. If they're going to move him I'd prefer it be part of a package for a high end starter.
I think I'd have Apex levels of butthurt if they traded Soler for Inciarte.
Oh good, well that just leaves Eli to tell us all how dumb we are.
I don't really think there's a dumb side to this one. I think it depends what they're after. If they're really trying to maximize this next 2-3 years, Inciarte is a safer bet to provide value because he has a clearly established skill. Soler hasn't really proven he can do anything consistently well in the majors, besides look really good in a baseball uniform. But there's obviously reason to believe in his upside.
It's just a matter of floors and ceilings. Inciarte's a safe bet to be worth 2ish wins, and Jorge could probably range anywhere from 0 to 4 wins. I'm not sure I'd be all that thrilled about giving up Jorge for Inciarte but I can see the appeal, especially if it lets them have an elite defensive outfield at 2/3 spots and help cover for Schwarber's shortcomings out there.
Fair enough. I'm at the point now where I'd rather they wait till July 31st before they make a decision on trading Jorge. See how Heyward and Jorge together is working out (along with how Javy's bat and transition to playing some OF is coming along) before deciding you feel comfortable or not moving Jorge, and see if prices come down on starting pitching by then as well.
I know a shitty first half or another Jorge injury could really hurt his trade value even more, but I'll bet on him being better than last year rather than selling kinda low on him right now.
Even in that case, The Cubs should have plenty left to make a deal without giving up Soler.
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 12:06:23 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 14, 2015, 12:00:55 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 11:52:58 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 14, 2015, 11:48:41 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 11:31:30 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 14, 2015, 11:26:12 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 11:21:57 AM
Does it make me a hypocrite to talk about how valuable Heyward is but not want to trade Soler for Inciarte? I know what WAR says and all but it feels like Inciarte was at the peak of his value in 2015, which is a 3 win player mostly thanks to defense, and I feel like Soler's potential is still greater than that. To me the value lost by playing Heyward in CF (if there really is any, and I'm not convinced there is given how small Wrigley's CF is anyway and how much better Heyward's bat plays there) to keep Soler is less than the value lost by selling low on Jorge.
I dunno. Call me an idiot.
Wait...is trading Soler for Inciarte really a thing? I don't think I'd want to do that deal, objectively speaking. I'm not sure what the marginal wins added are in that deal.
Having said that, here's another piece of awesomeness (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-fascinating-jason-heyward-contract/) about the Heyward deal. It's probably the first time ever that Cameron has even suggested that an opt-out may be a win for the team giving it.
Yeah, supposedly the Cubs have inquired on Inciarte. Inciarte was 5.3 bWAR player, Fangraphs had him as a 3.3. So I mean if you're just using WAR he's inarguably better than what Soler was (0.1). But I feel like we saw the worst version of Jorge and the best version of Inciarte this year. I know there are very realistic reasons for thinking Jorge will never reach his peak, but I'd still rather keep him than trade him for a scrappy center fielder coming off a career year. If they're going to move him I'd prefer it be part of a package for a high end starter.
I think I'd have Apex levels of butthurt if they traded Soler for Inciarte.
Oh good, well that just leaves Eli to tell us all how dumb we are.
I don't really think there's a dumb side to this one. I think it depends what they're after. If they're really trying to maximize this next 2-3 years, Inciarte is a safer bet to provide value because he has a clearly established skill. Soler hasn't really proven he can do anything consistently well in the majors, besides look really good in a baseball uniform. But there's obviously reason to believe in his upside.
It's just a matter of floors and ceilings. Inciarte's a safe bet to be worth 2ish wins, and Jorge could probably range anywhere from 0 to 4 wins. I'm not sure I'd be all that thrilled about giving up Jorge for Inciarte but I can see the appeal, especially if it lets them have an elite defensive outfield at 2/3 spots and help cover for Schwarber's shortcomings out there.
Fair enough. I'm at the point now where I'd rather they wait till July 31st before they make a decision on trading Jorge. See how Heyward and Jorge together is working out (along with how Javy's bat and transition to playing some OF is coming along) before deciding you feel comfortable or not moving Jorge, and see if prices comes down on starting pitching by then as well.
I know a shitty first half or another Jorge injury could really hurt his trade value even more, but I'll bet on him being better than last year rather than selling kinda low on him right now.
I think the whole "9 consecutive trips to the plate resulting in at least 1 base" thing he did in the playoffs last year should serve as a nice little window into his potential. I think the only thing that'll give other teams pause will be Soler's ability to stay healthy. All things considered, his first half last year wasn't even really that "shitty", but in any event I'd be stunned if he doesn't do better next year across the board (again, health aside).
Quote from: Oleg on December 14, 2015, 12:12:04 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 12:06:23 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 14, 2015, 12:00:55 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 11:52:58 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 14, 2015, 11:48:41 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 11:31:30 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 14, 2015, 11:26:12 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 11:21:57 AM
Does it make me a hypocrite to talk about how valuable Heyward is but not want to trade Soler for Inciarte? I know what WAR says and all but it feels like Inciarte was at the peak of his value in 2015, which is a 3 win player mostly thanks to defense, and I feel like Soler's potential is still greater than that. To me the value lost by playing Heyward in CF (if there really is any, and I'm not convinced there is given how small Wrigley's CF is anyway and how much better Heyward's bat plays there) to keep Soler is less than the value lost by selling low on Jorge.
I dunno. Call me an idiot.
Wait...is trading Soler for Inciarte really a thing? I don't think I'd want to do that deal, objectively speaking. I'm not sure what the marginal wins added are in that deal.
Having said that, here's another piece of awesomeness (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-fascinating-jason-heyward-contract/) about the Heyward deal. It's probably the first time ever that Cameron has even suggested that an opt-out may be a win for the team giving it.
Yeah, supposedly the Cubs have inquired on Inciarte. Inciarte was 5.3 bWAR player, Fangraphs had him as a 3.3. So I mean if you're just using WAR he's inarguably better than what Soler was (0.1). But I feel like we saw the worst version of Jorge and the best version of Inciarte this year. I know there are very realistic reasons for thinking Jorge will never reach his peak, but I'd still rather keep him than trade him for a scrappy center fielder coming off a career year. If they're going to move him I'd prefer it be part of a package for a high end starter.
I think I'd have Apex levels of butthurt if they traded Soler for Inciarte.
Oh good, well that just leaves Eli to tell us all how dumb we are.
I don't really think there's a dumb side to this one. I think it depends what they're after. If they're really trying to maximize this next 2-3 years, Inciarte is a safer bet to provide value because he has a clearly established skill. Soler hasn't really proven he can do anything consistently well in the majors, besides look really good in a baseball uniform. But there's obviously reason to believe in his upside.
It's just a matter of floors and ceilings. Inciarte's a safe bet to be worth 2ish wins, and Jorge could probably range anywhere from 0 to 4 wins. I'm not sure I'd be all that thrilled about giving up Jorge for Inciarte but I can see the appeal, especially if it lets them have an elite defensive outfield at 2/3 spots and help cover for Schwarber's shortcomings out there.
Fair enough. I'm at the point now where I'd rather they wait till July 31st before they make a decision on trading Jorge. See how Heyward and Jorge together is working out (along with how Javy's bat and transition to playing some OF is coming along) before deciding you feel comfortable or not moving Jorge, and see if prices come down on starting pitching by then as well.
I know a shitty first half or another Jorge injury could really hurt his trade value even more, but I'll bet on him being better than last year rather than selling kinda low on him right now.
Even in that case, The Cubs should have plenty left to make a deal without giving up Soler.
I'm pretty sure if anybody calls about Soler, Jed/Theo are listening. But there are worse ways to go into a season than Schwarber/Heyward/Soler as your outfield.
Quote from: Oleg on December 14, 2015, 12:12:04 PM
Even in that case, The Cubs should have plenty left to make a deal without giving up Soler.
The rumor is Soler+ for Inciarte, for whatever that's worth. Picture it from the perspective of a Braves fan -- they'd probably be pissed that they gave up someone who was 33 times more valuable than Soler last year (and the two are only like 14 months apart in age, if you're trying to factor upside/improvement). Especially when Inciarte's primary skill is defense, which is pretty en vogue across MLB at the moment.
Quote from: Eli on December 14, 2015, 12:27:10 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 14, 2015, 12:12:04 PM
Even in that case, The Cubs should have plenty left to make a deal without giving up Soler.
The rumor is Soler+ for Inciarte, for whatever that's worth. Picture it from the perspective of a Braves fan -- they'd probably be pissed that they gave up someone who was 33 times more valuable than Soler last year (and the two are only like 14 months apart in age, if you're trying to factor upside/improvement). Especially when Inciarte's primary skill is defense, which is pretty en vogue across MLB at the moment.
I don't care. I'm just going to hate this rumor to its death.
Quote from: PANK! on December 14, 2015, 12:12:27 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 12:06:23 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 14, 2015, 12:00:55 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 11:52:58 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 14, 2015, 11:48:41 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 11:31:30 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 14, 2015, 11:26:12 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 11:21:57 AM
Does it make me a hypocrite to talk about how valuable Heyward is but not want to trade Soler for Inciarte? I know what WAR says and all but it feels like Inciarte was at the peak of his value in 2015, which is a 3 win player mostly thanks to defense, and I feel like Soler's potential is still greater than that. To me the value lost by playing Heyward in CF (if there really is any, and I'm not convinced there is given how small Wrigley's CF is anyway and how much better Heyward's bat plays there) to keep Soler is less than the value lost by selling low on Jorge.
I dunno. Call me an idiot.
Wait...is trading Soler for Inciarte really a thing? I don't think I'd want to do that deal, objectively speaking. I'm not sure what the marginal wins added are in that deal.
Having said that, here's another piece of awesomeness (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-fascinating-jason-heyward-contract/) about the Heyward deal. It's probably the first time ever that Cameron has even suggested that an opt-out may be a win for the team giving it.
Yeah, supposedly the Cubs have inquired on Inciarte. Inciarte was 5.3 bWAR player, Fangraphs had him as a 3.3. So I mean if you're just using WAR he's inarguably better than what Soler was (0.1). But I feel like we saw the worst version of Jorge and the best version of Inciarte this year. I know there are very realistic reasons for thinking Jorge will never reach his peak, but I'd still rather keep him than trade him for a scrappy center fielder coming off a career year. If they're going to move him I'd prefer it be part of a package for a high end starter.
I think I'd have Apex levels of butthurt if they traded Soler for Inciarte.
Oh good, well that just leaves Eli to tell us all how dumb we are.
I don't really think there's a dumb side to this one. I think it depends what they're after. If they're really trying to maximize this next 2-3 years, Inciarte is a safer bet to provide value because he has a clearly established skill. Soler hasn't really proven he can do anything consistently well in the majors, besides look really good in a baseball uniform. But there's obviously reason to believe in his upside.
It's just a matter of floors and ceilings. Inciarte's a safe bet to be worth 2ish wins, and Jorge could probably range anywhere from 0 to 4 wins. I'm not sure I'd be all that thrilled about giving up Jorge for Inciarte but I can see the appeal, especially if it lets them have an elite defensive outfield at 2/3 spots and help cover for Schwarber's shortcomings out there.
Fair enough. I'm at the point now where I'd rather they wait till July 31st before they make a decision on trading Jorge. See how Heyward and Jorge together is working out (along with how Javy's bat and transition to playing some OF is coming along) before deciding you feel comfortable or not moving Jorge, and see if prices comes down on starting pitching by then as well.
I know a shitty first half or another Jorge injury could really hurt his trade value even more, but I'll bet on him being better than last year rather than selling kinda low on him right now.
I think the whole "9 consecutive trips to the plate resulting in at least 1 base" thing he did in the playoffs last year should serve as a nice little window into his potential. I think the only thing that'll give other teams pause will be Soler's ability to stay healthy. All things considered, his first half last year wasn't even really that "shitty", but in any event I'd be stunned if he doesn't do better next year across the board (again, health aside).
Actually I think Jorge's surprisingly abysmal defense is the main reason people are down on him, followed shortly thereafter by health. I think most people are feeling more positive about his offense. For what it's worth if you include playoffs by my rough math (so probably wrong) Jorge hit .303/.403/.559/.962 with 8 HRs, a 14.7 BB% and a much more manageable K rate of 24.8% from August 1st-On. Even if you exclude the playoffs he had an .800 OPS in August/September.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 14, 2015, 09:45:40 AM
Quote from: D. Doluntap on December 14, 2015, 09:19:35 AM
Get amp'd for the most creative thing since the 2004 NSBB pitching staff shirts:
http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/2015/12/12/9927990/welcome-cubs-jason-heyward-hey-jude-parody
(http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/2015/12/12/9927990/welcome-cubs-jason-heyward-hey-jude-parody)
Only Alvin and his band of idiots could ruin both the Heyward signing and the Beatles.
Intrepid Reader Matt Spiegel:Now that's a kid with some talent.
Quote from: Eli on December 14, 2015, 12:27:10 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 14, 2015, 12:12:04 PM
Even in that case, The Cubs should have plenty left to make a deal without giving up Soler.
The rumor is Soler+ for Inciarte, for whatever that's worth. Picture it from the perspective of a Braves fan -- they'd probably be pissed that they gave up someone who was 33 times more valuable than Soler last year (and the two are only like 14 months apart in age, if you're trying to factor upside/improvement). Especially when Inciarte's primary skill is defense, which is pretty en vogue across MLB at the moment.
But isn't defense a teachable skill? Even Ryan Braun manages to play the outfield without being in constant danger of spiking himself these days.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 14, 2015, 01:46:39 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 14, 2015, 12:27:10 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 14, 2015, 12:12:04 PM
Even in that case, The Cubs should have plenty left to make a deal without giving up Soler.
The rumor is Soler+ for Inciarte, for whatever that's worth. Picture it from the perspective of a Braves fan -- they'd probably be pissed that they gave up someone who was 33 times more valuable than Soler last year (and the two are only like 14 months apart in age, if you're trying to factor upside/improvement). Especially when Inciarte's primary skill is defense, which is pretty en vogue across MLB at the moment.
But isn't defense a teachable skill? Even Ryan Braun manages to play the outfield without being in constant danger of spiking himself these days.
To an extent, but I mean there's a reason there are still bad defensive players. Look at Hanley Ramirez in left field. No amount of coaching is fixing that. I personally don't believe Jorge is as bad as he looked this year, especially since bad defense didn't really seem like one of the knocks on him coming into this year, but it would be overly rosy to think he'll just magically be good. He'd have to stay healthy and hit consistently like he did in the second half to be more valuable than Inciarte, probably. It's up to you to decide how likely you think he is to do that. I personally think he can and will, but I'll admit bias there.
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 01:49:31 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 14, 2015, 01:46:39 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 14, 2015, 12:27:10 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 14, 2015, 12:12:04 PM
Even in that case, The Cubs should have plenty left to make a deal without giving up Soler.
The rumor is Soler+ for Inciarte, for whatever that's worth. Picture it from the perspective of a Braves fan -- they'd probably be pissed that they gave up someone who was 33 times more valuable than Soler last year (and the two are only like 14 months apart in age, if you're trying to factor upside/improvement). Especially when Inciarte's primary skill is defense, which is pretty en vogue across MLB at the moment.
But isn't defense a teachable skill? Even Ryan Braun manages to play the outfield without being in constant danger of spiking himself these days.
To an extent, but I mean there's a reason there are still bad defensive players. Look at Hanley Ramirez in left field. No amount of coaching is fixing that. I personally don't believe Jorge is as bad as he looked this year, especially since bad defense didn't really seem like one of the knocks on him coming into this year, but it would be overly rosy to think he'll just magically be good. He'd have to stay healthy and hit consistently like he did in the second half to be more valuable than Inciarte, probably. It's up to you to decide how likely you think he is to do that. I personally think he can and will, but I'll admit bias there.
If he hits like we think he will, "adequate" will be enough.
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 12:34:16 PM
Actually I think Jorge's surprisingly abysmal defense is the main reason people are down on him, followed shortly thereafter by health. I think most people are feeling more positive about his offense. For what it's worth if you include playoffs by my rough math (so probably wrong) Jorge hit .303/.403/.559/.962 with 8 HRs, a 14.7 BB% and a much more manageable K rate of 24.8% from August 1st-On. Even if you exclude the playoffs he had an .800 OPS in August/September.
So, you're saying he
can't play center field?
I have visions in my mind of Heyward charging across the outfield and making spectacular catches in front of Soler in center-right field, so the defense thing should hopefully not be an issue. The issue I'm really concerned with is Soler's health. But surely he's going to string together a year or two where he stays healthy. I'd be happy with the Cubs standing pat right now and letting things play out.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 14, 2015, 01:55:40 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 01:49:31 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 14, 2015, 01:46:39 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 14, 2015, 12:27:10 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 14, 2015, 12:12:04 PM
Even in that case, The Cubs should have plenty left to make a deal without giving up Soler.
The rumor is Soler+ for Inciarte, for whatever that's worth. Picture it from the perspective of a Braves fan -- they'd probably be pissed that they gave up someone who was 33 times more valuable than Soler last year (and the two are only like 14 months apart in age, if you're trying to factor upside/improvement). Especially when Inciarte's primary skill is defense, which is pretty en vogue across MLB at the moment.
But isn't defense a teachable skill? Even Ryan Braun manages to play the outfield without being in constant danger of spiking himself these days.
To an extent, but I mean there's a reason there are still bad defensive players. Look at Hanley Ramirez in left field. No amount of coaching is fixing that. I personally don't believe Jorge is as bad as he looked this year, especially since bad defense didn't really seem like one of the knocks on him coming into this year, but it would be overly rosy to think he'll just magically be good. He'd have to stay healthy and hit consistently like he did in the second half to be more valuable than Inciarte, probably. It's up to you to decide how likely you think he is to do that. I personally think he can and will, but I'll admit bias there.
If he hits like we think he will, "adequate" will be enough.
Yeah, and we've certainly seen enough of Good Jorge to think that if there comes a year where he's healthy, hits like the top end of his projections, and doesn't spike himself in the dick every time he fields the ball he'll be an absolute monster, but it's asking a lot of a guy who has never done all three of those things for a full season to do them this year. It's understandable if Theo decides he'd rather gamble on Inciarte's 2 WAR floor and 3.5 WAR ceiling vs Jorge's 0.1 floor and 6 WAR ceiling. It'd just make me kinda sad, because I'm a sucker willing to gamble on that Soler ceiling and I think they've got a good enough team around him that they're not screwed if he fails to reach it.
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 02:04:40 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 14, 2015, 01:55:40 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 01:49:31 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 14, 2015, 01:46:39 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 14, 2015, 12:27:10 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 14, 2015, 12:12:04 PM
Even in that case, The Cubs should have plenty left to make a deal without giving up Soler.
The rumor is Soler+ for Inciarte, for whatever that's worth. Picture it from the perspective of a Braves fan -- they'd probably be pissed that they gave up someone who was 33 times more valuable than Soler last year (and the two are only like 14 months apart in age, if you're trying to factor upside/improvement). Especially when Inciarte's primary skill is defense, which is pretty en vogue across MLB at the moment.
But isn't defense a teachable skill? Even Ryan Braun manages to play the outfield without being in constant danger of spiking himself these days.
To an extent, but I mean there's a reason there are still bad defensive players. Look at Hanley Ramirez in left field. No amount of coaching is fixing that. I personally don't believe Jorge is as bad as he looked this year, especially since bad defense didn't really seem like one of the knocks on him coming into this year, but it would be overly rosy to think he'll just magically be good. He'd have to stay healthy and hit consistently like he did in the second half to be more valuable than Inciarte, probably. It's up to you to decide how likely you think he is to do that. I personally think he can and will, but I'll admit bias there.
If he hits like we think he will, "adequate" will be enough.
Yeah, and we've certainly seen enough of Good Jorge to think that if there comes a year where he's healthy, hits like the top end of his projections, and doesn't spike himself in the dick every time he fields the ball he'll be an absolute monster, but it's asking a lot of a guy who has never done all three of those things for a full season to do them this year. It's understandable if Theo decides he'd rather gamble on Inciarte's 2 WAR floor and 3.5 WAR ceiling vs Jorge's 0.1 floor and 6 WAR ceiling. It'd just make me kinda sad, because I'm a sucker willing to gamble on that Soler ceiling and I think they've got a good enough team around him that they're not screwed if he fails to reach it.
Some of his gold chain enabled throws have been pretty sweet, though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOaYE14M5SA
I just can't get enough of reading about this team. (http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/chicago-cubs-jason-heyward-kris-bryant-anthony-rizzo-have-the-makings-of-a-dynasty-121415) Fuck Christmas and New Years. Bring on Smarch already.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 14, 2015, 01:46:39 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 14, 2015, 12:27:10 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 14, 2015, 12:12:04 PM
Even in that case, The Cubs should have plenty left to make a deal without giving up Soler.
The rumor is Soler+ for Inciarte, for whatever that's worth. Picture it from the perspective of a Braves fan -- they'd probably be pissed that they gave up someone who was 33 times more valuable than Soler last year (and the two are only like 14 months apart in age, if you're trying to factor upside/improvement). Especially when Inciarte's primary skill is defense, which is pretty en vogue across MLB at the moment.
But isn't defense a teachable skill? Even Ryan Braun manages to play the outfield without being in constant danger of spiking himself these days.
Well, you cited Braun, who's still pretty terrible out there to the point where he was only worth 2.8 wins despite an .854 OPS and being a plus baserunner (24 steals, only 4 caught). I think he's a perfect example of a guy who is a great athlete but, for whatever reason, just doesn't see it translate to his defense.
But sure, it's possible to coach some guys up a bit. I'd just be more optimistic that someone like Schwarber would benefit from being coaching than Soler, who's been playing outfield for most of his life.
Quote from: Oleg on December 14, 2015, 02:26:34 PM
I just can't get enough of reading about this team. (http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/chicago-cubs-jason-heyward-kris-bryant-anthony-rizzo-have-the-makings-of-a-dynasty-121415) Fuck Christmas and New Years. Bring on Smarch already.
That may have been the most bonerworthy thing I've ever read.
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 02:37:19 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 14, 2015, 02:26:34 PM
I just can't get enough of reading about this team. (http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/chicago-cubs-jason-heyward-kris-bryant-anthony-rizzo-have-the-makings-of-a-dynasty-121415) Fuck Christmas and New Years. Bring on Smarch already.
That may have been the most bonerworthy thing I've ever read.
This never even touched on the guys like Schwarber, Russell or Soler who can also help stack up wins.
This fucking team.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 14, 2015, 02:47:28 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 02:37:19 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 14, 2015, 02:26:34 PM
I just can't get enough of reading about this team. (http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/chicago-cubs-jason-heyward-kris-bryant-anthony-rizzo-have-the-makings-of-a-dynasty-121415) Fuck Christmas and New Years. Bring on Smarch already.
That may have been the most bonerworthy thing I've ever read.
This never even touched on the guys like Schwarber, Russell or Soler who can also help stack up wins.
This fucking team.
It also didn't mention Jake Arrieta and a rotation that led the MLB in FIP last year. I'm getting the vapors.
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 02:49:47 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 14, 2015, 02:47:28 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 02:37:19 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 14, 2015, 02:26:34 PM
I just can't get enough of reading about this team. (http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/chicago-cubs-jason-heyward-kris-bryant-anthony-rizzo-have-the-makings-of-a-dynasty-121415) Fuck Christmas and New Years. Bring on Smarch already.
That may have been the most bonerworthy thing I've ever read.
This never even touched on the guys like Schwarber, Russell or Soler who can also help stack up wins.
This fucking team.
It also didn't mention Jake Arrieta and a rotation that led the MLB in FIP last year. I'm getting the vapors.
My guess without looking is Schwarber's WAR will be limited by his awful defense. Russell has to pick it up big time at the plate but his defensive abilities combined with a successful year batting would propel him.
It's pretty absurd.
Quote from: Slaky on December 15, 2015, 07:57:02 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 02:49:47 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 14, 2015, 02:47:28 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 02:37:19 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 14, 2015, 02:26:34 PM
I just can't get enough of reading about this team. (http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/chicago-cubs-jason-heyward-kris-bryant-anthony-rizzo-have-the-makings-of-a-dynasty-121415) Fuck Christmas and New Years. Bring on Smarch already.
That may have been the most bonerworthy thing I've ever read.
This never even touched on the guys like Schwarber, Russell or Soler who can also help stack up wins.
This fucking team.
It also didn't mention Jake Arrieta and a rotation that led the MLB in FIP last year. I'm getting the vapors.
My guess without looking is Schwarber's WAR will be limited by his awful defense. Russell has to pick it up big time at the plate but his defensive abilities combined with a successful year batting would propel him.
It's pretty absurd.
No way Russell's K rate stays up over 25%, right? Hell, even with him hitting the way he did last year, his glove damn near made him a 3 win player.
Speaking of Ks, how fucking scary will Bryant be once he gets that under control?
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 15, 2015, 08:09:36 AM
Quote from: Slaky on December 15, 2015, 07:57:02 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 02:49:47 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 14, 2015, 02:47:28 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 02:37:19 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 14, 2015, 02:26:34 PM
I just can't get enough of reading about this team. (http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/chicago-cubs-jason-heyward-kris-bryant-anthony-rizzo-have-the-makings-of-a-dynasty-121415) Fuck Christmas and New Years. Bring on Smarch already.
That may have been the most bonerworthy thing I've ever read.
This never even touched on the guys like Schwarber, Russell or Soler who can also help stack up wins.
This fucking team.
It also didn't mention Jake Arrieta and a rotation that led the MLB in FIP last year. I'm getting the vapors.
My guess without looking is Schwarber's WAR will be limited by his awful defense. Russell has to pick it up big time at the plate but his defensive abilities combined with a successful year batting would propel him.
It's pretty absurd.
No way Russell's K rate stays up over 25%, right? Hell, even with him hitting the way he did last year, his glove damn near made him a 3 win player.
Speaking of Ks, how fucking scary will Bryant be once he gets that under control?
I don't know if Bryant will, though. I mean some marginal improvements, potentially, but he's a three true outcomes guy, that's just a fact. Last year it was almost bizarre how consistently his K rate stayed at around 31% while he was going through both his best and worst times. He's going to K in about a third of his ABs, and he's going to do a lot of really good stuff elsewhere. I would expect this year we might see a slight drop in his batting average as his BABIP was kinda high (although consistent with what he did in the minors), but I do think we'll see even more dongs. A truly Glaus-ian performance of .260/.370/.500 with 30+ dongs is what I'm expecting.
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 02:37:19 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 14, 2015, 02:26:34 PM
I just can't get enough of reading about this team. (http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/chicago-cubs-jason-heyward-kris-bryant-anthony-rizzo-have-the-makings-of-a-dynasty-121415) Fuck Christmas and New Years. Bring on Smarch already.
That may have been the most bonerworthy thing I've ever read.
Well, here's something (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-badly-do-the-cubs-need-a-starting-pitcher/) to allay your optimism.
Quote from: Slaky on December 15, 2015, 07:57:02 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 02:49:47 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 14, 2015, 02:47:28 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 02:37:19 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 14, 2015, 02:26:34 PM
I just can't get enough of reading about this team. (http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/chicago-cubs-jason-heyward-kris-bryant-anthony-rizzo-have-the-makings-of-a-dynasty-121415) Fuck Christmas and New Years. Bring on Smarch already.
That may have been the most bonerworthy thing I've ever read.
This never even touched on the guys like Schwarber, Russell or Soler who can also help stack up wins.
This fucking team.
It also didn't mention Jake Arrieta and a rotation that led the MLB in FIP last year. I'm getting the vapors.
My guess without looking is Schwarber's WAR will be limited by his awful defense. Russell has to pick it up big time at the plate but his defensive abilities combined with a successful year batting would propel him.
It's pretty absurd.
Even with his defense, Steamer has him as a 2.5 win player in 500 PAs next year.
Steamer has Russell as a 2-win player next year in the same 500 PAs.
I'd guess that since they have limited MLB time and the expectation of getting more PAs than that, they'll be more valuable. ZIPS and PECOTA to follow later.
Bottom line, this team should be absurdly good if they stay relatively healthy.
Quote from: Oleg on December 15, 2015, 08:57:42 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 02:37:19 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 14, 2015, 02:26:34 PM
I just can't get enough of reading about this team. (http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/chicago-cubs-jason-heyward-kris-bryant-anthony-rizzo-have-the-makings-of-a-dynasty-121415) Fuck Christmas and New Years. Bring on Smarch already.
That may have been the most bonerworthy thing I've ever read.
Well, here's something (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-badly-do-the-cubs-need-a-starting-pitcher/) to allay your optimism.
I didn't think that article was pessimistic at all? Just said the Cubs probably don't need a top of the rotation starter as badly as many fans seem to think, but that they've been smart about increasing their overall starting pitching depth to protect against a collapse like Hammel had in the second half. If your talking solely about them possibly being proactive about preparing for an Arrieta injury, that doesn't bother me. It would be dumb not to have some kinda failsafe in case the innings count last year took a real toll on him. It doesn't mean he is injured by any stretch. I'm just glad the front office is smart enough to not let this thing go tits up like the '04 Cubs if Arrieta or Lester miss time.
Quote from: Oleg on December 15, 2015, 09:01:13 AM
Quote from: Slaky on December 15, 2015, 07:57:02 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 02:49:47 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 14, 2015, 02:47:28 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 02:37:19 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 14, 2015, 02:26:34 PM
I just can't get enough of reading about this team. (http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/chicago-cubs-jason-heyward-kris-bryant-anthony-rizzo-have-the-makings-of-a-dynasty-121415) Fuck Christmas and New Years. Bring on Smarch already.
That may have been the most bonerworthy thing I've ever read.
This never even touched on the guys like Schwarber, Russell or Soler who can also help stack up wins.
This fucking team.
It also didn't mention Jake Arrieta and a rotation that led the MLB in FIP last year. I'm getting the vapors.
My guess without looking is Schwarber's WAR will be limited by his awful defense. Russell has to pick it up big time at the plate but his defensive abilities combined with a successful year batting would propel him.
It's pretty absurd.
Even with his defense, Steamer has him as a 2.5 win player in 500 PAs next year.
Steamer has Russell as a 2-win player next year in the same 500 PAs.
I'd guess that since they have limited MLB time and the expectation of getting more PAs than that, they'll be more valuable. ZIPS and PECOTA to follow later.
Bottom line, this team should be absurdly good if they stay relatively healthy.
This is so much more fun than the last time I thought the Cubs would be absurdly good. It's great not having to rely on LaTroy Hawkins and Tom Goodwin additions pushing the Cubs over the top.
Quote from: SKO on December 15, 2015, 09:01:50 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 15, 2015, 08:57:42 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 14, 2015, 02:37:19 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 14, 2015, 02:26:34 PM
I just can't get enough of reading about this team. (http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/chicago-cubs-jason-heyward-kris-bryant-anthony-rizzo-have-the-makings-of-a-dynasty-121415) Fuck Christmas and New Years. Bring on Smarch already.
That may have been the most bonerworthy thing I've ever read.
Well, here's something (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-badly-do-the-cubs-need-a-starting-pitcher/) to allay your optimism.
I didn't think that article was pessimistic at all? Just said the Cubs probably don't need a top of the rotation starter as badly as many fans seem to think, but that they've been smart about increasing their overall starting pitching depth to protect against a collapse like Hammel had in the second half. If your talking solely about them possibly being proactive about preparing for an Arrieta injury, that doesn't bother me. It would be dumb not to have some kinda failsafe in case the innings count last year took a real toll on him. It doesn't mean he is injured by any stretch. I'm just glad the front office is smart enough to not let this thing go tits up like the '04 Cubs if Arrieta or Lester miss time.
Just the thought of Arrieta getting hurt is making my shit smell like Busch Stadium. I'm glad you're seeing the positive. I guess I always thought it was a possibility since his innings did go up by a large amount but I didn't really want to think about it till I read that article.
I guess once they get Ross or Carrasco, I'll calm down about it.
Yawn. (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-cubs-as-the-best-team-in-baseball/)
Quote from: Oleg on December 16, 2015, 10:27:48 AM
Yawn. (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-cubs-as-the-best-team-in-baseball/)
If I believed in jinxes at all now would be about the time I'd tell Jeff Sullivan to knock it the fuck off.
Quote from: SKO on December 16, 2015, 10:30:29 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 16, 2015, 10:27:48 AM
Yawn. (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-cubs-as-the-best-team-in-baseball/)
If I believed in jinxes at all now would be about the time I'd tell Jeff Sullivan to knock it the fuck off.
At least he added some downside at the end.
Quote from: SKO on December 16, 2015, 10:30:29 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 16, 2015, 10:27:48 AM
Yawn. (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-cubs-as-the-best-team-in-baseball/)
If I believed in jinxes at all now would be about the time I'd tell Jeff Sullivan to knock it the fuck off.
But really I enjoy laughing at the butthurt in the comments, broadly summarized:
1) We Get It, You Want to Work for the Cubs
2) Team X once spent a lot of money and sucked, so therefore the Cubs will suck (be sure to ignore that Team X was coming off a 70 win season and not a 97 win season)
3) Mets beat em in the playoffs soo
4) 1908.
Quote from: SKO on December 16, 2015, 10:36:04 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 16, 2015, 10:30:29 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 16, 2015, 10:27:48 AM
Yawn. (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-cubs-as-the-best-team-in-baseball/)
If I believed in jinxes at all now would be about the time I'd tell Jeff Sullivan to knock it the fuck off.
But really I enjoy laughing at the butthurt in the comments, broadly summarized:
1) We Get It, You Want to Work for the Cubs
2) Team X once spent a lot of money and sucked, so therefore the Cubs will suck (be sure to ignore that Team X was coming off a 70 win season and not a 97 win season)
3) Mets beat em in the playoffs soo
4) 1908.
To be fair, the Cubs' history is pretty much a study in Murphy's Law, so talk of jinxes and shit like that are not completely without validity.
That being said, we're looking at the core of guys who are going to, and winning, the World Series. Let all the STATFAGs analyze it all they want.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 16, 2015, 10:40:20 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 16, 2015, 10:36:04 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 16, 2015, 10:30:29 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 16, 2015, 10:27:48 AM
Yawn. (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-cubs-as-the-best-team-in-baseball/)
If I believed in jinxes at all now would be about the time I'd tell Jeff Sullivan to knock it the fuck off.
But really I enjoy laughing at the butthurt in the comments, broadly summarized:
1) We Get It, You Want to Work for the Cubs
2) Team X once spent a lot of money and sucked, so therefore the Cubs will suck (be sure to ignore that Team X was coming off a 70 win season and not a 97 win season)
3) Mets beat em in the playoffs soo
4) 1908.
To be fair, the Cubs' history is pretty much a study in Murphy's Law, so talk of jinxes and shit like that are not completely without validity.
That being said, we're looking at the core of guys who are going to, and winning, the World Series. Let all the STATFAGs analyze it all they want.
Actually, talk of "jinxes" is exactly without validity since "jinxes" don't really exist.
Quote from: Oleg on December 16, 2015, 10:42:48 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 16, 2015, 10:40:20 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 16, 2015, 10:36:04 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 16, 2015, 10:30:29 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 16, 2015, 10:27:48 AM
Yawn. (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-cubs-as-the-best-team-in-baseball/)
If I believed in jinxes at all now would be about the time I'd tell Jeff Sullivan to knock it the fuck off.
But really I enjoy laughing at the butthurt in the comments, broadly summarized:
1) We Get It, You Want to Work for the Cubs
2) Team X once spent a lot of money and sucked, so therefore the Cubs will suck (be sure to ignore that Team X was coming off a 70 win season and not a 97 win season)
3) Mets beat em in the playoffs soo
4) 1908.
To be fair, the Cubs' history is pretty much a study in Murphy's Law, so talk of jinxes and shit like that are not completely without validity.
That being said, we're looking at the core of guys who are going to, and winning, the World Series. Let all the STATFAGs analyze it all they want.
Actually, talk of "jinxes" is exactly without validity since "jinxes" don't really exist.
I mean I don't begrudge anyone who is a Cubs fan for having a sinking feeling of wondering how this all might go wrong, I get it. Just don't go making an actual argument on the internet that your bad feelings mean something compared to actual data.
Quote from: Oleg on December 16, 2015, 10:34:43 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 16, 2015, 10:30:29 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 16, 2015, 10:27:48 AM
Yawn. (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-cubs-as-the-best-team-in-baseball/)
If I believed in jinxes at all now would be about the time I'd tell Jeff Sullivan to knock it the fuck off.
At least he added some downside at the end.
The thing that scares me the most is an Arrieta regression after pitching so many innings last year. Assuming they keep Baez and Soler (a big if), I think they've got enough depth to absorb injuries/poor performance at just about any position and still be good enough to make the playoffs, while maybe not living up to the 118 win projection I just made up in my head.
Quote from: SKO on December 16, 2015, 10:47:58 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 16, 2015, 10:42:48 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 16, 2015, 10:40:20 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 16, 2015, 10:36:04 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 16, 2015, 10:30:29 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 16, 2015, 10:27:48 AM
Yawn. (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-cubs-as-the-best-team-in-baseball/)
If I believed in jinxes at all now would be about the time I'd tell Jeff Sullivan to knock it the fuck off.
But really I enjoy laughing at the butthurt in the comments, broadly summarized:
1) We Get It, You Want to Work for the Cubs
2) Team X once spent a lot of money and sucked, so therefore the Cubs will suck (be sure to ignore that Team X was coming off a 70 win season and not a 97 win season)
3) Mets beat em in the playoffs soo
4) 1908.
To be fair, the Cubs' history is pretty much a study in Murphy's Law, so talk of jinxes and shit like that are not completely without validity.
That being said, we're looking at the core of guys who are going to, and winning, the World Series. Let all the STATFAGs analyze it all they want.
Actually, talk of "jinxes" is exactly without validity since "jinxes" don't really exist.
I mean I don't begrudge anyone who is a Cubs fan for having a sinking feeling of wondering how this all might go wrong, I get it. Just don't go making an actual argument on the internet that your bad feelings mean something compared to actual data.
And let's be honest: how much of the Cubs' failures over the past 50 years have been down to "bad luck" vs. "just not actually having teams built strong enough to have winning records over multiple years?"
Quote from: Oleg on December 16, 2015, 10:34:43 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 16, 2015, 10:30:29 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 16, 2015, 10:27:48 AM
Yawn. (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-cubs-as-the-best-team-in-baseball/)
If I believed in jinxes at all now would be about the time I'd tell Jeff Sullivan to knock it the fuck off.
At least he added some downside at the end.
He wasn't really trying very hard. Like this:
QuoteArrieta’s fantastic, but there were some yellow flags down the stretch, so he might not rebound well from the workload.
Nothing's a bigger warning flag than having the best second half by a pitcher of all time. (Maybe he means the playoffs? Or maybe he agrees with me that completing an unnecessary shutout against the Brewers in September having already thrown well over 100 pitches maybe wasn't the best use of resources?)
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 16, 2015, 11:03:50 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 16, 2015, 10:34:43 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 16, 2015, 10:30:29 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 16, 2015, 10:27:48 AM
Yawn. (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-cubs-as-the-best-team-in-baseball/)
If I believed in jinxes at all now would be about the time I'd tell Jeff Sullivan to knock it the fuck off.
At least he added some downside at the end.
He wasn't really trying very hard. Like this:
QuoteArrieta's fantastic, but there were some yellow flags down the stretch, so he might not rebound well from the workload.
Nothing's a bigger warning flag than having the best second half by a pitcher of all time. (Maybe he means the playoffs? Or maybe he agrees with me that completing an unnecessary shutout against the Brewers in September having already thrown well over 100 pitches maybe wasn't the best use of resources?)
He means the playoffs. Fastball velocity was down in those last few starts, command was weird. I think he's reaching (he admitted as much), especially because I don't think anyone actually expects Arrieta to repeat last season.
Quote from: Eli on December 16, 2015, 11:12:16 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 16, 2015, 11:03:50 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 16, 2015, 10:34:43 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 16, 2015, 10:30:29 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 16, 2015, 10:27:48 AM
Yawn. (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-cubs-as-the-best-team-in-baseball/)
If I believed in jinxes at all now would be about the time I'd tell Jeff Sullivan to knock it the fuck off.
At least he added some downside at the end.
He wasn't really trying very hard. Like this:
QuoteArrieta's fantastic, but there were some yellow flags down the stretch, so he might not rebound well from the workload.
Nothing's a bigger warning flag than having the best second half by a pitcher of all time. (Maybe he means the playoffs? Or maybe he agrees with me that completing an unnecessary shutout against the Brewers in September having already thrown well over 100 pitches maybe wasn't the best use of resources?)
He means the playoffs. Fastball velocity was down in those last few starts, command was weird. I think he's reaching (he admitted as much), especially because I don't think anyone actually expects Arrieta to repeat last season.
If Arrieta repeats last season, I will have to assume he is a literal angel, sent from heaven.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 16, 2015, 11:03:50 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 16, 2015, 10:34:43 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 16, 2015, 10:30:29 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 16, 2015, 10:27:48 AM
Yawn. (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-cubs-as-the-best-team-in-baseball/)
If I believed in jinxes at all now would be about the time I'd tell Jeff Sullivan to knock it the fuck off.
At least he added some downside at the end.
He wasn't really trying very hard. Like this:
QuoteArrieta's fantastic, but there were some yellow flags down the stretch, so he might not rebound well from the workload.
Nothing's a bigger warning flag than having the best second half by a pitcher of all time. (Maybe he means the playoffs? Or maybe he agrees with me that completing an unnecessary shutout against the Brewers in September having already thrown well over 100 pitches maybe wasn't the best use of resources?)
Ditto the wild card game. Strop and Rondon could have nailed it shut. But even if Jake had been pulled in both those games and was his usual Hammer of God self in the NLCS, it would have meant the Mets win in 5 instead of 4.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 16, 2015, 11:27:44 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 16, 2015, 11:03:50 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 16, 2015, 10:34:43 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 16, 2015, 10:30:29 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 16, 2015, 10:27:48 AM
Yawn. (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-cubs-as-the-best-team-in-baseball/)
If I believed in jinxes at all now would be about the time I'd tell Jeff Sullivan to knock it the fuck off.
At least he added some downside at the end.
He wasn't really trying very hard. Like this:
QuoteArrieta's fantastic, but there were some yellow flags down the stretch, so he might not rebound well from the workload.
Nothing's a bigger warning flag than having the best second half by a pitcher of all time. (Maybe he means the playoffs? Or maybe he agrees with me that completing an unnecessary shutout against the Brewers in September having already thrown well over 100 pitches maybe wasn't the best use of resources?)
Ditto the wild card game. Strop and Rondon could have nailed it shut. But even if Jake had been pulled in both those games and was his usual Hammer of God self in the NLCS, it would have meant the Mets win in 5 instead of 4.
I definitely think we'll see Jake leave some games after 6 or 7 tops that he probably would have gone 8 or 9 in last year. Think that's why the Cubs really boosted the middle relief/bullpen Hydra with Warren and brought back Cahill and Co. They're going to want to rest Jake when they can.
Quote from: Bort on December 16, 2015, 11:03:00 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 16, 2015, 10:47:58 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 16, 2015, 10:42:48 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 16, 2015, 10:40:20 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 16, 2015, 10:36:04 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 16, 2015, 10:30:29 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 16, 2015, 10:27:48 AM
Yawn. (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-cubs-as-the-best-team-in-baseball/)
If I believed in jinxes at all now would be about the time I'd tell Jeff Sullivan to knock it the fuck off.
But really I enjoy laughing at the butthurt in the comments, broadly summarized:
1) We Get It, You Want to Work for the Cubs
2) Team X once spent a lot of money and sucked, so therefore the Cubs will suck (be sure to ignore that Team X was coming off a 70 win season and not a 97 win season)
3) Mets beat em in the playoffs soo
4) 1908.
To be fair, the Cubs' history is pretty much a study in Murphy's Law, so talk of jinxes and shit like that are not completely without validity.
That being said, we're looking at the core of guys who are going to, and winning, the World Series. Let all the STATFAGs analyze it all they want.
Actually, talk of "jinxes" is exactly without validity since "jinxes" don't really exist.
I mean I don't begrudge anyone who is a Cubs fan for having a sinking feeling of wondering how this all might go wrong, I get it. Just don't go making an actual argument on the internet that your bad feelings mean something compared to actual data.
And let's be honest: how much of the Cubs' failures over the past 50 years have been down to "bad luck" vs. "just not actually having teams built strong enough to have winning records over multiple years?"
I'd take it a step further and say that most of the problems that have befallen the Cubs have been bad management. They were cursed for the better part of half a century with a totally useless owner who crippled his team's chances on a regular basis by hiring the wrong guys to run it. Probably the best two moves the Cubs have ever made were in acquiring Dallas Green and Theo Epstein, and Green was sent packing - and saw dismantled by lesser men much of what he'd tried to build - right as the organization threatened to turn a corner. Up until Theo, the last real reliable hitters developed by the Cubs were guys who were drafted by Green (except for a few sporadic players like Geo Soto, who proved to be more flashes in the pan than anything else). That's a ridiculous stretch of time.
Quote from: Canadouche on December 16, 2015, 12:59:57 PM
Quote from: Bort on December 16, 2015, 11:03:00 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 16, 2015, 10:47:58 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 16, 2015, 10:42:48 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 16, 2015, 10:40:20 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 16, 2015, 10:36:04 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 16, 2015, 10:30:29 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 16, 2015, 10:27:48 AM
Yawn. (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-cubs-as-the-best-team-in-baseball/)
If I believed in jinxes at all now would be about the time I'd tell Jeff Sullivan to knock it the fuck off.
But really I enjoy laughing at the butthurt in the comments, broadly summarized:
1) We Get It, You Want to Work for the Cubs
2) Team X once spent a lot of money and sucked, so therefore the Cubs will suck (be sure to ignore that Team X was coming off a 70 win season and not a 97 win season)
3) Mets beat em in the playoffs soo
4) 1908.
To be fair, the Cubs' history is pretty much a study in Murphy's Law, so talk of jinxes and shit like that are not completely without validity.
That being said, we're looking at the core of guys who are going to, and winning, the World Series. Let all the STATFAGs analyze it all they want.
Actually, talk of "jinxes" is exactly without validity since "jinxes" don't really exist.
I mean I don't begrudge anyone who is a Cubs fan for having a sinking feeling of wondering how this all might go wrong, I get it. Just don't go making an actual argument on the internet that your bad feelings mean something compared to actual data.
And let's be honest: how much of the Cubs' failures over the past 50 years have been down to "bad luck" vs. "just not actually having teams built strong enough to have winning records over multiple years?"
I'd take it a step further and say that most of the problems that have befallen the Cubs have been bad management. They were cursed for the better part of half a century with a totally useless owner who crippled his team's chances on a regular basis by hiring the wrong guys to run it. Probably the best two moves the Cubs have ever made were in acquiring Dallas Green and Theo Epstein, and Green was sent packing - and saw dismantled by lesser men much of what he'd tried to build - right as the organization threatened to turn a corner. Up until Theo, the last real reliable hitters developed by the Cubs were guys who were drafted by Green (except for a few sporadic players like Geo Soto, who proved to be more flashes in the pan than anything else). That's a ridiculous stretch of time.
Whatever the reasons--and they're all traceable to evidence-based explanations-- it's been a historical anomaly, one which I expect to normalize by 5 straight CHAMMENSHIPS (only other team w/even 4 straight being the '36-'39 NYY and '49-'53 NYY).
Quote from: PANK! on December 16, 2015, 01:06:54 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on December 16, 2015, 12:59:57 PM
Quote from: Bort on December 16, 2015, 11:03:00 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 16, 2015, 10:47:58 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 16, 2015, 10:42:48 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 16, 2015, 10:40:20 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 16, 2015, 10:36:04 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 16, 2015, 10:30:29 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 16, 2015, 10:27:48 AM
Yawn. (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-cubs-as-the-best-team-in-baseball/)
If I believed in jinxes at all now would be about the time I'd tell Jeff Sullivan to knock it the fuck off.
But really I enjoy laughing at the butthurt in the comments, broadly summarized:
1) We Get It, You Want to Work for the Cubs
2) Team X once spent a lot of money and sucked, so therefore the Cubs will suck (be sure to ignore that Team X was coming off a 70 win season and not a 97 win season)
3) Mets beat em in the playoffs soo
4) 1908.
To be fair, the Cubs' history is pretty much a study in Murphy's Law, so talk of jinxes and shit like that are not completely without validity.
That being said, we're looking at the core of guys who are going to, and winning, the World Series. Let all the STATFAGs analyze it all they want.
Actually, talk of "jinxes" is exactly without validity since "jinxes" don't really exist.
I mean I don't begrudge anyone who is a Cubs fan for having a sinking feeling of wondering how this all might go wrong, I get it. Just don't go making an actual argument on the internet that your bad feelings mean something compared to actual data.
And let's be honest: how much of the Cubs' failures over the past 50 years have been down to "bad luck" vs. "just not actually having teams built strong enough to have winning records over multiple years?"
I'd take it a step further and say that most of the problems that have befallen the Cubs have been bad management. They were cursed for the better part of half a century with a totally useless owner who crippled his team's chances on a regular basis by hiring the wrong guys to run it. Probably the best two moves the Cubs have ever made were in acquiring Dallas Green and Theo Epstein, and Green was sent packing - and saw dismantled by lesser men much of what he'd tried to build - right as the organization threatened to turn a corner. Up until Theo, the last real reliable hitters developed by the Cubs were guys who were drafted by Green (except for a few sporadic players like Geo Soto, who proved to be more flashes in the pan than anything else). That's a ridiculous stretch of time.
Whatever the reasons--and they're all traceable to evidence-based explanations-- it's been a historical anomaly, one which I expect to normalize by 5 straight CHAMMENSHIPS (only other team w/even 4 straight being the '36-'39 NYY and '49-'53 NYY).
Basically the main reason to be excited is that Theo and Jed appear to have built a team that's deep as well as laden with top talent. Obviously major, season-ending injuries to multiple guys would kill the Cubs as much as anyone, but they've insured themselves pretty well. Given the versatility of guys like Baez and Zobrist and Bryant and Heyward they should be able to fill holes all over the field if one guy goes down for a couple of weeks. They've made sure they have at least 6-7 quality starting pitching options. The bullpen is deep. The farm system is still probably top ten and they can fill holes through promotion or have the ammo to make deadline deals if something comes up. They have the best manager in the game. They've tried to cut off every possible trouble spot before it happens. It's comforting.
Quote from: SKO on December 16, 2015, 01:11:20 PM
Quote from: PANK! on December 16, 2015, 01:06:54 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on December 16, 2015, 12:59:57 PM
Quote from: Bort on December 16, 2015, 11:03:00 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 16, 2015, 10:47:58 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 16, 2015, 10:42:48 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 16, 2015, 10:40:20 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 16, 2015, 10:36:04 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 16, 2015, 10:30:29 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 16, 2015, 10:27:48 AM
Yawn. (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-cubs-as-the-best-team-in-baseball/)
If I believed in jinxes at all now would be about the time I'd tell Jeff Sullivan to knock it the fuck off.
But really I enjoy laughing at the butthurt in the comments, broadly summarized:
1) We Get It, You Want to Work for the Cubs
2) Team X once spent a lot of money and sucked, so therefore the Cubs will suck (be sure to ignore that Team X was coming off a 70 win season and not a 97 win season)
3) Mets beat em in the playoffs soo
4) 1908.
To be fair, the Cubs' history is pretty much a study in Murphy's Law, so talk of jinxes and shit like that are not completely without validity.
That being said, we're looking at the core of guys who are going to, and winning, the World Series. Let all the STATFAGs analyze it all they want.
Actually, talk of "jinxes" is exactly without validity since "jinxes" don't really exist.
I mean I don't begrudge anyone who is a Cubs fan for having a sinking feeling of wondering how this all might go wrong, I get it. Just don't go making an actual argument on the internet that your bad feelings mean something compared to actual data.
And let's be honest: how much of the Cubs' failures over the past 50 years have been down to "bad luck" vs. "just not actually having teams built strong enough to have winning records over multiple years?"
I'd take it a step further and say that most of the problems that have befallen the Cubs have been bad management. They were cursed for the better part of half a century with a totally useless owner who crippled his team's chances on a regular basis by hiring the wrong guys to run it. Probably the best two moves the Cubs have ever made were in acquiring Dallas Green and Theo Epstein, and Green was sent packing - and saw dismantled by lesser men much of what he'd tried to build - right as the organization threatened to turn a corner. Up until Theo, the last real reliable hitters developed by the Cubs were guys who were drafted by Green (except for a few sporadic players like Geo Soto, who proved to be more flashes in the pan than anything else). That's a ridiculous stretch of time.
Whatever the reasons--and they're all traceable to evidence-based explanations-- it's been a historical anomaly, one which I expect to normalize by 5 straight CHAMMENSHIPS (only other team w/even 4 straight being the '36-'39 NYY and '49-'53 NYY).
Basically the main reason to be excited is that Theo and Jed appear to have built a team that's deep as well as laden with top talent. Obviously major, season-ending injuries to multiple guys would kill the Cubs as much as anyone, but they've insured themselves pretty well. Given the versatility of guys like Baez and Zobrist and Bryant and Heyward they should be able to fill holes all over the field if one guy goes down for a couple of weeks. They've made sure they have at least 6-7 quality starting pitching options. The bullpen is deep. The farm system is still probably top ten and they can fill holes through promotion or have the ammo to make deadline deals if something comes up. They have the best manager in the game. They've tried to cut off every possible trouble spot before it happens. It's comforting.
What's blown me away is that they improved upon a 97-win team without having to move a single prospect out of their farm system.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 16, 2015, 01:57:43 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 16, 2015, 01:11:20 PM
Quote from: PANK! on December 16, 2015, 01:06:54 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on December 16, 2015, 12:59:57 PM
Quote from: Bort on December 16, 2015, 11:03:00 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 16, 2015, 10:47:58 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 16, 2015, 10:42:48 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 16, 2015, 10:40:20 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 16, 2015, 10:36:04 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 16, 2015, 10:30:29 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 16, 2015, 10:27:48 AM
Yawn. (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-cubs-as-the-best-team-in-baseball/)
If I believed in jinxes at all now would be about the time I'd tell Jeff Sullivan to knock it the fuck off.
But really I enjoy laughing at the butthurt in the comments, broadly summarized:
1) We Get It, You Want to Work for the Cubs
2) Team X once spent a lot of money and sucked, so therefore the Cubs will suck (be sure to ignore that Team X was coming off a 70 win season and not a 97 win season)
3) Mets beat em in the playoffs soo
4) 1908.
To be fair, the Cubs' history is pretty much a study in Murphy's Law, so talk of jinxes and shit like that are not completely without validity.
That being said, we're looking at the core of guys who are going to, and winning, the World Series. Let all the STATFAGs analyze it all they want.
Actually, talk of "jinxes" is exactly without validity since "jinxes" don't really exist.
I mean I don't begrudge anyone who is a Cubs fan for having a sinking feeling of wondering how this all might go wrong, I get it. Just don't go making an actual argument on the internet that your bad feelings mean something compared to actual data.
And let's be honest: how much of the Cubs' failures over the past 50 years have been down to "bad luck" vs. "just not actually having teams built strong enough to have winning records over multiple years?"
I'd take it a step further and say that most of the problems that have befallen the Cubs have been bad management. They were cursed for the better part of half a century with a totally useless owner who crippled his team's chances on a regular basis by hiring the wrong guys to run it. Probably the best two moves the Cubs have ever made were in acquiring Dallas Green and Theo Epstein, and Green was sent packing - and saw dismantled by lesser men much of what he'd tried to build - right as the organization threatened to turn a corner. Up until Theo, the last real reliable hitters developed by the Cubs were guys who were drafted by Green (except for a few sporadic players like Geo Soto, who proved to be more flashes in the pan than anything else). That's a ridiculous stretch of time.
Whatever the reasons--and they're all traceable to evidence-based explanations-- it's been a historical anomaly, one which I expect to normalize by 5 straight CHAMMENSHIPS (only other team w/even 4 straight being the '36-'39 NYY and '49-'53 NYY).
Basically the main reason to be excited is that Theo and Jed appear to have built a team that's deep as well as laden with top talent. Obviously major, season-ending injuries to multiple guys would kill the Cubs as much as anyone, but they've insured themselves pretty well. Given the versatility of guys like Baez and Zobrist and Bryant and Heyward they should be able to fill holes all over the field if one guy goes down for a couple of weeks. They've made sure they have at least 6-7 quality starting pitching options. The bullpen is deep. The farm system is still probably top ten and they can fill holes through promotion or have the ammo to make deadline deals if something comes up. They have the best manager in the game. They've tried to cut off every possible trouble spot before it happens. It's comforting.
What's blown me away is that they improved upon a 97-win team without having to move a single prospect out of their farm system.
Hell they traded Starlin Castro and we forgot about it in like a day.
Interesting nugget (http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-cubs-leadership-ensures-a-merry-christmas-in-wrigleyville/) from Peter Gammons that I hadn't heard on the guy SKO hates. This also makes it sound like a starting pitcher deal might not happen until midseason.
QuoteHoyer and Epstein tried to get one young, controllable starter to fit in behind Lester, Jake Arrieta and Lackey with Kyle Hendricks and Jason Hammel. They were in the Shelby Miller sweepstakes, but the Braves insisted on both Soler and Willson Contreras, but Chicago would not include Contreras, who may well end up catching in the big leagues as the season progresses.
Tampa wanted Baez, but the Cubs still have concerns about the medicals on Drew Smyly and Alex Cobb, coming off injury. They tried to get involved with Carlos Carrasco or Danny Salazar with the Indians, but the price is high. It may be that come Memorial Day, the Cubs are settled enough and the Indians have started slowly enough that some sort of deal could be worked around one of the Indians starters and a Baez/Soler package. But the Indians know that if they have their current rotation and things break right, they can be serious contenders in the American League Central, and be serious contenders built on starting pitching. So why move one of the Big Four before seeing where Michael Brantley is come April?
Quote from: R-V on December 16, 2015, 03:34:36 PM
Interesting nugget (http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-cubs-leadership-ensures-a-merry-christmas-in-wrigleyville/) from Peter Gammons that I hadn't heard on the guy SKO hates. This also makes it sound like a starting pitcher deal might not happen until midseason.
QuoteHoyer and Epstein tried to get one young, controllable starter to fit in behind Lester, Jake Arrieta and Lackey with Kyle Hendricks and Jason Hammel. They were in the Shelby Miller sweepstakes, but the Braves insisted on both Soler and Willson Contreras, but Chicago would not include Contreras, who may well end up catching in the big leagues as the season progresses.
Tampa wanted Baez, but the Cubs still have concerns about the medicals on Drew Smyly and Alex Cobb, coming off injury. They tried to get involved with Carlos Carrasco or Danny Salazar with the Indians, but the price is high. It may be that come Memorial Day, the Cubs are settled enough and the Indians have started slowly enough that some sort of deal could be worked around one of the Indians starters and a Baez/Soler package. But the Indians know that if they have their current rotation and things break right, they can be serious contenders in the American League Central, and be serious contenders built on starting pitching. So why move one of the Big Four before seeing where Michael Brantley is come April?
Do I hate Contreras now? Works for me. Can't have him forcing his way into the big league rotation and taking starts away from my beloved David Ross
Quote from: R-V on December 16, 2015, 03:34:36 PM
Interesting nugget (http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-cubs-leadership-ensures-a-merry-christmas-in-wrigleyville/) from Peter Gammons that I hadn't heard on the guy SKO hates. This also makes it sound like a starting pitcher deal might not happen until midseason.
QuoteHoyer and Epstein tried to get one young, controllable starter to fit in behind Lester, Jake Arrieta and Lackey with Kyle Hendricks and Jason Hammel. They were in the Shelby Miller sweepstakes, but the Braves insisted on both Soler and Willson Contreras, but Chicago would not include Contreras, who may well end up catching in the big leagues as the season progresses.
Tampa wanted Baez, but the Cubs still have concerns about the medicals on Drew Smyly and Alex Cobb, coming off injury. They tried to get involved with Carlos Carrasco or Danny Salazar with the Indians, but the price is high. It may be that come Memorial Day, the Cubs are settled enough and the Indians have started slowly enough that some sort of deal could be worked around one of the Indians starters and a Baez/Soler package. But the Indians know that if they have their current rotation and things break right, they can be serious contenders in the American League Central, and be serious contenders built on starting pitching. So why move one of the Big Four before seeing where Michael Brantley is come April?
Considering what the Braves got for Miller, neither Soler & Contreras for Miller or Baez & Soler for Corrasco are outside the realm of possibility.
But if I were Theo, I'll be goddamned if my trigger finger wouldn't be really fucking itchy on the Corrasco deal if that's what Cleveland wanted.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 16, 2015, 04:38:18 PM
Quote from: R-V on December 16, 2015, 03:34:36 PM
Interesting nugget (http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-cubs-leadership-ensures-a-merry-christmas-in-wrigleyville/) from Peter Gammons that I hadn't heard on the guy SKO hates. This also makes it sound like a starting pitcher deal might not happen until midseason.
QuoteHoyer and Epstein tried to get one young, controllable starter to fit in behind Lester, Jake Arrieta and Lackey with Kyle Hendricks and Jason Hammel. They were in the Shelby Miller sweepstakes, but the Braves insisted on both Soler and Willson Contreras, but Chicago would not include Contreras, who may well end up catching in the big leagues as the season progresses.
Tampa wanted Baez, but the Cubs still have concerns about the medicals on Drew Smyly and Alex Cobb, coming off injury. They tried to get involved with Carlos Carrasco or Danny Salazar with the Indians, but the price is high. It may be that come Memorial Day, the Cubs are settled enough and the Indians have started slowly enough that some sort of deal could be worked around one of the Indians starters and a Baez/Soler package. But the Indians know that if they have their current rotation and things break right, they can be serious contenders in the American League Central, and be serious contenders built on starting pitching. So why move one of the Big Four before seeing where Michael Brantley is come April?
Considering what the Braves got for Miller, neither Soler & Contreras for Miller or Baez & Soler for Corrasco are outside the realm of possibility.
But if I were Theo, I'll be goddamned if my trigger finger wouldn't be really fucking itchy on the Corrasco deal if that's what Cleveland wanted.
"That's Our Fork"
With his permission...
QuoteFeel free to pass along chapters to friends -- I get asked about that, and sending occasional issues to people is fair use and a big part of how I get new subscribers.
...here is Joe Sheehan's take on the Cubs' offseason so far. He saved the Cubs for last.
Quote
As of ten days ago, the Cubs weren't having much of an offseason. They spent November collecting potential cheap relievers -- Rex Brothers, Ryan Cook (subsequently lost). Spencer Patton, Luis Parra... They re-signed Trevor Cahill, who pitched well for them out of the bullpen down the stretch. Jed Hoyer downplayed the team's activity as recently as November 30, saying, "We are not close to anything right now."
Just a few days later, the Cubs signed John Lackey to a two-year, $32-million contract. The signing stands out as one of the biggest bargains of the fall, with Lackey -- coming off the second-best season of his career -- settling for a two-year contract. These late-career pitcher deals have become very valuable, as teams get good performance for reasonable prices without the long-term risk associated with younger pitchers. Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte, Hiroki Kuroda, A.J. Burnett... these pitchers have been good buys for their teams at the end of their careers. Lackey may not match his 2015 line, but he doesn't have to to be an asset for the Cubs. Since missing all of 2012, Lackey has averaged 31 starts, 200 innings, posted a 119 ERA+ and been worth three wins a year. He'll make less money per year than Jeff Samardzija will, and is guaranteed less than 40% of Samardzija's money in total. It's a fantastic contract.
Four days later, the Cubs added Ben Zobrist on a four-year, $56-million deal. This is less obviously a win; Zobrist's value may be a bit higher than his raw numbers suggest because of his flexibility. However, that flexibility had more value when he was younger and a plus defender at multiple positions. He isn't that guy anymore, but as a switch-hitter and a high-OBP hitter, he still helps you win. Zobrist's 2015, his worst year since 2010, was still worth three wins. He is reuniting with the manager who turned him from a shortstop into a multi-positional weapon. Zobrist will also be an OBP-heavy addition to a SLG-heavy roster.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 17, 2015, 05:31:36 PM
With his permission...
QuoteFeel free to pass along chapters to friends -- I get asked about that, and sending occasional issues to people is fair use and a big part of how I get new subscribers.
...here is Joe Sheehan's take on the Cubs' offseason so far. He saved the Cubs for last.
Quote
As of ten days ago, the Cubs weren't having much of an offseason. They spent November collecting potential cheap relievers -- Rex Brothers, Ryan Cook (subsequently lost). Spencer Patton, Luis Parra... They re-signed Trevor Cahill, who pitched well for them out of the bullpen down the stretch. Jed Hoyer downplayed the team's activity as recently as November 30, saying, "We are not close to anything right now."
Just a few days later, the Cubs signed John Lackey to a two-year, $32-million contract. The signing stands out as one of the biggest bargains of the fall, with Lackey -- coming off the second-best season of his career -- settling for a two-year contract. These late-career pitcher deals have become very valuable, as teams get good performance for reasonable prices without the long-term risk associated with younger pitchers. Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte, Hiroki Kuroda, A.J. Burnett... these pitchers have been good buys for their teams at the end of their careers. Lackey may not match his 2015 line, but he doesn't have to to be an asset for the Cubs. Since missing all of 2012, Lackey has averaged 31 starts, 200 innings, posted a 119 ERA+ and been worth three wins a year. He'll make less money per year than Jeff Samardzija will, and is guaranteed less than 40% of Samardzija's money in total. It's a fantastic contract.
Four days later, the Cubs added Ben Zobrist on a four-year, $56-million deal. This is less obviously a win; Zobrist's value may be a bit higher than his raw numbers suggest because of his flexibility. However, that flexibility had more value when he was younger and a plus defender at multiple positions. He isn't that guy anymore, but as a switch-hitter and a high-OBP hitter, he still helps you win. Zobrist's 2015, his worst year since 2010, was still worth three wins. He is reuniting with the manager who turned him from a shortstop into a multi-positional weapon. Zobrist will also be an OBP-heavy addition to a SLG-heavy roster.
I like what Sheahan says about Lackey. I had to fend off an obnoxious Sox fan (REDUNDANT!) friend who felt Lackey was hardly an upgrade over Hammel. The guy was the #1 pitcher for a 100-win ballclub, for crissakes. Two-year deal? Shit.
QuoteThe only thing that puzzled me was the fit. The Cubs entered the offseason with three middle infielders and no center fielder, and the Zobrist signing didn't address that at all -- it exacerbated the logjam. Joe Maddon played Kris Bryant in center a few times last year; maybe Jorge Soler would be tasked with playing center, with Zobrist marched out to right? Wrigley has a small center field, so it wouldn't be outrageous in home games.
Some of that problem was solved when, the same evening, the Cubs announced they were trading Starlin Castro to the Yankees for Adam Warren and Brendan Ryan. This still left Zobrist, Javier Baez and Addison Russell in the middle infield, but the Cubs were at least back to three men for two spots. The trade ended Castro's frustrating career as a Cub, one in which he hit .297/.336/.425 through three seasons -- giving himself an early chance at 3,000 hits -- and then collapsed to .265/.305/.383 from ages 23-25. It's the most puzzling career path since B.J. Upton's. Now a second baseman -- and by many accounts, better there than at shortstop -- Castro can rebuild his career with a new team, and perhaps with more manageable expectations.
Warren is an interesting piece for the Cubs. Perhaps best used in a role that doesn't exist any longer, multi-inning reliever, Warren has a 3.39 ERA (3.69 FIP) in parts of four seasons with the Yankees. Warren may be the closest thing to a true swingman in today's game, making 17 starts and 26 relief appearances last year, with a 3.66 ERA in the former role and a 2.29 mark in the latter. He didn't jump in and out of the roles the way Carter-era swingmen did -- I always think of Tom Underwood when I talk about this -- but almost no-one does that any more. He was one of five pitchers to make 15 starts and 15 relief appearances, and two of those were starters who lost their jobs for cause. The Cubs have five starters, but Jason Hammel isn't a full-season guy. Accordingly, Warren should find himself in both roles again next year. As with Zobrist, Warren is a piece whose value increases with a manager who knows how to use him.
Quote
The Cubs had made three good moves... and then they kicked it into gear. Last Friday, they reached an agreement with Jason Heyward on an eight-year, $184-million contract. Heyward, just 26 next year, would not be breaking the bank, would not be setting records for contract length. He would be signing for three-quarters of Robinson Cano money, 70% of Albert Pujols money, less than the top pitchers were getting. If the deal had been only that, 8/184, it would have been a steal for the Cubs.
As it turned out, there was more to it. There's a signing bonus deferred halfway to the Rapture. For the next three years, Heyward will make just $15 million, $21.5 million and $21.5 million. Heyward can opt out after 2018, or after 2019 if he reaches 550 PA in '19. (An odd clause, in that he would be unlikely to opt out after a shortened season, I would think.) So it's a contract for 3/78 guaranteed, after which Heyward can opt-in for 1/20, then again for 4/86. It's a complicated structure, but no matter how you look at it, it's a great deal for the Cubs. There's very little downside risk other than disaster scenarios. So many of the questions about Heyward were how the industry would value his defense. With this deal, it doesn't matter; Heyward has been a three-win player with his bat and legs, and if that continues, the Cubs would break even on the deal -- even if the power never comes. Heyward will probably have to play center field in the short term, which adds positional value with an unknown impact on his defensive performance. It's a wash, projection-wise, until we see him in center.
The Cubs signed three free agents. Two of them were among the best bargains of the winter. Zobrist is a bit of an overpay, perhaps underestimating the decline risk of a 35-year-old who's losing a step defensively. Because the deal has a $12 million final year, though, walking away at the end will be less painful for the Cubs. With a nod to the Diamondbacks, the Cubs aren't only having the best offseason of any team, they've built the best team in baseball.
CF Heyward
2B Zobrist
1B Rizzo
3B Bryant
LF Schwarber
RF Soler
C Montero
SS Russell
Bench Baez
Bench Coghlan
Bench Ross
Bench La Stella
Bench Szczur
SP Arrrieta
SP Lester
SP Lackey
SP Hendricks
SP Hammel
RP Rondon (RH)
RP Strop (RH)
RP Cahill (RH)
RP Warren (RH)
RP Richard (LH)
RP Wood (LH)
RP Grimm (RH)
Quote
It's not a great defensive team. The bullpen was effective last year but still doesn't inspire confidence. I'm not sure any team can match the Cubs 1-5 or 1-10, though. They have tremendous frontline talent, with a lineup that could lead the NL in runs, and a rotation that has no pitcher projected to be a below-average starter. They may not be done, either; could Baez be used to get a young center fielder? How about prospects such as Billy McKinney, Albert Almora and Ian Happ -- most of whom now seem to be blocked at the MLB level. (Top prospect Gleyber Torres may be as well, but is both good enough and far away enough that it's less of a concern.) The Cubs' 2016 payroll is still just $126 million for 13 players, although Jake Arrieta is about to get paid in arbitration. They could reasonably add another highly-paid player if they wanted to.
More likely, they'll seek out trade options that give them controllable talent, and if nothing falls into place, go into the season with the above. If the Cubs do nothing between now and Opening Day, they'll be projected to win the NL Central. That doesn't guarantee a pennant or a championship, of course. It does, however, validate the process that put the Cubs where they are today.
(http://giant.gfycat.com/FakeAmusingAfricanmolesnake.gif)
Quote from: PANK! on December 16, 2015, 04:45:29 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 16, 2015, 04:38:18 PM
Quote from: R-V on December 16, 2015, 03:34:36 PM
Interesting nugget (http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-cubs-leadership-ensures-a-merry-christmas-in-wrigleyville/) from Peter Gammons that I hadn't heard on the guy SKO hates. This also makes it sound like a starting pitcher deal might not happen until midseason.
QuoteHoyer and Epstein tried to get one young, controllable starter to fit in behind Lester, Jake Arrieta and Lackey with Kyle Hendricks and Jason Hammel. They were in the Shelby Miller sweepstakes, but the Braves insisted on both Soler and Willson Contreras, but Chicago would not include Contreras, who may well end up catching in the big leagues as the season progresses.
Tampa wanted Baez, but the Cubs still have concerns about the medicals on Drew Smyly and Alex Cobb, coming off injury. They tried to get involved with Carlos Carrasco or Danny Salazar with the Indians, but the price is high. It may be that come Memorial Day, the Cubs are settled enough and the Indians have started slowly enough that some sort of deal could be worked around one of the Indians starters and a Baez/Soler package. But the Indians know that if they have their current rotation and things break right, they can be serious contenders in the American League Central, and be serious contenders built on starting pitching. So why move one of the Big Four before seeing where Michael Brantley is come April?
Considering what the Braves got for Miller, neither Soler & Contreras for Miller or Baez & Soler for Corrasco are outside the realm of possibility.
But if I were Theo, I'll be goddamned if my trigger finger wouldn't be really fucking itchy on the Corrasco deal if that's what Cleveland wanted.
"That's Our Fork"
You wouldn't trade Soler and Contreras for a 5-win pitcher?
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 17, 2015, 08:19:32 PM
Quote from: PANK! on December 16, 2015, 04:45:29 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 16, 2015, 04:38:18 PM
Quote from: R-V on December 16, 2015, 03:34:36 PM
Interesting nugget (http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-cubs-leadership-ensures-a-merry-christmas-in-wrigleyville/) from Peter Gammons that I hadn't heard on the guy SKO hates. This also makes it sound like a starting pitcher deal might not happen until midseason.
QuoteHoyer and Epstein tried to get one young, controllable starter to fit in behind Lester, Jake Arrieta and Lackey with Kyle Hendricks and Jason Hammel. They were in the Shelby Miller sweepstakes, but the Braves insisted on both Soler and Willson Contreras, but Chicago would not include Contreras, who may well end up catching in the big leagues as the season progresses.
Tampa wanted Baez, but the Cubs still have concerns about the medicals on Drew Smyly and Alex Cobb, coming off injury. They tried to get involved with Carlos Carrasco or Danny Salazar with the Indians, but the price is high. It may be that come Memorial Day, the Cubs are settled enough and the Indians have started slowly enough that some sort of deal could be worked around one of the Indians starters and a Baez/Soler package. But the Indians know that if they have their current rotation and things break right, they can be serious contenders in the American League Central, and be serious contenders built on starting pitching. So why move one of the Big Four before seeing where Michael Brantley is come April?
Considering what the Braves got for Miller, neither Soler & Contreras for Miller or Baez & Soler for Corrasco are outside the realm of possibility.
But if I were Theo, I'll be goddamned if my trigger finger wouldn't be really fucking itchy on the Corrasco deal if that's what Cleveland wanted.
"That's Our Fork"
You wouldn't trade Soler and Contreras for a 5-win pitcher?
Was that the question? I was too distracted by your comment being enveloped into what you were quoting (hence the phrase).
Quote from: PANK! on December 17, 2015, 08:24:51 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 17, 2015, 08:19:32 PM
Quote from: PANK! on December 16, 2015, 04:45:29 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 16, 2015, 04:38:18 PM
Quote from: R-V on December 16, 2015, 03:34:36 PM
Interesting nugget (http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-cubs-leadership-ensures-a-merry-christmas-in-wrigleyville/) from Peter Gammons that I hadn't heard on the guy SKO hates. This also makes it sound like a starting pitcher deal might not happen until midseason.
QuoteHoyer and Epstein tried to get one young, controllable starter to fit in behind Lester, Jake Arrieta and Lackey with Kyle Hendricks and Jason Hammel. They were in the Shelby Miller sweepstakes, but the Braves insisted on both Soler and Willson Contreras, but Chicago would not include Contreras, who may well end up catching in the big leagues as the season progresses.
Tampa wanted Baez, but the Cubs still have concerns about the medicals on Drew Smyly and Alex Cobb, coming off injury. They tried to get involved with Carlos Carrasco or Danny Salazar with the Indians, but the price is high. It may be that come Memorial Day, the Cubs are settled enough and the Indians have started slowly enough that some sort of deal could be worked around one of the Indians starters and a Baez/Soler package. But the Indians know that if they have their current rotation and things break right, they can be serious contenders in the American League Central, and be serious contenders built on starting pitching. So why move one of the Big Four before seeing where Michael Brantley is come April?
Considering what the Braves got for Miller, neither Soler & Contreras for Miller or Baez & Soler for Corrasco are outside the realm of possibility.
But if I were Theo, I'll be goddamned if my trigger finger wouldn't be really fucking itchy on the Corrasco deal if that's what Cleveland wanted.
"That's Our Fork"
You wouldn't trade Soler and Contreras for a 5-win pitcher?
Was that the question? I was too distracted by your comment being enveloped into what you were quoting (hence the phrase).
"There but for the grace of God go I"?
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 18, 2015, 01:22:32 AM
Quote from: PANK! on December 17, 2015, 08:24:51 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 17, 2015, 08:19:32 PM
Quote from: PANK! on December 16, 2015, 04:45:29 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 16, 2015, 04:38:18 PM
Quote from: R-V on December 16, 2015, 03:34:36 PM
Interesting nugget (http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-cubs-leadership-ensures-a-merry-christmas-in-wrigleyville/) from Peter Gammons that I hadn't heard on the guy SKO hates. This also makes it sound like a starting pitcher deal might not happen until midseason.
QuoteHoyer and Epstein tried to get one young, controllable starter to fit in behind Lester, Jake Arrieta and Lackey with Kyle Hendricks and Jason Hammel. They were in the Shelby Miller sweepstakes, but the Braves insisted on both Soler and Willson Contreras, but Chicago would not include Contreras, who may well end up catching in the big leagues as the season progresses.
Tampa wanted Baez, but the Cubs still have concerns about the medicals on Drew Smyly and Alex Cobb, coming off injury. They tried to get involved with Carlos Carrasco or Danny Salazar with the Indians, but the price is high. It may be that come Memorial Day, the Cubs are settled enough and the Indians have started slowly enough that some sort of deal could be worked around one of the Indians starters and a Baez/Soler package. But the Indians know that if they have their current rotation and things break right, they can be serious contenders in the American League Central, and be serious contenders built on starting pitching. So why move one of the Big Four before seeing where Michael Brantley is come April?
Considering what the Braves got for Miller, neither Soler & Contreras for Miller or Baez & Soler for Corrasco are outside the realm of possibility.
But if I were Theo, I'll be goddamned if my trigger finger wouldn't be really fucking itchy on the Corrasco deal if that's what Cleveland wanted.
"That's Our Fork"
You wouldn't trade Soler and Contreras for a 5-win pitcher?
Was that the question? I was too distracted by your comment being enveloped into what you were quoting (hence the phrase).
"There but for the grace of God go I"?
"tHree bu tfor teh grave of BoD go"
What the hell are the Cubs going to do with Brendan Ryan?
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 18, 2015, 11:26:28 AM
What the hell are the Cubs going to do with Brendan Ryan?
See what size Bubble Yum bucket he needs and tell him to grab a seat?
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 18, 2015, 11:26:28 AM
What the hell are the Cubs going to do with Brendan Ryan?
He's awful and I'd be pretty surprised if he's on the Opening Day roster. I think he's less useful than Jonathan Herrera, actually.
Quote from: Eli on December 18, 2015, 11:34:22 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 18, 2015, 11:26:28 AM
What the hell are the Cubs going to do with Brendan Ryan?
He's awful and I'd be pretty surprised if he's on the Opening Day roster. I think he's less useful than Jonathan Herrera, actually.
Yeah I'm not sure why he would be the PTBNL at all here, unless it was a salary thing.
Quote from: SKO on December 18, 2015, 11:35:46 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 18, 2015, 11:34:22 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 18, 2015, 11:26:28 AM
What the hell are the Cubs going to do with Brendan Ryan?
He's awful and I'd be pretty surprised if he's on the Opening Day roster. I think he's less useful than Jonathan Herrera, actually.
Yeah I'm not sure why he would be the PTBNL at all here, unless it was a salary thing.
Hardly: he's getting paid $1MM in this, the last year of his deal.
Quote from: Tonker on December 18, 2015, 11:59:10 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 18, 2015, 11:35:46 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 18, 2015, 11:34:22 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 18, 2015, 11:26:28 AM
What the hell are the Cubs going to do with Brendan Ryan?
He's awful and I'd be pretty surprised if he's on the Opening Day roster. I think he's less useful than Jonathan Herrera, actually.
Yeah I'm not sure why he would be the PTBNL at all here, unless it was a salary thing.
Hardly: he's getting paid $1MM in this, the last year of his deal.
Besides, this would be an odd time for the Yankees to suddenly start giving a shit about payroll.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 18, 2015, 12:15:40 PM
Quote from: Tonker on December 18, 2015, 11:59:10 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 18, 2015, 11:35:46 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 18, 2015, 11:34:22 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 18, 2015, 11:26:28 AM
What the hell are the Cubs going to do with Brendan Ryan?
He's awful and I'd be pretty surprised if he's on the Opening Day roster. I think he's less useful than Jonathan Herrera, actually.
Yeah I'm not sure why he would be the PTBNL at all here, unless it was a salary thing.
Hardly: he's getting paid $1MM in this, the last year of his deal.
Besides, this would be an odd time for the Yankees to suddenly start giving a shit about payroll.
The Yankees have been giving a shit about payroll for several years now.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 18, 2015, 11:26:28 AM
What the hell are the Cubs going to do with Brendan Ryan?
Ryan has much-needed post season experience, plus he's shown some surprising dominance when used out of the pen. A player with this amount of versatility is like gold.
His job is apparently to keep trolling the shit out of Cardinals fans.
Quote from: SKO on December 18, 2015, 12:16:26 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 18, 2015, 12:15:40 PM
Quote from: Tonker on December 18, 2015, 11:59:10 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 18, 2015, 11:35:46 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 18, 2015, 11:34:22 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 18, 2015, 11:26:28 AM
What the hell are the Cubs going to do with Brendan Ryan?
He's awful and I'd be pretty surprised if he's on the Opening Day roster. I think he's less useful than Jonathan Herrera, actually.
Yeah I'm not sure why he would be the PTBNL at all here, unless it was a salary thing.
Hardly: he's getting paid $1MM in this, the last year of his deal.
Besides, this would be an odd time for the Yankees to suddenly start giving a shit about payroll.
The Yankees have been giving a shit about payroll for several years now.
Number 2 (http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/) with 2 open spots on the 40. Maybe they've eased up a tad since George died, but they've still got 5 guys making over 20 mildo, and their top 7 make more than the entire Cubs' payroll, even with figuring in Jake's arbitration.
Quote from: Tonker on December 18, 2015, 04:05:40 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 18, 2015, 01:22:32 AM
Quote from: PANK! on December 17, 2015, 08:24:51 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 17, 2015, 08:19:32 PM
Quote from: PANK! on December 16, 2015, 04:45:29 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 16, 2015, 04:38:18 PM
Quote from: R-V on December 16, 2015, 03:34:36 PM
Interesting nugget (http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-cubs-leadership-ensures-a-merry-christmas-in-wrigleyville/) from Peter Gammons that I hadn't heard on the guy SKO hates. This also makes it sound like a starting pitcher deal might not happen until midseason.
QuoteHoyer and Epstein tried to get one young, controllable starter to fit in behind Lester, Jake Arrieta and Lackey with Kyle Hendricks and Jason Hammel. They were in the Shelby Miller sweepstakes, but the Braves insisted on both Soler and Willson Contreras, but Chicago would not include Contreras, who may well end up catching in the big leagues as the season progresses.
Tampa wanted Baez, but the Cubs still have concerns about the medicals on Drew Smyly and Alex Cobb, coming off injury. They tried to get involved with Carlos Carrasco or Danny Salazar with the Indians, but the price is high. It may be that come Memorial Day, the Cubs are settled enough and the Indians have started slowly enough that some sort of deal could be worked around one of the Indians starters and a Baez/Soler package. But the Indians know that if they have their current rotation and things break right, they can be serious contenders in the American League Central, and be serious contenders built on starting pitching. So why move one of the Big Four before seeing where Michael Brantley is come April?
Considering what the Braves got for Miller, neither Soler & Contreras for Miller or Baez & Soler for Corrasco are outside the realm of possibility.
But if I were Theo, I'll be goddamned if my trigger finger wouldn't be really fucking itchy on the Corrasco deal if that's what Cleveland wanted.
"That's Our Fork"
You wouldn't trade Soler and Contreras for a 5-win pitcher?
Was that the question? I was too distracted by your comment being enveloped into what you were quoting (hence the phrase).
"There but for the grace of God go I"?
"tHree bu tfor teh grave of BoD go"
I Muttley'd.
So as of now, the Cubs have:
C-Ross
C-Montero
C/OF - Schwarber
1B - Rizzo
2B - Zobrist
SS - Russell
3B/OF - Bryant
IF - Ryan
IF - LaStella
IF - Baez
OF - Coghlan
OF - Heyward
OF - Soler
OF - Szczur
SP - Arrieta
SP - Lester
SP - Lackey
SP - Hendricks
SP - Hammel
RP - Brothers
RP - Cahill
RP - Ramirez
RP - Warren
RP - Wood
RP - Strop
RP - Grimm
RP - Rosscup
RP - Rondon
That's 28 guys, not including Edwards or Patton, who will probably start things off in Iowa.
So do they make another deal or do they just look to cut guys out of Spring Training?
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 23, 2015, 08:32:03 AM
So as of now, the Cubs have:
C-Ross
C-Montero
C/OF - Schwarber
1B - Rizzo
2B - Zobrist
SS - Russell
3B/OF - Bryant
IF - Ryan
IF - LaStella
IF - Baez
OF - Coghlan
OF - Heyward
OF - Soler
OF - Szczur
SP - Arrieta
SP - Lester
SP - Lackey
SP - Hendricks
SP - Hammel
RP - Brothers
RP - Cahill
RP - Ramirez
RP - Warren
RP - Wood
RP - Strop
RP - Grimm
RP - Rosscup
RP - Rondon
That's 28 guys, not including Edwards or Patton, who will probably start things off in Iowa.
So do they make another deal or do they just look to cut guys out of Spring Training?
Ah yes, the key December 23 roster deadline has arrived. Get it together, Theo!
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 23, 2015, 08:32:03 AM
So as of now, the Cubs have:
C-Ross
C-Montero
C/OF - Schwarber
1B - Rizzo
2B - Zobrist
SS - Russell
3B/OF - Bryant
IF - Ryan
IF - LaStella
IF - Baez
OF - Coghlan
OF - Heyward
OF - Soler
OF - Szczur
SP - Arrieta
SP - Lester
SP - Lackey
SP - Hendricks
SP - Hammel
RP - Brothers
RP - Cahill
RP - Ramirez
RP - Warren
RP - Wood
RP - Strop
RP - Grimm
RP - Rosscup
RP - Rondon
That's 28 guys, not including Edwards or Patton, who will probably start things off in Iowa.
So do they make another deal or do they just look to cut guys out of Spring Training?
David Patton is back? Fuck
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 23, 2015, 08:32:03 AM
So as of now, the Cubs have:
C-Ross
C-Montero
C/OF - Schwarber
1B - Rizzo
2B - Zobrist
SS - Russell
3B/OF - Bryant
IF - Ryan
IF - LaStella
IF - Baez
OF - Coghlan
OF - Heyward
OF - Soler
OF - Szczur
SP - Arrieta
SP - Lester
SP - Lackey
SP - Hendricks
SP - Hammel
RP - Brothers
RP - Cahill
RP - Ramirez
RP - Warren
RP - Wood
RP - Strop
RP - Grimm
RP - Rosscup
RP - Rondon
That's 28 guys, not including Edwards or Patton, who will probably start things off in Iowa.
So do they make another deal or do they just look to cut guys out of Spring Training?
I would just roll with those guys into spring training. They aren't getting the value they want trading Baez or Soler so both are Cubs till at least July 31st. As for the bullpen/pitching log jam, that'll sort itself out. Last year they seemed to have crazy bullpen depth going into spring training and then Ramirez and Grimm got hurt and we had to spend a month watching Brian Schlitter and Phil Coke. I prefer having to possibly cut someone who is actually good to having to play someone who is definitely shitty.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 23, 2015, 08:32:03 AM
So as of now, the Cubs have:
C-Ross
C-Montero
C/OF - Schwarber
1B - Rizzo
2B - Zobrist
SS - Russell
3B/OF - Bryant
IF - Ryan
IF - LaStella
IF - Baez
OF - Coghlan
OF - Heyward
OF - Soler
OF - Szczur
SP - Arrieta
SP - Lester
SP - Lackey
SP - Hendricks
SP - Hammel
RP - Cahill
RP - Ramirez
RP - Warren
RP - Wood
RP - Strop
RP - Grimm
RP - Rosscup or RP - Brothers
RP - Rondon
Quote from: ChuckD on December 23, 2015, 09:57:33 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 23, 2015, 08:32:03 AM
So as of now, the Cubs have:
C-Ross
C-Montero
C/OF - Schwarber
1B - Rizzo
2B - Zobrist
SS - Russell
3B/OF - Bryant
IF - Ryan
IF - LaStella
IF - Baez
OF - Coghlan
OF - Heyward
OF - Soler
OF - Szczur
SP - Arrieta
SP - Lester
SP - Lackey
SP - Hendricks
SP - Hammel
RP - Cahill
RP - Ramirez
RP - Warren
RP - Wood
RP - Strop
RP - Grimm
RP - Rosscup or RP - Brothers
RP - Rondon
Yeah, that wasn't so hard.
Quote from: ChuckD on December 23, 2015, 09:57:33 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 23, 2015, 08:32:03 AM
So as of now, the Cubs have:
C-Ross
C-Montero
C/OF - Schwarber
1B - Rizzo
2B - Zobrist
SS - Russell
3B/OF - Bryant
IF - Ryan
IF - LaStella
IF - Baez
OF - Coghlan
OF - Heyward
OF - Soler
OF - Szczur
SP - Arrieta
SP - Lester
SP - Lackey
SP - Hendricks
SP - Hammel
RP - Cahill
RP - Ramirez
RP - Warren
RP - Wood
RP - Strop
RP - Grimm
RP - Rosscup or RP - Brothers
RP - Rondon
They just got Brothers to a 1.42 mildo deal. Doesn't sound like a guy that they'd look to launch.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 23, 2015, 10:08:48 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on December 23, 2015, 09:57:33 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 23, 2015, 08:32:03 AM
So as of now, the Cubs have:
C-Ross
C-Montero
C/OF - Schwarber
1B - Rizzo
2B - Zobrist
SS - Russell
3B/OF - Bryant
IF - Ryan
IF - LaStella
IF - Baez
OF - Coghlan
OF - Heyward
OF - Soler
OF - Szczur
SP - Arrieta
SP - Lester
SP - Lackey
SP - Hendricks
SP - Hammel
RP - Cahill
RP - Ramirez
RP - Warren
RP - Wood
RP - Strop
RP - Grimm
RP - Rosscup or RP - Brothers
RP - Rondon
They just got Brothers to a 1.42 mildo deal. Doesn't sound like a guy that they'd look to launch.
I also don't think they trust Ramirez's shoulder very much.
That is a fun roster to look at, though.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 23, 2015, 09:08:23 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 23, 2015, 08:32:03 AM
So as of now, the Cubs have:
C-Ross
C-Montero
C/OF - Schwarber
1B - Rizzo
2B - Zobrist
SS - Russell
3B/OF - Bryant
IF - Ryan
IF - LaStella
IF - Baez
OF - Coghlan
OF - Heyward
OF - Soler
OF - Szczur
SP - Arrieta
SP - Lester
SP - Lackey
SP - Hendricks
SP - Hammel
RP - Brothers
RP - Cahill
RP - Ramirez
RP - Warren
RP - Wood
RP - Strop
RP - Grimm
RP - Rosscup
RP - Rondon
That's 28 guys, not including Edwards or Patton, who will probably start things off in Iowa.
So do they make another deal or do they just look to cut guys out of Spring Training?
Ah yes, the key December 23 roster deadline has arrived. Get it together, Theo!
I laughed a great deal at this.
Does Mack Seizure have an option year left? Because I kind of enjoyed the running gag that was Theo calling him up from Iowa every 10 days and then immediately sending him back down.
Quote from: Yeti on December 23, 2015, 09:31:59 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 23, 2015, 08:32:03 AM
So as of now, the Cubs have:
C-Ross
C-Montero
C/OF - Schwarber
1B - Rizzo
2B - Zobrist
SS - Russell
3B/OF - Bryant
IF - Ryan
IF - LaStella
IF - Baez
OF - Coghlan
OF - Heyward
OF - Soler
OF - Szczur
SP - Arrieta
SP - Lester
SP - Lackey
SP - Hendricks
SP - Hammel
RP - Brothers
RP - Cahill
RP - Ramirez
RP - Warren
RP - Wood
RP - Strop
RP - Grimm
RP - Rosscup
RP - Rondon
That's 28 guys, not including Edwards or Patton, who will probably start things off in Iowa.
So do they make another deal or do they just look to cut guys out of Spring Training?
David Patton is back? Fuck
At least even odds that he's better than Spencer Patton.
Quote from: PenFoe on December 23, 2015, 10:38:09 AM
Quote from: Yeti on December 23, 2015, 09:31:59 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 23, 2015, 08:32:03 AM
So as of now, the Cubs have:
C-Ross
C-Montero
C/OF - Schwarber
1B - Rizzo
2B - Zobrist
SS - Russell
3B/OF - Bryant
IF - Ryan
IF - LaStella
IF - Baez
OF - Coghlan
OF - Heyward
OF - Soler
OF - Szczur
SP - Arrieta
SP - Lester
SP - Lackey
SP - Hendricks
SP - Hammel
RP - Brothers
RP - Cahill
RP - Ramirez
RP - Warren
RP - Wood
RP - Strop
RP - Grimm
RP - Rosscup
RP - Rondon
That's 28 guys, not including Edwards or Patton, who will probably start things off in Iowa.
So do they make another deal or do they just look to cut guys out of Spring Training?
David Patton is back? Fuck
At least even odds that he's better than Spencer Patton.
Bet he doesn't have the flair of George S.
Quote from: CBStew on December 23, 2015, 11:35:34 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on December 23, 2015, 10:38:09 AM
Quote from: Yeti on December 23, 2015, 09:31:59 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 23, 2015, 08:32:03 AM
So as of now, the Cubs have:
C-Ross
C-Montero
C/OF - Schwarber
1B - Rizzo
2B - Zobrist
SS - Russell
3B/OF - Bryant
IF - Ryan
IF - LaStella
IF - Baez
OF - Coghlan
OF - Heyward
OF - Soler
OF - Szczur
SP - Arrieta
SP - Lester
SP - Lackey
SP - Hendricks
SP - Hammel
RP - Brothers
RP - Cahill
RP - Ramirez
RP - Warren
RP - Wood
RP - Strop
RP - Grimm
RP - Rosscup
RP - Rondon
That's 28 guys, not including Edwards or Patton, who will probably start things off in Iowa.
So do they make another deal or do they just look to cut guys out of Spring Training?
David Patton is back? Fuck
At least even odds that he's better than Spencer Patton.
Bet he doesn't have the flair of George S.
Bet he doesn't even have the flair of Patton Oswalt.
Javy, Jorge, Almora, and Gleyber for Jose Fernandez. First, would that be enough, and second, would you be okay with it?
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 28, 2015, 03:18:22 AM
Javy, Jorge, Almora, and Gleyber for Jose Fernandez. First, would that be enough, and second, would you be okay with it?
1) No 2) yea, probably?
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 28, 2015, 03:18:22 AM
Javy, Jorge, Almora, and Gleyber for Jose Fernandez. First, would that be enough, and second, would you be okay with it?
Guessing they'd want Pierce Johnson instead of Almora. But yeah, I'd do that.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 28, 2015, 08:18:41 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 28, 2015, 03:18:22 AM
Javy, Jorge, Almora, and Gleyber for Jose Fernandez. First, would that be enough, and second, would you be okay with it?
Guessing they'd want Pierce Johnson instead of Almora. But yeah, I'd do that.
No fucking way do I give up both Javy and Jorge for a guy who already has had Tommy John Disease. He's already arbitration eligible and he's eligible for free agency in 3 years. Trading 22 years of control, 10 of which are already in the majors for 3? No way.
I like the team just how they are right now and it's getting a little too roto in here thank you very much.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 28, 2015, 08:25:01 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 28, 2015, 08:18:41 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 28, 2015, 03:18:22 AM
Javy, Jorge, Almora, and Gleyber for Jose Fernandez. First, would that be enough, and second, would you be okay with it?
Guessing they'd want Pierce Johnson instead of Almora. But yeah, I'd do that.
No fucking way do I give up both Javy and Jorge for a guy who already has had Tommy John Disease. He's already arbitration eligible and he's eligible for free agency in 3 years. Trading 22 years of control, 10 of which are already in the majors for 3? No way.
1 world series win >>>>>>>> 22 years of control.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 28, 2015, 08:47:02 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 28, 2015, 08:25:01 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 28, 2015, 08:18:41 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 28, 2015, 03:18:22 AM
Javy, Jorge, Almora, and Gleyber for Jose Fernandez. First, would that be enough, and second, would you be okay with it?
Guessing they'd want Pierce Johnson instead of Almora. But yeah, I'd do that.
No fucking way do I give up both Javy and Jorge for a guy who already has had Tommy John Disease. He's already arbitration eligible and he's eligible for free agency in 3 years. Trading 22 years of control, 10 of which are already in the majors for 3? No way.
1 world series win >>>>>>>> 22 years of control.
Pretty sure that you can't guarantee that adding Fernandez and subtracting Soler and Javy can guarantee that.
And I like my chances of trying to win with Soler and Javy for the next 5 years vs. not having them and trying to win with Fernandez for only the next three years.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 28, 2015, 08:53:52 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 28, 2015, 08:47:02 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 28, 2015, 08:25:01 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 28, 2015, 08:18:41 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 28, 2015, 03:18:22 AM
Javy, Jorge, Almora, and Gleyber for Jose Fernandez. First, would that be enough, and second, would you be okay with it?
Guessing they'd want Pierce Johnson instead of Almora. But yeah, I'd do that.
No fucking way do I give up both Javy and Jorge for a guy who already has had Tommy John Disease. He's already arbitration eligible and he's eligible for free agency in 3 years. Trading 22 years of control, 10 of which are already in the majors for 3? No way.
1 world series win >>>>>>>> 22 years of control.
Pretty sure that you can't guarantee that adding Fernandez and subtracting Soler and Javy can guarantee that.
And I like my chances of trying to win with Soler and Javy for the next 5 years vs. not having them and trying to win with Fernandez for only the next three years.
Where does Javy fit into the Chuck 5-year plan? Is the NL instituting short CF?
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 28, 2015, 08:25:01 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 28, 2015, 08:18:41 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 28, 2015, 03:18:22 AM
Javy, Jorge, Almora, and Gleyber for Jose Fernandez. First, would that be enough, and second, would you be okay with it?
Guessing they'd want Pierce Johnson instead of Almora. But yeah, I'd do that.
No fucking way do I give up both Javy and Jorge for a guy who already has had Tommy John Disease. He's already arbitration eligible and he's eligible for free agency in 3 years. Trading 22 years of control, 10 of which are already in the majors for 3? No way.
You keep saying "control" like it means anything on its own.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 28, 2015, 09:17:26 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 28, 2015, 08:53:52 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 28, 2015, 08:47:02 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 28, 2015, 08:25:01 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 28, 2015, 08:18:41 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 28, 2015, 03:18:22 AM
Javy, Jorge, Almora, and Gleyber for Jose Fernandez. First, would that be enough, and second, would you be okay with it?
Guessing they'd want Pierce Johnson instead of Almora. But yeah, I'd do that.
No fucking way do I give up both Javy and Jorge for a guy who already has had Tommy John Disease. He's already arbitration eligible and he's eligible for free agency in 3 years. Trading 22 years of control, 10 of which are already in the majors for 3? No way.
1 world series win >>>>>>>> 22 years of control.
Pretty sure that you can't guarantee that adding Fernandez and subtracting Soler and Javy can guarantee that.
And I like my chances of trying to win with Soler and Javy for the next 5 years vs. not having them and trying to win with Fernandez for only the next three years.
Where does Javy fit into the Chuck 5-year plan? Is the NL instituting short CF?
Javy's the new Zobrist and Zobrist is the new RYAN SANDBURG
Quote from: PANK! on December 28, 2015, 09:31:01 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 28, 2015, 09:17:26 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 28, 2015, 08:53:52 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 28, 2015, 08:47:02 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 28, 2015, 08:25:01 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 28, 2015, 08:18:41 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 28, 2015, 03:18:22 AM
Javy, Jorge, Almora, and Gleyber for Jose Fernandez. First, would that be enough, and second, would you be okay with it?
Guessing they'd want Pierce Johnson instead of Almora. But yeah, I'd do that.
No fucking way do I give up both Javy and Jorge for a guy who already has had Tommy John Disease. He's already arbitration eligible and he's eligible for free agency in 3 years. Trading 22 years of control, 10 of which are already in the majors for 3? No way.
1 world series win >>>>>>>> 22 years of control.
Pretty sure that you can't guarantee that adding Fernandez and subtracting Soler and Javy can guarantee that.
And I like my chances of trying to win with Soler and Javy for the next 5 years vs. not having them and trying to win with Fernandez for only the next three years.
Where does Javy fit into the Chuck 5-year plan? Is the NL instituting short CF?
Javy's LaStella's the new Zobrist and Zobrist is the new RYAN SANDBURG
DPD
Yasiel Sierra (http://www.baseballamerica.com/draft/wwba-world-championship-day-one-notebook/) was just declared a free agent.
24 years old, heater tops off at 97. Has command issues. Might be someone worth taking a run at, and see if Bosio can get him settled down.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 29, 2015, 12:36:37 PM
DPD
Yasiel Sierra (http://www.baseballamerica.com/draft/wwba-world-championship-day-one-notebook/) was just declared a free agent.
24 years old, heater tops off at 97. Has command issues. Might be someone worth taking a run at, and see if Bosio can get him settled down.
They're already over the bonus pool for this period, so they might as well sign everyone. Get Lazarito too.
5 x 5-win players per Zips. Bonertime (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2016-zips-projections-chicago-cubs/).
Quote from: Oleg on December 30, 2015, 08:45:31 AM
5 x 5-win players per Zips. Bonertime (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2016-zips-projections-chicago-cubs/).
I'm gonna need a minute
Quote from: Oleg on December 30, 2015, 08:45:31 AM
5 x 5-win players per Zips. Bonertime (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2016-zips-projections-chicago-cubs/).
With very low expectations set for Soler. This will be fung.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 30, 2015, 09:01:11 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 30, 2015, 08:45:31 AM
5 x 5-win players per Zips. Bonertime (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2016-zips-projections-chicago-cubs/).
With very low expectations set for Soler. This will be fung.
Pretty moderate expectations for Jorge and Russell. They certainly have the potential to exceed those projections, but pretty encouraging that the projections are this high without banking on anyone making astronomical leaps.
Quote from: Oleg on December 30, 2015, 08:45:31 AM
5 x 5-win players per Zips. Bonertime (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2016-zips-projections-chicago-cubs/).
Amused that the No. 1 comp for Bryant is Harlond Clift, who was no Troy Glaus.
Quote from: Eli on December 30, 2015, 09:18:41 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 30, 2015, 08:45:31 AM
5 x 5-win players per Zips. Bonertime (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2016-zips-projections-chicago-cubs/).
Amused that the No. 1 comp for Bryant is Harlond Clift, who was no Troy Glaus.
I had to look him up. And, yeah, it is funny. But, as a 24 year old, he had a 140 OPS+ and was a 7-win player. He was pretty good as a 25 year old , too.
Quote from: Oleg on December 30, 2015, 09:22:26 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 30, 2015, 09:18:41 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 30, 2015, 08:45:31 AM
5 x 5-win players per Zips. Bonertime (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2016-zips-projections-chicago-cubs/).
Amused that the No. 1 comp for Bryant is Harlond Clift, who was no Troy Glaus.
I had to look him up. And, yeah, it is funny. But, as a 24 year old, he had a 140 OPS+ and was a 7-win player. He was pretty good as a 25 year old , too.
Great name, too.
It's interesting they project Bryant to still strike out 30% of the time and yet be just as awesome if not moreso than last year. Kid is unique. I keep seeing H8RZ from other fanbases cite his high BABIP and high K rates as reasons to label him another Adam Dunn or whatever but the quality of the contact he makes is insane and he keeps sustaining high BABIPs at nearly every level.
Quote from: SKO on December 30, 2015, 09:40:34 AM
It's interesting they project Bryant to still strike out 30% of the time and yet be just as awesome if not moreso than last year. Kid is unique. I keep seeing H8RZ from other fanbases cite his high BABIP and high K rates as reasons to label him another Adam Dunn or whatever but the quality of the contact he makes is insane and he keeps sustaining high BABIPs at nearly every level.
If Adam Dunn could run well and play passable defense at 3-5 positions he'd be a hell of a player, maybe as good as say, Kris Bryant.
Quote from: InternetApex on December 30, 2015, 09:52:09 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 30, 2015, 09:40:34 AM
It's interesting they project Bryant to still strike out 30% of the time and yet be just as awesome if not moreso than last year. Kid is unique. I keep seeing H8RZ from other fanbases cite his high BABIP and high K rates as reasons to label him another Adam Dunn or whatever but the quality of the contact he makes is insane and he keeps sustaining high BABIPs at nearly every level.
If Adam Dunn could run well and play passable defense at 3-5 positions he'd be a hell of a player, maybe as good as say, Kris Bryant.
True, I mean I'd take an Adam Dunnesque line from Kris as well, but the conventional wisdom would be that a guy that Ks 30% of the time can't maintain a .276 BA or whatever Kris had last year for very long. He appears to be unique, however, in that he tends to make a higher rate of quality contact, thus his BABIP is higher than most. He BABIP'd over .400 at every level in the minors except AAA, where he was in the .360s, so him sustaining a .350+ BABIP and thus a .270 or better BA at the major league level is fairly do-able, which it wasn't for a conventional Three True Outcomes guy like Dunn (career BABIP of .286, career BA of .237).
Quote from: InternetApex on December 30, 2015, 09:52:09 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 30, 2015, 09:40:34 AM
It's interesting they project Bryant to still strike out 30% of the time and yet be just as awesome if not moreso than last year. Kid is unique. I keep seeing H8RZ from other fanbases cite his high BABIP and high K rates as reasons to label him another Adam Dunn or whatever but the quality of the contact he makes is insane and he keeps sustaining high BABIPs at nearly every level.
If Adam Dunn could run well and play passable defense at 3-5 positions he'd be a hell of a player, maybe as good as say, Kris Bryant Tee Martin.
Median Desipio Chuckleheads'd
Quote from: InternetApex on December 30, 2015, 09:52:09 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 30, 2015, 09:40:34 AM
It's interesting they project Bryant to still strike out 30% of the time and yet be just as awesome if not moreso than last year. Kid is unique. I keep seeing H8RZ from other fanbases cite his high BABIP and high K rates as reasons to label him another Adam Dunn or whatever but the quality of the contact he makes is insane and he keeps sustaining high BABIPs at nearly every level.
If Adam Dunn could run well and play passable defense at 3-5 positions he'd be a hell of a player, maybe as good as say, Kris Bryant.
I'm still amazing by Bryant's baserunning. 4th-most valuable baserunner in MLB last year, directly ahead of Heyward, Pollock and Cain.
Quote from: Eli on December 30, 2015, 09:56:54 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on December 30, 2015, 09:52:09 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 30, 2015, 09:40:34 AM
It's interesting they project Bryant to still strike out 30% of the time and yet be just as awesome if not moreso than last year. Kid is unique. I keep seeing H8RZ from other fanbases cite his high BABIP and high K rates as reasons to label him another Adam Dunn or whatever but the quality of the contact he makes is insane and he keeps sustaining high BABIPs at nearly every level.
If Adam Dunn could run well and play passable defense at 3-5 positions he'd be a hell of a player, maybe as good as say, Kris Bryant.
I'm still amazing by Bryant's baserunning. 4th-most valuable baserunner in MLB last year, directly ahead of Heyward, Pollock and Cain.
I'm still amazed by Bryant being a Cub. One of those transcendent once-or-twice a generation talents fell from the fucking sky and landed on the Cubs.
Quote from: SKO on December 30, 2015, 09:55:51 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on December 30, 2015, 09:52:09 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 30, 2015, 09:40:34 AM
It's interesting they project Bryant to still strike out 30% of the time and yet be just as awesome if not moreso than last year. Kid is unique. I keep seeing H8RZ from other fanbases cite his high BABIP and high K rates as reasons to label him another Adam Dunn or whatever but the quality of the contact he makes is insane and he keeps sustaining high BABIPs at nearly every level.
If Adam Dunn could run well and play passable defense at 3-5 positions he'd be a hell of a player, maybe as good as say, Kris Bryant.
True, I mean I'd take an Adam Dunnesque line from Kris as well, but the conventional wisdom would be that a guy that Ks 30% of the time can't maintain a .276 BA or whatever Kris had last year for very long. He appears to be unique, however, in that he tends to make a higher rate of quality contact, thus his BABIP is higher than most. He BABIP'd over .400 at every level in the minors except AAA, where he was in the .360s, so him sustaining a .350+ BABIP and thus a .270 or better BA at the major league level is fairly do-able, which it wasn't for a conventional Three True Outcomes guy like Dunn (career BABIP of .286, career BA of .237).
I believe it. But it's one of those things you can't explain to people. Like the existence of God. They either believe or they don't and either way should probably shut up about it.
Quote from: Eli on December 30, 2015, 09:18:41 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 30, 2015, 08:45:31 AM
5 x 5-win players per Zips. Bonertime (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2016-zips-projections-chicago-cubs/).
Amused that the No. 1 comp for Bryant is Harlond Clift, who was no Troy Glaus.
Rizzo is Boog Motherfucking Powell.
Fuck yeah.
Quote from: InternetApex on December 30, 2015, 09:59:23 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 30, 2015, 09:55:51 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on December 30, 2015, 09:52:09 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 30, 2015, 09:40:34 AM
It's interesting they project Bryant to still strike out 30% of the time and yet be just as awesome if not moreso than last year. Kid is unique. I keep seeing H8RZ from other fanbases cite his high BABIP and high K rates as reasons to label him another Adam Dunn or whatever but the quality of the contact he makes is insane and he keeps sustaining high BABIPs at nearly every level.
If Adam Dunn could run well and play passable defense at 3-5 positions he'd be a hell of a player, maybe as good as say, Kris Bryant.
True, I mean I'd take an Adam Dunnesque line from Kris as well, but the conventional wisdom would be that a guy that Ks 30% of the time can't maintain a .276 BA or whatever Kris had last year for very long. He appears to be unique, however, in that he tends to make a higher rate of quality contact, thus his BABIP is higher than most. He BABIP'd over .400 at every level in the minors except AAA, where he was in the .360s, so him sustaining a .350+ BABIP and thus a .270 or better BA at the major league level is fairly do-able, which it wasn't for a conventional Three True Outcomes guy like Dunn (career BABIP of .286, career BA of .237).
I believe it. But it's one of those things you can't explain to people. Like the existence of God. They either believe or they don't and either way should probably shut up about it.
I probably should shut up about it, because I usually make this argument when explaining to Cardinals fans why Grichuk's 5.2:1 K:BB ratio and insanely high BABIP last year should lead to him coming back to earth this year while Bryant should stay where he is, but by merely having that argument I have already lost.
Quote from: Eli on December 30, 2015, 09:24:09 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 30, 2015, 09:22:26 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 30, 2015, 09:18:41 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 30, 2015, 08:45:31 AM
5 x 5-win players per Zips. Bonertime (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2016-zips-projections-chicago-cubs/).
Amused that the No. 1 comp for Bryant is Harlond Clift, who was no Troy Glaus.
I had to look him up. And, yeah, it is funny. But, as a 24 year old, he had a 140 OPS+ and was a 7-win player. He was pretty good as a 25 year old , too.
Great name, too.
His nickname was also pretty special.
Quote from: Eli on December 30, 2015, 09:56:54 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on December 30, 2015, 09:52:09 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 30, 2015, 09:40:34 AM
It's interesting they project Bryant to still strike out 30% of the time and yet be just as awesome if not moreso than last year. Kid is unique. I keep seeing H8RZ from other fanbases cite his high BABIP and high K rates as reasons to label him another Adam Dunn or whatever but the quality of the contact he makes is insane and he keeps sustaining high BABIPs at nearly every level.
If Adam Dunn could run well and play passable defense at 3-5 positions he'd be a hell of a player, maybe as good as say, Kris Bryant.
I'm still amazing by Bryant's baserunning. 4th-most valuable baserunner in MLB last year, directly ahead of Heyward, Pollock and Cain.
I'm still amazing that Heyward is a Cub. It's great to have a guy who's good for another 5 wins, but he improves the Cubs in so many different facets - defense, baserunning, LH bat - in fact, I defy you to find a Cubs team anywhere else in their history where you've got LH bats the caliber of Rizzo/Schwarber/Heyward - that it's more than a little hard to wrap your head around it all.
Also interesting that ZiPS already projects Contreras to be a better offensive player as a rookie than Montero's corpse. Might be interesting to see if that switch happens by the middle of this season.
Quote from: SKO on December 30, 2015, 11:48:38 AM
Also interesting that ZiPS already projects Contreras to be a better offensive player as a rookie than Montero's corpse. Might be interesting to see if that switch happens by the middle of this season.
but PITCH FRAMING
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on December 30, 2015, 10:29:20 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 30, 2015, 09:56:54 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on December 30, 2015, 09:52:09 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 30, 2015, 09:40:34 AM
It's interesting they project Bryant to still strike out 30% of the time and yet be just as awesome if not moreso than last year. Kid is unique. I keep seeing H8RZ from other fanbases cite his high BABIP and high K rates as reasons to label him another Adam Dunn or whatever but the quality of the contact he makes is insane and he keeps sustaining high BABIPs at nearly every level.
If Adam Dunn could run well and play passable defense at 3-5 positions he'd be a hell of a player, maybe as good as say, Kris Bryant.
I'm still amazing by Bryant's baserunning. 4th-most valuable baserunner in MLB last year, directly ahead of Heyward, Pollock and Cain.
I'm still amazing that Heyward is a Cub. It's great to have a guy who's good for another 5 wins, but he improves the Cubs in so many different facets - defense, baserunning, LH bat - in fact, I defy you to find a Cubs team anywhere else in their history where you've got LH bats the caliber of Rizzo/Schwarber/Heyward - that it's more than a little hard to wrap your head around it all.
I am also amazing.
Quote from: SKO on December 30, 2015, 11:48:38 AMAlso interesting that ZiPS already projects Contreras to be a better offensive player as a rookie than Montero's corpse. Might be interesting to see if that switch happens by the middle of this season.
OK we get it - you hate Contreras. Enough already!
Denard Span to the Giants for three (!) years. I thought Dex would be a better fit for them.
Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 07, 2016, 04:49:31 PM
Denard Span to the Giants for three (!) years. I thought Dex would be a better fit for them.
He and Rodney are two guys I still expect to see in Cubs camp, despite there being no logic behind those expectations.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 08, 2016, 07:35:51 AM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 07, 2016, 04:49:31 PM
Denard Span to the Giants for three (!) years. I thought Dex would be a better fit for them.
He and Rodney are two guys I still expect to see in Cubs camp, despite there being no logic behind those expectations.
Well, if the rumors are true in that the Cubs are thinking of trading Soler, then there'd be a spot for Dexter at least.
Quote from: Canadouche on January 08, 2016, 09:04:24 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 08, 2016, 07:35:51 AM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 07, 2016, 04:49:31 PM
Denard Span to the Giants for three (!) years. I thought Dex would be a better fit for them.
He and Rodney are two guys I still expect to see in Cubs camp, despite there being no logic behind those expectations.
Well, if the rumors are true in that the Cubs are thinking of trading Soler, then there'd be a spot for Dexter at least.
I guess, but trading a guy with Soler's upside and cost/control would require something really fucking good coming the other way. Like I said, there's no logic behind the expectation.
But since Span got 3/31, I don't see Dex getting either 4 years or a significant bump in pay over last season.
That was nice....those 12 or so days where the idea of trading Soler wasn't mentioned.
Quote from: PANK! on January 08, 2016, 09:12:36 AM
That was nice....those 12 or so days where the idea of trading Soler wasn't mentioned.
The way this offseason has shaken out I don't think the Cubs can get the kind of pitcher they'd need to get in order to make them trade Soler. They're not going to sell low on him to make room for Dexter Fowler, so let's just move on.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 08, 2016, 09:10:00 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 08, 2016, 09:04:24 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 08, 2016, 07:35:51 AM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 07, 2016, 04:49:31 PM
Denard Span to the Giants for three (!) years. I thought Dex would be a better fit for them.
He and Rodney are two guys I still expect to see in Cubs camp, despite there being no logic behind those expectations.
Well, if the rumors are true in that the Cubs are thinking of trading Soler, then there'd be a spot for Dexter at least.
I guess, but trading a guy with Soler's upside and cost/control would require something really fucking good coming the other way. Like I said, there's no logic behind the expectation.
But since Span got 3/31, I don't see Dex getting either 4 years or a significant bump in pay over last season.
I think Span getting 3 years makes it
more likely that Fowler gets 4 - he's two years younger than Span
Quote from: R-V on January 08, 2016, 09:30:36 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 08, 2016, 09:10:00 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 08, 2016, 09:04:24 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 08, 2016, 07:35:51 AM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 07, 2016, 04:49:31 PM
Denard Span to the Giants for three (!) years. I thought Dex would be a better fit for them.
He and Rodney are two guys I still expect to see in Cubs camp, despite there being no logic behind those expectations.
Well, if the rumors are true in that the Cubs are thinking of trading Soler, then there'd be a spot for Dexter at least.
I guess, but trading a guy with Soler's upside and cost/control would require something really fucking good coming the other way. Like I said, there's no logic behind the expectation.
But since Span got 3/31, I don't see Dex getting either 4 years or a significant bump in pay over last season.
I think Span getting 3 years makes it more likely that Fowler gets 4 - he's two years younger than Span
Please don't respond to Fork's baseball opinions. It only encourages him.
Quote from: R-V on January 08, 2016, 09:30:36 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 08, 2016, 09:10:00 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 08, 2016, 09:04:24 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 08, 2016, 07:35:51 AM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 07, 2016, 04:49:31 PM
Denard Span to the Giants for three (!) years. I thought Dex would be a better fit for them.
He and Rodney are two guys I still expect to see in Cubs camp, despite there being no logic behind those expectations.
Well, if the rumors are true in that the Cubs are thinking of trading Soler, then there'd be a spot for Dexter at least.
I guess, but trading a guy with Soler's upside and cost/control would require something really fucking good coming the other way. Like I said, there's no logic behind the expectation.
But since Span got 3/31, I don't see Dex getting either 4 years or a significant bump in pay over last season.
I think Span getting 3 years makes it more likely that Fowler gets 4 - he's two years younger than Span
Yeah, but since the price/years are so low, there clearly isn't the demand. I mean, who else is looking for a CF? The Cardinals?
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 08, 2016, 10:25:05 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 08, 2016, 09:30:36 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 08, 2016, 09:10:00 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 08, 2016, 09:04:24 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 08, 2016, 07:35:51 AM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 07, 2016, 04:49:31 PM
Denard Span to the Giants for three (!) years. I thought Dex would be a better fit for them.
He and Rodney are two guys I still expect to see in Cubs camp, despite there being no logic behind those expectations.
Well, if the rumors are true in that the Cubs are thinking of trading Soler, then there'd be a spot for Dexter at least.
I guess, but trading a guy with Soler's upside and cost/control would require something really fucking good coming the other way. Like I said, there's no logic behind the expectation.
But since Span got 3/31, I don't see Dex getting either 4 years or a significant bump in pay over last season.
I think Span getting 3 years makes it more likely that Fowler gets 4 - he's two years younger than Span
Yeah, but since the price/years are so low, there clearly isn't the demand. I mean, who else is looking for a CF? The Cardinals?
The Nationals, the White Sox (who are supposedly offering only 3 years, so if Fowler did settlef or 3 years he might fit their price range and they'd move Eaton's awful defense to left), quite a few teams actually.
Quote from: SKO on January 08, 2016, 10:53:34 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 08, 2016, 10:25:05 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 08, 2016, 09:30:36 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 08, 2016, 09:10:00 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 08, 2016, 09:04:24 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 08, 2016, 07:35:51 AM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 07, 2016, 04:49:31 PM
Denard Span to the Giants for three (!) years. I thought Dex would be a better fit for them.
He and Rodney are two guys I still expect to see in Cubs camp, despite there being no logic behind those expectations.
Well, if the rumors are true in that the Cubs are thinking of trading Soler, then there'd be a spot for Dexter at least.
I guess, but trading a guy with Soler's upside and cost/control would require something really fucking good coming the other way. Like I said, there's no logic behind the expectation.
But since Span got 3/31, I don't see Dex getting either 4 years or a significant bump in pay over last season.
I think Span getting 3 years makes it more likely that Fowler gets 4 - he's two years younger than Span
Yeah, but since the price/years are so low, there clearly isn't the demand. I mean, who else is looking for a CF? The Cardinals?
The Nationals, the White Sox (who are supposedly offering only 3 years, so if Fowler did settlef or 3 years he might fit their price range and they'd move Eaton's awful defense to left), quite a few teams actually.
Sox seem a lot more excited at the idea of getting either Upton or Cespedes, to get more power in the lineup. Not sure they are looking to move Eaton anywhere.
DPD, but you could probably take take any team to the right of the Dodgers on here and make a case for a free agent CF for any of the ones that are trying to contend.
(http://cdn.fangraphs.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/2015-Center-Field-Positional-WAR-e1427389209376.png)
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 08, 2016, 10:57:21 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 08, 2016, 10:53:34 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 08, 2016, 10:25:05 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 08, 2016, 09:30:36 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 08, 2016, 09:10:00 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 08, 2016, 09:04:24 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 08, 2016, 07:35:51 AM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 07, 2016, 04:49:31 PM
Denard Span to the Giants for three (!) years. I thought Dex would be a better fit for them.
He and Rodney are two guys I still expect to see in Cubs camp, despite there being no logic behind those expectations.
Well, if the rumors are true in that the Cubs are thinking of trading Soler, then there'd be a spot for Dexter at least.
I guess, but trading a guy with Soler's upside and cost/control would require something really fucking good coming the other way. Like I said, there's no logic behind the expectation.
But since Span got 3/31, I don't see Dex getting either 4 years or a significant bump in pay over last season.
I think Span getting 3 years makes it more likely that Fowler gets 4 - he's two years younger than Span
Yeah, but since the price/years are so low, there clearly isn't the demand. I mean, who else is looking for a CF? The Cardinals?
The Nationals, the White Sox (who are supposedly offering only 3 years, so if Fowler did settlef or 3 years he might fit their price range and they'd move Eaton's awful defense to left), quite a few teams actually.
Sox seem a lot more excited at the idea of getting either Upton or Cespedes, to get more power in the lineup. Not sure they are looking to move Eaton anywhere.
The Sox are supposedly not offering more than 3 years to anybody, which makes the possibility of getting one of the top two free agents left on the market a little problematic.
Quote from: SKO on January 08, 2016, 10:58:29 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 08, 2016, 10:57:21 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 08, 2016, 10:53:34 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 08, 2016, 10:25:05 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 08, 2016, 09:30:36 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 08, 2016, 09:10:00 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 08, 2016, 09:04:24 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 08, 2016, 07:35:51 AM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 07, 2016, 04:49:31 PM
Denard Span to the Giants for three (!) years. I thought Dex would be a better fit for them.
He and Rodney are two guys I still expect to see in Cubs camp, despite there being no logic behind those expectations.
Well, if the rumors are true in that the Cubs are thinking of trading Soler, then there'd be a spot for Dexter at least.
I guess, but trading a guy with Soler's upside and cost/control would require something really fucking good coming the other way. Like I said, there's no logic behind the expectation.
But since Span got 3/31, I don't see Dex getting either 4 years or a significant bump in pay over last season.
I think Span getting 3 years makes it more likely that Fowler gets 4 - he's two years younger than Span
Yeah, but since the price/years are so low, there clearly isn't the demand. I mean, who else is looking for a CF? The Cardinals?
The Nationals, the White Sox (who are supposedly offering only 3 years, so if Fowler did settlef or 3 years he might fit their price range and they'd move Eaton's awful defense to left), quite a few teams actually.
Sox seem a lot more excited at the idea of getting either Upton or Cespedes, to get more power in the lineup. Not sure they are looking to move Eaton anywhere.
The Sox are supposedly not offering more than 3 years to anybody, which makes the possibility of getting one of the top two free agents left on the market a little problematic.
I've heard that too. Which is awesome, since that means they've clearly got no issue flushing Sale's prime down the toilet.
Say what you want about BRett, but here's some good analysis on Cubs' exit velocities (http://www.bleachernation.com/2016/01/08/visualizing-and-discussing-the-exit-velocities-for-chicago-cubs-positional-starters/).
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 08, 2016, 03:02:31 PM
Say what you want about BRett, but here's some good analysis on Cubs' exit velocities (http://www.bleachernation.com/2016/01/08/visualizing-and-discussing-the-exit-velocities-for-chicago-cubs-positional-starters/).
I like Brett. I think he's a righteous dood.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 08, 2016, 03:02:31 PM
Say what you want about BRett, but here's some good analysis on Cubs' exit velocities (http://www.bleachernation.com/2016/01/08/visualizing-and-discussing-the-exit-velocities-for-chicago-cubs-positional-starters/).
I think he's a good blogger and this is a good blog post.
[fire emoji]
Quote from: Eli on January 08, 2016, 03:33:46 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 08, 2016, 03:02:31 PM
Say what you want about BRett, but here's some good analysis on Cubs' exit velocities (http://www.bleachernation.com/2016/01/08/visualizing-and-discussing-the-exit-velocities-for-chicago-cubs-positional-starters/).
I think he's a good blogger and this is a good blog post.
[fire emoji]
I like Brett and while I used to get somewhat annoyed by his Pollyanna attitude and the weird personal info I know now that it irritates the living shit out of Sterling and therefore I approve
Quote from: SKO on January 08, 2016, 03:39:14 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 08, 2016, 03:33:46 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 08, 2016, 03:02:31 PM
Say what you want about BRett, but here's some good analysis on Cubs' exit velocities (http://www.bleachernation.com/2016/01/08/visualizing-and-discussing-the-exit-velocities-for-chicago-cubs-positional-starters/).
I think he's a good blogger and this is a good blog post.
[fire emoji]
I like Brett and while I used to get somewhat annoyed by his Pollyanna attitude and the weird personal info I know now that it irritates the living shit out of Sterling and therefore I approve
This.
I've been a record a couple times on this at least, but I am generally pretty pro both Brett and Arguello (not that they're the same at all, but in terms of guys pumping out lots of Cubs info.)
And the fact that he pisses off Sterling is definitely one of the few things SKO and I can find common ground on.
Quote from: PenFoe on January 08, 2016, 03:48:50 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 08, 2016, 03:39:14 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 08, 2016, 03:33:46 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 08, 2016, 03:02:31 PM
Say what you want about BRett, but here's some good analysis on Cubs' exit velocities (http://www.bleachernation.com/2016/01/08/visualizing-and-discussing-the-exit-velocities-for-chicago-cubs-positional-starters/).
I think he's a good blogger and this is a good blog post.
[fire emoji]
I like Brett and while I used to get somewhat annoyed by his Pollyanna attitude and the weird personal info I know now that it irritates the living shit out of Sterling and therefore I approve
This.
I've been a record a couple times on this at least, but I am generally pretty pro both Brett and Arguello (not that they're the same at all, but in terms of guys pumping out lots of Cubs info.)
And the fact that he pisses off Sterling is definitely one of the few things SKO and I can find common ground on.
They're both good. They've also made it so Al isn't a black hole of Cubs blogging - imagine if he was the only option? Horrible.
Quote from: Slaky on January 08, 2016, 04:10:35 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 08, 2016, 03:48:50 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 08, 2016, 03:39:14 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 08, 2016, 03:33:46 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 08, 2016, 03:02:31 PM
Say what you want about BRett, but here's some good analysis on Cubs' exit velocities (http://www.bleachernation.com/2016/01/08/visualizing-and-discussing-the-exit-velocities-for-chicago-cubs-positional-starters/).
I think he's a good blogger and this is a good blog post.
[fire emoji]
I like Brett and while I used to get somewhat annoyed by his Pollyanna attitude and the weird personal info I know now that it irritates the living shit out of Sterling and therefore I approve
This.
I've been a record a couple times on this at least, but I am generally pretty pro both Brett and Arguello (not that they're the same at all, but in terms of guys pumping out lots of Cubs info.)
And the fact that he pisses off Sterling is definitely one of the few things SKO and I can find common ground on.
They're both good. They've also made it so Al isn't a black hole of Cubs blogging - imagine if he was the only option? Horrible.
Imagine if Andy or Kerm had blogs.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 08, 2016, 04:42:15 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 08, 2016, 04:10:35 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 08, 2016, 03:48:50 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 08, 2016, 03:39:14 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 08, 2016, 03:33:46 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 08, 2016, 03:02:31 PM
Say what you want about BRett, but here's some good analysis on Cubs' exit velocities (http://www.bleachernation.com/2016/01/08/visualizing-and-discussing-the-exit-velocities-for-chicago-cubs-positional-starters/).
I think he's a good blogger and this is a good blog post.
[fire emoji]
I like Brett and while I used to get somewhat annoyed by his Pollyanna attitude and the weird personal info I know now that it irritates the living shit out of Sterling and therefore I approve
This.
I've been a record a couple times on this at least, but I am generally pretty pro both Brett and Arguello (not that they're the same at all, but in terms of guys pumping out lots of Cubs info.)
And the fact that he pisses off Sterling is definitely one of the few things SKO and I can find common ground on.
They're both good. They've also made it so Al isn't a black hole of Cubs blogging - imagine if he was the only option? Horrible.
Imagine if Andy or Kerm had blogs.
Who the hell is Kerm
Quote from: PenFoe on January 08, 2016, 03:48:50 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 08, 2016, 03:39:14 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 08, 2016, 03:33:46 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 08, 2016, 03:02:31 PM
Say what you want about BRett, but here's some good analysis on Cubs' exit velocities (http://www.bleachernation.com/2016/01/08/visualizing-and-discussing-the-exit-velocities-for-chicago-cubs-positional-starters/).
I think he's a good blogger and this is a good blog post.
[fire emoji]
I like Brett and while I used to get somewhat annoyed by his Pollyanna attitude and the weird personal info I know now that it irritates the living shit out of Sterling and therefore I approve
This.
I've been a record a couple times on this at least, but I am generally pretty pro both Brett and Arguello (not that they're the same at all, but in terms of guys pumping out lots of Cubs info.)
And the fact that he pisses off Sterling is definitely one of the few things SKO and I can find common ground on.
Love you guys. Sterling is dead (acute tinnitus) and his opinions sucked anyway; long live Saul.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 08, 2016, 03:02:31 PM
Say what you want about BRett, but here's some good analysis on Cubs' exit velocities (http://www.bleachernation.com/2016/01/08/visualizing-and-discussing-the-exit-velocities-for-chicago-cubs-positional-starters/).
I think it would be good to know what the stats were for some of the more peak and valley weeks and if they are what one would expect.
For example, looking at Russell's chart, it seems he had a huge peak the week of August 30 (about 9 MPH harder hit than league average). Looking at that week (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?id=russead02&t=b&year=&share=0.23#110-116-sum:batting_gamelogs), he hit 3 of his home runs but his BABiP was .222. That
seems interesting.
Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 08, 2016, 06:17:38 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 08, 2016, 03:48:50 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 08, 2016, 03:39:14 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 08, 2016, 03:33:46 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 08, 2016, 03:02:31 PM
Say what you want about BRett, but here's some good analysis on Cubs' exit velocities (http://www.bleachernation.com/2016/01/08/visualizing-and-discussing-the-exit-velocities-for-chicago-cubs-positional-starters/).
I think he's a good blogger and this is a good blog post.
[fire emoji]
I like Brett and while I used to get somewhat annoyed by his Pollyanna attitude and the weird personal info I know now that it irritates the living shit out of Sterling and therefore I approve
This.
I've been a record a couple times on this at least, but I am generally pretty pro both Brett and Arguello (not that they're the same at all, but in terms of guys pumping out lots of Cubs info.)
And the fact that he pisses off Sterling is definitely one of the few things SKO and I can find common ground on.
Love you guys. Sterling is dead (acute tinnitus) and his opinions sucked anyway; long live Saul.
Shut up, Saul. You're a douche.
Quote from: Canadouche on January 08, 2016, 07:40:02 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 08, 2016, 06:17:38 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 08, 2016, 03:48:50 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 08, 2016, 03:39:14 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 08, 2016, 03:33:46 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 08, 2016, 03:02:31 PM
Say what you want about BRett, but here's some good analysis on Cubs' exit velocities (http://www.bleachernation.com/2016/01/08/visualizing-and-discussing-the-exit-velocities-for-chicago-cubs-positional-starters/).
I think he's a good blogger and this is a good blog post.
[fire emoji]
I like Brett and while I used to get somewhat annoyed by his Pollyanna attitude and the weird personal info I know now that it irritates the living shit out of Sterling and therefore I approve
This.
I've been a record a couple times on this at least, but I am generally pretty pro both Brett and Arguello (not that they're the same at all, but in terms of guys pumping out lots of Cubs info.)
And the fact that he pisses off Sterling is definitely one of the few things SKO and I can find common ground on.
Love you guys. Sterling is dead (acute tinnitus) and his opinions sucked anyway; long live Saul.
Shut up, Saul. You're a douche.
Someone already did that, move to strike.
DPD. Joe Sheehan's latest argues the Angels are wasting Mike Trout's career, having failed to make the postseason in recent years despite his being a consistent 9-win player. The only team that could pull off such a trade (or at least not be laughed out of the room), in Joe's estimation, is the Cubs.
QuoteThe idea of the Cubs trading for Trout is appealing because a center fielder is the one thing the Cubs neither have in the majors nor coming through he minors. The Cubs are one of the few teams that could make an offer for the best player in baseball that wouldn't be laughed out of the room, owing to their young talent at the MLB level and still-strong minor-league system. Trading for Trout, or maybe Andrew McCutchen, is the one big swing the Cubs have left in building an all-time great team.
Looking back, I am inclined to agree that the offer would be light, not because it's unreasonable, but because the value returned, or perhaps rather the shape of the value returned, wouldn't work for the Angels. The package above splits the baby; it includes players who can help the Angels in 2016, like Kyle Schwarber, Jorge Soler and Kyle Hendricks. Much of the value, though, is in others who won't be contributing for another few years, like Gleyber Torres and Ian Happ. If the Angels were to trade Mike Trout, they would probably need to pick a lane in doing so -- players, or prospects. I can defend the proposed package, in part because I think highly of Torres, but I can see where the Angels' fans -- and new GM Billy Eppler -- would say that it's not enough.
Despite all that the Angels, despite the overwhelming negative reaction to my idea, would have to take an offer like this seriously. They've played the last four seasons with Trout averaging nine bWAR a year, and they've yet to win a postseason series. They've made the playoffs once. Trout is surrounded by a team that without him would struggle to reach .500, that is mostly past prime, that seems to have maxed out its payroll, that has a farm system decimated by years of poor drafting, terrible international work and the desperate trading of their few real prospects in an effort to patch the major-league team's holes.
QuoteIf Rodriguez and Griffey could be traded, Trout certainly can be. It's something the Angels should consider. Their current team isn't very good even with Trout, and it seems more likely to get worse than better. Trout is a superstar, but he's changing as a player just as his salary climbs. The Cubs are a natural trade partner bursting at the seams with talent. Maybe my initial suggestion was light, but I'm pretty sure the idea behind it -- the Angels should be looking to trade Mike Trout, and the Cubs are the right fit -- is correct.
Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 08, 2016, 08:36:58 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 08, 2016, 07:40:02 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 08, 2016, 06:17:38 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 08, 2016, 03:48:50 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 08, 2016, 03:39:14 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 08, 2016, 03:33:46 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 08, 2016, 03:02:31 PM
Say what you want about BRett, but here's some good analysis on Cubs' exit velocities (http://www.bleachernation.com/2016/01/08/visualizing-and-discussing-the-exit-velocities-for-chicago-cubs-positional-starters/).
I think he's a good blogger and this is a good blog post.
[fire emoji]
I like Brett and while I used to get somewhat annoyed by his Pollyanna attitude and the weird personal info I know now that it irritates the living shit out of Sterling and therefore I approve
This.
I've been a record a couple times on this at least, but I am generally pretty pro both Brett and Arguello (not that they're the same at all, but in terms of guys pumping out lots of Cubs info.)
And the fact that he pisses off Sterling is definitely one of the few things SKO and I can find common ground on.
Love you guys. Sterling is dead (acute tinnitus) and his opinions sucked anyway; long live Saul.
Shut up, Saul. You're a douche.
Someone already did that, move to strike.
Motion granted.
Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 08, 2016, 08:45:51 PM
DPD. Joe Sheehan's latest argues the Angels are wasting Mike Trout's career, having failed to make the postseason in recent years despite his being a consistent 9-win player. The only team that could pull off such a trade (or at least not be laughed out of the room), in Joe's estimation, is the Cubs.
QuoteThe idea of the Cubs trading for Trout is appealing because a center fielder is the one thing the Cubs neither have in the majors nor coming through he minors. The Cubs are one of the few teams that could make an offer for the best player in baseball that wouldn't be laughed out of the room, owing to their young talent at the MLB level and still-strong minor-league system. Trading for Trout, or maybe Andrew McCutchen, is the one big swing the Cubs have left in building an all-time great team.
Looking back, I am inclined to agree that the offer would be light, not because it's unreasonable, but because the value returned, or perhaps rather the shape of the value returned, wouldn't work for the Angels. The package above splits the baby; it includes players who can help the Angels in 2016, like Kyle Schwarber, Jorge Soler and Kyle Hendricks. Much of the value, though, is in others who won't be contributing for another few years, like Gleyber Torres and Ian Happ. If the Angels were to trade Mike Trout, they would probably need to pick a lane in doing so -- players, or prospects. I can defend the proposed package, in part because I think highly of Torres, but I can see where the Angels' fans -- and new GM Billy Eppler -- would say that it's not enough.
Despite all that the Angels, despite the overwhelming negative reaction to my idea, would have to take an offer like this seriously. They've played the last four seasons with Trout averaging nine bWAR a year, and they've yet to win a postseason series. They've made the playoffs once. Trout is surrounded by a team that without him would struggle to reach .500, that is mostly past prime, that seems to have maxed out its payroll, that has a farm system decimated by years of poor drafting, terrible international work and the desperate trading of their few real prospects in an effort to patch the major-league team's holes.
So is the proposed trade Kyle Schwarber, Jorge Soler, Kyle Hendricks, Gleyber Torres and Ian Happ for Trout? Lots of references to "the offer" but you omit the actual proposed offer.
If that's the offer, sign me up.
Quote from: Shooter on January 09, 2016, 12:45:04 AM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 08, 2016, 08:45:51 PM
DPD. Joe Sheehan's latest argues the Angels are wasting Mike Trout's career, having failed to make the postseason in recent years despite his being a consistent 9-win player. The only team that could pull off such a trade (or at least not be laughed out of the room), in Joe's estimation, is the Cubs.
QuoteThe idea of the Cubs trading for Trout is appealing because a center fielder is the one thing the Cubs neither have in the majors nor coming through he minors. The Cubs are one of the few teams that could make an offer for the best player in baseball that wouldn't be laughed out of the room, owing to their young talent at the MLB level and still-strong minor-league system. Trading for Trout, or maybe Andrew McCutchen, is the one big swing the Cubs have left in building an all-time great team.
Looking back, I am inclined to agree that the offer would be light, not because it's unreasonable, but because the value returned, or perhaps rather the shape of the value returned, wouldn't work for the Angels. The package above splits the baby; it includes players who can help the Angels in 2016, like Kyle Schwarber, Jorge Soler and Kyle Hendricks. Much of the value, though, is in others who won't be contributing for another few years, like Gleyber Torres and Ian Happ. If the Angels were to trade Mike Trout, they would probably need to pick a lane in doing so -- players, or prospects. I can defend the proposed package, in part because I think highly of Torres, but I can see where the Angels' fans -- and new GM Billy Eppler -- would say that it's not enough.
Despite all that the Angels, despite the overwhelming negative reaction to my idea, would have to take an offer like this seriously. They've played the last four seasons with Trout averaging nine bWAR a year, and they've yet to win a postseason series. They've made the playoffs once. Trout is surrounded by a team that without him would struggle to reach .500, that is mostly past prime, that seems to have maxed out its payroll, that has a farm system decimated by years of poor drafting, terrible international work and the desperate trading of their few real prospects in an effort to patch the major-league team's holes.
So is the proposed trade Kyle Schwarber, Jorge Soler, Kyle Hendricks, Gleyber Torres and Ian Happ for Trout? Lots of references to "the offer" but you omit the actual proposed offer.
If that's the offer, sign me up.
Sorry. There's almost no precision whatsoever trying to highlight text in the email app. All the names were mentioned, just not directly:
QuoteLast month, just after the 30 Teams project, I suggested a trade package the Cubs could assemble to acquire Mike Trout:
"@joe_sheehan: Schwarber, Soler, Hendricks, Torres and Happ for Trout. Who says no? #cubs #angels"
Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 09, 2016, 01:31:46 AM
Last month, just after the 30 Teams project, I suggested a trade package the Cubs could assemble to acquire Mike Trout:
"@joe_sheehan: Schwarber, Soler, Hendricks, Torres and Happ for Trout. Who says no? #cubs #angels"
I'd pull that trigger.
Zobrist
Heyward
Rizzo
Trout
Bryant
Baez
Montero
Arrieta
Russell
Motherfucker. I don't care who your starting pitcher is, I want to see him try and get through that lot three times. They might as well just hand the WS to the Cubs in March already.
Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 08, 2016, 08:45:51 PM
DPD. Joe Sheehan's latest argues the Angels are wasting Mike Trout's career, having failed to make the postseason in recent years despite his being a consistent 9-win player. The only team that could pull off such a trade (or at least not be laughed out of the room), in Joe's estimation, is the Cubs.
QuoteThe idea of the Cubs trading for Trout is appealing because a center fielder is the one thing the Cubs neither have in the majors nor coming through he minors. The Cubs are one of the few teams that could make an offer for the best player in baseball that wouldn't be laughed out of the room, owing to their young talent at the MLB level and still-strong minor-league system. Trading for Trout, or maybe Andrew McCutchen, is the one big swing the Cubs have left in building an all-time great team.
Looking back, I am inclined to agree that the offer would be light, not because it's unreasonable, but because the value returned, or perhaps rather the shape of the value returned, wouldn't work for the Angels. The package above splits the baby; it includes players who can help the Angels in 2016, like Kyle Schwarber, Jorge Soler and Kyle Hendricks. Much of the value, though, is in others who won't be contributing for another few years, like Gleyber Torres and Ian Happ. If the Angels were to trade Mike Trout, they would probably need to pick a lane in doing so -- players, or prospects. I can defend the proposed package, in part because I think highly of Torres, but I can see where the Angels' fans -- and new GM Billy Eppler -- would say that it's not enough.
Despite all that the Angels, despite the overwhelming negative reaction to my idea, would have to take an offer like this seriously. They've played the last four seasons with Trout averaging nine bWAR a year, and they've yet to win a postseason series. They've made the playoffs once. Trout is surrounded by a team that without him would struggle to reach .500, that is mostly past prime, that seems to have maxed out its payroll, that has a farm system decimated by years of poor drafting, terrible international work and the desperate trading of their few real prospects in an effort to patch the major-league team's holes.
Once I got to the line above all I could think about was Huey shouting into the phone at one of the Cusack sisters, and I spent the next 45 minutes chuckling to myself.
There's absolutely no way the Cubs get Trout without giving up Rizzo or Bryant.
Quote from: Eli on January 09, 2016, 01:59:17 PM
There's absolutely no way the Cubs get Trout without giving up Rizzo or Bryant.
I kept waiting for him to say Bryant would have to be included in the deal. The offer he proposed would be an easy yes for the Cubs. There's no way that gets Trout.
Quote from: Tony on January 09, 2016, 08:12:23 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 09, 2016, 01:59:17 PM
There's absolutely no way the Cubs get Trout without giving up Rizzo or Bryant.
I kept waiting for him to say Bryant would have to be included in the deal. The offer he proposed would be an easy yes for the Cubs. There's no way that gets Trout.
I was thinking Arrieta and/or Bryant. They've got Pujols, not sure they'd be that keen on Rizzo.
Quote from: Tony on January 09, 2016, 08:12:23 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 09, 2016, 01:59:17 PM
There's absolutely no way the Cubs get Trout without giving up Rizzo or Bryant.
I kept waiting for him to say Bryant would have to be included in the deal. The offer he proposed would be an easy yes for the Cubs. There's no way that gets Trout.
Sheehan is generally OK, but he sometimes comes out of left field with really ridiculous stuff. That offer was Score-caller proposal dumb.
Quote from: Eli on January 10, 2016, 08:39:53 AM
Quote from: Tony on January 09, 2016, 08:12:23 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 09, 2016, 01:59:17 PM
There's absolutely no way the Cubs get Trout without giving up Rizzo or Bryant.
I kept waiting for him to say Bryant would have to be included in the deal. The offer he proposed would be an easy yes for the Cubs. There's no way that gets Trout.
Sheehan is generally OK, but he sometimes comes out of left field with really ridiculous stuff. That offer was Score-caller proposal dumb.
He's another one of those "Here's how easy this decision is for me to make because I have zero skin in the game" kinda guys.
Everything seems like a no-brainer where's he's sitting because he never deals with actual people.
Quote from: Eli on January 09, 2016, 01:59:17 PM
There's absolutely no way the Cubs get Trout without giving up Rizzo or Bryant.
Mike Trout is so good and he's just so superstar-y, and I would give up all those players for him. No way it would get him, but I would do it if the Angels wanted it.
On the other hand, if they asked for Bryant in place of one of those guys I'd tell them no. I don't want to miss Kris Bryant's career ascent in a Cubs uniform.
That said, if the Cubs did trade Bryant and others for Trout, I'd quietly track KB17's career from afar and be excited about my new Trout shirsey.
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on January 11, 2016, 10:36:17 AM
On the other hand, if they asked for Bryant in place of one of those guys I'd tell them no. I don't want to miss Kris Bryant's career ascent in a Cubs uniform.
Everyone else in baseball is a "no" in terms of trading Bryant. Except Trout. That should be a pretty easy "yes."
Quote from: Eli on January 11, 2016, 10:48:12 AM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on January 11, 2016, 10:36:17 AM
On the other hand, if they asked for Bryant in place of one of those guys I'd tell them no. I don't want to miss Kris Bryant's career ascent in a Cubs uniform.
Everyone else in baseball is a "no" in terms of trading Bryant. Except Trout. That should be a pretty easy "yes."
There's no way you trade for the best player in baseball and get to keep your best player. Bryant would have to be part of the package.
But if the Angels get serious about trading Trout, I'd guess it would be hard for any team to put together a package that gets it done without Trout's new team taking a net loss in wins.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 11, 2016, 11:01:07 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 11, 2016, 10:48:12 AM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on January 11, 2016, 10:36:17 AM
On the other hand, if they asked for Bryant in place of one of those guys I'd tell them no. I don't want to miss Kris Bryant's career ascent in a Cubs uniform.
Everyone else in baseball is a "no" in terms of trading Bryant. Except Trout. That should be a pretty easy "yes."
There's no way you trade for the best player in baseball and get to keep your best player. Bryant would have to be part of the package.
But if the Angels get serious about trading Trout, I'd guess it would be hard for any team to put together a package that gets it done without Trout's new team taking a net loss in wins.
So, they're not trading Bryant then. Good. Let's move on.
On the way in to work I tuned my radio to Sirius and the screen showed that they were talking about a Cubs Marlin trade. Of course the hosts and the guest weren't talking about anything of the kind. What is going on?
Quote from: CBStew on January 11, 2016, 11:16:46 AM
On the way in to work I tuned my radio to Sirius and the screen showed that they were talking about a Cubs Marlin trade. Of course the hosts and the guest weren't talking about anything of the kind. What is going on?
Your radio's on the blink?
Quote from: Tonker on January 11, 2016, 11:20:33 AM
Quote from: CBStew on January 11, 2016, 11:16:46 AM
On the way in to work I tuned my radio to Sirius and the screen showed that they were talking about a Cubs Marlin trade. Of course the hosts and the guest weren't talking about anything of the kind. What is going on?
Your radio's on the blink?
Put on the 60s station and listen to James Brown sing "Papa's Got A Bra".
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 11, 2016, 11:25:28 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 11, 2016, 11:20:33 AM
Quote from: CBStew on January 11, 2016, 11:16:46 AM
On the way in to work I tuned my radio to Sirius and the screen showed that they were talking about a Cubs Marlin trade. Of course the hosts and the guest weren't talking about anything of the kind. What is going on?
Your radio's on the blink?
Put on the 60s station and listen to James Brown sing "Papa's Got A Bra".
I am a Frank Sinatra Channel person when I am not listening to the MLB Radio channel.
Let's rejoice over the beginning of the Jesus Guzman Era (http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/chicago-cubs-sign-jesus-guzman-to-minor-league-deal-011016)!
Quote from: CBStew on January 11, 2016, 11:16:46 AM
On the way in to work I tuned my radio to Sirius and the screen showed that they were talking about a Cubs Marlin trade. Of course the hosts and the guest weren't talking about anything of the kind. What is going on?
It was great. Hee Seop Choi went to Marlins and Derrek Lee came up here. Or maybe it was not-so-great with Chris Volstead coming up here and Carlos Zambrano going down there.
No, no, no. It was this trade (https://web.archive.org/web/20080111140435/http://www.desipio.com/features/guests/andy/032702-sixtoedsloth.htm). Meh.
Quote from: Brownie on January 11, 2016, 01:22:11 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 11, 2016, 11:16:46 AM
On the way in to work I tuned my radio to Sirius and the screen showed that they were talking about a Cubs Marlin trade. Of course the hosts and the guest weren't talking about anything of the kind. What is going on?
It was great. Hee Seop Choi went to Marlins and Derrek Lee came up here. Or maybe it was not-so-great with Chris Volstead coming up here and Carlos Zambrano going down there.
No, no, no. It was this trade (https://web.archive.org/web/20080111140435/http://www.desipio.com/features/guests/andy/032702-sixtoedsloth.htm). Meh.
I guess the broadcast was taped to be played later (14 years) on the West Coast.
Spring Training just probably (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/01/cubs-sign-munenori-kawasaki.html) got a little (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdGai72Tt8Y) more (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Di2_EM3zCg) interesting (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr_3-Yk96Wk).
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 08:45:32 AM
Spring Training just probably (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/01/cubs-sign-munenori-kawasaki.html) got a little (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdGai72Tt8Y) more (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Di2_EM3zCg) interesting (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr_3-Yk96Wk).
JennPex will have a rooting interest in the final round of cuts.
Quote from: InternetApex on January 21, 2016, 09:17:20 AM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 08:45:32 AM
Spring Training just probably (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/01/cubs-sign-munenori-kawasaki.html) got a little (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdGai72Tt8Y) more (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Di2_EM3zCg) interesting (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr_3-Yk96Wk).
JennPex will have a rooting interest in the final round of cuts.
Nah, he's taking Herrera's job as staff comedian. Dempster's gonna be so jealous.
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 08:45:32 AM
Spring Training just probably (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/01/cubs-sign-munenori-kawasaki.html) got a little (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdGai72Tt8Y) more (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Di2_EM3zCg) interesting (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr_3-Yk96Wk).
Good lord. Must we have a Doug Dascenzo/Sam Fuld type? He's a character but he's awful...
Quote from: Canadouche on January 21, 2016, 03:49:18 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 08:45:32 AM
Spring Training just probably (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/01/cubs-sign-munenori-kawasaki.html) got a little (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdGai72Tt8Y) more (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Di2_EM3zCg) interesting (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr_3-Yk96Wk).
Good lord. Must we have a Doug Dascenzo/Sam Fuld type? He's a character but he's awful...
Spoiler alert: He's not going to make the team out of ST. Unless like 3 players get hurt badly.
Did we already do the project the 25 man roster thing? I'm pretty sure we did, but my 10 seconds of using the dogshit search function on this site didn't turn it up.
Quote from: R-V on January 21, 2016, 04:23:06 PM
Did we already do the project the 25 man roster thing? I'm pretty sure we did, but my 10 seconds of using the dogshit search function on this site didn't turn it up.
C Montero
C Ross
1B Rizzo
2B Zobrist
SS Russell
3B Bryant
IF/OF Baez
IF LaStella
UTIL New Asian Dude
LF Schwarber
CF Heyward
RF Soler
OF Coghlan
SP Lester
SP Arrieta
SP Lackey
SP Hendricks
SP Hammel
P Warren
P Rondon
P Grimm
P Strop
P Cahill
P Richard
P Wood
Fence:
Brothers
Edwards
Szczur/UTIL OF
Ramirez
Rosscup
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2016, 10:19:30 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 21, 2016, 04:23:06 PM
Did we already do the project the 25 man roster thing? I'm pretty sure we did, but my 10 seconds of using the dogshit search function on this site didn't turn it up.
C Montero
C Ross
1B Rizzo
2B Zobrist
SS Russell
3B Bryant
IF/OF Baez
IF LaStella
UTIL New Asian Dude
LF Schwarber
CF Heyward
RF Soler
OF Coghlan
SP Lester
SP Arrieta
SP Lackey
SP Hendricks
SP Hammel
P Warren
P Rondon
P Grimm
P Strop
P Cahill
P Richard
P Wood
Fence:
Brothers
Edwards
Szczur/UTIL OF
Ramirez
Rosscup
With Baez and La Stella both healthy and presumably making the opening day roster I would bet good money on Szczur being the 13th position player and not Asian dude, if they even carry 13 position players.
Frankly I still think there's a trade or two coming before ST. Maybe nothing major but I feel like Coghlan being pretty much the only position player on the roster who wasn't at the Cub Convention and also his complaints about lack of playing time last year might indicate he's being shopped.
Quote from: SKO on January 22, 2016, 10:29:02 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2016, 10:19:30 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 21, 2016, 04:23:06 PM
Did we already do the project the 25 man roster thing? I'm pretty sure we did, but my 10 seconds of using the dogshit search function on this site didn't turn it up.
C Montero
C Ross
1B Rizzo
2B Zobrist
SS Russell
3B Bryant
IF/OF Baez
IF LaStella
UTIL New Asian Dude
LF Schwarber
CF Heyward
RF Soler
OF Coghlan
SP Lester
SP Arrieta
SP Lackey
SP Hendricks
SP Hammel
P Warren
P Rondon
P Grimm
P Strop
P Cahill
P Richard
P Wood
Fence:
Brothers
Edwards
Szczur/UTIL OF
Ramirez
Rosscup
With Baez and La Stella both healthy and presumably making the opening day roster I would bet good money on Szczur being the 13th position player and not Asian dude, if they even carry 13 position players.
Frankly I still think there's a trade or two coming before ST. Maybe nothing major but I feel like Coghlan being pretty much the only position player on the roster who wasn't at the Cub Convention and also his complaints about lack of playing time last year might indicate he's being shopped.
Can asian dude play center? Will Baez be ready to play center? Or is Heyward going to play every inning there? And what happens when Jorge msises time and Heyward moves to right?
Quote from: Tony on January 22, 2016, 10:38:41 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 22, 2016, 10:29:02 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2016, 10:19:30 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 21, 2016, 04:23:06 PM
Did we already do the project the 25 man roster thing? I'm pretty sure we did, but my 10 seconds of using the dogshit search function on this site didn't turn it up.
C Montero
C Ross
1B Rizzo
2B Zobrist
SS Russell
3B Bryant
IF/OF Baez
IF LaStella
UTIL New Asian Dude
LF Schwarber
CF Heyward
RF Soler
OF Coghlan
SP Lester
SP Arrieta
SP Lackey
SP Hendricks
SP Hammel
P Warren
P Rondon
P Grimm
P Strop
P Cahill
P Richard
P Wood
Fence:
Brothers
Edwards
Szczur/UTIL OF
Ramirez
Rosscup
With Baez and La Stella both healthy and presumably making the opening day roster I would bet good money on Szczur being the 13th position player and not Asian dude, if they even carry 13 position players.
Frankly I still think there's a trade or two coming before ST. Maybe nothing major but I feel like Coghlan being pretty much the only position player on the roster who wasn't at the Cub Convention and also his complaints about lack of playing time last year might indicate he's being shopped.
Can asian dude play center? Will Baez be ready to play center? Or is Heyward going to play every inning there? And what happens when Jorge msises time and Heyward moves to right?
I think we're definitely going to see Baez play CF at some point.
Maybe even Bryant again.
Asian dude has never played anything except 2B/SS/3B in MLB.
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2016, 10:41:32 AM
Quote from: Tony on January 22, 2016, 10:38:41 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 22, 2016, 10:29:02 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2016, 10:19:30 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 21, 2016, 04:23:06 PM
Did we already do the project the 25 man roster thing? I'm pretty sure we did, but my 10 seconds of using the dogshit search function on this site didn't turn it up.
C Montero
C Ross
1B Rizzo
2B Zobrist
SS Russell
3B Bryant
IF/OF Baez
IF LaStella
UTIL New Asian Dude
LF Schwarber
CF Heyward
RF Soler
OF Coghlan
SP Lester
SP Arrieta
SP Lackey
SP Hendricks
SP Hammel
P Warren
P Rondon
P Grimm
P Strop
P Cahill
P Richard
P Wood
Fence:
Brothers
Edwards
Szczur/UTIL OF
Ramirez
Rosscup
With Baez and La Stella both healthy and presumably making the opening day roster I would bet good money on Szczur being the 13th position player and not Asian dude, if they even carry 13 position players.
Frankly I still think there's a trade or two coming before ST. Maybe nothing major but I feel like Coghlan being pretty much the only position player on the roster who wasn't at the Cub Convention and also his complaints about lack of playing time last year might indicate he's being shopped.
Can asian dude play center? Will Baez be ready to play center? Or is Heyward going to play every inning there? And what happens when Jorge msises time and Heyward moves to right?
I think we're definitely going to see Baez play CF at some point.
Maybe even Bryant again.
Asian dude has never played anything except 2B/SS/3B in MLB.
This is why I'm glad the Cubs are supposedly still talking to Austin Jackson. A Coghlan trade and Jackson as the 4th OF would be nice. You could have an actual big league CF in case Heyward or Jorge got hurt and not need to use Mack Seizure for anything.
Quote from: SKO on January 22, 2016, 10:57:03 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2016, 10:41:32 AM
Quote from: Tony on January 22, 2016, 10:38:41 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 22, 2016, 10:29:02 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2016, 10:19:30 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 21, 2016, 04:23:06 PM
Did we already do the project the 25 man roster thing? I'm pretty sure we did, but my 10 seconds of using the dogshit search function on this site didn't turn it up.
C Montero
C Ross
1B Rizzo
2B Zobrist
SS Russell
3B Bryant
IF/OF Baez
IF LaStella
UTIL New Asian Dude
LF Schwarber
CF Heyward
RF Soler
OF Coghlan
SP Lester
SP Arrieta
SP Lackey
SP Hendricks
SP Hammel
P Warren
P Rondon
P Grimm
P Strop
P Cahill
P Richard
P Wood
Fence:
Brothers
Edwards
Szczur/UTIL OF
Ramirez
Rosscup
With Baez and La Stella both healthy and presumably making the opening day roster I would bet good money on Szczur being the 13th position player and not Asian dude, if they even carry 13 position players.
Frankly I still think there's a trade or two coming before ST. Maybe nothing major but I feel like Coghlan being pretty much the only position player on the roster who wasn't at the Cub Convention and also his complaints about lack of playing time last year might indicate he's being shopped.
Can asian dude play center? Will Baez be ready to play center? Or is Heyward going to play every inning there? And what happens when Jorge msises time and Heyward moves to right?
I think we're definitely going to see Baez play CF at some point.
Maybe even Bryant again.
Asian dude has never played anything except 2B/SS/3B in MLB.
This is why I'm glad the Cubs are supposedly still talking to Austin Jackson. A Coghlan trade and Jackson as the 4th OF would be nice. You could have an actual big league CF in case Heyward or Jorge got hurt and not need to use Mack Seizure for anything.
I would positive the hell out of that. Also, that could open up a roster spot for a 13th pitcher, and my ridiculous fantasy of Neil Ramirez staying healthy and dominating for a season would still have a shred of a chance of hai.
Quote from: R-V on January 22, 2016, 12:12:16 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 22, 2016, 10:57:03 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2016, 10:41:32 AM
Quote from: Tony on January 22, 2016, 10:38:41 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 22, 2016, 10:29:02 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2016, 10:19:30 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 21, 2016, 04:23:06 PM
Did we already do the project the 25 man roster thing? I'm pretty sure we did, but my 10 seconds of using the dogshit search function on this site didn't turn it up.
C Montero
C Ross
1B Rizzo
2B Zobrist
SS Russell
3B Bryant
IF/OF Baez
IF LaStella
UTIL New Asian Dude
LF Schwarber
CF Heyward
RF Soler
OF Coghlan
SP Lester
SP Arrieta
SP Lackey
SP Hendricks
SP Hammel
P Warren
P Rondon
P Grimm
P Strop
P Cahill
P Richard
P Wood
Fence:
Brothers
Edwards
Szczur/UTIL OF
Ramirez
Rosscup
With Baez and La Stella both healthy and presumably making the opening day roster I would bet good money on Szczur being the 13th position player and not Asian dude, if they even carry 13 position players.
Frankly I still think there's a trade or two coming before ST. Maybe nothing major but I feel like Coghlan being pretty much the only position player on the roster who wasn't at the Cub Convention and also his complaints about lack of playing time last year might indicate he's being shopped.
Can asian dude play center? Will Baez be ready to play center? Or is Heyward going to play every inning there? And what happens when Jorge msises time and Heyward moves to right?
I think we're definitely going to see Baez play CF at some point.
Maybe even Bryant again.
Asian dude has never played anything except 2B/SS/3B in MLB.
This is why I'm glad the Cubs are supposedly still talking to Austin Jackson. A Coghlan trade and Jackson as the 4th OF would be nice. You could have an actual big league CF in case Heyward or Jorge got hurt and not need to use Mack Seizure for anything.
I would positive the hell out of that. Also, that could open up a roster spot for a 13th pitcher, and my ridiculous fantasy of Neil Ramirez staying healthy and dominating for a season would still have a shred of a chance of hai.
Yeah, trade Coghlan for whatever prospect or reliever or whatever you think you need, sign Jackson, and my ideal 25 man would be:
C Montero
C Ross
1B Rizzo
2B Zobrist
SS Russell
3B Bryant
UTIL: Baez
UTIL: La Stella
LF: Schwarber
CF: Heyward
RF: Soler
OF: Jackson
Then:
SP Arrieta
SP Lester
SP Lackey
SP Warren
SP Hendricks
LHP Richard
LHP Brothers
LHP Wood
RHP Ramirez
RHP Cahill
RHP Grimm
RHP Strop
RHP Rondon
In this scenario Hammel has also been dumped on someone else. That may not be logical but I'm still mad at him.
For pinch hitting and subs you'd have two solid right handed options in Baez and Jackson, and La Stella batting lefty. You lose some of the offense Coghlan probably would provide over Jackson but your defense and depth is a lot better. A Heyward injury would basically destroy the outfield as it is right now, add Jackson and you could survive a few weeks with Schwarber-Jackson-Soler as your OF.
I'd like to think that Warren can overtake Hammel in the rotation by late July, precipitating the latter's removal from the team in exchange for another bullpen arm. Hammel's about the only thing on the entire 25-man that I don't feel good about. Fucker.
Quote from: PANK! on January 22, 2016, 12:54:29 PM
I'd like to think that Warren can overtake Hammel in the rotation by late July, precipitating the latter's removal from the team in exchange for another bullpen arm. Hammel's about the only thing on the entire 25-man that I don't feel good about. Fucker.
I bet Hammel comes out healthy, hungry, HGH'd to the gills and starts recording quality starts for several weeks to start the season. That will shut his haters up until he gets hurt, gives up an assload of runs and starts bitching again. At that point, I'll be the one starting the defenestration thread. But until then, I'm in see how it plays out mode.
Quote from: SKO on January 22, 2016, 12:28:40 PM
Quote from: R-V on January 22, 2016, 12:12:16 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 22, 2016, 10:57:03 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2016, 10:41:32 AM
Quote from: Tony on January 22, 2016, 10:38:41 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 22, 2016, 10:29:02 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2016, 10:19:30 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 21, 2016, 04:23:06 PM
Did we already do the project the 25 man roster thing? I'm pretty sure we did, but my 10 seconds of using the dogshit search function on this site didn't turn it up.
C Montero
C Ross
1B Rizzo
2B Zobrist
SS Russell
3B Bryant
IF/OF Baez
IF LaStella
UTIL New Asian Dude
LF Schwarber
CF Heyward
RF Soler
OF Coghlan
SP Lester
SP Arrieta
SP Lackey
SP Hendricks
SP Hammel
P Warren
P Rondon
P Grimm
P Strop
P Cahill
P Richard
P Wood
Fence:
Brothers
Edwards
Szczur/UTIL OF
Ramirez
Rosscup
With Baez and La Stella both healthy and presumably making the opening day roster I would bet good money on Szczur being the 13th position player and not Asian dude, if they even carry 13 position players.
Frankly I still think there's a trade or two coming before ST. Maybe nothing major but I feel like Coghlan being pretty much the only position player on the roster who wasn't at the Cub Convention and also his complaints about lack of playing time last year might indicate he's being shopped.
Can asian dude play center? Will Baez be ready to play center? Or is Heyward going to play every inning there? And what happens when Jorge msises time and Heyward moves to right?
I think we're definitely going to see Baez play CF at some point.
Maybe even Bryant again.
Asian dude has never played anything except 2B/SS/3B in MLB.
This is why I'm glad the Cubs are supposedly still talking to Austin Jackson. A Coghlan trade and Jackson as the 4th OF would be nice. You could have an actual big league CF in case Heyward or Jorge got hurt and not need to use Mack Seizure for anything.
I would positive the hell out of that. Also, that could open up a roster spot for a 13th pitcher, and my ridiculous fantasy of Neil Ramirez staying healthy and dominating for a season would still have a shred of a chance of hai.
Yeah, trade Coghlan for whatever prospect or reliever or whatever you think you need, sign Jackson, and my ideal 25 man would be:
C Montero
C Ross
1B Rizzo
2B Zobrist
SS Russell
3B Bryant
UTIL: Baez
UTIL: La Stella
LF: Schwarber
CF: Heyward
RF: Soler
OF: Jackson
Then:
SP Arrieta
SP Lester
SP Lackey
SP Warren
SP Hendricks
LHP Richard
LHP Brothers
LHP Wood
RHP Ramirez
RHP Cahill
RHP Grimm
RHP Strop
RHP Rondon
In this scenario Hammel has also been dumped on someone else. That may not be logical but I'm still mad at him.
For pinch hitting and subs you'd have two solid right handed options in Baez and Jackson, and La Stella batting lefty. You lose some of the offense Coghlan probably would provide over Jackson but your defense and depth is a lot better. A Heyward injury would basically destroy the outfield as it is right now, add Jackson and you could survive a few weeks with Schwarber-Jackson-Soler as your OF.
I didn't even think about that. Soler missing time is probably a given, but I forgot all about CF if Heyward were to get hurt. Shit, now I'm worried. Get the Jackson thing done, Theo!
Quote from: Tony on January 22, 2016, 01:09:35 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 22, 2016, 12:28:40 PM
Quote from: R-V on January 22, 2016, 12:12:16 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 22, 2016, 10:57:03 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2016, 10:41:32 AM
Quote from: Tony on January 22, 2016, 10:38:41 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 22, 2016, 10:29:02 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2016, 10:19:30 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 21, 2016, 04:23:06 PM
Did we already do the project the 25 man roster thing? I'm pretty sure we did, but my 10 seconds of using the dogshit search function on this site didn't turn it up.
C Montero
C Ross
1B Rizzo
2B Zobrist
SS Russell
3B Bryant
IF/OF Baez
IF LaStella
UTIL New Asian Dude
LF Schwarber
CF Heyward
RF Soler
OF Coghlan
SP Lester
SP Arrieta
SP Lackey
SP Hendricks
SP Hammel
P Warren
P Rondon
P Grimm
P Strop
P Cahill
P Richard
P Wood
Fence:
Brothers
Edwards
Szczur/UTIL OF
Ramirez
Rosscup
With Baez and La Stella both healthy and presumably making the opening day roster I would bet good money on Szczur being the 13th position player and not Asian dude, if they even carry 13 position players.
Frankly I still think there's a trade or two coming before ST. Maybe nothing major but I feel like Coghlan being pretty much the only position player on the roster who wasn't at the Cub Convention and also his complaints about lack of playing time last year might indicate he's being shopped.
Can asian dude play center? Will Baez be ready to play center? Or is Heyward going to play every inning there? And what happens when Jorge msises time and Heyward moves to right?
I think we're definitely going to see Baez play CF at some point.
Maybe even Bryant again.
Asian dude has never played anything except 2B/SS/3B in MLB.
This is why I'm glad the Cubs are supposedly still talking to Austin Jackson. A Coghlan trade and Jackson as the 4th OF would be nice. You could have an actual big league CF in case Heyward or Jorge got hurt and not need to use Mack Seizure for anything.
I would positive the hell out of that. Also, that could open up a roster spot for a 13th pitcher, and my ridiculous fantasy of Neil Ramirez staying healthy and dominating for a season would still have a shred of a chance of hai.
Yeah, trade Coghlan for whatever prospect or reliever or whatever you think you need, sign Jackson, and my ideal 25 man would be:
C Montero
C Ross
1B Rizzo
2B Zobrist
SS Russell
3B Bryant
UTIL: Baez
UTIL: La Stella
LF: Schwarber
CF: Heyward
RF: Soler
OF: Jackson
Then:
SP Arrieta
SP Lester
SP Lackey
SP Warren
SP Hendricks
LHP Richard
LHP Brothers
LHP Wood
RHP Ramirez
RHP Cahill
RHP Grimm
RHP Strop
RHP Rondon
In this scenario Hammel has also been dumped on someone else. That may not be logical but I'm still mad at him.
For pinch hitting and subs you'd have two solid right handed options in Baez and Jackson, and La Stella batting lefty. You lose some of the offense Coghlan probably would provide over Jackson but your defense and depth is a lot better. A Heyward injury would basically destroy the outfield as it is right now, add Jackson and you could survive a few weeks with Schwarber-Jackson-Soler as your OF.
I didn't even think about that. Soler missing time is probably a given, but I forgot all about CF if Heyward were to get hurt. Shit, now I'm worried. Get the Jackson thing done, Theo!
Unless Almora is ready to play a little baseball. That'd be dope.
Quote from: Tony on January 22, 2016, 01:09:35 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 22, 2016, 12:28:40 PM
Quote from: R-V on January 22, 2016, 12:12:16 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 22, 2016, 10:57:03 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2016, 10:41:32 AM
Quote from: Tony on January 22, 2016, 10:38:41 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 22, 2016, 10:29:02 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2016, 10:19:30 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 21, 2016, 04:23:06 PM
Did we already do the project the 25 man roster thing? I'm pretty sure we did, but my 10 seconds of using the dogshit search function on this site didn't turn it up.
C Montero
C Ross
1B Rizzo
2B Zobrist
SS Russell
3B Bryant
IF/OF Baez
IF LaStella
UTIL New Asian Dude
LF Schwarber
CF Heyward
RF Soler
OF Coghlan
SP Lester
SP Arrieta
SP Lackey
SP Hendricks
SP Hammel
P Warren
P Rondon
P Grimm
P Strop
P Cahill
P Richard
P Wood
Fence:
Brothers
Edwards
Szczur/UTIL OF
Ramirez
Rosscup
With Baez and La Stella both healthy and presumably making the opening day roster I would bet good money on Szczur being the 13th position player and not Asian dude, if they even carry 13 position players.
Frankly I still think there's a trade or two coming before ST. Maybe nothing major but I feel like Coghlan being pretty much the only position player on the roster who wasn't at the Cub Convention and also his complaints about lack of playing time last year might indicate he's being shopped.
Can asian dude play center? Will Baez be ready to play center? Or is Heyward going to play every inning there? And what happens when Jorge msises time and Heyward moves to right?
I think we're definitely going to see Baez play CF at some point.
Maybe even Bryant again.
Asian dude has never played anything except 2B/SS/3B in MLB.
This is why I'm glad the Cubs are supposedly still talking to Austin Jackson. A Coghlan trade and Jackson as the 4th OF would be nice. You could have an actual big league CF in case Heyward or Jorge got hurt and not need to use Mack Seizure for anything.
I would positive the hell out of that. Also, that could open up a roster spot for a 13th pitcher, and my ridiculous fantasy of Neil Ramirez staying healthy and dominating for a season would still have a shred of a chance of hai.
Yeah, trade Coghlan for whatever prospect or reliever or whatever you think you need, sign Jackson, and my ideal 25 man would be:
C Montero
C Ross
1B Rizzo
2B Zobrist
SS Russell
3B Bryant
UTIL: Baez
UTIL: La Stella
LF: Schwarber
CF: Heyward
RF: Soler
OF: Jackson
Then:
SP Arrieta
SP Lester
SP Lackey
SP Warren
SP Hendricks
LHP Richard
LHP Brothers
LHP Wood
RHP Ramirez
RHP Cahill
RHP Grimm
RHP Strop
RHP Rondon
In this scenario Hammel has also been dumped on someone else. That may not be logical but I'm still mad at him.
For pinch hitting and subs you'd have two solid right handed options in Baez and Jackson, and La Stella batting lefty. You lose some of the offense Coghlan probably would provide over Jackson but your defense and depth is a lot better. A Heyward injury would basically destroy the outfield as it is right now, add Jackson and you could survive a few weeks with Schwarber-Jackson-Soler as your OF.
I didn't even think about that. Soler missing time is probably a given, but I forgot all about CF if Heyward were to get hurt. Shit, now I'm worried. Get the Jackson thing done, Theo!
Theo is going to trade Soler and Vogelbach and others for Kiermaier, Cobb, and Boxberger. Cobb is out for a bit to start the season; he probably comes back just in time to replace Hammel and his usual second half swoon.
Of course Theo has always had a plan (http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/25457028/cubs-2014-sales-pitch-to-jon-lester-included-signing-jason-heyward) that included Heyward in CF, so whatever. He's a goddamn wizard.
Edit:Better link (http://www.csnchicago.com/cubs/cubs-called-their-shot-jason-heyward-signing).
Quote from: InternetApex on January 22, 2016, 01:10:43 PM
Quote from: Tony on January 22, 2016, 01:09:35 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 22, 2016, 12:28:40 PM
Quote from: R-V on January 22, 2016, 12:12:16 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 22, 2016, 10:57:03 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2016, 10:41:32 AM
Quote from: Tony on January 22, 2016, 10:38:41 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 22, 2016, 10:29:02 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2016, 10:19:30 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 21, 2016, 04:23:06 PM
Did we already do the project the 25 man roster thing? I'm pretty sure we did, but my 10 seconds of using the dogshit search function on this site didn't turn it up.
C Montero
C Ross
1B Rizzo
2B Zobrist
SS Russell
3B Bryant
IF/OF Baez
IF LaStella
UTIL New Asian Dude
LF Schwarber
CF Heyward
RF Soler
OF Coghlan
SP Lester
SP Arrieta
SP Lackey
SP Hendricks
SP Hammel
P Warren
P Rondon
P Grimm
P Strop
P Cahill
P Richard
P Wood
Fence:
Brothers
Edwards
Szczur/UTIL OF
Ramirez
Rosscup
With Baez and La Stella both healthy and presumably making the opening day roster I would bet good money on Szczur being the 13th position player and not Asian dude, if they even carry 13 position players.
Frankly I still think there's a trade or two coming before ST. Maybe nothing major but I feel like Coghlan being pretty much the only position player on the roster who wasn't at the Cub Convention and also his complaints about lack of playing time last year might indicate he's being shopped.
Can asian dude play center? Will Baez be ready to play center? Or is Heyward going to play every inning there? And what happens when Jorge msises time and Heyward moves to right?
I think we're definitely going to see Baez play CF at some point.
Maybe even Bryant again.
Asian dude has never played anything except 2B/SS/3B in MLB.
This is why I'm glad the Cubs are supposedly still talking to Austin Jackson. A Coghlan trade and Jackson as the 4th OF would be nice. You could have an actual big league CF in case Heyward or Jorge got hurt and not need to use Mack Seizure for anything.
I would positive the hell out of that. Also, that could open up a roster spot for a 13th pitcher, and my ridiculous fantasy of Neil Ramirez staying healthy and dominating for a season would still have a shred of a chance of hai.
Yeah, trade Coghlan for whatever prospect or reliever or whatever you think you need, sign Jackson, and my ideal 25 man would be:
C Montero
C Ross
1B Rizzo
2B Zobrist
SS Russell
3B Bryant
UTIL: Baez
UTIL: La Stella
LF: Schwarber
CF: Heyward
RF: Soler
OF: Jackson
Then:
SP Arrieta
SP Lester
SP Lackey
SP Warren
SP Hendricks
LHP Richard
LHP Brothers
LHP Wood
RHP Ramirez
RHP Cahill
RHP Grimm
RHP Strop
RHP Rondon
In this scenario Hammel has also been dumped on someone else. That may not be logical but I'm still mad at him.
For pinch hitting and subs you'd have two solid right handed options in Baez and Jackson, and La Stella batting lefty. You lose some of the offense Coghlan probably would provide over Jackson but your defense and depth is a lot better. A Heyward injury would basically destroy the outfield as it is right now, add Jackson and you could survive a few weeks with Schwarber-Jackson-Soler as your OF.
I didn't even think about that. Soler missing time is probably a given, but I forgot all about CF if Heyward were to get hurt. Shit, now I'm worried. Get the Jackson thing done, Theo!
Unless Almora is ready to play a little baseball. That'd be dope.
I think with this offense they can get by with Almora in CF for a few weeks if they absolutely had to. By all accounts his defense is MLB ready. Seems like it'd be a painful to see him flail away at MLB pitching (he and Ross in the lineup would frighten me) but if they didn't re-sign Jackson and didn't feel comfortable with Baez out there then I think that could turn out to be a plausible short-term solution.
I'd rather not find out tho.
Quote from: PANK! on January 22, 2016, 01:21:45 PM
I think with this offense they can get by with Almora in CF for a few weeks if they absolutely had to. By all accounts his defense is MLB ready. Seems like it'd be a painful to see him flail away at MLB pitching (he and Ross in the lineup would frighten me) but if they didn't re-sign Jackson and didn't feel comfortable with Baez out there then I think that could turn out to be a plausible short-term solution.
They'd just go with Szczur out there. Almora would OPS like .400 in the bigs right now.
As the resident Hammel hummer giver, I'd like to point out that having Adam Warren & Rex Brothers on your major league roster instead of Jason Hammel & Adam Warren is not what I'd call an upgrade.
Quote from: Eli on January 22, 2016, 01:42:18 PM
Quote from: PANK! on January 22, 2016, 01:21:45 PM
I think with this offense they can get by with Almora in CF for a few weeks if they absolutely had to. By all accounts his defense is MLB ready. Seems like it'd be a painful to see him flail away at MLB pitching (he and Ross in the lineup would frighten me) but if they didn't re-sign Jackson and didn't feel comfortable with Baez out there then I think that could turn out to be a plausible short-term solution.
They'd just go with Szczur out there. Almora would OPS like .400 in the bigs right now.
THIS for sure.
Except Baez.
Quote from: Eli on January 22, 2016, 01:42:18 PM
Quote from: PANK! on January 22, 2016, 01:21:45 PM
I think with this offense they can get by with Almora in CF for a few weeks if they absolutely had to. By all accounts his defense is MLB ready. Seems like it'd be a painful to see him flail away at MLB pitching (he and Ross in the lineup would frighten me) but if they didn't re-sign Jackson and didn't feel comfortable with Baez out there then I think that could turn out to be a plausible short-term solution.
They'd just go with Szczur out there. Almora would OPS like .400 in the bigs right now.
I'll take that if the alternative means having to watch a 3-ring circus in the OF, which is what the outfield defense would look like with Mack Seizure holding down the fort in center is all I was saying.
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2016, 02:19:16 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 22, 2016, 01:42:18 PM
Quote from: PANK! on January 22, 2016, 01:21:45 PM
I think with this offense they can get by with Almora in CF for a few weeks if they absolutely had to. By all accounts his defense is MLB ready. Seems like it'd be a painful to see him flail away at MLB pitching (he and Ross in the lineup would frighten me) but if they didn't re-sign Jackson and didn't feel comfortable with Baez out there then I think that could turn out to be a plausible short-term solution.
They'd just go with Szczur out there. Almora would OPS like .400 in the bigs right now.
THIS for sure.
Except Baez.
Baez would be my first choice in this awful hypothetical where Heyward gets hurt. It's just that Baez-as-a-CF is kind of an unknown quantity at this point. Let's see how it plays out in Mesa.
Quote from: PANK! on January 22, 2016, 02:21:46 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2016, 02:19:16 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 22, 2016, 01:42:18 PM
Quote from: PANK! on January 22, 2016, 01:21:45 PM
I think with this offense they can get by with Almora in CF for a few weeks if they absolutely had to. By all accounts his defense is MLB ready. Seems like it'd be a painful to see him flail away at MLB pitching (he and Ross in the lineup would frighten me) but if they didn't re-sign Jackson and didn't feel comfortable with Baez out there then I think that could turn out to be a plausible short-term solution.
They'd just go with Szczur out there. Almora would OPS like .400 in the bigs right now.
THIS for sure.
Except Baez.
Baez would be my first choice in this awful hypothetical where Heyward gets hurt. It's just that Baez-as-a-CF is kind of an unknown quantity at this point. Let's see how it plays out in Mesa.
I agree with that most of all. That we should watch the Cubs play soon.
Quote from: PANK! on January 22, 2016, 02:21:46 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2016, 02:19:16 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 22, 2016, 01:42:18 PM
Quote from: PANK! on January 22, 2016, 01:21:45 PM
I think with this offense they can get by with Almora in CF for a few weeks if they absolutely had to. By all accounts his defense is MLB ready. Seems like it'd be a painful to see him flail away at MLB pitching (he and Ross in the lineup would frighten me) but if they didn't re-sign Jackson and didn't feel comfortable with Baez out there then I think that could turn out to be a plausible short-term solution.
They'd just go with Szczur out there. Almora would OPS like .400 in the bigs right now.
THIS for sure.
Except Baez.
Baez would be my first choice in this awful hypothetical where Heyward gets hurt. It's just that Baez-as-a-CF is kind of an unknown quantity at this point. Let's see how it plays out in Mesa.
I'd probably put Eddy Julio Martinez in CF, sight unseen, over Almora.
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2016, 02:24:37 PM
Quote from: PANK! on January 22, 2016, 02:21:46 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2016, 02:19:16 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 22, 2016, 01:42:18 PM
Quote from: PANK! on January 22, 2016, 01:21:45 PM
I think with this offense they can get by with Almora in CF for a few weeks if they absolutely had to. By all accounts his defense is MLB ready. Seems like it'd be a painful to see him flail away at MLB pitching (he and Ross in the lineup would frighten me) but if they didn't re-sign Jackson and didn't feel comfortable with Baez out there then I think that could turn out to be a plausible short-term solution.
They'd just go with Szczur out there. Almora would OPS like .400 in the bigs right now.
THIS for sure.
Except Baez.
Baez would be my first choice in this awful hypothetical where Heyward gets hurt. It's just that Baez-as-a-CF is kind of an unknown quantity at this point. Let's see how it plays out in Mesa.
I'd probably put Eddy Julio Martinez in CF, sight unseen, than Almora.
Yeah well you're a proven dope.
Quote from: PANK! on January 22, 2016, 02:25:05 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2016, 02:24:37 PM
Quote from: PANK! on January 22, 2016, 02:21:46 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2016, 02:19:16 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 22, 2016, 01:42:18 PM
Quote from: PANK! on January 22, 2016, 01:21:45 PM
I think with this offense they can get by with Almora in CF for a few weeks if they absolutely had to. By all accounts his defense is MLB ready. Seems like it'd be a painful to see him flail away at MLB pitching (he and Ross in the lineup would frighten me) but if they didn't re-sign Jackson and didn't feel comfortable with Baez out there then I think that could turn out to be a plausible short-term solution.
They'd just go with Szczur out there. Almora would OPS like .400 in the bigs right now.
THIS for sure.
Except Baez.
Baez would be my first choice in this awful hypothetical where Heyward gets hurt. It's just that Baez-as-a-CF is kind of an unknown quantity at this point. Let's see how it plays out in Mesa.
I'd probably put Eddy Julio Martinez in CF, sight unseen, than Almora.
Yeah well you're a proven dope.
That feels very subjective.
Quote from: PANK! on January 22, 2016, 02:20:22 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 22, 2016, 01:42:18 PM
Quote from: PANK! on January 22, 2016, 01:21:45 PM
I think with this offense they can get by with Almora in CF for a few weeks if they absolutely had to. By all accounts his defense is MLB ready. Seems like it'd be a painful to see him flail away at MLB pitching (he and Ross in the lineup would frighten me) but if they didn't re-sign Jackson and didn't feel comfortable with Baez out there then I think that could turn out to be a plausible short-term solution.
They'd just go with Szczur out there. Almora would OPS like .400 in the bigs right now.
I'll take that if the alternative means having to watch a 3-ring circus in the OF, which is what the outfield defense would look like with Mack Seizure holding down the fort in center is all I was saying.
It's not like he's Kevin Kiermaier out there. He's probably an above-average defensive CF right now. If Heyward were to get hurt, there'd be dozens of options available in trade or off the street that would likely be better than Almora.
If Almora has any role in their future plans, he should just be getting minor-league reps until his plate approach sticks. Making him face major-league pitching would just be cruel.
Quote from: Eli on January 22, 2016, 02:34:29 PM
Quote from: PANK! on January 22, 2016, 02:20:22 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 22, 2016, 01:42:18 PM
Quote from: PANK! on January 22, 2016, 01:21:45 PM
I think with this offense they can get by with Almora in CF for a few weeks if they absolutely had to. By all accounts his defense is MLB ready. Seems like it'd be a painful to see him flail away at MLB pitching (he and Ross in the lineup would frighten me) but if they didn't re-sign Jackson and didn't feel comfortable with Baez out there then I think that could turn out to be a plausible short-term solution.
They'd just go with Szczur out there. Almora would OPS like .400 in the bigs right now.
I'll take that if the alternative means having to watch a 3-ring circus in the OF, which is what the outfield defense would look like with Mack Seizure holding down the fort in center is all I was saying.
It's not like he's Kevin Kiermaier out there. He's probably an above-average defensive CF right now. If Heyward were to get hurt, there'd be dozens of options available in trade or off the street that would likely be better than Almora.
If Almora has any role in their future plans, he should just be getting minor-league reps until his plate approach sticks. Making him face major-league pitching would just be cruel.
I have as big a prospect-boner as anyone and I've been well known to really overrate these guys, but Almora is crappy.
DPD.
No idea about this source, but this guy says the Cubs have the best rotation in all of MLB. (http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/01/mlb-best-and-worst-starting-rotations-staff-mets-cubs-dodgers-nationals-mlb)
Quote from: PenFoe on January 25, 2016, 04:13:34 PM
DPD.
No idea about this source, but this guy says the Cubs have the best rotation in all of MLB. (http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/01/mlb-best-and-worst-starting-rotations-staff-mets-cubs-dodgers-nationals-mlb)
When I read something like this...
Quote from: zuh?Only the Cardinals have Nos. 4 and 5 starters that stack up to Jason Hammel and Kyle Hendricks,
...I assume we've reached the End Times of Starting Pitching.
That can't be true, can it? Hammel and Hendricks are the best 4/5 in baseball? Really?
Quote from: PANK! on January 25, 2016, 04:19:41 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 25, 2016, 04:13:34 PM
DPD.
No idea about this source, but this guy says the Cubs have the best rotation in all of MLB. (http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/01/mlb-best-and-worst-starting-rotations-staff-mets-cubs-dodgers-nationals-mlb)
When I read something like this...
Quote from: zuh?Only the Cardinals have Nos. 4 and 5 starters that stack up to Jason Hammel and Kyle Hendricks,
...I assume we've reached the End Times of Starting Pitching.
That can't be true, can it? Hammel and Hendricks are the best 4/5 in baseball? Really?
Hammel had an fWAR of 2.4, bWAR of 1.7, a FIP of 3.68, and an ERA+ of 105
Hendricks had an fWAR of 3.4, bWAR of 1.8, a FIP of 3.36, and an ERA+ of 99.
I know Hammel gets the hate due to his progressive descent to mediocrity last year. I know we are terrified of Hendricks because he looks like he'll get lit up every 5th day, but I think we need to stop being so fatalistic about those 2. They're not as bad as we might feel like they are.
Quote from: Yeti on January 25, 2016, 04:31:07 PM
Quote from: PANK! on January 25, 2016, 04:19:41 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 25, 2016, 04:13:34 PM
DPD.
No idea about this source, but this guy says the Cubs have the best rotation in all of MLB. (http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/01/mlb-best-and-worst-starting-rotations-staff-mets-cubs-dodgers-nationals-mlb)
When I read something like this...
Quote from: zuh?Only the Cardinals have Nos. 4 and 5 starters that stack up to Jason Hammel and Kyle Hendricks,
...I assume we've reached the End Times of Starting Pitching.
That can't be true, can it? Hammel and Hendricks are the best 4/5 in baseball? Really?
Hammel had an fWAR of 2.4, bWAR of 1.7, a FIP of 3.68, and an ERA+ of 105
Hendricks had an fWAR of 3.4, bWAR of 1.8, a FIP of 3.36, and an ERA+ of 99.
I know Hammel gets the hate due to his progressive descent to mediocrity last year. I know we are terrified of Hendricks because he looks like he'll get lit up every 5th day, but I think we need to stop being so fatalistic about those 2. They're not as bad as we might feel like they are.
I wasn't being fatalistic so much as just (apparently) undervaluing the back-end of the Cubs rotation.
In any event, heady times we're in.
Quote from: PANK! on January 25, 2016, 04:38:08 PM
Quote from: Yeti on January 25, 2016, 04:31:07 PM
Quote from: PANK! on January 25, 2016, 04:19:41 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 25, 2016, 04:13:34 PM
DPD.
No idea about this source, but this guy says the Cubs have the best rotation in all of MLB. (http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/01/mlb-best-and-worst-starting-rotations-staff-mets-cubs-dodgers-nationals-mlb)
When I read something like this...
Quote from: zuh?Only the Cardinals have Nos. 4 and 5 starters that stack up to Jason Hammel and Kyle Hendricks,
...I assume we've reached the End Times of Starting Pitching.
That can't be true, can it? Hammel and Hendricks are the best 4/5 in baseball? Really?
Hammel had an fWAR of 2.4, bWAR of 1.7, a FIP of 3.68, and an ERA+ of 105
Hendricks had an fWAR of 3.4, bWAR of 1.8, a FIP of 3.36, and an ERA+ of 99.
I know Hammel gets the hate due to his progressive descent to mediocrity last year. I know we are terrified of Hendricks because he looks like he'll get lit up every 5th day, but I think we need to stop being so fatalistic about those 2. They're not as bad as we might feel like they are.
I wasn't being fatalistic so much as just (apparently) undervaluing the back-end of the Cubs rotation.
In any event, heady times we're in.
In 2004, the Cubs had Matt Clement and Greg Maddux as the 4th and 5th starters. That team won the offseason world series so hard I can still feel it in my colon when the weather is just so.
Quote from: Yeti on January 25, 2016, 04:31:07 PM
Quote from: PANK! on January 25, 2016, 04:19:41 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 25, 2016, 04:13:34 PM
DPD.
No idea about this source, but this guy says the Cubs have the best rotation in all of MLB. (http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/01/mlb-best-and-worst-starting-rotations-staff-mets-cubs-dodgers-nationals-mlb)
When I read something like this...
Quote from: zuh?Only the Cardinals have Nos. 4 and 5 starters that stack up to Jason Hammel and Kyle Hendricks,
...I assume we've reached the End Times of Starting Pitching.
That can't be true, can it? Hammel and Hendricks are the best 4/5 in baseball? Really?
Hammel had an fWAR of 2.4, bWAR of 1.7, a FIP of 3.68, and an ERA+ of 105
Hendricks had an fWAR of 3.4, bWAR of 1.8, a FIP of 3.36, and an ERA+ of 99.
I know Hammel gets the hate due to his progressive descent to mediocrity last year. I know we are terrified of Hendricks because he looks like he'll get lit up every 5th day, but I think we need to stop being so fatalistic about those 2. They're not as bad as we might feel like they are.
I have bitched about Hendricks more than anyone but Sterling and I still agree he's a wonderful 5th starter. I think the problem with Hammel is there's no way to know which Hammel we are getting. I doubt we see first half Hammel again and second half Hammel wasnt even serviceable.
That said, if Hammel falters Warren also seems to be an above average starting pitcher who is probably better than most 4s. Heady times indeed
Quote from: PenFoe on January 25, 2016, 04:13:34 PM
DPD.
No idea about this source, but this guy says the Cubs have the best rotation in all of MLB. (http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/01/mlb-best-and-worst-starting-rotations-staff-mets-cubs-dodgers-nationals-mlb)
It's a strange list of the best rotations that doesn't even list the projected rotations, 1-5, themselves.
I also think the Mets' is better, but a Cubs trade for Carrasco, Salazar, Odorizzi, or dare I say Gray would push them to number 1.
And SKO's right. I still hate Hendricks but I can't argue with the overall value.
Quote from: PANK! on January 25, 2016, 04:38:08 PM
Quote from: Yeti on January 25, 2016, 04:31:07 PM
Quote from: PANK! on January 25, 2016, 04:19:41 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 25, 2016, 04:13:34 PM
DPD.
No idea about this source, but this guy says the Cubs have the best rotation in all of MLB. (http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/01/mlb-best-and-worst-starting-rotations-staff-mets-cubs-dodgers-nationals-mlb)
When I read something like this...
Quote from: zuh?Only the Cardinals have Nos. 4 and 5 starters that stack up to Jason Hammel and Kyle Hendricks,
...I assume we've reached the End Times of Starting Pitching.
That can't be true, can it? Hammel and Hendricks are the best 4/5 in baseball? Really?
Hammel had an fWAR of 2.4, bWAR of 1.7, a FIP of 3.68, and an ERA+ of 105
Hendricks had an fWAR of 3.4, bWAR of 1.8, a FIP of 3.36, and an ERA+ of 99.
I know Hammel gets the hate due to his progressive descent to mediocrity last year. I know we are terrified of Hendricks because he looks like he'll get lit up every 5th day, but I think we need to stop being so fatalistic about those 2. They're not as bad as we might feel like they are.
I wasn't being fatalistic so much as just (apparently) undervaluing the back-end of the Cubs rotation.
In any event, heady times we're in.
The Cubs are still pretty top-heavy. They're one of the best rotations in baseball because they project to get about 8 wins out of Arrieta/Lester. Add in 3 wins from Lackey and they could have league-average starting (or slightly below) and still be top-5.
The Mets don't have anyone as good as Arrieta. Yet. They seem to have about 4 x 4-win pitchers, which is also scary good. Same with Cleveland.
It's also the only reason that The Dodgers are in the conversation...Kershaw is about an 8-win pitcher, which is crazy.
The Cubs have signed Matt Murton to a minor league deal according to the twitter. (http://www.bleachernation.com/2016/02/04/this-is-not-a-drill-matt-murton-is-reportedly-coming-back-to-the-chicago-cubs/)
Hi Apex
Quote from: SKO on February 04, 2016, 08:04:44 AM
The Cubs have signed Matt Murton to a minor league deal according to the twitter. (http://www.bleachernation.com/2016/02/04/this-is-not-a-drill-matt-murton-is-reportedly-coming-back-to-the-chicago-cubs/)
Hi Apex
This is more exciting than the Jason Heyward signing.
Quote from: Eli on February 04, 2016, 08:18:52 AM
Quote from: SKO on February 04, 2016, 08:04:44 AM
The Cubs have signed Matt Murton to a minor league deal according to the twitter. (http://www.bleachernation.com/2016/02/04/this-is-not-a-drill-matt-murton-is-reportedly-coming-back-to-the-chicago-cubs/)
Hi Apex
This is more exciting than the Jason Heyward signing.
I cannot contain my excite.
Via some dude in Eli's Twitter: The Matt Murton Family Breakfast (https://www.family.co.jp/company/news_releases/2010/100916_2.html)
(https://www.family.co.jp/company/news_releases/2010/hc0g74000002f5yx-img/hc0g74000002f646.jpg)
Yes that appears to be some kind of breakfast sandwich and some kind of chicken breakfast with Matt Murton's face on it.
Quote from: SKO on February 04, 2016, 08:04:44 AM
The Cubs have signed Matt Murton to a minor league deal according to the twitter. (http://www.bleachernation.com/2016/02/04/this-is-not-a-drill-matt-murton-is-reportedly-coming-back-to-the-chicago-cubs/)
Hi Apex
I'm just glad Chuck's kids will finally have their father figure back.
Just to get away from politics and terrible writing. Sure, it's not earth-shattering ideas but it's far more interesting (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-the-teams-were-built/) that letting Theo walk.
Quote from: Oleg on February 04, 2016, 09:25:21 AM
Just to get away from politics and terrible writing. Sure, it's not earth-shattering ideas but it's far more interesting (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-the-teams-were-built/) that letting Theo walk.
I read that article, was glad to see someone nationally highlight that for all of the talk of DA CUBS ONLY WON CUZ OF TANKING (which admittedly played a huge part in acquiring cornerstones like Bryant and Schwarber), the rebuild was only achieved so quickly because Theo and Co. made out like bandits in a number of trades.
Quote from: SKO on February 04, 2016, 09:28:44 AM
Quote from: Oleg on February 04, 2016, 09:25:21 AM
Just to get away from politics and terrible writing. Sure, it's not earth-shattering ideas but it's far more interesting (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-the-teams-were-built/) that letting Theo walk.
I read that article, was glad to see someone nationally highlight that for all of the talk of DA CUBS ONLY WON CUZ OF TANKING (which admittedly played a huge part in acquiring cornerstones like Bryant and Schwarber), the rebuild was only achieved so quickly because Theo and Co. made out like bandits in a number of trades.
This. It would have been enough robbery if nabbing Strop and Arrieta for Feldman was their only good trade. But seeing all the other trades had me like
(http://i.giphy.com/vgUFOWBwBkziE.gif)
Quote from: SKO on February 04, 2016, 09:28:44 AM
Quote from: Oleg on February 04, 2016, 09:25:21 AM
Just to get away from politics and terrible writing. Sure, it's not earth-shattering ideas but it's far more interesting (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-the-teams-were-built/) that letting Theo walk.
I read that article, was glad to see someone nationally highlight that for all of the talk of DA CUBS ONLY WON CUZ OF TANKING (which admittedly played a huge part in acquiring cornerstones like Bryant and Schwarber), the rebuild was only achieved so quickly because Theo and Co. made out like bandits in a number of trades.
To be fair, tanking was also a major reason for the 1-year Feldman deal and trading away Samardzija. It also allowed them to carry Rondon as a rule V pick on their roster for a whole season.
I guess that's my way of pointing out the obvious, which is tanking is more than just about draft picks.
Quote from: Oleg on February 04, 2016, 09:44:25 AM
Quote from: SKO on February 04, 2016, 09:28:44 AM
Quote from: Oleg on February 04, 2016, 09:25:21 AM
Just to get away from politics and terrible writing. Sure, it's not earth-shattering ideas but it's far more interesting (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-the-teams-were-built/) that letting Theo walk.
I read that article, was glad to see someone nationally highlight that for all of the talk of DA CUBS ONLY WON CUZ OF TANKING (which admittedly played a huge part in acquiring cornerstones like Bryant and Schwarber), the rebuild was only achieved so quickly because Theo and Co. made out like bandits in a number of trades.
To be fair, tanking was also a major reason for the 1-year Feldman deal and trading away Samardzija. It also allowed them to carry Rondon as a rule V pick on their roster for a whole season.
I guess that's my way of pointing out the obvious, which is tanking is more than just about draft picks.
Right, I obviously wasn't arguing with the fact that the Cubs tanked, it was the idea that tanking is somehow easy or that it's as simple as "1. Lose a lot of games 2. Draft in the top 5 3. Winz", which a lot of Theo critics like to say it is. They still had to get those picks right AND pull of an a ridiculous amount of successful trades to build this team.
Quote from: SKO on February 04, 2016, 09:55:05 AM
Quote from: Oleg on February 04, 2016, 09:44:25 AM
Quote from: SKO on February 04, 2016, 09:28:44 AM
Quote from: Oleg on February 04, 2016, 09:25:21 AM
Just to get away from politics and terrible writing. Sure, it's not earth-shattering ideas but it's far more interesting (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-the-teams-were-built/) that letting Theo walk.
I read that article, was glad to see someone nationally highlight that for all of the talk of DA CUBS ONLY WON CUZ OF TANKING (which admittedly played a huge part in acquiring cornerstones like Bryant and Schwarber), the rebuild was only achieved so quickly because Theo and Co. made out like bandits in a number of trades.
To be fair, tanking was also a major reason for the 1-year Feldman deal and trading away Samardzija. It also allowed them to carry Rondon as a rule V pick on their roster for a whole season.
I guess that's my way of pointing out the obvious, which is tanking is more than just about draft picks.
Right, I obviously wasn't arguing with the fact that the Cubs tanked, it was the idea that tanking is somehow easy or that it's as simple as "1. Lose a lot of games 2. Draft in the top 5 3. Winz", which a lot of Theo critics like to say it is. They still had to get those picks right AND pull of an a ridiculous amount of successful trades to build this team.
And even with the picks they had, they managed to be pretty damn smart...picking Schwarber at #4 when nobody else had him in their top 10 is a good example.
Oh, and let's not forget their diving into the pool of international FAs.
Quote from: SKO on February 04, 2016, 08:04:44 AM
The Cubs have signed Matt Murton to a minor league deal according to the twitter. (http://www.bleachernation.com/2016/02/04/this-is-not-a-drill-matt-murton-is-reportedly-coming-back-to-the-chicago-cubs/)
Hi Apex
I hate this team.
DPD.
If Murton makes the big club or just languishes at AAA just in case, I don't really have an opinion about it. Time has passed. He's not a prospect or someone the front office or fans are pushing for an everyday spot in lieu of an upgrade. Replacement Level Murton is not a threat to my sanity. That battle is over. I won lost.
Quote from: InternetApex on February 04, 2016, 10:34:46 AM
DPD.
If Murton makes the big club or just languishes at AAA just in case, I don't really have an opinion about it. Time has passed. He's not a prospect or someone the front office or fans are pushing for an everyday spot in lieu of an upgrade. Replacement Level Murton is not a threat to my sanity. That battle is over. I won lost.
(http://i.imgur.com/SYWFkvh.jpg)
Quote from: InternetApex on February 04, 2016, 10:34:46 AM
DPD.
If Murton makes the big club or just languishes at AAA just in case, I don't really have an opinion about it. Time has passed. He's not a prospect or someone the front office or fans are pushing for an everyday spot in lieu of an upgrade. Replacement Level Murton is not a threat to my sanity. That battle is over. I won lost.
I really cannot imagine how wrong things would have to go before Murton could actually make the team. He's a right handed corner only outfielder who probably can't hit anymore. My guess is Theo brought him in for shits and giggles and to be a coach to the young'ns about how to make more contact or something.
I mean I would assume they would go to Coghlan, try Baez or Bryant in a corner, move Zobrist to left, and try Mack Seizure before they'd even consider using Murton for anything.
Quote from: SKO on February 04, 2016, 10:51:16 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on February 04, 2016, 10:34:46 AM
DPD.
If Murton makes the big club or just languishes at AAA just in case, I don't really have an opinion about it. Time has passed. He's not a prospect or someone the front office or fans are pushing for an everyday spot in lieu of an upgrade. Replacement Level Murton is not a threat to my sanity. That battle is over. I won lost.
I really cannot imagine how wrong things would have to go before Murton could actually make the team. He's a right handed corner only outfielder who probably can't hit anymore. My guess is Theo brought him in for shits and giggles and to be a coach to the young'ns about how to make more contact or something.
I mean I would assume they would go to Coghlan, try Baez or Bryant in a corner, move Zobrist to left, and try Mack Seizure before they'd even consider using Murton for anything.
Theo is just taking BP Wrigleyville's advice. He's going to cut Heyward at the end of spring training because turnover is good and start Murton out there.
Quote from: InternetApex on February 04, 2016, 10:34:46 AM
DPD.
If Murton makes the big club or just languishes at AAA just in case, I don't really have an opinion about it. Time has passed. He's not a prospect or someone the front office or fans are pushing for an everyday spot in lieu of an upgrade. Replacement Level Murton is not a threat to my sanity. That battle is over. I won lost.
He's going to take Soler's job and you're in denial.
Seriously, it doesn't look like there's any better option for that Iowa LF spot than Murton.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on February 04, 2016, 11:23:51 AM
Seriously, it doesn't look like there's any better option for that Iowa LF spot than Murton.
Andreoli was pretty decent there last year.
He's not much of a prospect, but he's *only* 25.
Makes more sense than Murton.
Quote from: PenFoe on February 04, 2016, 11:26:25 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on February 04, 2016, 11:23:51 AM
Seriously, it doesn't look like there's any better option for that Iowa LF spot than Murton.
Andreoli was pretty decent there last year.
He's not much of a prospect, but he's *only* 25.
Makes more sense than Murton.
Iowa has a DH. Just glad to have him back in the states. He needs to start writing checks for college in 2 1/2 years.
If Iowa could find at bats in 2014 for some scrub like Manny Ramirez just because he played a bit part on some teams that have sentimental meaning for Theo, I'm sure they can find some at bats this year for the greatest right handed hitter of all time*
*All time in Japan where All Time=2010
Quote from: SKO on February 04, 2016, 11:35:11 AM
If Iowa could find at bats in 2014 for some scrub like Manny Ramirez just because he played a bit part on some teams that have sentimental meaning for Theo, I'm sure they can find some at bats this year for the greatest right handed hitter of all time*
*All time in Japan where All Time=2010
I'm assuming this is meant in jest, but I'm pretty sure that sentimental value wasn't the main thing Manny was bringing.
(http://chicagocubsonline.com/wp-content/uploads/RamirezBaez.jpg)
Quote from: PenFoe on February 04, 2016, 11:42:28 AM
Quote from: SKO on February 04, 2016, 11:35:11 AM
If Iowa could find at bats in 2014 for some scrub like Manny Ramirez just because he played a bit part on some teams that have sentimental meaning for Theo, I'm sure they can find some at bats this year for the greatest right handed hitter of all time*
*All time in Japan where All Time=2010
I'm assuming this is meant in jest, but I'm pretty sure that sentimental value wasn't the main thing Manny was bringing.
(http://chicagocubsonline.com/wp-content/uploads/RamirezBaez.jpg)
No, I'm dead fucking serious, you want to fight me on this
I don't know what everybody's problem is. Matt Murton is the Japanese hitting sensation that we've all been waiting for.
Quote from: Canadouche on February 04, 2016, 02:34:52 PM
I don't know what everybody's problem is. Matt Murton is the Japanese hitting sensation that we've all been waiting for.
Finally it's acceptable to wear my "HORRY COW!" t-shirt in public again.
Quote from: CT III on February 04, 2016, 02:36:07 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on February 04, 2016, 02:34:52 PM
I don't know what everybody's problem is. Matt Murton is the Japanese hitting sensation that we've all been waiting for.
Finally it's acceptable to wear my "HORRY COW!" t-shirt in public again.
I laughed so damn loud.
http://www.bleachernation.com/2016/02/10/will-there-be-a-back-of-the-rotation-competition-between-adam-warren-and-kyle-hendricks/
Basically it sounds like if Hammel is healthy and looks like first half Hammel of the last two years he probably earns a rotation spot thanks to being a relatively highly paid veteran who probably wouldn't make a good reliever given his first inning struggles, and so Warren is battling Hendricks for a rotation spot. Hendricks could potentially go to Iowa, since he still has options left.
A lot of people seem to be objecting to this on the simple basis that Hendricks has "earned his spot" and is too good to be stuck in AAA, but first half Hammel was awesome and Warren has some great stuff, and sending Hendricks down might be a way to ensure a roster spot for a guy like Neil Ramirez in the pen. I say I trust Joe and Bosio if they decide their best starting rotation means Hendricks spends part of the year in Des Moines.
Quote from: SKO on February 11, 2016, 07:01:50 AM
http://www.bleachernation.com/2016/02/10/will-there-be-a-back-of-the-rotation-competition-between-adam-warren-and-kyle-hendricks/
Basically it sounds like if Hammel is healthy and looks like first half Hammel of the last two years he probably earns a rotation spot thanks to being a relatively highly paid veteran who probably wouldn't make a good reliever given his first inning struggles, and so Warren is battling Hendricks for a rotation spot. Hendricks could potentially go to Iowa, since he still has options left.
A lot of people seem to be objecting to this on the simple basis that Hendricks has "earned his spot" and is too good to be stuck in AAA, but first half Hammel was awesome and Warren has some great stuff, and sending Hendricks down might be a way to ensure a roster spot for a guy like Neil Ramirez in the pen. I say I trust Joe and Bosio if they decide their best starting rotation means Hendricks spends part of the year in Des Moines.
Me too. Hendricks can't afford to have a poor spring, especially if Warren has a good one.
Quote from: SKO on February 11, 2016, 07:01:50 AM
http://www.bleachernation.com/2016/02/10/will-there-be-a-back-of-the-rotation-competition-between-adam-warren-and-kyle-hendricks/
Basically it sounds like if Hammel is healthy and looks like first half Hammel of the last two years he probably earns a rotation spot thanks to being a relatively highly paid veteran who probably wouldn't make a good reliever given his first inning struggles, and so Warren is battling Hendricks for a rotation spot. Hendricks could potentially go to Iowa, since he still has options left.
A lot of people seem to be objecting to this on the simple basis that Hendricks has "earned his spot" and is too good to be stuck in AAA, but first half Hammel was awesome and Warren has some great stuff, and sending Hendricks down might be a way to ensure a roster spot for a guy like Neil Ramirez in the pen. I say I trust Joe and Bosio if they decide their best starting rotation means Hendricks spends part of the year in Des Moines.
This. They're in the business of winning the pennant, not tending to the feelings of a back-of-the-rotation guy.
Quote from: Tonker on February 11, 2016, 08:16:22 AM
Quote from: SKO on February 11, 2016, 07:01:50 AM
http://www.bleachernation.com/2016/02/10/will-there-be-a-back-of-the-rotation-competition-between-adam-warren-and-kyle-hendricks/
Basically it sounds like if Hammel is healthy and looks like first half Hammel of the last two years he probably earns a rotation spot thanks to being a relatively highly paid veteran who probably wouldn't make a good reliever given his first inning struggles, and so Warren is battling Hendricks for a rotation spot. Hendricks could potentially go to Iowa, since he still has options left.
A lot of people seem to be objecting to this on the simple basis that Hendricks has "earned his spot" and is too good to be stuck in AAA, but first half Hammel was awesome and Warren has some great stuff, and sending Hendricks down might be a way to ensure a roster spot for a guy like Neil Ramirez in the pen. I say I trust Joe and Bosio if they decide their best starting rotation means Hendricks spends part of the year in Des Moines.
Me too. Hendricks can't afford to have a poor spring, especially if Warren has a good one.
This off-season can't end soon enough.
Having said that, why would they decide to put more weight on 30 or so ST innings over 180 very good innings last year? Why not just leave Warren in the pen until the inevitable injury or until Hammel implodes in the second half? Better yet, yet, The Cubs can do something very forward thinking and handcuff pitchers. Hammel throws the first 3 innings, Warren the next three, every 5th day. Or, some such schedule like that with Hendricks, Hammel, Warren, and Cahill. They have the arms to get all crazy like that and the flexibility on the positional player bench.
Quote from: Oleg on February 11, 2016, 10:01:05 AM
Quote from: Tonker on February 11, 2016, 08:16:22 AM
Quote from: SKO on February 11, 2016, 07:01:50 AM
http://www.bleachernation.com/2016/02/10/will-there-be-a-back-of-the-rotation-competition-between-adam-warren-and-kyle-hendricks/
Basically it sounds like if Hammel is healthy and looks like first half Hammel of the last two years he probably earns a rotation spot thanks to being a relatively highly paid veteran who probably wouldn't make a good reliever given his first inning struggles, and so Warren is battling Hendricks for a rotation spot. Hendricks could potentially go to Iowa, since he still has options left.
A lot of people seem to be objecting to this on the simple basis that Hendricks has "earned his spot" and is too good to be stuck in AAA, but first half Hammel was awesome and Warren has some great stuff, and sending Hendricks down might be a way to ensure a roster spot for a guy like Neil Ramirez in the pen. I say I trust Joe and Bosio if they decide their best starting rotation means Hendricks spends part of the year in Des Moines.
Me too. Hendricks can't afford to have a poor spring, especially if Warren has a good one.
This off-season can't end soon enough.
Having said that, why would they decide to put more weight on 30 or so ST innings over 180 very good innings last year? Why not just leave Warren in the pen until the inevitable injury or until Hammel implodes in the second half? Better yet, yet, The Cubs can do something very forward thinking and handcuff pitchers. Hammel throws the first 3 innings, Warren the next three, every 5th day. Or, some such schedule like that with Hendricks, Hammel, Warren, and Cahill. They have the arms to get all crazy like that and the flexibility on the positional player bench.
I don't think it's about spring training numbers.
1) Does Hammel look healthy and capable of looking like first half Hammel again? If so he probably gets first crack at a rotation spot because he doesn't have an option like Hendricks does and he makes way more money.
2)Do they really like Warren as a starter? He's got better "stuff" and velocity than Hendricks, and rumors suggest they've been telling people they see him as a starter more than a reliever. If they think he can be better (and go deeper into games) than Hendricks, they start him over Hendricks.
3)Hendricks doesn't really make a ton of sense in a bullpen that already has Wood/Richard/Cahill as swing-men/long relief. Keep him stretched out in Iowa and let that bullpen spot go to Neil Ramirez or Edwards or another fireballer that is on the bubble.
Then you can call up Kyle if someone gets hurt or struggles and he's already stretched out.
Quote from: SKO on February 11, 2016, 10:11:14 AM
Quote from: Oleg on February 11, 2016, 10:01:05 AM
Quote from: Tonker on February 11, 2016, 08:16:22 AM
Quote from: SKO on February 11, 2016, 07:01:50 AM
http://www.bleachernation.com/2016/02/10/will-there-be-a-back-of-the-rotation-competition-between-adam-warren-and-kyle-hendricks/
Basically it sounds like if Hammel is healthy and looks like first half Hammel of the last two years he probably earns a rotation spot thanks to being a relatively highly paid veteran who probably wouldn't make a good reliever given his first inning struggles, and so Warren is battling Hendricks for a rotation spot. Hendricks could potentially go to Iowa, since he still has options left.
A lot of people seem to be objecting to this on the simple basis that Hendricks has "earned his spot" and is too good to be stuck in AAA, but first half Hammel was awesome and Warren has some great stuff, and sending Hendricks down might be a way to ensure a roster spot for a guy like Neil Ramirez in the pen. I say I trust Joe and Bosio if they decide their best starting rotation means Hendricks spends part of the year in Des Moines.
Me too. Hendricks can't afford to have a poor spring, especially if Warren has a good one.
This off-season can't end soon enough.
Having said that, why would they decide to put more weight on 30 or so ST innings over 180 very good innings last year? Why not just leave Warren in the pen until the inevitable injury or until Hammel implodes in the second half? Better yet, yet, The Cubs can do something very forward thinking and handcuff pitchers. Hammel throws the first 3 innings, Warren the next three, every 5th day. Or, some such schedule like that with Hendricks, Hammel, Warren, and Cahill. They have the arms to get all crazy like that and the flexibility on the positional player bench.
I don't think it's about spring training numbers.
1) Does Hammel look healthy and capable of looking like first half Hammel again? If so he probably gets first crack at a rotation spot because he doesn't have an option like Hendricks does and he makes way more money.
2)Do they really like Warren as a starter? He's got better "stuff" and velocity than Hendricks, and rumors suggest they've been telling people they see him as a starter more than a reliever. If they think he can be better (and go deeper into games) than Hendricks, they start him over Hendricks.
3)Hendricks doesn't really make a ton of sense in a bullpen that already has Wood/Richard/Cahill as swing-men/long relief. Keep him stretched out in Iowa and let that bullpen spot go to Neil Ramirez or Edwards or another fireballer that is on the bubble.
Then you can call up Kyle if someone gets hurt or struggles and he's already stretched out.
I just think they have the resources and personnel to really think outside the box with their pitching staff. The way Maddon used his position players, he can use his pitchers similarly. This was brought up in a Fangraphs article earlier this winter. Made some sense.
Basically, you need to use up about 400 innings between the last two rotation spots so you can spread those innings out between 4 pitchers (or how many ever) and maximize their effectiveness.
Quote from: Oleg on February 11, 2016, 10:31:26 AM
Basically, you need to use up about 400 innings between the last two rotation spots so you can spread those innings out between 4 pitchers (or how many ever) and maximize their effectiveness.
I think the 5-man rotation is one of the last bastions of old-school thinking in baseball. Pitchers don't want to deviate from their routine and managers are reluctant to mess with that. Even someone like Maddon.
Quote from: Eli on February 11, 2016, 10:57:30 AM
Quote from: Oleg on February 11, 2016, 10:31:26 AM
Basically, you need to use up about 400 innings between the last two rotation spots so you can spread those innings out between 4 pitchers (or how many ever) and maximize their effectiveness.
I think the 5-man rotation is one of the last bastions of old-school thinking in baseball. Pitchers don't want to deviate from their routine and managers are reluctant to mess with that. Even someone like Maddon.
Also there's a fuck ton of money tied into being a starter, hitting 200 IP, etc that players aren't going to want to give up either. If you make everyone into a reliever there's a lot of money being lost by a lot of people. They're going to fight that
Quote from: Eli on February 11, 2016, 10:57:30 AM
Quote from: Oleg on February 11, 2016, 10:31:26 AM
Basically, you need to use up about 400 innings between the last two rotation spots so you can spread those innings out between 4 pitchers (or how many ever) and maximize their effectiveness.
I think the 5-man rotation is one of the last bastions of old-school thinking in baseball. Pitchers don't want to deviate from their routine and managers are reluctant to mess with that. Even someone like Maddon.
I was actually wondering about this, if Joe was thinking about having the "bullpen days" from last September (of course, it's easier when you've got about 20 guys in the bullpen) and somehow implementing it this year - like maybe Hendricks and Warren being co-fives.
When you're got a bunch of guys who are able to play multiple positions, you might be able to shorten the bench by a man in order to accomodate this.
Not saying they should do this, mind you...but it's within the realm of possibility.
Quote from: Eli on February 11, 2016, 10:57:30 AM
Quote from: Oleg on February 11, 2016, 10:31:26 AM
Basically, you need to use up about 400 innings between the last two rotation spots so you can spread those innings out between 4 pitchers (or how many ever) and maximize their effectiveness.
I think the 5-man rotation is one of the last bastions of old-school thinking in baseball. Pitchers don't want to deviate from their routine and managers are reluctant to mess with that. Even someone like Maddon.
Are you suggesting a 4-man rotation or a 6-man rotation?
Quote from: PANK! on February 11, 2016, 11:07:08 AM
Quote from: Eli on February 11, 2016, 10:57:30 AM
Quote from: Oleg on February 11, 2016, 10:31:26 AM
Basically, you need to use up about 400 innings between the last two rotation spots so you can spread those innings out between 4 pitchers (or how many ever) and maximize their effectiveness.
I think the 5-man rotation is one of the last bastions of old-school thinking in baseball. Pitchers don't want to deviate from their routine and managers are reluctant to mess with that. Even someone like Maddon.
Are you suggesting a 4-man rotation or a 6-man rotation?
I don't think he's suggesting either, I think he's saying Joe probably is probably still going to use a normal 5 man rotation and try to let those guys pitch like normal starters. He has a quicker leash than most, and they've built a pretty good group of swing men, but he's not going to go so far as to basically declare the designation of starter meaningless and just piggy back a bunch of guys every 4th and 5th day. Most likely the players would really not be fond of it, and like I was saying, destroying the distinction between reliever and starter will have a lot of financial implications players probably won't like either.
Quote from: PANK! on February 11, 2016, 11:07:08 AM
Quote from: Eli on February 11, 2016, 10:57:30 AM
Quote from: Oleg on February 11, 2016, 10:31:26 AM
Basically, you need to use up about 400 innings between the last two rotation spots so you can spread those innings out between 4 pitchers (or how many ever) and maximize their effectiveness.
I think the 5-man rotation is one of the last bastions of old-school thinking in baseball. Pitchers don't want to deviate from their routine and managers are reluctant to mess with that. Even someone like Maddon.
Are you suggesting a 4-man rotation or a 6-man rotation?
Neither.
I'm suggesting running the top three out every 5 days, as usual.
Then, using the flexibility of Hammel, Hendricks, Warren, and Cahill for three (or so) innings a piece the other two days. Hell, yu can even stagger them so that they could be available in emergencies on the days they're not scheduled.
Something like:
Arrieta
Hammel/Warren
Lester
Lackey
Hendricks/Cahil
Arrieta
Hammel/Richard
Lester
Lackey
Hendricks/Warren
Etc
Etc
Arrieta, Lester, and Lackey would be good for around 630 innings.
Hammel can go 120 or so.
Hendricks and Warren can give you about 100 each.
The rest is mop up for Cahill and Richard.
????
Profit!
But, yeah...getting the players buy-in would probably be a non-starter.
Quote from: Oleg on February 11, 2016, 11:15:04 AM
Quote from: PANK! on February 11, 2016, 11:07:08 AM
Quote from: Eli on February 11, 2016, 10:57:30 AM
Quote from: Oleg on February 11, 2016, 10:31:26 AM
Basically, you need to use up about 400 innings between the last two rotation spots so you can spread those innings out between 4 pitchers (or how many ever) and maximize their effectiveness.
I think the 5-man rotation is one of the last bastions of old-school thinking in baseball. Pitchers don't want to deviate from their routine and managers are reluctant to mess with that. Even someone like Maddon.
Are you suggesting a 4-man rotation or a 6-man rotation?
Neither.
I'm suggesting running the top three out every 5 days, as usual.
Then, using the flexibility of Hammel, Hendricks, Warren, and Cahill for three (or so) innings a piece the other two days. Hell, yu can even stagger them so that they could be available in emergencies on the days they're not scheduled.
Something like:
Arrieta
Hammel/Warren
Lester
Lackey
Hendricks/Cahil
Arrieta
Hammel/Richard
Lester
Lackey
Hendricks/Warren
Etc
Etc
Arrieta, Lester, and Lackey would be good for around 630 innings.
Hammel can go 120 or so.
Hendricks and Warren can give you about 100 each.
The rest is mop up for Cahill and Richard.
????
Profit!
But, yeah...getting the players buy-in would probably be a non-starter.
Especially since you forgot Travis Wood. That's essentially a 9-man rotation.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on February 11, 2016, 11:36:23 AM
Quote from: Oleg on February 11, 2016, 11:15:04 AM
Quote from: PANK! on February 11, 2016, 11:07:08 AM
Quote from: Eli on February 11, 2016, 10:57:30 AM
Quote from: Oleg on February 11, 2016, 10:31:26 AM
Basically, you need to use up about 400 innings between the last two rotation spots so you can spread those innings out between 4 pitchers (or how many ever) and maximize their effectiveness.
I think the 5-man rotation is one of the last bastions of old-school thinking in baseball. Pitchers don't want to deviate from their routine and managers are reluctant to mess with that. Even someone like Maddon.
Are you suggesting a 4-man rotation or a 6-man rotation?
Neither.
I'm suggesting running the top three out every 5 days, as usual.
Then, using the flexibility of Hammel, Hendricks, Warren, and Cahill for three (or so) innings a piece the other two days. Hell, yu can even stagger them so that they could be available in emergencies on the days they're not scheduled.
Something like:
Arrieta
Hammel/Warren
Lester
Lackey
Hendricks/Cahil
Arrieta
Hammel/Richard
Lester
Lackey
Hendricks/Warren
Etc
Etc
Arrieta, Lester, and Lackey would be good for around 630 innings.
Hammel can go 120 or so.
Hendricks and Warren can give you about 100 each.
The rest is mop up for Cahill and Richard.
????
Profit!
But, yeah...getting the players buy-in would probably be a non-starter.
Especially since you forgot Travis Wood. That's essentially a 9-man rotation.
The 40 Theriot roster would club the shit out of those posers.
All this stuff about rotations and pitcher usage was addressed by Joe Sheehan in his newsletter yesterday. However there is no way I'm posting it from my phone again, so if someone else doesn't post it first I will whenever I get around to it.
Quote from: Saul Goodman on February 11, 2016, 01:21:12 PM
All this stuff about rotations and pitcher usage was addressed by Joe Sheehan in his newsletter yesterday. However there is no way I'm posting it from my phone again, so if someone else doesn't post it first I will whenever I get around to it.
Cool, I'd like to read it. I mean it's a fun thought exercise and the statistical arguments for it are sound, I just don't know what it would take to get the players to go for it, when Zack Greinke is getting 195 million and Darren O'Day is getting 31 million you're not going to be able to convince too many guys who view themselves as starters to accept that role.
It's $30 a year, wankers.
As we approach the 2016 season, I get back to one of my favorite framing devices, "20 years ago." I find that to be a key time frame for looking at changes, a generation of baseball, one in which almost the entire player pool turns over. The only player slated to play in 2016 who also played in 1996 is Alex Rodriguez. The only players who played in 1996 and 1976 were Dennis Martinez, Andre Dawson and Dennis Eckersley.
The player strike of 1994, which served to shorten both that season and 1995, made the 20-year framework problematic. The sample size of both years was large, but with neither season playing to conclusion and all the statistics truncated, you just about had to throw out both years for analytical purposes. (I do the same with 1981, which would otherwise have some historically bad team offensive performances.) So for the last two years, I've had to avoid the 20-year framing in lieu of "since 1996" or something similar that leaves the 1994 and 1995 seasons by the wayside. Now, we can get back to it.
Twenty years ago, the MLB leader in innings pitched was Pat Hentgen, with 265 2/3. The top ten ran down to Chuck Finley at #10, with 238. Forty-eight starters, nearly two per team, threw at least 200 innings. Last year, the MLB leader in innings was Clayton Kershaw, with 232. The bottom of the top ten was R.A. Dickey, with 214 1/3, and just 28 pitchers threw at least 200 innings -- fewer than one per team. Starting pitchers, top ones, durable ones, are paid incredibly well, and over the course of a generation we've asked them to pitch about 10-15% less in a season than before. The drop has come in frequency of starts -- 30 pitchers made at least 34 starts in 1996 and just one, Chris Archer, did last year -- and length of starts. There were 290 complete games in 1996, one in about 6% of starts. Last year, there were 104 complete games, fewer than one per day, and they occurred in about 2% of starts. Go beyond complete games; in 1996, a starting pitcher completed eight innings 719 times (16%). Last year, it was just under half that, 367 times (8%).
The role of starting pitcher, constantly changing, is now defined as "pitch as long as you can, and don't worry about finishing the game." The effect of the 1970s spurt in complete games and innings pitched, a fluke borne of a low offensive environment and pitchers whose developmental years were spent on high mounds in an even lower one, has finally washed out of the game. Clayton Kershaw is on his way to being an inner-circle Hall of Famer, and in his entire career he's faced 87 batters in the ninth inning. David Price just got a massive free-agent contract, and he's faced 79 batters in the ninth. We simply no longer concern ourselves with whether a starting pitcher can pitch complete games. We ask less and less from the very best pitchers in the game. This is borne largely out of concern for keeping them healthy, whether we know a 32-start season or max pitch counts of 120 or average pitch counts of 105 correlate with better health or not.
The innings the top starters in the game used to throw have to go somewhere, of course. Those ninth innings have belonged to relief aces and then closers for a while. Those eighth innings, more and more, belong to one-inning relievers themselves. Teams don't match up in the eighth inning these days so much as they give the eighth to one pitcher. Bullpens are now being constructed not just with a closer in mind, but with a specific eighth-inning role and increasingly, a seventh-inning role. It's a push-button way of assembling a pen, but as the baseball industry has become ruthlessly efficient at producing one-inning relievers, it's also been an effective one. There were twice as many outings of exactly one inning last year (7542) as there were in 1996 (3867). The average relief outing in 2015 was exactly one inning long.
These usage patterns are contributing to the max-strikeout, min-offense nature of today's game. Asked to pitch less frequently for fewer pitches, both starters and relievers have gained velocity. The development of the cut fastball in conjunction with that increased velocity has shifted the balance of power between pitchers and hitters, with the latter having to react more quickly to pitches that give off fewer clues as to what they'll be doing. The larger called strike zone has had an impact as well, but the biggest factor in the baseball we watch now is increased velocity enabled by smaller individual workloads, especially among relief pitchers.
A running theme in last year's postseason coverage was the "third time around the order effect." As originally presented by Mitchel Lichtman, all pitchers are less effective the third time around the order, and because of this -- and the depth and quality of bullpens -- many starters should be removed before facing a lineup a third time. This is particularly important in the postseason, where each inning and each game has increased meaning. I've been writing about this a lot, and one reaction to my coverage was fans saying they hoped the game wouldn't continue in this direction, with starting pitchers going 18 batters and then being removed. I understand this thinking; we're attached to the idea of "starting" pitchers being a breed apart from others, particularly middle relievers, the images of Young and Mathewson, Grove and Spahn, Gibson and Marichal, Maddux and Clemens a throughline of the game's history. What we're learning, though, is that once you get past the top of the pyramid, there's not much to separate, oh, Yovani Gallardo from Brad Brach. What separates most starting pitchers isn't their run prevention, but their durability, their ability to throw 100 pitches 32 times a year without breaking down or being destroyed by the opposition.
The Choice
SPs, third time through: .269/.328/.436
RPs, all: .245/.316/.386
That's not entirely fair, as the second category includes a lot of pitchers who won't be used in the sixth or seventh innings. On the other hand, the first category includes a lot of pitchers who will be left in to pitch the sixth and seventh because they're good enough to lose effectiveness and still be better than the available relievers. The number of pitchers in that subcategory, however, is far smaller than you'd think.
What we have now are multiple trends leading to a place that may be aesthetically displeasing, but necessary to winning baseball games. The majority of MLB starting pitchers will be less effective the third time through the order than the fourth reliever on the staff will be the first time through. This is exacerbated by the lineup effect; the first batters a pitcher sees his third time through are the top of the lineup, usually the best or among the best hitters. A game is almost never more at risk than in batters 19-23.
The problem is that aesthetic part, the one that causes us to recoil at the idea of a starting pitcher being used in this matter. What about pitcher wins, which require a five-inning stint just for consideration? (Use better statistics.) What about days when the starter has pitched well and thrown very few pitches, leading to calls to leave the starter in the game? (Not predictive at all of future performance.) What about people management, treating players as humans rather than Strat cards? (This does that; Strat cards perform the same at all times, human pitchers don't.) All of the objections can be shot down, but at their core is the idea that starting pitchers are supposed to be special, and not interchangeable with relievers. This is less and less true with each passing year.
There will always be aces, but as we've seen, those aces are asked to do less and less with each passing generation. If you think the gap between 2015 and 1996 was large, check out 1976, when more than a quarter of starts were completed, when 24 guys threw 250 innings, and 61 threw at least 200. We don't do that any more. In time, it will seem less and less strange to have starters go 18 batters and leave.
What I'd like to see, however, is for some imaginative team to abandon the idea of the starting pitcher in two or three rotation spots in favor of a leveraged relief inning. The first inning is always pretty high-leverage. It's a scoreless game and you're always facing the top of the lineup. You usually have a fresh starting pitcher in the game, which is helpful, but the problem comes when that starting pitcher has to face those same hitters a third time around. Strict third-time-around strategy dictates you remove the pitcher at batter #19, because you don't want to give good hitters that third look.
What if, instead, you started the game with a one-inning reliever, probably your third-best one? In today's game, that's a pretty good pitcher throwing a moderate-leverage clean inning against the top of the lineup -- a situation you may not be able to get later in the game. Then, you would bring in your "starting" pitcher to throw the second, and he would pitch to at least 18 batters. The benefit here is that when it comes time to face batters a third time, he's not seeing 1-2-3 (and possibly 4-5), but rather the lesser hitters. The risk in leaving in the pitcher to face hitters a third time is mitigated in part by the lower quality of the hitters. The 18-batter strategy could be a 24-batter strategy with less added risk. This could even solve the pitcher-wins problem; official scorers can't give wins to starting pitchers who fail to complete five innings, but they can give wins to relievers who throw 3-4 effective innings.
In the early days of baseball, there were no starting pitchers, just pitchers. Just pitcher, really. The thinking we have about starting pitchers, about them having special status in our game, stems from a time when you were 30/70 to come back from a game without having been punched in the face. We've chipped away and chipped away at the mythos around starters over the past 140 years -- and certainly over the past 40. What I'm proposing here isn't a revolution, it's an evolution. Pitchers with the ability to throw 100 pitches 32 times a year will still have value, but they can be deployed in a manner that avoids the third-time penalty and gives their team a better chance to win.
Quote from: SKO on February 11, 2016, 02:01:29 PM
Cool, I'd like to read it. I mean it's a fun thought exercise and the statistical arguments for it are sound, I just don't know what it would take to get the players to go for it, when Zack Greinke is getting 195 million and Darren O'Day is getting 31 million you're not going to be able to convince too many guys who view themselves as starters to accept that role.
Well, you wouldn't do it with guys like Greinke. You do it with a handful of 'tweener guys who would be bouncing between mid-long relief and spot start duty anyway (and probably paid accordingly).
But you're right in that there would need to be a ...
paradigm shift
... in how compensation is structured to get many guys to buy in. You might be able to get by with lower quality pitchers in doing so. Since you're planning on pulling them in the 3rd from their "starts" they don't need to keep anything in the tank for the 4th-6th innings. Because: market inefficiency!
Quote from: ChuckD on February 11, 2016, 02:17:37 PM
Quote from: SKO on February 11, 2016, 02:01:29 PM
Cool, I'd like to read it. I mean it's a fun thought exercise and the statistical arguments for it are sound, I just don't know what it would take to get the players to go for it, when Zack Greinke is getting 195 million and Darren O'Day is getting 31 million you're not going to be able to convince too many guys who view themselves as starters to accept that role.
Well, you wouldn't do it with guys like Greinke. You do it with a handful of 'tweener guys who would be bouncing between mid-long relief and spot start duty anyway (and probably paid accordingly).
But you're right in that there would need to be a ...
paradigm shift
... in how compensation is structured to get many guys to buy in. You might be able to get by with lower quality pitchers in doing so. Since you're planning on pulling them in the 3rd from their "starts" they don't need to keep anything in the tank for the 4th-6th innings. Because: market inefficiency!
I lol'd hard at the paradigm shift. Fantastic.
Quote from: SKO on February 11, 2016, 02:29:45 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on February 11, 2016, 02:17:37 PM
Quote from: SKO on February 11, 2016, 02:01:29 PM
Cool, I'd like to read it. I mean it's a fun thought exercise and the statistical arguments for it are sound, I just don't know what it would take to get the players to go for it, when Zack Greinke is getting 195 million and Darren O'Day is getting 31 million you're not going to be able to convince too many guys who view themselves as starters to accept that role.
Well, you wouldn't do it with guys like Greinke. You do it with a handful of 'tweener guys who would be bouncing between mid-long relief and spot start duty anyway (and probably paid accordingly).
But you're right in that there would need to be a ...
paradigm shift
... in how compensation is structured to get many guys to buy in. You might be able to get by with lower quality pitchers in doing so. Since you're planning on pulling them in the 3rd from their "starts" they don't need to keep anything in the tank for the 4th-6th innings. Because: market inefficiency!
I lol'd hard at the paradigm shift. Fantastic.
I laughed, too, even though I don't know what a paradigm shift is and would need someone to explain it to me.
Quote from: Eli on February 11, 2016, 02:49:30 PM
Quote from: SKO on February 11, 2016, 02:29:45 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on February 11, 2016, 02:17:37 PM
Quote from: SKO on February 11, 2016, 02:01:29 PM
Cool, I'd like to read it. I mean it's a fun thought exercise and the statistical arguments for it are sound, I just don't know what it would take to get the players to go for it, when Zack Greinke is getting 195 million and Darren O'Day is getting 31 million you're not going to be able to convince too many guys who view themselves as starters to accept that role.
Well, you wouldn't do it with guys like Greinke. You do it with a handful of 'tweener guys who would be bouncing between mid-long relief and spot start duty anyway (and probably paid accordingly).
But you're right in that there would need to be a ...
paradigm shift
... in how compensation is structured to get many guys to buy in. You might be able to get by with lower quality pitchers in doing so. Since you're planning on pulling them in the 3rd from their "starts" they don't need to keep anything in the tank for the 4th-6th innings. Because: market inefficiency!
I lol'd hard at the paradigm shift. Fantastic.
I laughed, too, even though I don't know what a paradigm shift is and would need someone to explain it to me.
It's something to do with Transformational Leadership, I hear tell.
Quote from: SKO on February 11, 2016, 02:51:16 PM
Quote from: Eli on February 11, 2016, 02:49:30 PM
Quote from: SKO on February 11, 2016, 02:29:45 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on February 11, 2016, 02:17:37 PM
Quote from: SKO on February 11, 2016, 02:01:29 PM
Cool, I'd like to read it. I mean it's a fun thought exercise and the statistical arguments for it are sound, I just don't know what it would take to get the players to go for it, when Zack Greinke is getting 195 million and Darren O'Day is getting 31 million you're not going to be able to convince too many guys who view themselves as starters to accept that role.
Well, you wouldn't do it with guys like Greinke. You do it with a handful of 'tweener guys who would be bouncing between mid-long relief and spot start duty anyway (and probably paid accordingly).
But you're right in that there would need to be a ...
paradigm shift
... in how compensation is structured to get many guys to buy in. You might be able to get by with lower quality pitchers in doing so. Since you're planning on pulling them in the 3rd from their "starts" they don't need to keep anything in the tank for the 4th-6th innings. Because: market inefficiency!
I lol'd hard at the paradigm shift. Fantastic.
I laughed, too, even though I don't know what a paradigm shift is and would need someone to explain it to me.
It's something to do with Transformational Leadership, I hear tell.
This is what Wikipedia is for.
Quote from: Eli on February 11, 2016, 02:49:30 PM
Quote from: SKO on February 11, 2016, 02:29:45 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on February 11, 2016, 02:17:37 PM
Quote from: SKO on February 11, 2016, 02:01:29 PM
Cool, I'd like to read it. I mean it's a fun thought exercise and the statistical arguments for it are sound, I just don't know what it would take to get the players to go for it, when Zack Greinke is getting 195 million and Darren O'Day is getting 31 million you're not going to be able to convince too many guys who view themselves as starters to accept that role.
Well, you wouldn't do it with guys like Greinke. You do it with a handful of 'tweener guys who would be bouncing between mid-long relief and spot start duty anyway (and probably paid accordingly).
But you're right in that there would need to be a ...
paradigm shift
... in how compensation is structured to get many guys to buy in. You might be able to get by with lower quality pitchers in doing so. Since you're planning on pulling them in the 3rd from their "starts" they don't need to keep anything in the tank for the 4th-6th innings. Because: market inefficiency!
I lol'd hard at the paradigm shift. Fantastic.
I laughed, too, even though I don't know what a paradigm shift is and would need someone to explain it to me.
It's a scientific term that American business gurus (particularly in marketing, I'm sure Pen's shifted a few paradigms in his day) got hold of in the early 90's and has now pretty much been rendered meaningless.
Quote from: CT III on February 11, 2016, 03:40:56 PM
Quote from: Eli on February 11, 2016, 02:49:30 PM
Quote from: SKO on February 11, 2016, 02:29:45 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on February 11, 2016, 02:17:37 PM
Quote from: SKO on February 11, 2016, 02:01:29 PM
Cool, I'd like to read it. I mean it's a fun thought exercise and the statistical arguments for it are sound, I just don't know what it would take to get the players to go for it, when Zack Greinke is getting 195 million and Darren O'Day is getting 31 million you're not going to be able to convince too many guys who view themselves as starters to accept that role.
Well, you wouldn't do it with guys like Greinke. You do it with a handful of 'tweener guys who would be bouncing between mid-long relief and spot start duty anyway (and probably paid accordingly).
But you're right in that there would need to be a ...
paradigm shift
... in how compensation is structured to get many guys to buy in. You might be able to get by with lower quality pitchers in doing so. Since you're planning on pulling them in the 3rd from their "starts" they don't need to keep anything in the tank for the 4th-6th innings. Because: market inefficiency!
I lol'd hard at the paradigm shift. Fantastic.
I laughed, too, even though I don't know what a paradigm shift is and would need someone to explain it to me.
It's a scientific term that American business gurus (particularly in marketing, I'm sure Pen's shifted a few paradigms in his day) got hold of in the early 90's and has now pretty much been rendered meaningless.
Eli was referring to the BP Wrigleyville article where the guy said we didn't like their shitty new articles because they were leading a paradigm shift in sabermetrics, and after saying he didn't want to insult anyone's intelligence he spent three paragraphs condescendingly explaining paradigm shifts
Quote from: SKO on February 11, 2016, 03:47:00 PM
Quote from: CT III on February 11, 2016, 03:40:56 PM
Quote from: Eli on February 11, 2016, 02:49:30 PM
Quote from: SKO on February 11, 2016, 02:29:45 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on February 11, 2016, 02:17:37 PM
Quote from: SKO on February 11, 2016, 02:01:29 PM
Cool, I'd like to read it. I mean it's a fun thought exercise and the statistical arguments for it are sound, I just don't know what it would take to get the players to go for it, when Zack Greinke is getting 195 million and Darren O'Day is getting 31 million you're not going to be able to convince too many guys who view themselves as starters to accept that role.
Well, you wouldn't do it with guys like Greinke. You do it with a handful of 'tweener guys who would be bouncing between mid-long relief and spot start duty anyway (and probably paid accordingly).
But you're right in that there would need to be a ...
paradigm shift
... in how compensation is structured to get many guys to buy in. You might be able to get by with lower quality pitchers in doing so. Since you're planning on pulling them in the 3rd from their "starts" they don't need to keep anything in the tank for the 4th-6th innings. Because: market inefficiency!
I lol'd hard at the paradigm shift. Fantastic.
I laughed, too, even though I don't know what a paradigm shift is and would need someone to explain it to me.
It's a scientific term that American business gurus (particularly in marketing, I'm sure Pen's shifted a few paradigms in his day) got hold of in the early 90's and has now pretty much been rendered meaningless.
Eli was referring to the BP Wrigleyville article where the guy said we didn't like their shitty new articles because they were leading a paradigm shift in sabermetrics, and after saying he didn't want to insult anyone's intelligence he spent three paragraphs condescendingly explaining paradigm shifts
CT is right though. I have made paradigms weep from how I've transformed them.
Quote from: SKO on February 11, 2016, 03:47:00 PM
Quote from: CT III on February 11, 2016, 03:40:56 PM
Quote from: Eli on February 11, 2016, 02:49:30 PM
Quote from: SKO on February 11, 2016, 02:29:45 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on February 11, 2016, 02:17:37 PM
Quote from: SKO on February 11, 2016, 02:01:29 PM
Cool, I'd like to read it. I mean it's a fun thought exercise and the statistical arguments for it are sound, I just don't know what it would take to get the players to go for it, when Zack Greinke is getting 195 million and Darren O'Day is getting 31 million you're not going to be able to convince too many guys who view themselves as starters to accept that role.
Well, you wouldn't do it with guys like Greinke. You do it with a handful of 'tweener guys who would be bouncing between mid-long relief and spot start duty anyway (and probably paid accordingly).
But you're right in that there would need to be a ...
paradigm shift
... in how compensation is structured to get many guys to buy in. You might be able to get by with lower quality pitchers in doing so. Since you're planning on pulling them in the 3rd from their "starts" they don't need to keep anything in the tank for the 4th-6th innings. Because: market inefficiency!
I lol'd hard at the paradigm shift. Fantastic.
I laughed, too, even though I don't know what a paradigm shift is and would need someone to explain it to me.
It's a scientific term that American business gurus (particularly in marketing, I'm sure Pen's shifted a few paradigms in his day) got hold of in the early 90's and has now pretty much been rendered meaningless.
Eli was referring to the BP Wrigleyville article where the guy said we didn't like their shitty new articles because they were leading a paradigm shift in sabermetrics, and after saying he didn't want to insult anyone's intelligence he spent three paragraphs condescendingly explaining paradigm shifts
Time for a paradigm shift in synergistic nuance, I guess.
Quote from: Eli on February 11, 2016, 04:00:36 PM
Quote from: SKO on February 11, 2016, 03:47:00 PM
Quote from: CT III on February 11, 2016, 03:40:56 PM
Quote from: Eli on February 11, 2016, 02:49:30 PM
Quote from: SKO on February 11, 2016, 02:29:45 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on February 11, 2016, 02:17:37 PM
Quote from: SKO on February 11, 2016, 02:01:29 PM
Cool, I'd like to read it. I mean it's a fun thought exercise and the statistical arguments for it are sound, I just don't know what it would take to get the players to go for it, when Zack Greinke is getting 195 million and Darren O'Day is getting 31 million you're not going to be able to convince too many guys who view themselves as starters to accept that role.
Well, you wouldn't do it with guys like Greinke. You do it with a handful of 'tweener guys who would be bouncing between mid-long relief and spot start duty anyway (and probably paid accordingly).
But you're right in that there would need to be a ...
paradigm shift
... in how compensation is structured to get many guys to buy in. You might be able to get by with lower quality pitchers in doing so. Since you're planning on pulling them in the 3rd from their "starts" they don't need to keep anything in the tank for the 4th-6th innings. Because: market inefficiency!
I lol'd hard at the paradigm shift. Fantastic.
I laughed, too, even though I don't know what a paradigm shift is and would need someone to explain it to me.
It's a scientific term that American business gurus (particularly in marketing, I'm sure Pen's shifted a few paradigms in his day) got hold of in the early 90's and has now pretty much been rendered meaningless.
Eli was referring to the BP Wrigleyville article where the guy said we didn't like their shitty new articles because they were leading a paradigm shift in sabermetrics, and after saying he didn't want to insult anyone's intelligence he spent three paragraphs condescendingly explaining paradigm shifts
Time for a paradigm shift in synergistic nuance, I guess.
The paradigm shift originated in college football in the early 1920s. It was designed to fool the opposition with a "hidden ball" stunt. While the attention of the defensive backfield was focused on the backfield of the offense, typically in what was called a "T-formation", watching the player who was farthest back, known as the "fullback" (why he was called that is unknown since all of the players on the offense were usually of sound body, if not sound mind), who if not carefully observed would often switch jerseys with the player immediately to his right, thus causing great consternation in the rooting section who were want to chant "give the ball to number 14" while the cheerleaders turned cartwheels and occasionally dispensed poor boy sandwiches to fans in the front rows. In any event, while this was going on, the center slyly paradigm shifted the ball to the lineman to his left. Since this was before the rules changed, the latter was then free to "lateral" (so called because it is a pass that must be thrown while lying on one's side) to one of the cheerleaders, now referred to as a "designated 12th man". Football in the 1920s was infinitely more interesting than it is today.
Quote from: CBStew on February 11, 2016, 04:28:17 PM
Quote from: Eli on February 11, 2016, 04:00:36 PM
Quote from: SKO on February 11, 2016, 03:47:00 PM
Quote from: CT III on February 11, 2016, 03:40:56 PM
Quote from: Eli on February 11, 2016, 02:49:30 PM
Quote from: SKO on February 11, 2016, 02:29:45 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on February 11, 2016, 02:17:37 PM
Quote from: SKO on February 11, 2016, 02:01:29 PM
Cool, I'd like to read it. I mean it's a fun thought exercise and the statistical arguments for it are sound, I just don't know what it would take to get the players to go for it, when Zack Greinke is getting 195 million and Darren O'Day is getting 31 million you're not going to be able to convince too many guys who view themselves as starters to accept that role.
Well, you wouldn't do it with guys like Greinke. You do it with a handful of 'tweener guys who would be bouncing between mid-long relief and spot start duty anyway (and probably paid accordingly).
But you're right in that there would need to be a ...
paradigm shift
... in how compensation is structured to get many guys to buy in. You might be able to get by with lower quality pitchers in doing so. Since you're planning on pulling them in the 3rd from their "starts" they don't need to keep anything in the tank for the 4th-6th innings. Because: market inefficiency!
I lol'd hard at the paradigm shift. Fantastic.
I laughed, too, even though I don't know what a paradigm shift is and would need someone to explain it to me.
It's a scientific term that American business gurus (particularly in marketing, I'm sure Pen's shifted a few paradigms in his day) got hold of in the early 90's and has now pretty much been rendered meaningless.
Eli was referring to the BP Wrigleyville article where the guy said we didn't like their shitty new articles because they were leading a paradigm shift in sabermetrics, and after saying he didn't want to insult anyone's intelligence he spent three paragraphs condescendingly explaining paradigm shifts
Time for a paradigm shift in synergistic nuance, I guess.
The paradigm shift originated in college football in the early 1920s. It was designed to fool the opposition with a "hidden ball" stunt. While the attention of the defensive backfield was focused on the backfield of the offense, typically in what was called a "T-formation", watching the player who was farthest back, known as the "fullback" (why he was called that is unknown since all of the players on the offense were usually of sound body, if not sound mind), who if not carefully observed would often switch jerseys with the player immediately to his right, thus causing great consternation in the rooting section who were want to chant "give the ball to number 14" while the cheerleaders turned cartwheels and occasionally dispensed poor boy sandwiches to fans in the front rows. In any event, while this was going on, the center slyly paradigm shifted the ball to the lineman to his left. Since this was before the rules changed, the latter was then free to "lateral" (so called because it is a pass that must be thrown while lying on one's side) to one of the cheerleaders, now referred to as a "designated 12th man". Football in the 1920s was infinitely more interesting than it is today.
Godamnit Stew, I have to meet you someday.
Quote from: flannj on February 11, 2016, 06:07:09 PM
Quote from: CBStew on February 11, 2016, 04:28:17 PM
Quote from: Eli on February 11, 2016, 04:00:36 PM
Quote from: SKO on February 11, 2016, 03:47:00 PM
Quote from: CT III on February 11, 2016, 03:40:56 PM
Quote from: Eli on February 11, 2016, 02:49:30 PM
Quote from: SKO on February 11, 2016, 02:29:45 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on February 11, 2016, 02:17:37 PM
Quote from: SKO on February 11, 2016, 02:01:29 PM
Cool, I'd like to read it. I mean it's a fun thought exercise and the statistical arguments for it are sound, I just don't know what it would take to get the players to go for it, when Zack Greinke is getting 195 million and Darren O'Day is getting 31 million you're not going to be able to convince too many guys who view themselves as starters to accept that role.
Well, you wouldn't do it with guys like Greinke. You do it with a handful of 'tweener guys who would be bouncing between mid-long relief and spot start duty anyway (and probably paid accordingly).
But you're right in that there would need to be a ...
paradigm shift
... in how compensation is structured to get many guys to buy in. You might be able to get by with lower quality pitchers in doing so. Since you're planning on pulling them in the 3rd from their "starts" they don't need to keep anything in the tank for the 4th-6th innings. Because: market inefficiency!
I lol'd hard at the paradigm shift. Fantastic.
I laughed, too, even though I don't know what a paradigm shift is and would need someone to explain it to me.
It's a scientific term that American business gurus (particularly in marketing, I'm sure Pen's shifted a few paradigms in his day) got hold of in the early 90's and has now pretty much been rendered meaningless.
Eli was referring to the BP Wrigleyville article where the guy said we didn't like their shitty new articles because they were leading a paradigm shift in sabermetrics, and after saying he didn't want to insult anyone's intelligence he spent three paragraphs condescendingly explaining paradigm shifts
Time for a paradigm shift in synergistic nuance, I guess.
The paradigm shift originated in college football in the early 1920s. It was designed to fool the opposition with a "hidden ball" stunt. While the attention of the defensive backfield was focused on the backfield of the offense, typically in what was called a "T-formation", watching the player who was farthest back, known as the "fullback" (why he was called that is unknown since all of the players on the offense were usually of sound body, if not sound mind), who if not carefully observed would often switch jerseys with the player immediately to his right, thus causing great consternation in the rooting section who were want to chant "give the ball to number 14" while the cheerleaders turned cartwheels and occasionally dispensed poor boy sandwiches to fans in the front rows. In any event, while this was going on, the center slyly paradigm shifted the ball to the lineman to his left. Since this was before the rules changed, the latter was then free to "lateral" (so called because it is a pass that must be thrown while lying on one's side) to one of the cheerleaders, now referred to as a "designated 12th man". Football in the 1920s was infinitely more interesting than it is today.
Godamnit Stew, I have to meet you someday.
I thought a paradigm was the change from two cups of coffee old Jewish guys fought over.
Quote from: PenFoe on February 04, 2016, 10:50:06 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on February 04, 2016, 10:34:46 AM
DPD.
If Murton makes the big club or just languishes at AAA just in case, I don't really have an opinion about it. Time has passed. He's not a prospect or someone the front office or fans are pushing for an everyday spot in lieu of an upgrade. Replacement Level Murton is not a threat to my sanity. That battle is over. I won lost.
(http://i.imgur.com/SYWFkvh.jpg)
(http://tinyurl.com/j7ezj9v)
I wonder what Moonlight Greenberg is up to.
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on February 16, 2016, 03:32:15 PM
I wonder what Moonlight Greenberg is up to.
He is co-founder and CEO of this stuff (http://www.lurongliving.com/), and he recently had a baby boy named Leo Henry.
You can hire him to speak.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CVEYKecW4AQh4cp.jpg:large)
"Holds the record" is a hilarious way to describe his career.
Quote from: PenFoe on February 16, 2016, 03:41:57 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on February 16, 2016, 03:32:15 PM
I wonder what Moonlight Greenberg is up to.
He is co-founder and CEO of this stuff (http://www.lurongliving.com/), and he recently had a baby boy named Leo Henry.
You can hire him to speak.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CVEYKecW4AQh4cp.jpg:large)
"Holds the record" is a hilarious way to describe his career.
You buried the lede: DESSERT WILL BE SERVED
Quote from: CT III on February 16, 2016, 03:51:43 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on February 16, 2016, 03:41:57 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on February 16, 2016, 03:32:15 PM
I wonder what Moonlight Greenberg is up to.
He is co-founder and CEO of this stuff (http://www.lurongliving.com/), and he recently had a baby boy named Leo Henry.
You can hire him to speak.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CVEYKecW4AQh4cp.jpg:large)
"Holds the record" is a hilarious way to describe his career.
You buried the lede: DESSERT WILL BE SERVED
Register at freedessert.org
Quote from: PenFoe on February 16, 2016, 03:53:41 PM
Quote from: CT III on February 16, 2016, 03:51:43 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on February 16, 2016, 03:41:57 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on February 16, 2016, 03:32:15 PM
I wonder what Moonlight Greenberg is up to.
He is co-founder and CEO of this stuff (http://www.lurongliving.com/), and he recently had a baby boy named Leo Henry.
You can hire him to speak.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CVEYKecW4AQh4cp.jpg:large)
"Holds the record" is a hilarious way to describe his career.
You buried the lede: DESSERT WILL BE SERVED
Register at freedessert.org
The Jewish National Fund--Your voice in Israel.
Second best record in baseball, per PECOTA. (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/fantasy/dc/)
Other notes:
* Most runs scored in the NL (3rd, MLB)
* Best OBP in NL (5th, MLB)
* 6th in Runs Allowed in NL
Quote from: PenFoe on February 16, 2016, 04:25:49 PM
Second best record in baseball, per PECOTA. (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/fantasy/dc/)
Other notes:
* Most runs scored in the NL (3rd, MLB)
* Best OBP in NL (5th, MLB)
* 6th in Runs Allowed in NL
Thanks for saving me the drudgery of actually watching the games all year.
Quote from: Saul Goodman on February 16, 2016, 04:27:24 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on February 16, 2016, 04:25:49 PM
Second best record in baseball, per PECOTA. (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/fantasy/dc/)
Other notes:
* Most runs scored in the NL (3rd, MLB)
* Best OBP in NL (5th, MLB)
* 6th in Runs Allowed in NL
Thanks for saving me the drudgery of actually watching the games all year.
(http://www.drudgesiren.com/siren.gif)
Not a lot of love (http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/14786897) for the Heyward deal.
Worst free-agent signings
Ian Kennedy (Royals): 15 votes
Jason Heyward (Cubs): 8 votes
Most outrageous contracts
Chris Davis (Orioles): 16
Jason Heyward (Cubs): 13
Quote from: PenFoe on February 17, 2016, 03:34:08 PM
Not a lot of love (http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/14786897) for the Heyward deal.
Worst free-agent signings
Ian Kennedy (Royals): 15 votes
Jason Heyward (Cubs): 8 votes
Most outrageous contracts
Chris Davis (Orioles): 16
Jason Heyward (Cubs): 13
I have to assume that's mostly due to the opt outs?
Quote from: SKO on February 17, 2016, 03:43:25 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on February 17, 2016, 03:34:08 PM
Not a lot of love (http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/14786897) for the Heyward deal.
Worst free-agent signings
Ian Kennedy (Royals): 15 votes
Jason Heyward (Cubs): 8 votes
Most outrageous contracts
Chris Davis (Orioles): 16
Jason Heyward (Cubs): 13
I have to assume that's mostly due to the opt outs?
Quote
The best way to sum up Heyward is this: He's one of those guys whose skill set will never appeal to everybody. As one NL exec said in reviewing this deal, "I just don't see it. I just don't see seven years for guys like that. Nice player, but not that kind of player."
Probable Translation: You can't give $184MM to a guy who doesn't hit .300/30/100
But hey, someone voted that Dusty Baker was the top signing of the winter, so there's still a strong contingent of stupidity among baseball execs.
Quote from: PenFoe on February 17, 2016, 03:34:08 PM
Not a lot of love (http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/14786897) for the Heyward deal.
Worst free-agent signings
Ian Kennedy (Royals): 15 votes
Jason Heyward (Cubs): 8 votes
Most outrageous contracts
Chris Davis (Orioles): 16
Jason Heyward (Cubs): 13
I bet many of these are the exact same people Theo continues to fleece in trades and who helped create the market inefficiencies Theo is exploiting. They need the kind of people who think the Heyward signing is a terrible deal. This is a good thing.
Also, no votes for the White Sox being most improved = lol.
Aaron Crow. Cub. (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/cubs-sign-aaron-crow-release-luis-cruz.html) Probably more excited than I should be about this, but Crow always had great stuff. Coming off TJ surgery, he could be a nice reclamation project for Bosio.
Quote from: ChuckD on February 19, 2016, 02:15:35 PM
Aaron Crow. Cub. (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/cubs-sign-aaron-crow-release-luis-cruz.html) Probably more excited than I should be about this, but Crow always had great stuff. Coming off TJ surgery, he could be a nice reclamation project for Bosio.
Bosio is fucking wizard. HGH is a helluva a drug. Crow did have a terrific run with the Royals. It's been two years and a TJ surgery since we last saw him at a competent level though. I'm not excited but hope Boz and company will have me ... eating Crow.
*puts on sunglasses*
YEEEAAAAAAAAHHHHH!
Quote from: ChuckD on February 19, 2016, 02:15:35 PM
Aaron Crow. Cub. (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/cubs-sign-aaron-crow-release-luis-cruz.html) Probably more excited than I should be about this, but Crow always had great stuff. Coming off TJ surgery, he could be a nice reclamation project for Bosio.
We haven't really touched on it much this off season because bullpens aren't secksy compared to Heyward/Zobrist and constantly debating whether or not they should trade Soler for pitching, but I do appreciate that Theo keeps stockpiling bullpen arms all offseason. Given how unstable relief pitching is from year to year it's nice to know they want a bunch of in house fallback options if things don't go as planned.
Better than giving meaningful innings to Jason Motte, Phil Coke, Zac Rosscup, and Rafael Soriano, anyway.
Quote from: ChuckD on February 19, 2016, 02:15:35 PM
Aaron Crow. Cub. (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/cubs-sign-aaron-crow-release-luis-cruz.html) Probably more excited than I should be about this, but Crow always had great stuff. Coming off TJ surgery, he could be a nice reclamation project for Bosio.
It's a low risk/high reward signing. They don't all pan out, but the ones that don't are generally excised before too much damage is done.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on February 19, 2016, 03:22:15 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on February 19, 2016, 02:15:35 PM
Aaron Crow. Cub. (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/cubs-sign-aaron-crow-release-luis-cruz.html) Probably more excited than I should be about this, but Crow always had great stuff. Coming off TJ surgery, he could be a nice reclamation project for Bosio.
It's a low risk/high reward signing. They don't all pan out, but the ones that don't are generally excised before too much damage is done.
You should write for BP Wrigleyville.
Quote from: InternetApex on February 19, 2016, 02:33:57 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on February 19, 2016, 02:15:35 PM
Aaron Crow. Cub. (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/cubs-sign-aaron-crow-release-luis-cruz.html) Probably more excited than I should be about this, but Crow always had great stuff. Coming off TJ surgery, he could be a nice reclamation project for Bosio.
Bosio is fucking wizard. HGH is a helluva a drug. Crow did have a terrific run with the Royals. It's been two years and a TJ surgery since we last saw him at a competent level though. I'm not excited but hope Boz and company will have me ... eating Crow.
*puts on sunglasses*
YEEEAAAAAAAAHHHHH!
(||)
Quote from: ChuckD on February 19, 2016, 02:15:35 PM
Aaron Crow. Cub. (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/cubs-sign-aaron-crow-release-luis-cruz.html) Probably more excited than I should be about this, but Crow always had great stuff. Coming off TJ surgery, he could be a nice reclamation project for Bosio.
So, basically Theo is Hendry and Aaron Crow is Chad Fox.
Quote from: PenFoe on February 19, 2016, 03:40:49 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on February 19, 2016, 02:15:35 PM
Aaron Crow. Cub. (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/cubs-sign-aaron-crow-release-luis-cruz.html) Probably more excited than I should be about this, but Crow always had great stuff. Coming off TJ surgery, he could be a nice reclamation project for Bosio.
So, basically Theo is Hendry and Aaron Crow is Chad Fox.
Yep, exactly.
Quote from: SKO on February 19, 2016, 03:24:08 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on February 19, 2016, 03:22:15 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on February 19, 2016, 02:15:35 PM
Aaron Crow. Cub. (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/cubs-sign-aaron-crow-release-luis-cruz.html) Probably more excited than I should be about this, but Crow always had great stuff. Coming off TJ surgery, he could be a nice reclamation project for Bosio.
It's a low risk/high reward signing. They don't all pan out, but the ones that don't are generally excised before too much damage is done.
You should write for BP Wrigleyville.
I have no way to see the big picture like the braintrust over there does.
The Cubs added Manny Parra (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/cubs-sign-manny-parra.html) to their horde of relievers.
Fowler is back? Ok.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/cubs-re-sign-dexter-fowler.html (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/cubs-re-sign-dexter-fowler.html)
Quote from: D. Doluntap on February 25, 2016, 12:11:54 PM
Fowler is back? Ok.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/cubs-re-sign-dexter-fowler.html (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/cubs-re-sign-dexter-fowler.html)
So, at this point, Soler is the odd man out.
Quote from: Canadouche on February 25, 2016, 01:28:43 PM
Quote from: D. Doluntap on February 25, 2016, 12:11:54 PM
Fowler is back? Ok.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/cubs-re-sign-dexter-fowler.html (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/cubs-re-sign-dexter-fowler.html)
So, at this point, Soler is the odd man out.
Would Soler, Baez and Hendricks make an attractive package to the Rays for a pitcher?
Quote from: D. Doluntap on February 25, 2016, 12:11:54 PM
Fowler is back? Ok.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/cubs-re-sign-dexter-fowler.html (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/cubs-re-sign-dexter-fowler.html)
That's not all: They're moving Dempster back to the rotation, and Lieber's going to the pen.
Quote from: Saul Goodman on February 25, 2016, 01:33:31 PM
Quote from: D. Doluntap on February 25, 2016, 12:11:54 PM
Fowler is back? Ok.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/cubs-re-sign-dexter-fowler.html (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/cubs-re-sign-dexter-fowler.html)
That's not all: They're moving Dempster back to the rotation, and Lieber's going to the pen.
Orton is going to start and Grossman is going to the bench.
Quote from: Brownie on February 25, 2016, 01:31:22 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on February 25, 2016, 01:28:43 PM
Quote from: D. Doluntap on February 25, 2016, 12:11:54 PM
Fowler is back? Ok.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/cubs-re-sign-dexter-fowler.html (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/cubs-re-sign-dexter-fowler.html)
So, at this point, Soler is the odd man out.
Would Soler, Baez and Hendricks make an attractive package to the Rays for a pitcher?
They had 5823 non-pitcher plate appearances last year. There's plenty to go around. No one needs to be traded and no one will be the odd man out.
Even if one cares about such things as "opening day lineup", they open in Anaheim with a DH.
Quote from: Oleg on February 25, 2016, 03:23:50 PM
Quote from: Brownie on February 25, 2016, 01:31:22 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on February 25, 2016, 01:28:43 PM
Quote from: D. Doluntap on February 25, 2016, 12:11:54 PM
Fowler is back? Ok.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/cubs-re-sign-dexter-fowler.html (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/cubs-re-sign-dexter-fowler.html)
So, at this point, Soler is the odd man out.
Would Soler, Baez and Hendricks make an attractive package to the Rays for a pitcher?
They had 5823 non-pitcher plate appearances last year. There's plenty to go around. No one needs to be traded and no one will be the odd man out.
Even if one cares about such things as "opening day lineup", they open in Anaheim with a DH.
But you do have a lot in your back pocket in case some opportunity comes along,
Quote from: Oleg on February 25, 2016, 03:23:50 PM
Quote from: Brownie on February 25, 2016, 01:31:22 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on February 25, 2016, 01:28:43 PM
Quote from: D. Doluntap on February 25, 2016, 12:11:54 PM
Fowler is back? Ok.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/cubs-re-sign-dexter-fowler.html (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/cubs-re-sign-dexter-fowler.html)
So, at this point, Soler is the odd man out.
Would Soler, Baez and Hendricks make an attractive package to the Rays for a pitcher?
They had 5823 non-pitcher plate appearances last year. There's plenty to go around. No one needs to be traded and no one will be the odd man out.
Even if one cares about such things as "opening day lineup", they open in Anaheim with a DH.
This. By my count the Cubs gave Junior Lake, Austin Jackson, Mack Seizure, Mike Baxter, and Alcantara 319 PA last year, and no doubt tried to actually avoid giving them anymore than absolutely necessary. There'll be plenty of opportunities for Soler and Baez.
Quote from: SKO on February 25, 2016, 05:14:24 PM
Quote from: Oleg on February 25, 2016, 03:23:50 PM
Quote from: Brownie on February 25, 2016, 01:31:22 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on February 25, 2016, 01:28:43 PM
Quote from: D. Doluntap on February 25, 2016, 12:11:54 PM
Fowler is back? Ok.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/cubs-re-sign-dexter-fowler.html (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/cubs-re-sign-dexter-fowler.html)
So, at this point, Soler is the odd man out.
Would Soler, Baez and Hendricks make an attractive package to the Rays for a pitcher?
They had 5823 non-pitcher plate appearances last year. There's plenty to go around. No one needs to be traded and no one will be the odd man out.
Even if one cares about such things as "opening day lineup", they open in Anaheim with a DH.
This. By my count the Cubs gave Junior Lake, Austin Jackson, Mack Seizure, Mike Baxter, and Alcantara 319 PA last year, and no doubt tried to actually avoid giving them anymore than absolutely necessary. There'll be plenty of opportunities for Soler and Baez.
That's probably the best point yet that I haven't seen on the tweets.
Quote from: Slaky on February 25, 2016, 05:41:36 PM
Quote from: SKO on February 25, 2016, 05:14:24 PM
Quote from: Oleg on February 25, 2016, 03:23:50 PM
Quote from: Brownie on February 25, 2016, 01:31:22 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on February 25, 2016, 01:28:43 PM
Quote from: D. Doluntap on February 25, 2016, 12:11:54 PM
Fowler is back? Ok.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/cubs-re-sign-dexter-fowler.html (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/cubs-re-sign-dexter-fowler.html)
So, at this point, Soler is the odd man out.
Would Soler, Baez and Hendricks make an attractive package to the Rays for a pitcher?
They had 5823 non-pitcher plate appearances last year. There's plenty to go around. No one needs to be traded and no one will be the odd man out.
Even if one cares about such things as "opening day lineup", they open in Anaheim with a DH.
This. By my count the Cubs gave Junior Lake, Austin Jackson, Mack Seizure, Mike Baxter, and Alcantara 319 PA last year, and no doubt tried to actually avoid giving them anymore than absolutely necessary. There'll be plenty of opportunities for Soler and Baez.
That's probably the best point yet that I haven't seen on the tweets.
Yeah Baez can have Johnny Buckets' 132 PA and then some. Amazing this team won 97 games with a bench that was utterly fucking terrible most of last year. The improvement in depth is insane
Quote from: Slaky on February 25, 2016, 05:41:36 PM
Quote from: SKO on February 25, 2016, 05:14:24 PM
Quote from: Oleg on February 25, 2016, 03:23:50 PM
Quote from: Brownie on February 25, 2016, 01:31:22 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on February 25, 2016, 01:28:43 PM
Quote from: D. Doluntap on February 25, 2016, 12:11:54 PM
Fowler is back? Ok.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/cubs-re-sign-dexter-fowler.html (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/cubs-re-sign-dexter-fowler.html)
So, at this point, Soler is the odd man out.
Would Soler, Baez and Hendricks make an attractive package to the Rays for a pitcher?
They had 5823 non-pitcher plate appearances last year. There's plenty to go around. No one needs to be traded and no one will be the odd man out.
Even if one cares about such things as "opening day lineup", they open in Anaheim with a DH.
This. By my count the Cubs gave Junior Lake, Austin Jackson, Mack Seizure, Mike Baxter, and Alcantara 319 PA last year, and no doubt tried to actually avoid giving them anymore than absolutely necessary. There'll be plenty of opportunities for Soler and Baez.
That's probably the best point yet that I haven't seen on the tweets.
Let's not forget about Herrera (132) and Denorfia (231).
Quote from: ChuckD on February 25, 2016, 05:55:45 PM
Quote from: Slaky on February 25, 2016, 05:41:36 PM
Quote from: SKO on February 25, 2016, 05:14:24 PM
Quote from: Oleg on February 25, 2016, 03:23:50 PM
Quote from: Brownie on February 25, 2016, 01:31:22 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on February 25, 2016, 01:28:43 PM
Quote from: D. Doluntap on February 25, 2016, 12:11:54 PM
Fowler is back? Ok.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/cubs-re-sign-dexter-fowler.html (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/cubs-re-sign-dexter-fowler.html)
So, at this point, Soler is the odd man out.
Would Soler, Baez and Hendricks make an attractive package to the Rays for a pitcher?
They had 5823 non-pitcher plate appearances last year. There's plenty to go around. No one needs to be traded and no one will be the odd man out.
Even if one cares about such things as "opening day lineup", they open in Anaheim with a DH.
This. By my count the Cubs gave Junior Lake, Austin Jackson, Mack Seizure, Mike Baxter, and Alcantara 319 PA last year, and no doubt tried to actually avoid giving them anymore than absolutely necessary. There'll be plenty of opportunities for Soler and Baez.
That's probably the best point yet that I haven't seen on the tweets.
Let's not forget about Herrera (132) and Denorfia (231).
And Chris Coghlan (440)
Quote from: Armchair_QB on February 25, 2016, 06:11:26 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on February 25, 2016, 05:55:45 PM
Quote from: Slaky on February 25, 2016, 05:41:36 PM
Quote from: SKO on February 25, 2016, 05:14:24 PM
Quote from: Oleg on February 25, 2016, 03:23:50 PM
Quote from: Brownie on February 25, 2016, 01:31:22 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on February 25, 2016, 01:28:43 PM
Quote from: D. Doluntap on February 25, 2016, 12:11:54 PM
Fowler is back? Ok.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/cubs-re-sign-dexter-fowler.html (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/cubs-re-sign-dexter-fowler.html)
So, at this point, Soler is the odd man out.
Would Soler, Baez and Hendricks make an attractive package to the Rays for a pitcher?
They had 5823 non-pitcher plate appearances last year. There's plenty to go around. No one needs to be traded and no one will be the odd man out.
Even if one cares about such things as "opening day lineup", they open in Anaheim with a DH.
This. By my count the Cubs gave Junior Lake, Austin Jackson, Mack Seizure, Mike Baxter, and Alcantara 319 PA last year, and no doubt tried to actually avoid giving them anymore than absolutely necessary. There'll be plenty of opportunities for Soler and Baez.
That's probably the best point yet that I haven't seen on the tweets.
Let's not forget about Herrera (132) and Denorfia (231).
And Chris Coghlan (440)
503 actually. And those PA's would be presumably taken by Heyward as the starter.
The point was that Soler and Baez will basically both be supersubs so it might be more optimal to trade them for pitching help as there won't be enough PA's for them.
Quote from: ChuckD on February 25, 2016, 07:02:25 PM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on February 25, 2016, 06:11:26 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on February 25, 2016, 05:55:45 PM
Quote from: Slaky on February 25, 2016, 05:41:36 PM
Quote from: SKO on February 25, 2016, 05:14:24 PM
Quote from: Oleg on February 25, 2016, 03:23:50 PM
Quote from: Brownie on February 25, 2016, 01:31:22 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on February 25, 2016, 01:28:43 PM
Quote from: D. Doluntap on February 25, 2016, 12:11:54 PM
Fowler is back? Ok.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/cubs-re-sign-dexter-fowler.html (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/cubs-re-sign-dexter-fowler.html)
So, at this point, Soler is the odd man out.
Would Soler, Baez and Hendricks make an attractive package to the Rays for a pitcher?
They had 5823 non-pitcher plate appearances last year. There's plenty to go around. No one needs to be traded and no one will be the odd man out.
Even if one cares about such things as "opening day lineup", they open in Anaheim with a DH.
This. By my count the Cubs gave Junior Lake, Austin Jackson, Mack Seizure, Mike Baxter, and Alcantara 319 PA last year, and no doubt tried to actually avoid giving them anymore than absolutely necessary. There'll be plenty of opportunities for Soler and Baez.
That's probably the best point yet that I haven't seen on the tweets.
Let's not forget about Herrera (132) and Denorfia (231).
And Chris Coghlan (440)
503 actually. And those PA's would be presumably taken by Heyward as the starter.
The point was that Soler and Baez will basically both be supersubs so it might be more optimal to trade them for pitching help as there won't be enough PA's for them.
I think Soler is still the long term plan, Fowler's asking price just fell to the point where it would have been dumb not to sign him on a team trying to ensure a pennant at all costs. Fowler will be gone in a year and Jorge will have had another year to develop and still be, what, 24?
I mean Jorge and Javy are both on the table if someone offers a top tier starter but I think we all agreed that if anyone was offering one of those for either of them they'd already be gone.
Speaking of players accepting less to be a Cub, Trevor Cahill apparently had an offer to start for the Pirates, and there is some indication that he may have had a 2 year offer on the table (although he says he doesn't know about the 2 year thing), but he instead chose to stay in Chicago and pitch in relief for the Cubs.
Maybe I'm just totally ignorant, but when in the history of baseball have so many players knowingly taken less in order to be on a team? I read Cal Ripken's autobiography back in high school and he said that, as much as he loved playing in Baltimore, he owed it to the player's union to seek as much money as he could get, in order to ensure that a standard was set for other players in the league to earn more. Maybe that's a "concern" held only by players who draw top dollar, but it's still surprising that any player anywhere would take less than he could earn just to be in a certain place. It's extra surprising that so many of those players are Cubs.
Quote from: Canadouche on March 06, 2016, 07:41:59 AM
Speaking of players accepting less to be a Cub, Trevor Cahill apparently had an offer to start for the Pirates, and there is some indication that he may have had a 2 year offer on the table (although he says he doesn't know about the 2 year thing), but he instead chose to stay in Chicago and pitch in relief for the Cubs.
Maybe I'm just totally ignorant, but when in the history of baseball have so many players knowingly taken less in order to be on a team? I read Cal Ripken's autobiography back in high school and he said that, as much as he loved playing in Baltimore, he owed it to the player's union to seek as much money as he could get, in order to ensure that a standard was set for other players in the league to earn more. Maybe that's a "concern" held only by players who draw top dollar, but it's still surprising that any player anywhere would take less than he could earn just to be in a certain place. It's extra surprising that so many of those players are Cubs.
Ripken was a Hall of Fame caliber player, and his place in the MLB salary structure was significantly different. If he took less money, then any player looking for more than Ripken could hear from GMs, "Why should I pay you that, when Ripken only makes this?" I don't think any GM is going to throw their Romeo over Trevor Cahill, a guy who got DFAed multiple times last season.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 06, 2016, 08:43:32 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 06, 2016, 07:41:59 AM
Speaking of players accepting less to be a Cub, Trevor Cahill apparently had an offer to start for the Pirates, and there is some indication that he may have had a 2 year offer on the table (although he says he doesn't know about the 2 year thing), but he instead chose to stay in Chicago and pitch in relief for the Cubs.
Maybe I'm just totally ignorant, but when in the history of baseball have so many players knowingly taken less in order to be on a team? I read Cal Ripken's autobiography back in high school and he said that, as much as he loved playing in Baltimore, he owed it to the player's union to seek as much money as he could get, in order to ensure that a standard was set for other players in the league to earn more. Maybe that's a "concern" held only by players who draw top dollar, but it's still surprising that any player anywhere would take less than he could earn just to be in a certain place. It's extra surprising that so many of those players are Cubs.
Ripken was a Hall of Fame caliber player, and his place in the MLB salary structure was significantly different. If he took less money, then any player looking for more than Ripken could hear from GMs, "Why should I pay you that, when Ripken only makes this?" I don't think any GM is going to throw their Romeo over Trevor Cahill, a guy who got DFAed multiple times last season.
Andre Dawson. (After Andy Pafko and Ernie, maybe he was my favorite Cub. Well, maybe after Phil Cavaretta, Hank Sauer and Lou Boudreau)
Quote from: CBStew on March 06, 2016, 10:09:59 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 06, 2016, 08:43:32 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 06, 2016, 07:41:59 AM
Speaking of players accepting less to be a Cub, Trevor Cahill apparently had an offer to start for the Pirates, and there is some indication that he may have had a 2 year offer on the table (although he says he doesn't know about the 2 year thing), but he instead chose to stay in Chicago and pitch in relief for the Cubs.
Maybe I'm just totally ignorant, but when in the history of baseball have so many players knowingly taken less in order to be on a team? I read Cal Ripken's autobiography back in high school and he said that, as much as he loved playing in Baltimore, he owed it to the player's union to seek as much money as he could get, in order to ensure that a standard was set for other players in the league to earn more. Maybe that's a "concern" held only by players who draw top dollar, but it's still surprising that any player anywhere would take less than he could earn just to be in a certain place. It's extra surprising that so many of those players are Cubs.
Ripken was a Hall of Fame caliber player, and his place in the MLB salary structure was significantly different. If he took less money, then any player looking for more than Ripken could hear from GMs, "Why should I pay you that, when Ripken only makes this?" I don't think any GM is going to throw their Romeo over Trevor Cahill, a guy who got DFAed multiple times last season.
Andre Dawson. (After Andy Pafko and Ernie, maybe he was my favorite Cub. Well, maybe after Phil Cavaretta, Hank Sauer and Lou Boudreau)
Except Dawson was dealing in a collusive atmosphere.
Quote from: CBStew on March 06, 2016, 10:09:59 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 06, 2016, 08:43:32 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 06, 2016, 07:41:59 AM
Speaking of players accepting less to be a Cub, Trevor Cahill apparently had an offer to start for the Pirates, and there is some indication that he may have had a 2 year offer on the table (although he says he doesn't know about the 2 year thing), but he instead chose to stay in Chicago and pitch in relief for the Cubs.
Maybe I'm just totally ignorant, but when in the history of baseball have so many players knowingly taken less in order to be on a team? I read Cal Ripken's autobiography back in high school and he said that, as much as he loved playing in Baltimore, he owed it to the player's union to seek as much money as he could get, in order to ensure that a standard was set for other players in the league to earn more. Maybe that's a "concern" held only by players who draw top dollar, but it's still surprising that any player anywhere would take less than he could earn just to be in a certain place. It's extra surprising that so many of those players are Cubs.
Ripken was a Hall of Fame caliber player, and his place in the MLB salary structure was significantly different. If he took less money, then any player looking for more than Ripken could hear from GMs, "Why should I pay you that, when Ripken only makes this?" I don't think any GM is going to throw their Romeo over Trevor Cahill, a guy who got DFAed multiple times last season.
Andre Dawson. (After Andy Pafko and Ernie, maybe he was my favorite Cub. Well, maybe after Phil Cavaretta, Hank Sauer and Lou Boudreau)
In Dawson's case, owners were colluding to destroy free agency and he was, I'm sure, compensated later after the lawsuit.
It's great, in any case, that the Cubs are a team that people want to play for. They really have the chance to build something significant, and long-lasting.
Quote from: CBStew on March 06, 2016, 10:09:59 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 06, 2016, 08:43:32 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 06, 2016, 07:41:59 AM
Speaking of players accepting less to be a Cub, Trevor Cahill apparently had an offer to start for the Pirates, and there is some indication that he may have had a 2 year offer on the table (although he says he doesn't know about the 2 year thing), but he instead chose to stay in Chicago and pitch in relief for the Cubs.
Maybe I'm just totally ignorant, but when in the history of baseball have so many players knowingly taken less in order to be on a team? I read Cal Ripken's autobiography back in high school and he said that, as much as he loved playing in Baltimore, he owed it to the player's union to seek as much money as he could get, in order to ensure that a standard was set for other players in the league to earn more. Maybe that's a "concern" held only by players who draw top dollar, but it's still surprising that any player anywhere would take less than he could earn just to be in a certain place. It's extra surprising that so many of those players are Cubs.
Ripken was a Hall of Fame caliber player, and his place in the MLB salary structure was significantly different. If he took less money, then any player looking for more than Ripken could hear from GMs, "Why should I pay you that, when Ripken only makes this?" I don't think any GM is going to throw their Romeo over Trevor Cahill, a guy who got DFAed multiple times last season.
Andre Dawson. (After Andy Pafko and Ernie, maybe he was my favorite Cub. Well, maybe after Phil Cavaretta, Hank Sauer and Lou Boudreau)
Also, did Boudreau actually play for the Cubs?
Quote from: PANK! on March 06, 2016, 10:19:41 AM
Quote from: CBStew on March 06, 2016, 10:09:59 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 06, 2016, 08:43:32 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 06, 2016, 07:41:59 AM
Speaking of players accepting less to be a Cub, Trevor Cahill apparently had an offer to start for the Pirates, and there is some indication that he may have had a 2 year offer on the table (although he says he doesn't know about the 2 year thing), but he instead chose to stay in Chicago and pitch in relief for the Cubs.
Maybe I'm just totally ignorant, but when in the history of baseball have so many players knowingly taken less in order to be on a team? I read Cal Ripken's autobiography back in high school and he said that, as much as he loved playing in Baltimore, he owed it to the player's union to seek as much money as he could get, in order to ensure that a standard was set for other players in the league to earn more. Maybe that's a "concern" held only by players who draw top dollar, but it's still surprising that any player anywhere would take less than he could earn just to be in a certain place. It's extra surprising that so many of those players are Cubs.
Ripken was a Hall of Fame caliber player, and his place in the MLB salary structure was significantly different. If he took less money, then any player looking for more than Ripken could hear from GMs, "Why should I pay you that, when Ripken only makes this?" I don't think any GM is going to throw their Romeo over Trevor Cahill, a guy who got DFAed multiple times last season.
Andre Dawson. (After Andy Pafko and Ernie, maybe he was my favorite Cub. Well, maybe after Phil Cavaretta, Hank Sauer and Lou Boudreau)
Also, did Boudreau actually play for the Cubs?
No, but he had a fascinating career with them. He was a broadcaster for them and left the broadcast booth to manage when Charlie Grimm unceremoniously quit, and then went back to broadcasting. His record was anything but stellar as the Cubs manager, but you have to admire his commitment.
Quote from: Canadouche on March 06, 2016, 07:41:59 AM
Speaking of players accepting less to be a Cub, Trevor Cahill apparently had an offer to start for the Pirates, and there is some indication that he may have had a 2 year offer on the table (although he says he doesn't know about the 2 year thing), but he instead chose to stay in Chicago and pitch in relief for the Cubs.
Maybe I'm just totally ignorant, but when in the history of baseball have so many players knowingly taken less in order to be on a team? I read Cal Ripken's autobiography back in high school and he said that, as much as he loved playing in Baltimore, he owed it to the player's union to seek as much money as he could get, in order to ensure that a standard was set for other players in the league to earn more. Maybe that's a "concern" held only by players who draw top dollar, but it's still surprising that any player anywhere would take less than he could earn just to be in a certain place. It's extra surprising that so many of those players are Cubs.
I'm not sure that I'd read too much into the whole "taking less money" narrative.
Heyward: Reports indicated that he turned down somewhere around $200MM from The Cardinals and The Nats? The Cubs gave him two opt-outs, which are probably worth a shitload of dough.
Zobrist: He left,...what, $4MM on the table over 4 years? Sure that buys a lot of bibles but who knows how accurate those reports were or if the offers had shit like deferred money or whatever.
Cahill: If he really chose The Cubs one year, relief ace deal over a Pirates offer of two years to be a starter with their own pitching coach wizard, well, I'm, not sure how smart that really was.
Fowler: Sure, he left $20MM on the table. But, the value of testing free agency next year is probably pretty damn valuable, too...maybe worth more than the $20MM he left on the table.
Who else? make no mistake, The Cubs have a $150MM payroll this year and it's not because players are necessarily taking less but because The Cubs are just simply being creative with their contracts.
Quote from: Oleg on March 07, 2016, 09:04:01 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 06, 2016, 07:41:59 AM
Speaking of players accepting less to be a Cub, Trevor Cahill apparently had an offer to start for the Pirates, and there is some indication that he may have had a 2 year offer on the table (although he says he doesn't know about the 2 year thing), but he instead chose to stay in Chicago and pitch in relief for the Cubs.
Maybe I'm just totally ignorant, but when in the history of baseball have so many players knowingly taken less in order to be on a team? I read Cal Ripken's autobiography back in high school and he said that, as much as he loved playing in Baltimore, he owed it to the player's union to seek as much money as he could get, in order to ensure that a standard was set for other players in the league to earn more. Maybe that's a "concern" held only by players who draw top dollar, but it's still surprising that any player anywhere would take less than he could earn just to be in a certain place. It's extra surprising that so many of those players are Cubs.
I'm not sure that I'd read too much into the whole "taking less money" narrative.
Heyward: Reports indicated that he turned down somewhere around $200MM from The Cardinals and The Nats? The Cubs gave him two opt-outs, which are probably worth a shitload of dough.
Zobrist: He left,...what, $4MM on the table over 4 years? Sure that buys a lot of bibles but who knows how accurate those reports were or if the offers had shit like deferred money or whatever.
Cahill: If he really chose The Cubs one year, relief ace deal over a Pirates offer of two years to be a starter with their own pitching coach wizard, well, I'm, not sure how smart that really was.
Fowler: Sure, he left $20MM on the table. But, the value of testing free agency next year is probably pretty damn valuable, too...maybe worth more than the $20MM he left on the table.
Who else? make no mistake, The Cubs have a $150MM payroll this year and it's not because players are necessarily taking less but because The Cubs are just simply being creative with their contracts.
If you are to believe Jon Heyman, both the Nats and Cards actually did offer Heyward the opt outs (although the Nats offered deferred money like they did with Scherzer), so fuck you, the best free agent on the market took less money to be a Cub than a Cardinal, and this narrative stands.
Quote from: SKO on March 07, 2016, 09:06:39 AM
Quote from: Oleg on March 07, 2016, 09:04:01 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 06, 2016, 07:41:59 AM
Speaking of players accepting less to be a Cub, Trevor Cahill apparently had an offer to start for the Pirates, and there is some indication that he may have had a 2 year offer on the table (although he says he doesn't know about the 2 year thing), but he instead chose to stay in Chicago and pitch in relief for the Cubs.
Maybe I'm just totally ignorant, but when in the history of baseball have so many players knowingly taken less in order to be on a team? I read Cal Ripken's autobiography back in high school and he said that, as much as he loved playing in Baltimore, he owed it to the player's union to seek as much money as he could get, in order to ensure that a standard was set for other players in the league to earn more. Maybe that's a "concern" held only by players who draw top dollar, but it's still surprising that any player anywhere would take less than he could earn just to be in a certain place. It's extra surprising that so many of those players are Cubs.
I'm not sure that I'd read too much into the whole "taking less money" narrative.
Heyward: Reports indicated that he turned down somewhere around $200MM from The Cardinals and The Nats? The Cubs gave him two opt-outs, which are probably worth a shitload of dough.
Zobrist: He left,...what, $4MM on the table over 4 years? Sure that buys a lot of bibles but who knows how accurate those reports were or if the offers had shit like deferred money or whatever.
Cahill: If he really chose The Cubs one year, relief ace deal over a Pirates offer of two years to be a starter with their own pitching coach wizard, well, I'm, not sure how smart that really was.
Fowler: Sure, he left $20MM on the table. But, the value of testing free agency next year is probably pretty damn valuable, too...maybe worth more than the $20MM he left on the table.
Who else? make no mistake, The Cubs have a $150MM payroll this year and it's not because players are necessarily taking less but because The Cubs are just simply being creative with their contracts.
If you are to believe Jon Heyman, both the Nats and Cards actually did offer Heyward the opt outs (although the Nats offered deferred money like they did with Scherzer), so fuck you, the best free agent on the market took less money to be a Cub than a Cardinal, and this narrative stands.
I'm good with it either way.
Quote from: Oleg on March 07, 2016, 09:11:53 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 07, 2016, 09:06:39 AM
Quote from: Oleg on March 07, 2016, 09:04:01 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 06, 2016, 07:41:59 AM
Speaking of players accepting less to be a Cub, Trevor Cahill apparently had an offer to start for the Pirates, and there is some indication that he may have had a 2 year offer on the table (although he says he doesn't know about the 2 year thing), but he instead chose to stay in Chicago and pitch in relief for the Cubs.
Maybe I'm just totally ignorant, but when in the history of baseball have so many players knowingly taken less in order to be on a team? I read Cal Ripken's autobiography back in high school and he said that, as much as he loved playing in Baltimore, he owed it to the player's union to seek as much money as he could get, in order to ensure that a standard was set for other players in the league to earn more. Maybe that's a "concern" held only by players who draw top dollar, but it's still surprising that any player anywhere would take less than he could earn just to be in a certain place. It's extra surprising that so many of those players are Cubs.
I'm not sure that I'd read too much into the whole "taking less money" narrative.
Heyward: Reports indicated that he turned down somewhere around $200MM from The Cardinals and The Nats? The Cubs gave him two opt-outs, which are probably worth a shitload of dough.
Zobrist: He left,...what, $4MM on the table over 4 years? Sure that buys a lot of bibles but who knows how accurate those reports were or if the offers had shit like deferred money or whatever.
Cahill: If he really chose The Cubs one year, relief ace deal over a Pirates offer of two years to be a starter with their own pitching coach wizard, well, I'm, not sure how smart that really was.
Fowler: Sure, he left $20MM on the table. But, the value of testing free agency next year is probably pretty damn valuable, too...maybe worth more than the $20MM he left on the table.
Who else? make no mistake, The Cubs have a $150MM payroll this year and it's not because players are necessarily taking less but because The Cubs are just simply being creative with their contracts.
If you are to believe Jon Heyman, both the Nats and Cards actually did offer Heyward the opt outs (although the Nats offered deferred money like they did with Scherzer), so fuck you, the best free agent on the market took less money to be a Cub than a Cardinal, and this narrative stands.
I'm good with it either way.
Also you left the mouthbreather off of your list, and I have heard the Cardinals offered him more money than the Cubs did as well, but he wanted to eat chicken and drink beer with Lester again.
So I think it's fair to keep saying guys are taking less money to be a Cub.
Quote from: Oleg on March 07, 2016, 09:04:01 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 06, 2016, 07:41:59 AM
Speaking of players accepting less to be a Cub, Trevor Cahill apparently had an offer to start for the Pirates, and there is some indication that he may have had a 2 year offer on the table (although he says he doesn't know about the 2 year thing), but he instead chose to stay in Chicago and pitch in relief for the Cubs.
Maybe I'm just totally ignorant, but when in the history of baseball have so many players knowingly taken less in order to be on a team? I read Cal Ripken's autobiography back in high school and he said that, as much as he loved playing in Baltimore, he owed it to the player's union to seek as much money as he could get, in order to ensure that a standard was set for other players in the league to earn more. Maybe that's a "concern" held only by players who draw top dollar, but it's still surprising that any player anywhere would take less than he could earn just to be in a certain place. It's extra surprising that so many of those players are Cubs.
I'm not sure that I'd read too much into the whole "taking less money" narrative.
Heyward: Reports indicated that he turned down somewhere around $200MM from The Cardinals and The Nats? The Cubs gave him two opt-outs, which are probably worth a shitload of dough.
Zobrist: He left,...what, $4MM on the table over 4 years? Sure that buys a lot of bibles but who knows how accurate those reports were or if the offers had shit like deferred money or whatever.
Cahill: If he really chose The Cubs one year, relief ace deal over a Pirates offer of two years to be a starter with their own pitching coach wizard, well, I'm, not sure how smart that really was.
Fowler: Sure, he left $20MM on the table. But, the value of testing free agency next year is probably pretty damn valuable, too...maybe worth more than the $20MM he left on the table.
Who else? make no mistake, The Cubs have a $150MM payroll this year and it's not because players are necessarily taking less but because The Cubs are just simply being creative with their contracts.
Having 4 guys (Bryant, Russell, Schwarber, Soler) in the lineup who are all years from free agency doesn't hurt either.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 07, 2016, 09:48:49 AM
Quote from: Oleg on March 07, 2016, 09:04:01 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 06, 2016, 07:41:59 AM
Speaking of players accepting less to be a Cub, Trevor Cahill apparently had an offer to start for the Pirates, and there is some indication that he may have had a 2 year offer on the table (although he says he doesn't know about the 2 year thing), but he instead chose to stay in Chicago and pitch in relief for the Cubs.
Maybe I'm just totally ignorant, but when in the history of baseball have so many players knowingly taken less in order to be on a team? I read Cal Ripken's autobiography back in high school and he said that, as much as he loved playing in Baltimore, he owed it to the player's union to seek as much money as he could get, in order to ensure that a standard was set for other players in the league to earn more. Maybe that's a "concern" held only by players who draw top dollar, but it's still surprising that any player anywhere would take less than he could earn just to be in a certain place. It's extra surprising that so many of those players are Cubs.
I'm not sure that I'd read too much into the whole "taking less money" narrative.
Heyward: Reports indicated that he turned down somewhere around $200MM from The Cardinals and The Nats? The Cubs gave him two opt-outs, which are probably worth a shitload of dough.
Zobrist: He left,...what, $4MM on the table over 4 years? Sure that buys a lot of bibles but who knows how accurate those reports were or if the offers had shit like deferred money or whatever.
Cahill: If he really chose The Cubs one year, relief ace deal over a Pirates offer of two years to be a starter with their own pitching coach wizard, well, I'm, not sure how smart that really was.
Fowler: Sure, he left $20MM on the table. But, the value of testing free agency next year is probably pretty damn valuable, too...maybe worth more than the $20MM he left on the table.
Who else? make no mistake, The Cubs have a $150MM payroll this year and it's not because players are necessarily taking less but because The Cubs are just simply being creative with their contracts.
Having 4 guys (Bryant, Russell, Schwarber, Soler) in the lineup who are all years from free agency doesn't hurt either.
You need to add Baez to that group above (I assume that group is made up of guys who are pre-arb, although Soler is getting his anyway). There are also others who playing for well-below market value, due to arbitration or otherwise: Arrieta, Rizzo, Warren, Rondon, Strop, etc.
And, one fairly expensive contract that is still on the books and the dude ain't even on the team anymore...EJax.
La Stella is hurt again? (http://www.cbssports.com/fantasy/baseball/news/cubs-tommy-la-stella-leaves-mondays-game-with-right-calf-soreness/) He's like Rondell White except not anywhere near as good at baseball.
Quote from: SKO on March 08, 2016, 07:34:52 AM
La Stella is hurt again? (http://www.cbssports.com/fantasy/baseball/news/cubs-tommy-la-stella-leaves-mondays-game-with-right-calf-soreness/) He's like Rondell White except not anywhere near as good at baseball.
The mystery of Tommy La Stella (where is he? is he dead?) was a key part of their culture and success last year. Smart of them to bring it back.
Arrieta is asking for a 6 year extension. I actually think the Cubs should consider it. I don't know the specifics, but I assume it would replace the two years remaining that the Cubs have control of him.
Pros:
* if my assumption is true, it's really a 4 year deal, and the Cubs wouldn't have to worry about his decline past the middle 30's.
* if Arrieta has another insane season, then his asking price will certainly go up, so locking him in now might make financial sense
Cons:
* if he gets hurt this year, he certainly wouldn't get as much in any demanded extension, and the Cubs might discover they've overpaid. But if he gets hurt this year, it's bad news no matter what
* if he returns to earth and is merely a good pitcher from here on out, and the Cubs wait a year, they might get him for a better price
I'm sure there are plenty of things that I'm missing. But the best pitcher I've ever seen wants to stay in Chicago for 5 or 6 years, and he is maintaining an active role in negotiations. I have to think that, even with Boras as his agent, he might be willing to take a bit less right now to stay with the Cubs, but he might gouge them if they wait a year or longer.
Quote from: Canadouche on March 09, 2016, 07:35:50 AM
Arrieta is asking for a 6 year extension. I actually think the Cubs should consider it. I don't know the specifics, but I assume it would replace the two years remaining that the Cubs have control of him.
Pros:
* if my assumption is true, it's really a 4 year deal, and the Cubs wouldn't have to worry about his decline past the middle 30's.
* if Arrieta has another insane season, then his asking price will certainly go up, so locking him in now might make financial sense
Cons:
* if he gets hurt this year, he certainly wouldn't get as much in any demanded extension, and the Cubs might discover they've overpaid. But if he gets hurt this year, it's bad news no matter what
* if he returns to earth and is merely a good pitcher from here on out, and the Cubs wait a year, they might get him for a better price
I'm sure there are plenty of things that I'm missing. But the best pitcher I've ever seen wants to stay in Chicago for 5 or 6 years, and he is maintaining an active role in negotiations. I have to think that, even with Boras as his agent, he might be willing to take a bit less right now to stay with the Cubs, but he might gouge them if they wait a year or longer.
He's trended up over the last 2+ year and is coming off a Cy Young performance last year. I don't know if he'll repeat that performance especially considering the innings he put in last season, but I have to think he'll be almost as good as he was last year. I expect him to hover around his Cy Young metrics for most of the season. He's a beast of a human being and I don't fancy him for being a player that loses focus. I would be willing to bet the only thing that slows him down is an injury. I have a FEELING that we still have many moons of Great Arrieta left to experience.
Buy now, Cubs. 5 and a mutual option...do it.
(DISCLAIMER: I'm not the GM of the Cubs nor have I ever been a GM of anything except my Nintendo Cubs.)
He's under team control for two more years and he's going to be expensive as shit either way. Jake and Boras aren't idiots and they won't take that much of a discount. I say let's just see what happens. This year is huge for him, I want to see how he handles coming back from that workload for the first time in his career. I say wait.
Steven Strasburg hits the market in 2017, David Price has an opt out in his deal, I believe several younger, talented pitchers like Tyson Ross and Michael Pineda are scheduled to be free agents in 2018, and the Cubs have a lot of young arms working their way up. There's just no reason to lock themselves into something right now.
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 08:07:19 AM
He's under team control for two more years and he's going to be expensive as shit either way. Jake and Boras aren't idiots and they won't take that much of a discount. I say let's just see what happens. This year is huge for him, I want to see how he handles coming back from that workload for the first time in his career. I say wait.
Steven Strasburg hits the market in 2017, David Price has an opt out in his deal, I believe several younger, talented pitchers like Tyson Ross and Michael Pineda are scheduled to be free agents in 2018, and the Cubs have a lot of young arms working their way up. There's just no reason to lock themselves into something right now.
I see a huge amount of risk and very little upside in extending him now. They've got him through age 32 at an incredibly cheap cost. And while we all know how good he was last year, he's not a typical case for a contract like this -- he's got about 370 quality major-league innings under his belt. Why pay a premium for his decline years?
I can always rely on this place to make me question my intelligence, integrity and sports smarts.
Quote from: Eli on March 09, 2016, 08:23:11 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 08:07:19 AM
He's under team control for two more years and he's going to be expensive as shit either way. Jake and Boras aren't idiots and they won't take that much of a discount. I say let's just see what happens. This year is huge for him, I want to see how he handles coming back from that workload for the first time in his career. I say wait.
Steven Strasburg hits the market in 2017, David Price has an opt out in his deal, I believe several younger, talented pitchers like Tyson Ross and Michael Pineda are scheduled to be free agents in 2018, and the Cubs have a lot of young arms working their way up. There's just no reason to lock themselves into something right now.
I see a huge amount of risk and very little upside in extending him now. They've got him through age 32 at an incredibly cheap cost. And while we all know how good he was last year, he's not a typical case for a contract like this -- he's got about 370 quality major-league innings under his belt. Why pay a premium for his decline years?
I'm hoping he's the Pedro Martinez in the Theo's Cubs-Theo's Red Sox analogy. He'll help them win the World Series this year and/or next year, they'll let him take a lot of money to decline for some other team, and Theo will sign/trade for whoever his new Josh Beckett is and they'll win the world series again anyway.
Quote from: Canadouche on March 09, 2016, 07:35:50 AM
Arrieta is asking for a 6 year extension. I actually think the Cubs should consider it. I don't know the specifics, but I assume it would replace the two years remaining that the Cubs have control of him.
Pros:
* if my assumption is true, it's really a 4 year deal, and the Cubs wouldn't have to worry about his decline past the middle 30's.
* if Arrieta has another insane season, then his asking price will certainly go up, so locking him in now might make financial sense
Cons:
* if he gets hurt this year, he certainly wouldn't get as much in any demanded extension, and the Cubs might discover they've overpaid. But if he gets hurt this year, it's bad news no matter what
* if he returns to earth and is merely a good pitcher from here on out, and the Cubs wait a year, they might get him for a better price
I'm sure there are plenty of things that I'm missing. But the best pitcher I've ever seen wants to stay in Chicago for 5 or 6 years, and he is maintaining an active role in negotiations. I have to think that, even with Boras as his agent, he might be willing to take a bit less right now to stay with the Cubs, but he might gouge them if they wait a year or longer.
Stop turning your TV off when Kershaw pitches.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 09, 2016, 08:39:06 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 09, 2016, 07:35:50 AM
Arrieta is asking for a 6 year extension. I actually think the Cubs should consider it. I don't know the specifics, but I assume it would replace the two years remaining that the Cubs have control of him.
Pros:
* if my assumption is true, it's really a 4 year deal, and the Cubs wouldn't have to worry about his decline past the middle 30's.
* if Arrieta has another insane season, then his asking price will certainly go up, so locking him in now might make financial sense
Cons:
* if he gets hurt this year, he certainly wouldn't get as much in any demanded extension, and the Cubs might discover they've overpaid. But if he gets hurt this year, it's bad news no matter what
* if he returns to earth and is merely a good pitcher from here on out, and the Cubs wait a year, they might get him for a better price
I'm sure there are plenty of things that I'm missing. But the best pitcher I've ever seen wants to stay in Chicago for 5 or 6 years, and he is maintaining an active role in negotiations. I have to think that, even with Boras as his agent, he might be willing to take a bit less right now to stay with the Cubs, but he might gouge them if they wait a year or longer.
Stop turning your TV off when Kershaw pitches.
If he means best Cubs pitcher he's ever seen I don't blame him. It's a toss up between him and Prior, I guess, and I think Kurt like me is too young to really remember Maddux's first go round with them.
If he's talking best pitcher period I can't give Arrieta the nod over Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, Prime Atlanta Maddux, and yes, Kershaw.
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 08:46:46 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 09, 2016, 08:39:06 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 09, 2016, 07:35:50 AM
Arrieta is asking for a 6 year extension. I actually think the Cubs should consider it. I don't know the specifics, but I assume it would replace the two years remaining that the Cubs have control of him.
Pros:
* if my assumption is true, it's really a 4 year deal, and the Cubs wouldn't have to worry about his decline past the middle 30's.
* if Arrieta has another insane season, then his asking price will certainly go up, so locking him in now might make financial sense
Cons:
* if he gets hurt this year, he certainly wouldn't get as much in any demanded extension, and the Cubs might discover they've overpaid. But if he gets hurt this year, it's bad news no matter what
* if he returns to earth and is merely a good pitcher from here on out, and the Cubs wait a year, they might get him for a better price
I'm sure there are plenty of things that I'm missing. But the best pitcher I've ever seen wants to stay in Chicago for 5 or 6 years, and he is maintaining an active role in negotiations. I have to think that, even with Boras as his agent, he might be willing to take a bit less right now to stay with the Cubs, but he might gouge them if they wait a year or longer.
Stop turning your TV off when Kershaw pitches.
If he means best Cubs pitcher he's ever seen I don't blame him. It's a toss up between him and Prior, I guess, and I think Kurt like me is too young to really remember Maddux's first go round with them.
If he's talking best pitcher period I can't give Arrieta the nod over Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, Prime Atlanta Maddux, and yes, Kershaw.
Yeah, my "best pitcher I've seen" comment is rather subjective, although Arrieta's dominating second half was historical. Now that I'm slightly more awake, I wouldn't even argue that he's a better Cubs pitcher than Maddux.
Quote from: Canadouche on March 09, 2016, 09:02:30 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 08:46:46 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 09, 2016, 08:39:06 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 09, 2016, 07:35:50 AM
Arrieta is asking for a 6 year extension. I actually think the Cubs should consider it. I don't know the specifics, but I assume it would replace the two years remaining that the Cubs have control of him.
Pros:
* if my assumption is true, it's really a 4 year deal, and the Cubs wouldn't have to worry about his decline past the middle 30's.
* if Arrieta has another insane season, then his asking price will certainly go up, so locking him in now might make financial sense
Cons:
* if he gets hurt this year, he certainly wouldn't get as much in any demanded extension, and the Cubs might discover they've overpaid. But if he gets hurt this year, it's bad news no matter what
* if he returns to earth and is merely a good pitcher from here on out, and the Cubs wait a year, they might get him for a better price
I'm sure there are plenty of things that I'm missing. But the best pitcher I've ever seen wants to stay in Chicago for 5 or 6 years, and he is maintaining an active role in negotiations. I have to think that, even with Boras as his agent, he might be willing to take a bit less right now to stay with the Cubs, but he might gouge them if they wait a year or longer.
Stop turning your TV off when Kershaw pitches.
If he means best Cubs pitcher he's ever seen I don't blame him. It's a toss up between him and Prior, I guess, and I think Kurt like me is too young to really remember Maddux's first go round with them.
If he's talking best pitcher period I can't give Arrieta the nod over Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, Prime Atlanta Maddux, and yes, Kershaw.
Yeah, my "best pitcher I've seen" comment is rather subjective, although Arrieta's dominating second half was historical historic. Now that I'm slightly more awake, I wouldn't even argue that he's a better Cubs pitcher than Maddux.
[Language pedant]
Everything that happens, like Rick Sutcliffe going 8-8 in 1985, is historical.
Unique, noteworthy things that happen, like Sutcliffe going 16-1 in 1984, are
historic.
/[Language pedant]
Also, giving Arrieta a 7 year deal right now is not smart.
Quote from: PANK! on March 09, 2016, 09:12:50 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 09, 2016, 09:02:30 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 08:46:46 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 09, 2016, 08:39:06 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 09, 2016, 07:35:50 AM
Arrieta is asking for a 6 year extension. I actually think the Cubs should consider it. I don't know the specifics, but I assume it would replace the two years remaining that the Cubs have control of him.
Pros:
* if my assumption is true, it's really a 4 year deal, and the Cubs wouldn't have to worry about his decline past the middle 30's.
* if Arrieta has another insane season, then his asking price will certainly go up, so locking him in now might make financial sense
Cons:
* if he gets hurt this year, he certainly wouldn't get as much in any demanded extension, and the Cubs might discover they've overpaid. But if he gets hurt this year, it's bad news no matter what
* if he returns to earth and is merely a good pitcher from here on out, and the Cubs wait a year, they might get him for a better price
I'm sure there are plenty of things that I'm missing. But the best pitcher I've ever seen wants to stay in Chicago for 5 or 6 years, and he is maintaining an active role in negotiations. I have to think that, even with Boras as his agent, he might be willing to take a bit less right now to stay with the Cubs, but he might gouge them if they wait a year or longer.
Stop turning your TV off when Kershaw pitches.
If he means best Cubs pitcher he's ever seen I don't blame him. It's a toss up between him and Prior, I guess, and I think Kurt like me is too young to really remember Maddux's first go round with them.
If he's talking best pitcher period I can't give Arrieta the nod over Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, Prime Atlanta Maddux, and yes, Kershaw.
Yeah, my "best pitcher I've seen" comment is rather subjective, although Arrieta's dominating second half was historical historic. Now that I'm slightly more awake, I wouldn't even argue that he's a better Cubs pitcher than Maddux.
[Language pedant]
Everything that happens, like Rick Sutcliffe going 8-8 in 1985, is historical.
Unique, noteworthy things that happen, like Sutcliffe going 16-1 in 1984, are historic.
/[Language pedant]
Also, giving Arrieta a 7 year deal right now is not smart.
Yes. I feel shame for my failure to communicate this morning, and the language mistake is especially embarassing. I honestly don't know how I'm awake right now.
I need CT to rule immediately on PANK calling himself a "language" pedant.
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 09:20:25 AM
I need CT to rule immediately on PANK calling himself a "language" pedant.
You're unable to discern the distinction between misspellings/typographical errors and word definitions?
My god, man, don't you work in a library?
Quote from: PANK! on March 09, 2016, 09:22:35 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 09:20:25 AM
I need CT to rule immediately on PANK calling himself a "language" pedant.
You're unable to discern the distinction between misspellings/typographical errors and word definitions?
My god, man, don't you work in a library?
I can discern the difference, but misspellings/typography fall under the blanket term of language so you calling yourself a "language pedant" is still funny to me.
I haven't worked in a library since my fifth or sixth college.
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 09:24:58 AM
Quote from: PANK! on March 09, 2016, 09:22:35 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 09:20:25 AM
I need CT to rule immediately on PANK calling himself a "language" pedant.
You're unable to discern the distinction between misspellings/typographical errors and word definitions?
My god, man, don't you work in a library?
I can discern the difference, but misspellings/typography fall under the blanket term of language so you calling yourself a "language pedant" is still funny to me.
I haven't worked in a library since my fifth or sixth college.
Take it outside.
Quote from: Slaky on March 09, 2016, 09:32:54 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 09:24:58 AM
Quote from: PANK! on March 09, 2016, 09:22:35 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 09:20:25 AM
I need CT to rule immediately on PANK calling himself a "language" pedant.
You're unable to discern the distinction between misspellings/typographical errors and word definitions?
My god, man, don't you work in a library?
I can discern the difference, but misspellings/typography fall under the blanket term of language so you calling yourself a "language pedant" is still funny to me.
I haven't worked in a library since my fifth or sixth college.
Take it outside.
I'm content to wait for CT's ruling. The Ancient Laws must be honored here.
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 08:46:46 AM
If he means best Cubs pitcher he's ever seen I don't blame him. It's a toss up between him and Prior, I guess, and I think Kurt like me is too young to really remember Maddux's first go round with them.
If he's talking best pitcher period I can't give Arrieta the nod over Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, Prime Atlanta Maddux, and yes, Kershaw.
Maddux's first go around was amazing, as was Sutcliffe's 1984. It was a little hard to comprehend a pitcher that good wearing a Cub uniform.
I wish you younger guys could have seen Fergie or Reuschel.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 09, 2016, 09:59:01 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 08:46:46 AM
If he means best Cubs pitcher he's ever seen I don't blame him. It's a toss up between him and Prior, I guess, and I think Kurt like me is too young to really remember Maddux's first go round with them.
If he's talking best pitcher period I can't give Arrieta the nod over Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, Prime Atlanta Maddux, and yes, Kershaw.
Maddux's first go around was amazing, as was Sutcliffe's 1984. It was a little hard to comprehend a pitcher that good wearing a Cub uniform.
I wish you younger guys could have seen Fergie or Reuschel.
Rueschel was like a mirage. He was this big fat tub who just got people out. 20 wins on an 81 win team.
I was too young for Fergie's first go around. Still pretty good in 1982-1983, but not the same. Still threw complete games and walked basically no one. Fergie had 4 CGs in 1982. The Cubs team had 6 in 2015, 4 by Jake.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 09, 2016, 10:24:57 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 09, 2016, 09:59:01 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 08:46:46 AM
If he means best Cubs pitcher he's ever seen I don't blame him. It's a toss up between him and Prior, I guess, and I think Kurt like me is too young to really remember Maddux's first go round with them.
If he's talking best pitcher period I can't give Arrieta the nod over Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, Prime Atlanta Maddux, and yes, Kershaw.
Maddux's first go around was amazing, as was Sutcliffe's 1984. It was a little hard to comprehend a pitcher that good wearing a Cub uniform.
I wish you younger guys could have seen Fergie or Reuschel.
Rueschel was like a mirage. He was this big fat tub who just got people out. 20 wins on an 81 win team.
I was too young for Fergie's first go around. Still pretty good in 1982-1983, but not the same. Still threw complete games and walked basically no one. Fergie had 4 CGs in 1982. The Cubs team had 6 in 2015, 4 by Jake.
Rueschel may have been large but he was actually a pretty good athlete.
I really wonder how the hell guys back in the 60s handled those workloads. Fergie Jenkins averaged 301 IP from age 24-32. I know they didn't throw as hard as guys now, but by most accounts Fergie threw 90+. I don't know how anyone's arm survived that.
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 10:38:40 AM
I really wonder how the hell guys back in the 60s handled those workloads. Fergie Jenkins averaged 301 IP from age 24-32. I know they didn't throw as hard as guys now, but by most accounts Fergie threw 90+. I don't know how anyone's arm survived that.
Natural selection. Since they weren't paid very much, the guys threw their arms out early. The survivors could all throw 300 innings. Jenkins made $369,000 with the Cubs. Over 4 years. He made $62,000 in 1970.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 09, 2016, 10:42:07 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 10:38:40 AM
I really wonder how the hell guys back in the 60s handled those workloads. Fergie Jenkins averaged 301 IP from age 24-32. I know they didn't throw as hard as guys now, but by most accounts Fergie threw 90+. I don't know how anyone's arm survived that.
Natural selection. Since they weren't paid very much, the guys threw their arms out early. The survivors could all throw 300 innings. Jenkins made $369,000 with the Cubs. Over 4 years. He made $62,000 in 1970.
Fair enough. We just don't remember or hear much about the guys who burned out quickly. I think Fidrych might be the most famous example from that era, and I suppose we all know how Koufax was done at 30.
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 10:38:40 AM
I really wonder how the hell guys back in the 60s handled those workloads. Fergie Jenkins averaged 301 IP from age 24-32. I know they didn't throw as hard as guys now, but by most accounts Fergie threw 90+. I don't know how anyone's arm survived that.
I don't know if this mattered, but everyone used a full windup back then. Not sure if that meant more body velocity and less wear on the arm. Hell, it seemed like every pitcher on the Mets had a huge ass and they all drove their bodies toward the plate, with their knee hitting the dirt. Not a lot of sore arms on those fucking Mets teams...Gary Gentry was the only one that springs to mind.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 09, 2016, 11:00:13 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 10:38:40 AM
I really wonder how the hell guys back in the 60s handled those workloads. Fergie Jenkins averaged 301 IP from age 24-32. I know they didn't throw as hard as guys now, but by most accounts Fergie threw 90+. I don't know how anyone's arm survived that.
I don't know if this mattered, but everyone used a full windup back then. Not sure if that meant more body velocity and less wear on the arm. Hell, it seemed like every pitcher on the Mets had a huge ass and they all drove their bodies toward the plate, with their knee hitting the dirt. Not a lot of sore arms on those fucking Mets teams...Gary Gentry was the only one that springs to mind.
Jim Bouton is a good example and he talks about it a lot in his book. He averaged 260 innings at 24 and 25 and by 26 his fastball was completely gone, which is why he had to re-invent himself as a knuckleballer just to hang around the game for another few years. You wonder how many of those guys could have had 10 year careers as starters if they had the same kind of limitations as they do now.
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 11:05:32 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 09, 2016, 11:00:13 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 10:38:40 AM
I really wonder how the hell guys back in the 60s handled those workloads. Fergie Jenkins averaged 301 IP from age 24-32. I know they didn't throw as hard as guys now, but by most accounts Fergie threw 90+. I don't know how anyone's arm survived that.
I don't know if this mattered, but everyone used a full windup back then. Not sure if that meant more body velocity and less wear on the arm. Hell, it seemed like every pitcher on the Mets had a huge ass and they all drove their bodies toward the plate, with their knee hitting the dirt. Not a lot of sore arms on those fucking Mets teams...Gary Gentry was the only one that springs to mind.
Jim Bouton is a good example and he talks about it a lot in his book. He averaged 260 innings at 24 and 25 and by 26 his fastball was completely gone, which is why he had to re-invent himself as a knuckleballer just to hang around the game for another few years. You wonder how many of those guys could have had 10 year careers as starters if they had the same kind of limitations as they do now.
Years ago, SI had an article about the guys with longevity all never hit 200 innings in a year at any level until after they turned 25. Interesting correlation.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 09, 2016, 11:19:18 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 11:05:32 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 09, 2016, 11:00:13 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 10:38:40 AM
I really wonder how the hell guys back in the 60s handled those workloads. Fergie Jenkins averaged 301 IP from age 24-32. I know they didn't throw as hard as guys now, but by most accounts Fergie threw 90+. I don't know how anyone's arm survived that.
I don't know if this mattered, but everyone used a full windup back then. Not sure if that meant more body velocity and less wear on the arm. Hell, it seemed like every pitcher on the Mets had a huge ass and they all drove their bodies toward the plate, with their knee hitting the dirt. Not a lot of sore arms on those fucking Mets teams...Gary Gentry was the only one that springs to mind.
Jim Bouton is a good example and he talks about it a lot in his book. He averaged 260 innings at 24 and 25 and by 26 his fastball was completely gone, which is why he had to re-invent himself as a knuckleballer just to hang around the game for another few years. You wonder how many of those guys could have had 10 year careers as starters if they had the same kind of limitations as they do now.
Years ago, SI had an article about the guys with longevity all never hit 200 innings in a year at any level until after they turned 25. Interesting correlation.
Jim Kaat threw 200 and 269 in his age 22 and 23 seasons respectively. Which begs the question, what did you actually read?
The one thing that makes me feel very good about Arrieta is that he has a minimal number of innings on his arm for his age, and as a fitness freak he might stay healthy for a long time.
The one thing that worries me about Arrieta is that he had never put a heavy workload on his arm before this past year, and he threw a ton of innings en route to the most dominating second half in baseball history.
The other thing I wonder is if his out pitch puts a lot of strain on his elbow. It's been compared to the slurve that Kerry Wood used to throw before he contracted Tommy John Disease.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 09, 2016, 11:19:18 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 11:05:32 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 09, 2016, 11:00:13 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 10:38:40 AM
I really wonder how the hell guys back in the 60s handled those workloads. Fergie Jenkins averaged 301 IP from age 24-32. I know they didn't throw as hard as guys now, but by most accounts Fergie threw 90+. I don't know how anyone's arm survived that.
I don't know if this mattered, but everyone used a full windup back then. Not sure if that meant more body velocity and less wear on the arm. Hell, it seemed like every pitcher on the Mets had a huge ass and they all drove their bodies toward the plate, with their knee hitting the dirt. Not a lot of sore arms on those fucking Mets teams...Gary Gentry was the only one that springs to mind.
Jim Bouton is a good example and he talks about it a lot in his book. He averaged 260 innings at 24 and 25 and by 26 his fastball was completely gone, which is why he had to re-invent himself as a knuckleballer just to hang around the game for another few years. You wonder how many of those guys could have had 10 year careers as starters if they had the same kind of limitations as they do now.
Years ago, SI had an article about the guys with longevity all never hit 200 innings in a year at any level until after they turned 25. Interesting correlation.
Greg Maddux age/innings counts:
22 - 249
23 - 238
24 - 237
25 - 263
26 - 268
27 - 267
...
42 - 194
Quote from: InternetApex on March 09, 2016, 11:24:26 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 09, 2016, 11:19:18 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 11:05:32 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 09, 2016, 11:00:13 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 10:38:40 AM
I really wonder how the hell guys back in the 60s handled those workloads. Fergie Jenkins averaged 301 IP from age 24-32. I know they didn't throw as hard as guys now, but by most accounts Fergie threw 90+. I don't know how anyone's arm survived that.
I don't know if this mattered, but everyone used a full windup back then. Not sure if that meant more body velocity and less wear on the arm. Hell, it seemed like every pitcher on the Mets had a huge ass and they all drove their bodies toward the plate, with their knee hitting the dirt. Not a lot of sore arms on those fucking Mets teams...Gary Gentry was the only one that springs to mind.
Jim Bouton is a good example and he talks about it a lot in his book. He averaged 260 innings at 24 and 25 and by 26 his fastball was completely gone, which is why he had to re-invent himself as a knuckleballer just to hang around the game for another few years. You wonder how many of those guys could have had 10 year careers as starters if they had the same kind of limitations as they do now.
Years ago, SI had an article about the guys with longevity all never hit 200 innings in a year at any level until after they turned 25. Interesting correlation.
Jim Kaat threw 200 and 269 in his age 22 and 23 seasons respectively. Which begs the question, what did you actually read?
I want to say it was a piece on Nolan Ryan's longevity. Some time between 1985 and 1995. Searched the SI vault for a few minutes. Will look again later. The article wasn't as absolute as my off the cuff post suggested. Wish I could find it.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 09, 2016, 12:17:46 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 09, 2016, 11:24:26 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 09, 2016, 11:19:18 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 11:05:32 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 09, 2016, 11:00:13 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 10:38:40 AM
I really wonder how the hell guys back in the 60s handled those workloads. Fergie Jenkins averaged 301 IP from age 24-32. I know they didn't throw as hard as guys now, but by most accounts Fergie threw 90+. I don't know how anyone's arm survived that.
I don't know if this mattered, but everyone used a full windup back then. Not sure if that meant more body velocity and less wear on the arm. Hell, it seemed like every pitcher on the Mets had a huge ass and they all drove their bodies toward the plate, with their knee hitting the dirt. Not a lot of sore arms on those fucking Mets teams...Gary Gentry was the only one that springs to mind.
Jim Bouton is a good example and he talks about it a lot in his book. He averaged 260 innings at 24 and 25 and by 26 his fastball was completely gone, which is why he had to re-invent himself as a knuckleballer just to hang around the game for another few years. You wonder how many of those guys could have had 10 year careers as starters if they had the same kind of limitations as they do now.
Years ago, SI had an article about the guys with longevity all never hit 200 innings in a year at any level until after they turned 25. Interesting correlation.
Jim Kaat threw 200 and 269 in his age 22 and 23 seasons respectively. Which begs the question, what did you actually read?
I want to say it was a piece on Nolan Ryan's longevity. Some time between 1985 and 1995. Searched the SI vault for a few minutes. Will look again later. The article wasn't as absolute as my off the cuff post suggested. Wish I could find it.
It's in Chuck's datase.
Quote from: PenFoe on March 09, 2016, 12:27:45 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 09, 2016, 12:17:46 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 09, 2016, 11:24:26 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 09, 2016, 11:19:18 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 11:05:32 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 09, 2016, 11:00:13 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 10:38:40 AM
I really wonder how the hell guys back in the 60s handled those workloads. Fergie Jenkins averaged 301 IP from age 24-32. I know they didn't throw as hard as guys now, but by most accounts Fergie threw 90+. I don't know how anyone's arm survived that.
I don't know if this mattered, but everyone used a full windup back then. Not sure if that meant more body velocity and less wear on the arm. Hell, it seemed like every pitcher on the Mets had a huge ass and they all drove their bodies toward the plate, with their knee hitting the dirt. Not a lot of sore arms on those fucking Mets teams...Gary Gentry was the only one that springs to mind.
Jim Bouton is a good example and he talks about it a lot in his book. He averaged 260 innings at 24 and 25 and by 26 his fastball was completely gone, which is why he had to re-invent himself as a knuckleballer just to hang around the game for another few years. You wonder how many of those guys could have had 10 year careers as starters if they had the same kind of limitations as they do now.
Years ago, SI had an article about the guys with longevity all never hit 200 innings in a year at any level until after they turned 25. Interesting correlation.
Jim Kaat threw 200 and 269 in his age 22 and 23 seasons respectively. Which begs the question, what did you actually read?
I want to say it was a piece on Nolan Ryan's longevity. Some time between 1985 and 1995. Searched the SI vault for a few minutes. Will look again later. The article wasn't as absolute as my off the cuff post suggested. Wish I could find it.
It's in Chuck's datase.
I think Chuck "read it" in that he wrote it down and then he read it.
Quote from: Tonker on March 09, 2016, 11:55:01 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 09, 2016, 11:19:18 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 11:05:32 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 09, 2016, 11:00:13 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 10:38:40 AM
I really wonder how the hell guys back in the 60s handled those workloads. Fergie Jenkins averaged 301 IP from age 24-32. I know they didn't throw as hard as guys now, but by most accounts Fergie threw 90+. I don't know how anyone's arm survived that.
I don't know if this mattered, but everyone used a full windup back then. Not sure if that meant more body velocity and less wear on the arm. Hell, it seemed like every pitcher on the Mets had a huge ass and they all drove their bodies toward the plate, with their knee hitting the dirt. Not a lot of sore arms on those fucking Mets teams...Gary Gentry was the only one that springs to mind.
Jim Bouton is a good example and he talks about it a lot in his book. He averaged 260 innings at 24 and 25 and by 26 his fastball was completely gone, which is why he had to re-invent himself as a knuckleballer just to hang around the game for another few years. You wonder how many of those guys could have had 10 year careers as starters if they had the same kind of limitations as they do now.
Years ago, SI had an article about the guys with longevity all never hit 200 innings in a year at any level until after they turned 25. Interesting correlation.
Greg Maddux age/innings counts:
22 - 249
23 - 238
24 - 237
25 - 263
26 - 268
27 - 267
...
42 - 194
The problem with these examples is that, of course, we all know of the HoFers who threw forever and a lot.
But, there was also Jim Gullickson and Steve Avery and a shitton of other pitchers who are even less memorable because they blew their arms out at a young age because we simply didn't know any better back then. I would venture to guess that Maddux and Jenkins and Ryan and Seaver were much more of exceptions to the rule.
Quote from: Oleg on March 09, 2016, 12:39:07 PM
Quote from: Tonker on March 09, 2016, 11:55:01 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 09, 2016, 11:19:18 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 11:05:32 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 09, 2016, 11:00:13 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 10:38:40 AM
I really wonder how the hell guys back in the 60s handled those workloads. Fergie Jenkins averaged 301 IP from age 24-32. I know they didn't throw as hard as guys now, but by most accounts Fergie threw 90+. I don't know how anyone's arm survived that.
I don't know if this mattered, but everyone used a full windup back then. Not sure if that meant more body velocity and less wear on the arm. Hell, it seemed like every pitcher on the Mets had a huge ass and they all drove their bodies toward the plate, with their knee hitting the dirt. Not a lot of sore arms on those fucking Mets teams...Gary Gentry was the only one that springs to mind.
Jim Bouton is a good example and he talks about it a lot in his book. He averaged 260 innings at 24 and 25 and by 26 his fastball was completely gone, which is why he had to re-invent himself as a knuckleballer just to hang around the game for another few years. You wonder how many of those guys could have had 10 year careers as starters if they had the same kind of limitations as they do now.
Years ago, SI had an article about the guys with longevity all never hit 200 innings in a year at any level until after they turned 25. Interesting correlation.
Greg Maddux age/innings counts:
22 - 249
23 - 238
24 - 237
25 - 263
26 - 268
27 - 267
...
42 - 194
The problem with these examples is that, of course, we all know of the HoFers who threw forever and a lot.
But, there was also Jim Gullickson and Steve Avery and a shitton of other pitchers who are even less memorable because they blew their arms out at a young age because we simply didn't know any better back then. I would venture to guess that Maddux and Jenkins and Ryan and Seaver were much more of exceptions to the rule.
Right, back in the day people also didn't have the kind of information about prospects and stuff that we do now. Who knows how many Jose Fernandezes blew their arms out in the minors in the 70s and nobody ever knew what they'd lost, what they never had.
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 10:38:40 AM
I really wonder how the hell guys back in the 60s handled those workloads. Fergie Jenkins averaged 301 IP from age 24-32. I know they didn't throw as hard as guys now, but by most accounts Fergie threw 90+. I don't know how anyone's arm survived that.
Spahn and Sain and pray for rain.
Quote from: Oleg on March 09, 2016, 12:39:07 PM
Quote from: Tonker on March 09, 2016, 11:55:01 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 09, 2016, 11:19:18 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 11:05:32 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 09, 2016, 11:00:13 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 10:38:40 AM
I really wonder how the hell guys back in the 60s handled those workloads. Fergie Jenkins averaged 301 IP from age 24-32. I know they didn't throw as hard as guys now, but by most accounts Fergie threw 90+. I don't know how anyone's arm survived that.
I don't know if this mattered, but everyone used a full windup back then. Not sure if that meant more body velocity and less wear on the arm. Hell, it seemed like every pitcher on the Mets had a huge ass and they all drove their bodies toward the plate, with their knee hitting the dirt. Not a lot of sore arms on those fucking Mets teams...Gary Gentry was the only one that springs to mind.
Jim Bouton is a good example and he talks about it a lot in his book. He averaged 260 innings at 24 and 25 and by 26 his fastball was completely gone, which is why he had to re-invent himself as a knuckleballer just to hang around the game for another few years. You wonder how many of those guys could have had 10 year careers as starters if they had the same kind of limitations as they do now.
Years ago, SI had an article about the guys with longevity all never hit 200 innings in a year at any level until after they turned 25. Interesting correlation.
Greg Maddux age/innings counts:
22 - 249
23 - 238
24 - 237
25 - 263
26 - 268
27 - 267
...
42 - 194
The problem with these examples is that, of course, we all know of the HoFers who threw forever and a lot.
But, there was also Jim Gullickson and Steve Avery and a shitton of other pitchers who are even less memorable because they blew their arms out at a young age because we simply didn't know any better back then. I would venture to guess that Maddux and Jenkins and Ryan and Seaver were much more of exceptions to the rule.
It could also be that the conventional wisdom existed then that the average pitcher was just done by age 30, so when beasts like Sam McDowell or Jim Maloney crapped out it was expected.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_23576938/pitch-counts-not-marichal-spahn-era
I was listening to this game while studying for finals in law school
http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/MLN/MLN195905260.shtml
Quote from: CBStew on March 09, 2016, 01:51:33 PM
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_23576938/pitch-counts-not-marichal-spahn-era
I think the only thing that's crystal clear from the article is that Juan Marichal should be kept really far away from young pitchers.
Quote from: Oleg on March 09, 2016, 02:06:16 PM
Quote from: CBStew on March 09, 2016, 01:51:33 PM
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_23576938/pitch-counts-not-marichal-spahn-era
I think the only thing that's crystal clear from the article is that Juan Marichal should be kept really far away from young pitchers.
That's almost but not quite as dumb as Jason Isringhausen, the former great starting pitching prospect whose career was ruined by elbow injuries, complaining how kids today have it easy and how in
his day you threw complete games in the minors by god.
Quote from: PenFoe on March 09, 2016, 12:27:45 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 09, 2016, 12:17:46 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 09, 2016, 11:24:26 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 09, 2016, 11:19:18 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 11:05:32 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 09, 2016, 11:00:13 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 10:38:40 AM
I really wonder how the hell guys back in the 60s handled those workloads. Fergie Jenkins averaged 301 IP from age 24-32. I know they didn't throw as hard as guys now, but by most accounts Fergie threw 90+. I don't know how anyone's arm survived that.
I don't know if this mattered, but everyone used a full windup back then. Not sure if that meant more body velocity and less wear on the arm. Hell, it seemed like every pitcher on the Mets had a huge ass and they all drove their bodies toward the plate, with their knee hitting the dirt. Not a lot of sore arms on those fucking Mets teams...Gary Gentry was the only one that springs to mind.
Jim Bouton is a good example and he talks about it a lot in his book. He averaged 260 innings at 24 and 25 and by 26 his fastball was completely gone, which is why he had to re-invent himself as a knuckleballer just to hang around the game for another few years. You wonder how many of those guys could have had 10 year careers as starters if they had the same kind of limitations as they do now.
Years ago, SI had an article about the guys with longevity all never hit 200 innings in a year at any level until after they turned 25. Interesting correlation.
Jim Kaat threw 200 and 269 in his age 22 and 23 seasons respectively. Which begs the question, what did you actually read?
I want to say it was a piece on Nolan Ryan's longevity. Some time between 1985 and 1995. Searched the SI vault for a few minutes. Will look again later. The article wasn't as absolute as my off the cuff post suggested. Wish I could find it.
It's in Chuck's datase.
Ah the infamous Friedman is Better than Theo datase. As elusive as the Ark of the Covenant.
Quote from: R-V on March 09, 2016, 03:01:54 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 09, 2016, 12:27:45 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 09, 2016, 12:17:46 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 09, 2016, 11:24:26 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 09, 2016, 11:19:18 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 11:05:32 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 09, 2016, 11:00:13 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 10:38:40 AM
I really wonder how the hell guys back in the 60s handled those workloads. Fergie Jenkins averaged 301 IP from age 24-32. I know they didn't throw as hard as guys now, but by most accounts Fergie threw 90+. I don't know how anyone's arm survived that.
I don't know if this mattered, but everyone used a full windup back then. Not sure if that meant more body velocity and less wear on the arm. Hell, it seemed like every pitcher on the Mets had a huge ass and they all drove their bodies toward the plate, with their knee hitting the dirt. Not a lot of sore arms on those fucking Mets teams...Gary Gentry was the only one that springs to mind.
Jim Bouton is a good example and he talks about it a lot in his book. He averaged 260 innings at 24 and 25 and by 26 his fastball was completely gone, which is why he had to re-invent himself as a knuckleballer just to hang around the game for another few years. You wonder how many of those guys could have had 10 year careers as starters if they had the same kind of limitations as they do now.
Years ago, SI had an article about the guys with longevity all never hit 200 innings in a year at any level until after they turned 25. Interesting correlation.
Jim Kaat threw 200 and 269 in his age 22 and 23 seasons respectively. Which begs the question, what did you actually read?
I want to say it was a piece on Nolan Ryan's longevity. Some time between 1985 and 1995. Searched the SI vault for a few minutes. Will look again later. The article wasn't as absolute as my off the cuff post suggested. Wish I could find it.
It's in Chuck's datase.
Ah the infamous Friedman is Better than Theo datase. As elusive as the Ark of the Covenant.
It'll be really fascinating to see how that dataset looks in a few years now that both of them are running big market teams.
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 03:12:59 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 09, 2016, 03:01:54 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 09, 2016, 12:27:45 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 09, 2016, 12:17:46 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 09, 2016, 11:24:26 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 09, 2016, 11:19:18 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 11:05:32 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 09, 2016, 11:00:13 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 09, 2016, 10:38:40 AM
I really wonder how the hell guys back in the 60s handled those workloads. Fergie Jenkins averaged 301 IP from age 24-32. I know they didn't throw as hard as guys now, but by most accounts Fergie threw 90+. I don't know how anyone's arm survived that.
I don't know if this mattered, but everyone used a full windup back then. Not sure if that meant more body velocity and less wear on the arm. Hell, it seemed like every pitcher on the Mets had a huge ass and they all drove their bodies toward the plate, with their knee hitting the dirt. Not a lot of sore arms on those fucking Mets teams...Gary Gentry was the only one that springs to mind.
Jim Bouton is a good example and he talks about it a lot in his book. He averaged 260 innings at 24 and 25 and by 26 his fastball was completely gone, which is why he had to re-invent himself as a knuckleballer just to hang around the game for another few years. You wonder how many of those guys could have had 10 year careers as starters if they had the same kind of limitations as they do now.
Years ago, SI had an article about the guys with longevity all never hit 200 innings in a year at any level until after they turned 25. Interesting correlation.
Jim Kaat threw 200 and 269 in his age 22 and 23 seasons respectively. Which begs the question, what did you actually read?
I want to say it was a piece on Nolan Ryan's longevity. Some time between 1985 and 1995. Searched the SI vault for a few minutes. Will look again later. The article wasn't as absolute as my off the cuff post suggested. Wish I could find it.
It's in Chuck's datase.
Ah the infamous Friedman is Better than Theo datase. As elusive as the Ark of the Covenant.
It'll be really fascinating to see how that dataset looks in a few years now that both of them are running big market teams.
LA has the top ranked farm system now. That means the Cubs' talent well is drying up. Epstink is terrible. Fire Theo.
Some fun facts from Tristan Cockroft's ESPN piece today. (http://espn.go.com/fantasy/baseball/story/_/page/mlbdk2k16_facts/need-know-facts-2016-fantasy-baseball-season-mlb)
Quote
- After striking out in 33.9 percent of his trips to the plate between the majors and minors in 2014, seventh-highest of any pro, Javier Baez cut his whiff rate to 24.5 percent between the majors and minors in 2015. That 9.4 percent improvement was the second-best among any professional baseball player who had at least 400 plate appearances in both seasons, behind only Nick Williams (28.6 percent to 18.8, 9.8 percent improvement).
- Kyle Schwarber is only the 10th player in the past 100 years to manage at least 16 home runs and 36 walks through his first 69 career games. He is the only one of the 10 to have caught a single one of those 69 games; he caught 21 games and totaled five home runs and eight walks while playing that position.
- In 2015, Kris Bryant became only the 17th player in history to manage at least 25 home runs, .200 isolated power and a 10 percent walk rate during their rookie seasons. Among some of the other names on the list: Joe Gordon, Albert Pujols, Al Rosen, Mike Trout, Ted Williams.
Quote from: PenFoe on March 10, 2016, 02:31:52 PM
Some fun facts from Tristan Cockroft's ESPN piece today. (http://espn.go.com/fantasy/baseball/story/_/page/mlbdk2k16_facts/need-know-facts-2016-fantasy-baseball-season-mlb)
Quote
- After striking out in 33.9 percent of his trips to the plate between the majors and minors in 2014, seventh-highest of any pro, Javier Baez cut his whiff rate to 24.5 percent between the majors and minors in 2015. That 9.4 percent improvement was the second-best among any professional baseball player who had at least 400 plate appearances in both seasons, behind only Nick Williams (28.6 percent to 18.8, 9.8 percent improvement).
- Kyle Schwarber is only the 10th player in the past 100 years to manage at least 16 home runs and 36 walks through his first 69 career games. He is the only one of the 10 to have caught a single one of those 69 games; he caught 21 games and totaled five home runs and eight walks while playing that position.
- In 2015, Kris Bryant became only the 17th player in history to manage at least 25 home runs, .200 isolated power and a 10 percent walk rate during their rookie seasons. Among some of the other names on the list: Joe Gordon, Albert Pujols, Al Rosen, Mike Trout, Ted Williams.
The Schwarber and Bryant stats are pretty amazing. I saw somewhere Schwarber was the first guy to have 15 homers in his first 60 career games or whatever since Albert Pujols. Dude's special.
Joe Sheehan shits all over the 2016 Cubs. Time to unsubscribe for not liking my team.
Quote"What I have since described as the Plexiglas Principle: If a team improves in one season, it will likely decline in the next."
--Bill James, The Bill James Baseball Abstract, 1983
So, I think I'm going to be the low man on the Cubs in 2016, and the Plexiglas Principle is a big part of why. The Cubs improved by 24 games in 2015, going from 73-89 to 97-65. (The improvement was a little smaller than that, 19 games, if you just look at their Pythagorean record.) Thirty years after James wrote about the concept, it's still applicable today. Since 1997 -- the shortened seasons of 1994 and 1995 provide a natural break point -- 23 teams, plus the 2015 Cubs, have improved by at least 20 games in a single season.
The Plexiglas Principle
Year -1 Year 0 Year +1
2014 Angels 78 +20 -13
2013 Red Sox 69 +28 -26
2013 Indians 68 +24 -7
2012 Orioles 69 +24 -8
2012 A's 74 +20 +2
2009 Mariners 61 +24 -24
2008 Rays 66 +31 -13
2006 Tigers 71 +24 -7
2004 Cardinals 85 +20 -5
2004 Tigers 43 +29 -1
2004 Padres 76 +22 -5
2003 Royals 62 +21 -25
2003 Cubs 67 +21 +1
2002 Angels 75 +24 -22
2001 Cubs 65 +23 -21
2001 Phillies 65 +21 -6
2001 Mariners 91 +25 -23
2000 Cardinals 75 +20 -2
2000 White Sox 75 +20 -12
1998 Cubs 68 +22 -23
1998 Padres 76 +22 -24
1997 Tigers 53 +26 -14
1997 Giants 68 +22 -1
There's a lot going on there, but focus on the third column, the one that indicates what the team did in the year after its big improvement. Of the 23 teams that were +20 in one year, just two of them improved again the following year, and those by just one and two wins, respectively. Twelve teams, more than half the pool, declined by at least ten wins. Of the teams you might consider the Cubs' peers, ones that went from being below .500 to winning 90 or more...
The Plexiglas Principle, Cubs-Like Substances
2014 Angels 78 +20 -13
2013 Red Sox 69 +28 -26
2013 Indians 68 +24 -7
2012 Orioles 69 +24 -8
2012 A's 74 +20 +2
2008 Rays 66 +31 -13
2006 Tigers 71 +24 -7
2004 Padres 76 +22 -5
2002 Angels 75 +24 -22
2000 Cardinals 75 +20 -2
2000 White Sox 75 +20 -12
1998 Cubs 68 +22 -23
1998 Padres 76 +22 -24
1997 Giants 68 +22 -1
Looking at it this way removes some of the stone flukes and the teams, like the 2001 Mariners and 2004 Tigers, who don't really compare to the 2015 Cubs. Even at that, 13 of 14 teams went backwards and seven of 14 did so by at least ten games. The Plexiglas Principle is a powerful force that applies to pretty much every team. Teams that go from below .500 to more than 90 wins almost always go backwards the next year. If you're picking the Cubs to win even 97 games again, you're doing so in the face of a mountain of evidence that they won't do so. If you're picking them to win even 90, you're on the wrong side of history. Just three of these teams did so...
QuoteThe Plexiglas Principle exists because teams that improve significantly year over year don't usually do so just because they got better at playing baseball. We've shied away from using the word "luck" in analyzing the game, but "Year 0" up there is a record of good luck, whether in close games (2012 Orioles), the timing of big years (2013 Red Sox), having excellent team health, or some combination of all those factors. What often happens is that teams having these years attribute their success entirely to their own doing, and become complacent.
The 2002 Angels went from 75-87 to 99-63, won the AL wild card and went on to win the World Series. That team had nine regulars play at least 122 games, and had just 10 players account for 89% of their position-player PAs. Five of their nine starters, none of them stars, had the best seasons of their careers. Their top three starting pitchers made every start and their #4 made 26. The Angels brought back almost the entire team, essentially untouched, for 2003 and went 77-85. Troy Glaus, Darin Erstad and Brad Fullmer got hurt. The players who weren't hurt were almost all worse in 2003 than they'd been in 2002, just as they'd been better in 2002 than they'd been in 2001. The Angels looked at 2002 as the flawless execution of a plan, when it was actually execution mixed with good fortune. This list is littered with teams who didn't recognize that their ascent was about more than just hard work come to fruition.
The 2015 Cubs look a bit like those 2002 Angels, save for the anomalous postseason power surge. Chicago had excellent health, with four starting pitchers making at least 31 starts. Their position-player playing time was spread around a bit more not due to injuries, but to mid-season changes such as the promotion of Kyle Schwarber. Miguel Montero and Jorge Soler missed time with injuries; the six other regulars played in at least 142 games. The Cubs didn't have a bunch of journeymen having career years; instead, they had one of the best rookie crops in history. Schwarber, Kris Bryant, Addison Russell and Jorge Soler combined for nearly 30 percent of the Cubs' PAs and nearly half of their position-player bWAR. The Cubs out-won their runs scored and allowed in part thanks to a bullpen in which a number of fairly anonymous pieces had huge years.
Cubs Bullpen 2015 ERA pre-2015
Hector Rondon 3.51 1.67
Pedro Strop 3.41 2.91
Justin Grimm 5.37 1.99
Travis Wood 4.11 2.95*
*as reliever
James Russell and Jason Motte didn't pitch quite as well, but it was Rondon and Strop who got most of the high-leverage work, and they had career years doing so...
QuoteThe Cubs had great health, integrated four rookies without much problem, and got great work out of relievers who couldn't have been picked out of a crowd at Goose Island on Opening Day. That's the recipe for a huge improvement, but not all of that can be counted on for a second year. The Cubs, to their credit, did not show the complacency so many teams in those charts above did; they went out and signed a #2/#3 starter, John Lackey, to deepen the rotation and provide a bulwark against injuries. They added the best free-agent position player available in Jason Heyward, and another good one in Ben Zobrist. As you would expect from this front office, they recognized that a 28-game improvement reflected both the progress of an organization and its short-term good fortune, as opposed to just the former.
Even recognizing the great offseason the Cubs had, I have concerns. They're bringing back almost the same bullpen they did last year, which is just asking for regression. The Royals have managed to have strong bullpens three years running, but they're an exception to the rule. Rondon, Strop and Grimm will almost certainly be worse this year as a group, and that will cost the team some wins. The Cubs' remarkable health last year seems unlikely to be repeated, and while they have enviable position-player depth, they have just six starting pitchers, with Adam Warren the extra man and Wood, who lost his rotation job last year, also here.
Perhaps my biggest concern is with that crop of rookies. As well as they played, all four had very high strikeout rates, high enough to create concern about their ability to maintain a playable batting average and, by extension, an OBP. While Bryant and Russell will play every day, the acquisitions of Heyward and Zobrist and the late return of Dexter Fowler mean that Kyle Schwarber and Jorge Soler will be fighting for their at-bats. Javier Baez, a top-five prospect just a few years ago, seems to have nowhere to play. This isn't entirely sabermetric, but I'm dogmatic on the idea that young players have to play every day, that irregular playing time is destructive to their development. It's hard to see where more than one, and perhaps not even one, of Schwarber, Soler and Baez has a path to that kind of usage.
The Cubs' talent base protects them against the kind of fall that plagued those championship Angels, and, indeed, most of the other teams that dropped off significantly. However, the track record of teams that jump up the way the Cubs did, coupled with a recognition of just how many things went right for them last year, is sobering. The Cubs will probably be my pick to win the NL Central, but the Plexiglas Principle dictates that the gap between them and the Cardinals and Pirates is far smaller than the hype would have you believe.
I get that argument, I really do, but I think few teams in history have ever really been on the same kind of plan as the Cubs and have the same collection of young position player talent. The 2014 Cubs had an arguably artificially deflated win total. They could easily have tried to field an 81 win team in 2014 and then improved in 2015 and have had it seem "more natural." I think the relatively new concept of tanking really screws with this.
I will try and post it later but the Baseball Prospectus Annual had a really good essay about the Cubs that compared them to other young teams that got similar value WAR-wise from a core of young position players and how they tended to do going forward and over a three year period they almost all either improved or at least remained very competitive.
Interestingly one of the teams similar to the 2015 Cubs listed in that BP article were the 2001 Cardinals, the team that jumped from 75 wins in 2000 to 95 in 2001, then dropped to 93 the next year and basically started the run of contention for St. Louis that continues to today. Much as we loathe the Cardinals, I'd say the situations are fairly similar.
Quote from: SKO on March 14, 2016, 03:20:31 PM
I get that argument, I really do, but I think few teams in history have ever really been on the same kind of plan as the Cubs and have the same collection of young position player talent. The 2014 Cubs had an arguably artificially deflated win total. They could easily have tried to field an 81 win team in 2014 and then improved in 2015 and have had it seem "more natural." I think the relatively new concept of tanking really screws with this.
I will try and post it later but the Baseball Prospectus Annual had a really good essay about the Cubs that compared them to other young teams that got similar value WAR-wise from a core of young position players and how they tended to do going forward and over a three year period they almost all either improved or at least remained very competitive.
Interestingly one of the teams similar to the 2015 Cubs listed in that BP article were the 2001 Cardinals, the team that jumped from 75 wins in 2000 to 95 in 2001, then dropped to 93 the next year and basically started the run of contention for St. Louis that continues to today. Much as we loathe the Cardinals, I'd say the situations are fairly similar.
Also, Sheehan spends about 3 seconds talking about the Cubs offseason. They added 14 rassafrassin wins in Heyward, Lackey, Zobrist and Warren. And gave up...a 1 win player in Starlin. He also talks about regression in the bullpen and rotation, without mentioning that they have FOUR swingmen who could all be very good, and can lighten the load for both the rotation and the late relief crew, and also spot start when needed. There are many, many reasons why this team is different than other teams that have had a big jump in win totals.
Quote from: R-V on March 14, 2016, 03:55:36 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 14, 2016, 03:20:31 PM
I get that argument, I really do, but I think few teams in history have ever really been on the same kind of plan as the Cubs and have the same collection of young position player talent. The 2014 Cubs had an arguably artificially deflated win total. They could easily have tried to field an 81 win team in 2014 and then improved in 2015 and have had it seem "more natural." I think the relatively new concept of tanking really screws with this.
I will try and post it later but the Baseball Prospectus Annual had a really good essay about the Cubs that compared them to other young teams that got similar value WAR-wise from a core of young position players and how they tended to do going forward and over a three year period they almost all either improved or at least remained very competitive.
Interestingly one of the teams similar to the 2015 Cubs listed in that BP article were the 2001 Cardinals, the team that jumped from 75 wins in 2000 to 95 in 2001, then dropped to 93 the next year and basically started the run of contention for St. Louis that continues to today. Much as we loathe the Cardinals, I'd say the situations are fairly similar.
Also, Sheehan spends about 3 seconds talking about the Cubs offseason. They added 14 rassafrassin wins in Heyward, Lackey, Zobrist and Warren. And gave up...a 1 win player in Starlin. He also talks about regression in the bullpen and rotation, without mentioning that they have FOUR swingmen who could all be very good, and can lighten the load for both the rotation and the late relief crew, and also spot start when needed. There are many, many reasons why this team is different than other teams that have had a big jump in win totals.
Also I really don't like the idea that their bullpen came out of nowhere. Strop/Rondon/Grimm/Ramirez were all very good down the stretch in 2014. The fact that no one paid much attention to the bullpen on a 73 win team doesn't mean anything about their talent level or ability to sustain what they did. Hector Rondon throws a 97 MPH splitter. Pedro Strop's slider has induced more swings and misses than any other pitch in the majors the last few years. I don't give a shit if you'd heard of them before last year or not, man.
Looks like the Cubs just got one more paradigm to shift.
Quote from: R-V on March 14, 2016, 03:55:36 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 14, 2016, 03:20:31 PM
I get that argument, I really do, but I think few teams in history have ever really been on the same kind of plan as the Cubs and have the same collection of young position player talent. The 2014 Cubs had an arguably artificially deflated win total. They could easily have tried to field an 81 win team in 2014 and then improved in 2015 and have had it seem "more natural." I think the relatively new concept of tanking really screws with this.
I will try and post it later but the Baseball Prospectus Annual had a really good essay about the Cubs that compared them to other young teams that got similar value WAR-wise from a core of young position players and how they tended to do going forward and over a three year period they almost all either improved or at least remained very competitive.
Interestingly one of the teams similar to the 2015 Cubs listed in that BP article were the 2001 Cardinals, the team that jumped from 75 wins in 2000 to 95 in 2001, then dropped to 93 the next year and basically started the run of contention for St. Louis that continues to today. Much as we loathe the Cardinals, I'd say the situations are fairly similar.
Also, Sheehan spends about 3 seconds talking about the Cubs offseason. They added 14 rassafrassin wins in Heyward, Lackey, Zobrist and Warren. And gave up...a 1 win player in Starlin. He also talks about regression in the bullpen and rotation, without mentioning that they have FOUR swingmen who could all be very good, and can lighten the load for both the rotation and the late relief crew, and also spot start when needed. There are many, many reasons why this team is different than other teams that have had a big jump in win totals.
Joe Sheehan is just Trueblood with a newsletter.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 14, 2016, 04:06:16 PM
Looks like the Cubs just got one more paradigm to shift.
What's a pair-a-diggum
Quote from: SKO on March 14, 2016, 03:20:31 PM
I get that argument, I really do, but I think few teams in history have ever really been on the same kind of plan as the Cubs and have the same collection of young position player talent. The 2014 Cubs had an arguably artificially deflated win total. They could easily have tried to field an 81 win team in 2014 and then improved in 2015 and have had it seem "more natural." I think the relatively new concept of tanking really screws with this.
I will try and post it later but the Baseball Prospectus Annual had a really good essay about the Cubs that compared them to other young teams that got similar value WAR-wise from a core of young position players and how they tended to do going forward and over a three year period they almost all either improved or at least remained very competitive.
Interestingly one of the teams similar to the 2015 Cubs listed in that BP article were the 2001 Cardinals, the team that jumped from 75 wins in 2000 to 95 in 2001, then dropped to 93 the next year and basically started the run of contention for St. Louis that continues to today. Much as we loathe the Cardinals, I'd say the situations are fairly similar.
(http://i68.tinypic.com/huk0ls.png) (http://i65.tinypic.com/2ajw605.png)
(http://i63.tinypic.com/212cvio.png) (http://i67.tinypic.com/91apw4.png)
(http://i67.tinypic.com/24fmm49.png)(http://i65.tinypic.com/30w1p9e.png)
Quote from: SKO on March 15, 2016, 08:13:34 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 14, 2016, 03:20:31 PM
I get that argument, I really do, but I think few teams in history have ever really been on the same kind of plan as the Cubs and have the same collection of young position player talent. The 2014 Cubs had an arguably artificially deflated win total. They could easily have tried to field an 81 win team in 2014 and then improved in 2015 and have had it seem "more natural." I think the relatively new concept of tanking really screws with this.
I will try and post it later but the Baseball Prospectus Annual had a really good essay about the Cubs that compared them to other young teams that got similar value WAR-wise from a core of young position players and how they tended to do going forward and over a three year period they almost all either improved or at least remained very competitive.
Interestingly one of the teams similar to the 2015 Cubs listed in that BP article were the 2001 Cardinals, the team that jumped from 75 wins in 2000 to 95 in 2001, then dropped to 93 the next year and basically started the run of contention for St. Louis that continues to today. Much as we loathe the Cardinals, I'd say the situations are fairly similar.
(http://i68.tinypic.com/huk0ls.png) (http://i65.tinypic.com/2ajw605.png)
I don't know what happened to me where this stuff makes me numb but here we are.
What this trend analysis is leaving out is the fact that bottom-feeding teams are now more willing to completely tank a season or more for the sake of draft position and slotting. That means better teams winning 95+ should become a more common occurrence.
With the Cubs sharing a division with Milwaukee and Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh arguably taking a step backward, they should be able to pile up another impressive amount of wins.
Sorry for the gigantic fucking pictures, if someone knows how to shrink them I will happily edit them down. But the point remains: teams with young, talented, position player cores tend to just stay good for awhile, and many of the teams listed in that article didn't have the financial resources the Cubs have to keep adding to that core.
Quote from: Slaky on March 15, 2016, 08:18:23 AM
I don't know what happened to me where this stuff makes me numb but here we are.
It's a dry read, but I think it provides kind of a nice rebuttal to the idea that they are destined to regress a lot. They'll probably win fewer than 97 games, because that's really hard to do once let alone twice, but the idea that they will not even win 90 because trends is dumb.
Quote from: SKO on March 15, 2016, 08:20:29 AM
Sorry for the gigantic fucking pictures, if someone knows how to shrink them I will happily edit them down. But the point remains: teams with young, talented, position player cores tend to just stay good for awhile, and many of the teams listed in that article didn't have the financial resources the Cubs have to keep adding to that core.
I shrunk them down...use (bracket)IMG height=500(bracket), and you can adjust the number to whatever size you want.
Quote from: SKO on March 15, 2016, 08:22:40 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 15, 2016, 08:18:23 AM
I don't know what happened to me where this stuff makes me numb but here we are.
It's a dry read, but I think it provides kind of a nice rebuttal to the idea that they are destined to regress a lot. They'll probably win fewer than 97 games, because that's really hard to do once let alone twice, but the idea that they will not even win 90 because trends is dumb.
That's just a fancy way of saying something like "only 19% of teams who lose the first two games of a series at home come back to win". It's not really relevant to that particular series. I don't care what happened to the 78 Expos. It's not relevant to the Cubs at all.
Quote from: Slaky on March 15, 2016, 08:45:13 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 15, 2016, 08:22:40 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 15, 2016, 08:18:23 AM
I don't know what happened to me where this stuff makes me numb but here we are.
It's a dry read, but I think it provides kind of a nice rebuttal to the idea that they are destined to regress a lot. They'll probably win fewer than 97 games, because that's really hard to do once let alone twice, but the idea that they will not even win 90 because trends is dumb.
That's just a fancy way of saying something like "only 19% of teams who lose the first two games of a series at home come back to win". It's not really relevant to that particular series. I don't care what happened to the 78 Expos. It's not relevant to the Cubs at all.
That's fair. I like the BP analysis though because it was looking specifically at teams that were built similarly to these Cubs, so their experiences would seem more relevant, vs just general application of the plexiglass principle because there are a thousand reasons a team might be bad one year, good the next, and then bad again. Most of the time the reason being that most of those teams just weren't that good.
You're right though, in the end historical trends don't really mean a damn thing to these Cubs. It says a lot about how good and deep and young they appear to be that the argument against them basically amounts to "well this is what happened to a bunch of other teams that aren't them in the past." It's just a more scientific way of being the Cardinals fan who is commenting "YEAH LOOKIT THE NATIONALS LAST YEAR HOWD THAT WORK OUT" on every article about the Cubs this offseason.
Some interesting nuggests in this Rosenthal piece (http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/chicago-cubs-joe-maddon-kris-bryant-kyle-schwarber-anthony-rizzo-too-loaded-to-fail-031616).
QuoteWell, the Cubs will have four converted starters in their bullpen – that's right, four: left-handers Travis Wood and Clayton Richard, and right-handers Trevor Cahill and Adam Warren.
Maddon believes he can keep one or more of those pitchers stretched out, using them in stints of more than one inning. He also can use one or more as spot starters, inserting Cahill, for one, against teams that struggle against right-handed sinkers, providing extra rest for Lackey, righty Jake Arrieta and lefty Jon Lester early in the season.
Cubs officials fear that the idea is better in theory than it will be in practice: What if Warren, for example, emerges as the seventh-inning reliever and the Cubs suddenly need him as a starter in August? Well, by then, Sonny Gray or his equivalent might be in Chicago.
QuoteMaddon says that he thinks Candelario looks like Bobby Abreu from the left side, but that president of baseball operations Theo Epstein sees more of a resemblance to Robinson Cano.
QuoteOne Cubs veteran fears that a division of playing time between Soler and Schwarber in left could prove counter-productive, leading both to press. But the Cubs already have developed a plan to get at least 450 plate appearances for all four of their top outfielders, if everyone stays healthy.
Schwarber is expected to be the regular catcher for one of the Cubs' starting pitchers, getting 30-plus starts in that spot. A designated hitter will be needed for the 10 games that the Cubs will play in American League parks. Dexter Fowler, a switch-hitter, is better against lefties and could sit against certain righties. Heyward, likewise, could sit against certain lefties, staying fresh over say, 145 games instead of 155.
Quote from: R-V on March 16, 2016, 10:03:09 AM
Some interesting nuggests in this Rosenthal piece (http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/chicago-cubs-joe-maddon-kris-bryant-kyle-schwarber-anthony-rizzo-too-loaded-to-fail-031616).
QuoteWell, the Cubs will have four converted starters in their bullpen – that's right, four: left-handers Travis Wood and Clayton Richard, and right-handers Trevor Cahill and Adam Warren.
Maddon believes he can keep one or more of those pitchers stretched out, using them in stints of more than one inning. He also can use one or more as spot starters, inserting Cahill, for one, against teams that struggle against right-handed sinkers, providing extra rest for Lackey, righty Jake Arrieta and lefty Jon Lester early in the season.
Cubs officials fear that the idea is better in theory than it will be in practice: What if Warren, for example, emerges as the seventh-inning reliever and the Cubs suddenly need him as a starter in August? Well, by then, Sonny Gray or his equivalent might be in Chicago.
QuoteMaddon says that he thinks Candelario looks like Bobby Abreu from the left side, but that president of baseball operations Theo Epstein sees more of a resemblance to Robinson Cano.
QuoteOne Cubs veteran fears that a division of playing time between Soler and Schwarber in left could prove counter-productive, leading both to press. But the Cubs already have developed a plan to get at least 450 plate appearances for all four of their top outfielders, if everyone stays healthy.
Schwarber is expected to be the regular catcher for one of the Cubs' starting pitchers, getting 30-plus starts in that spot. A designated hitter will be needed for the 10 games that the Cubs will play in American League parks. Dexter Fowler, a switch-hitter, is better against lefties and could sit against certain righties. Heyward, likewise, could sit against certain lefties, staying fresh over say, 145 games instead of 155.
I figured that was pretty much their plan in the outfield but it's nice to have it confirmed that the team has laid it out in those exact terms.
Also Sonny Gray in Chicago would be orgasmic. I also don't think they've given up on Tyson Ross. Pretty sure one way or another there's another ace in the rotation by July.
Quote from: R-V on March 16, 2016, 10:03:09 AM
QuoteMaddon says that he thinks Candelario looks like Bobby Abreu from the left side, but that president of baseball operations Theo Epstein sees more of a resemblance to Robinson Cano.
I think he's like a polyhybrid blend of Barry Bonds and a left-handed Manny Ramirez.
Quote from: Eli on March 16, 2016, 10:24:52 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 16, 2016, 10:03:09 AM
QuoteMaddon says that he thinks Candelario looks like Bobby Abreu from the left side, but that president of baseball operations Theo Epstein sees more of a resemblance to Robinson Cano.
I think he's like a polyhybrid blend of Barry Bonds and a left-handed Manny Ramirez.
I see him as more of a Jim Ray Hart type, with possibly some aspects of Graig Nettles.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 16, 2016, 11:28:00 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 16, 2016, 10:24:52 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 16, 2016, 10:03:09 AM
QuoteMaddon says that he thinks Candelario looks like Bobby Abreu from the left side, but that president of baseball operations Theo Epstein sees more of a resemblance to Robinson Cano.
I think he's like a polyhybrid blend of Barry Bonds and a left-handed Manny Ramirez.
I see him as more of a Jim Ray Hart type, with possibly some aspects of Graig Nettles.
When the moon is full he transforms into a horrifying Adam Dunn/David Eckstein monstrosity. Theo should never have played god.
Quote from: Slaky on March 15, 2016, 08:18:23 AM
I don't know what happened to me where this stuff makes me numb but here we are.
tl;dr
Ask a Nationals fan where this team will be in three years.
Quote from: SKO on March 16, 2016, 11:40:44 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 16, 2016, 11:28:00 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 16, 2016, 10:24:52 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 16, 2016, 10:03:09 AM
QuoteMaddon says that he thinks Candelario looks like Bobby Abreu from the left side, but that president of baseball operations Theo Epstein sees more of a resemblance to Robinson Cano.
I think he's like a polyhybrid blend of Barry Bonds and a left-handed Manny Ramirez.
I see him as more of a Jim Ray Hart type, with possibly some aspects of Graig Nettles.
When the moon is full he transforms into a horrifying Adam Dunn/David Eckstein monstrosity. Theo should never have played god.
Good work everyone. Hit the showers.
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?
Quote from: SKO on March 21, 2016, 12:14:33 PM
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...
Quote from: Oleg on March 21, 2016, 12:30:14 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 21, 2016, 12:14:33 PM
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?
Quote from: Slaky on March 21, 2016, 12:41:29 PM
Quote from: Oleg on March 21, 2016, 12:30:14 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 21, 2016, 12:14:33 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Oleg on March 21, 2016, 12:30:14 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 21, 2016, 12:14:33 PM
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.
3rd best rotation in baseball (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2016-positional-power-rankings-starting-rotations-1-15/), per Fangraphs.
Quote from: PenFoe on March 28, 2016, 11:23:00 AM
3rd best rotation in baseball (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2016-positional-power-rankings-starting-rotations-1-15/), 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.
Quote from: SKO on March 28, 2016, 11:58:09 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 28, 2016, 11:23:00 AM
3rd best rotation in baseball (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2016-positional-power-rankings-starting-rotations-1-15/), 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.
Quote from: Eli on March 28, 2016, 12:07:15 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 28, 2016, 11:58:09 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 28, 2016, 11:23:00 AM
3rd best rotation in baseball (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2016-positional-power-rankings-starting-rotations-1-15/), 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.
Quote from: SKO on March 28, 2016, 11:58:09 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 28, 2016, 11:23:00 AM
3rd best rotation in baseball (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2016-positional-power-rankings-starting-rotations-1-15/), 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?
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 28, 2016, 01:06:09 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 28, 2016, 11:58:09 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 28, 2016, 11:23:00 AM
3rd best rotation in baseball (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2016-positional-power-rankings-starting-rotations-1-15/), 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.
Quote from: SKO on March 28, 2016, 01:14:28 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 28, 2016, 01:06:09 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 28, 2016, 11:58:09 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 28, 2016, 11:23:00 AM
3rd best rotation in baseball (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2016-positional-power-rankings-starting-rotations-1-15/), 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?
Quote from: Oleg on March 28, 2016, 06:37:02 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 28, 2016, 01:14:28 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 28, 2016, 01:06:09 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 28, 2016, 11:58:09 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 28, 2016, 11:23:00 AM
3rd best rotation in baseball (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2016-positional-power-rankings-starting-rotations-1-15/), 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.
Quote from: Oleg on March 28, 2016, 06:37:02 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 28, 2016, 01:14:28 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 28, 2016, 01:06:09 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 28, 2016, 11:58:09 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 28, 2016, 11:23:00 AM
3rd best rotation in baseball (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2016-positional-power-rankings-starting-rotations-1-15/), 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.
Quote from: Eli on March 28, 2016, 07:47:04 PM
Quote from: Oleg on March 28, 2016, 06:37:02 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 28, 2016, 01:14:28 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 28, 2016, 01:06:09 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 28, 2016, 11:58:09 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 28, 2016, 11:23:00 AM
3rd best rotation in baseball (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2016-positional-power-rankings-starting-rotations-1-15/), 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.
Quote from: Eli on March 28, 2016, 07:47:04 PM
Quote from: Oleg on March 28, 2016, 06:37:02 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 28, 2016, 01:14:28 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 28, 2016, 01:06:09 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 28, 2016, 11:58:09 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 28, 2016, 11:23:00 AM
3rd best rotation in baseball (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2016-positional-power-rankings-starting-rotations-1-15/), 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?
Quote from: Tonker on March 29, 2016, 06:54:38 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 28, 2016, 07:47:04 PM
Quote from: Oleg on March 28, 2016, 06:37:02 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 28, 2016, 01:14:28 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 28, 2016, 01:06:09 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 28, 2016, 11:58:09 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 28, 2016, 11:23:00 AM
3rd best rotation in baseball (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2016-positional-power-rankings-starting-rotations-1-15/), 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.
Quote from: SKO on March 29, 2016, 07:45:58 AM
Quote from: Tonker on March 29, 2016, 06:54:38 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 28, 2016, 07:47:04 PM
Quote from: Oleg on March 28, 2016, 06:37:02 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 28, 2016, 01:14:28 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 28, 2016, 01:06:09 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 28, 2016, 11:58:09 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 28, 2016, 11:23:00 AM
3rd best rotation in baseball (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2016-positional-power-rankings-starting-rotations-1-15/), 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.
But The Dodgers don't have Kershaw and 4-replacement level starters. The Dodgers have Kershaw and, at least, 4 average major league starters.
Quote from: Oleg on March 29, 2016, 07:54:34 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 29, 2016, 07:45:58 AM
Quote from: Tonker on March 29, 2016, 06:54:38 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 28, 2016, 07:47:04 PM
Quote from: Oleg on March 28, 2016, 06:37:02 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 28, 2016, 01:14:28 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 28, 2016, 01:06:09 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 28, 2016, 11:58:09 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 28, 2016, 11:23:00 AM
3rd best rotation in baseball (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2016-positional-power-rankings-starting-rotations-1-15/), 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.
But The Dodgers don't have Kershaw and 4-replacement level starters. The Dodgers have Kershaw and, at least, 4 average major league starters.
Kershaw is also not going to go 34-0 with a 0.00 ERA. It's possible I was exaggerating to make a point about the limits of WAR.
I just don't necessarily buy that this:
8 WAR, 2 WAR, 2 WAR, 2 WAR, 2 WAR
is as good of a rotation as this:
5 WAR, 4 WAR, 3 WAR, 3 WAR, 1 WAR.
I'd pick the second group to win more games, I guess.
Quote from: Tonker on March 29, 2016, 06:54:38 AM
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?
I don't actually know, but it's a good question. ChuckD is probably the only poster here who's qualified to tell us.
Quote from: SKO on March 29, 2016, 08:22:21 AM
Quote from: Oleg on March 29, 2016, 07:54:34 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 29, 2016, 07:45:58 AM
Quote from: Tonker on March 29, 2016, 06:54:38 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 28, 2016, 07:47:04 PM
Quote from: Oleg on March 28, 2016, 06:37:02 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 28, 2016, 01:14:28 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 28, 2016, 01:06:09 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 28, 2016, 11:58:09 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 28, 2016, 11:23:00 AM
3rd best rotation in baseball (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2016-positional-power-rankings-starting-rotations-1-15/), 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.
But The Dodgers don't have Kershaw and 4-replacement level starters. The Dodgers have Kershaw and, at least, 4 average major league starters.
Kershaw is also not going to go 34-0 with a 0.00 ERA. It's possible I was exaggerating to make a point about the limits of WAR.
I just don't necessarily buy that this:
8 WAR, 2 WAR, 2 WAR, 2 WAR, 2 WAR
is as good of a rotation as this:
5 WAR, 4 WAR, 3 WAR, 3 WAR, 1 WAR.
I'd pick the second group to win more games, I guess.
I guess that's why Fangraphs rated The Mets rotation first over The Dodgers. But, it's also splitting hairs and you probably can't judge or predict what a whole team will do based on 5 of their players (albeit probably the five most important players on the team). Also, the Dodgers have another couple of pitchers who may provide an extra win or two here or there.
Quote from: Oleg on March 29, 2016, 08:40:19 AM
I guess that's why Fangraphs rated The Mets rotation first over The Dodgers. But, it's also splitting hairs and you probably can't judge or predict what a whole team will do based on 5 of their players (albeit probably the five most important players on the team). Also, the Dodgers have another couple of pitchers who may provide an extra win or two here or there.
The point isn't even about the Dodgers anymore, I'm asking a theoretical question about WAR. What gives you a better chance to win more games in an ideal world? The 16 WAR rotation that gets half that WAR from one guy, or the 16 WAR rotation that spreads those wins around a bit more? I don't know if we really have any way of getting an answer, but my gut tells me the latter. That was what Tonker was asking, too. Is it really better to have one guy that's hurling a shutout every 5th day, or two guys each giving up 2 runs on 2/5 days.
Quote from: SKO on March 29, 2016, 08:43:18 AM
Quote from: Oleg on March 29, 2016, 08:40:19 AM
I guess that's why Fangraphs rated The Mets rotation first over The Dodgers. But, it's also splitting hairs and you probably can't judge or predict what a whole team will do based on 5 of their players (albeit probably the five most important players on the team). Also, the Dodgers have another couple of pitchers who may provide an extra win or two here or there.
The point isn't even about the Dodgers anymore, I'm asking a theoretical question about WAR. What gives you a better chance to win more games in an ideal world? The 16 WAR rotation that gets half that WAR from one guy, or the 16 WAR rotation that spreads those wins around a bit more? I don't know if we really have any way of getting an answer, but my gut tells me the latter. That was what Tonker was asking, too. Is it really better to have one guy that's hurling a shutout every 5th day, or two guys each giving up 2 runs on 2/5 days.
DPD, but assume in this scenario everything else is equal, run support/sequencing/bullpens, etc. We're just looking at which rotation would be better. WAR tells you they'd both win 16 games more than a team of scrubs, but my gut tells me the team with 4 better than average starting pitchers wins more games than the team with 1 Super Ace and 4 average dudes.
Quote from: SKO on March 29, 2016, 08:43:18 AM
Quote from: Oleg on March 29, 2016, 08:40:19 AM
I guess that's why Fangraphs rated The Mets rotation first over The Dodgers. But, it's also splitting hairs and you probably can't judge or predict what a whole team will do based on 5 of their players (albeit probably the five most important players on the team). Also, the Dodgers have another couple of pitchers who may provide an extra win or two here or there.
The point isn't even about the Dodgers anymore, I'm asking a theoretical question about WAR. What gives you a better chance to win more games in an ideal world? The 16 WAR rotation that gets half that WAR from one guy, or the 16 WAR rotation that spreads those wins around a bit more? I don't know if we really have any way of getting an answer, but my gut tells me the latter. That was what Tonker was asking, too. Is it really better to have one guy that's hurling a shutout every 5th day, or two guys each giving up 2 runs on 2/5 days.
I'm not sure that's a fair question. if you have two guys who are each giving up 2 runs per start, you have two guys with an ERA of around 2.00 (obviously). So, you basically have 2 x Kershaw.
Quote from: SKO on March 29, 2016, 08:46:22 AM
DPD, but assume in this scenario everything else is equal, run support/sequencing/bullpens, etc. We're just looking at which rotation would be better. WAR tells you they'd both win 16 games more than a team of scrubs, but my gut tells me the team with 4 better than average starting pitchers wins more games than the team with 1 Super Ace and 4 average dudes.
This makes much more sense, except I still think you or Tonker or all of us are undervaluing what "average MLB starter" really means.
And, as a note, I, obviously, love commas and don't have the answer. I think I just really enjoy discussions like this. I don't even think there's a correct answer. This is just fun.
Quote from: Oleg on March 29, 2016, 08:49:49 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 29, 2016, 08:43:18 AM
Quote from: Oleg on March 29, 2016, 08:40:19 AM
I guess that's why Fangraphs rated The Mets rotation first over The Dodgers. But, it's also splitting hairs and you probably can't judge or predict what a whole team will do based on 5 of their players (albeit probably the five most important players on the team). Also, the Dodgers have another couple of pitchers who may provide an extra win or two here or there.
The point isn't even about the Dodgers anymore, I'm asking a theoretical question about WAR. What gives you a better chance to win more games in an ideal world? The 16 WAR rotation that gets half that WAR from one guy, or the 16 WAR rotation that spreads those wins around a bit more? I don't know if we really have any way of getting an answer, but my gut tells me the latter. That was what Tonker was asking, too. Is it really better to have one guy that's hurling a shutout every 5th day, or two guys each giving up 2 runs on 2/5 days.
I'm not sure that's a fair question. if you have two guys who are each giving up 2 runs per start, you have two guys with an ERA of around 2.00 (obviously). So, you basically have 2 x Kershaw.
Quote from: SKO on March 29, 2016, 08:46:22 AM
DPD, but assume in this scenario everything else is equal, run support/sequencing/bullpens, etc. We're just looking at which rotation would be better. WAR tells you they'd both win 16 games more than a team of scrubs, but my gut tells me the team with 4 better than average starting pitchers wins more games than the team with 1 Super Ace and 4 average dudes.
This makes much more sense, except I still think you or Tonker or all of us are undervaluing what "average MLB starter" really means.
The specific ERA doesn't matter, whatever Kershaw does, knock 3 wins off of it, but give me two of them.
Super Ace Pitcher, or SAP, is worth 8 wins. But his team pays him 800 million dollars, and can only afford 4 2 WAR starters to back him up
So 8+2+2+2+2 vs a theoretical Cubs Rotation of Arrieta (5), Lester (4), Lackey (3), Hendricks (3), Hammel (1). 16 WAR vs 16 WAR, you gotta pick a rotation to roll with for the 2016 Cubs, and you can pick either of the above, which rotation are you picking?
Quote from: SKO on March 29, 2016, 08:54:37 AM
Quote from: Oleg on March 29, 2016, 08:49:49 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 29, 2016, 08:43:18 AM
Quote from: Oleg on March 29, 2016, 08:40:19 AM
I guess that's why Fangraphs rated The Mets rotation first over The Dodgers. But, it's also splitting hairs and you probably can't judge or predict what a whole team will do based on 5 of their players (albeit probably the five most important players on the team). Also, the Dodgers have another couple of pitchers who may provide an extra win or two here or there.
The point isn't even about the Dodgers anymore, I'm asking a theoretical question about WAR. What gives you a better chance to win more games in an ideal world? The 16 WAR rotation that gets half that WAR from one guy, or the 16 WAR rotation that spreads those wins around a bit more? I don't know if we really have any way of getting an answer, but my gut tells me the latter. That was what Tonker was asking, too. Is it really better to have one guy that's hurling a shutout every 5th day, or two guys each giving up 2 runs on 2/5 days.
I'm not sure that's a fair question. if you have two guys who are each giving up 2 runs per start, you have two guys with an ERA of around 2.00 (obviously). So, you basically have 2 x Kershaw.
Quote from: SKO on March 29, 2016, 08:46:22 AM
DPD, but assume in this scenario everything else is equal, run support/sequencing/bullpens, etc. We're just looking at which rotation would be better. WAR tells you they'd both win 16 games more than a team of scrubs, but my gut tells me the team with 4 better than average starting pitchers wins more games than the team with 1 Super Ace and 4 average dudes.
This makes much more sense, except I still think you or Tonker or all of us are undervaluing what "average MLB starter" really means.
The specific ERA doesn't matter, whatever Kershaw does, knock 3 wins off of it, but give me two of them.
Super Ace Pitcher, or SAP, is worth 8 wins. But his team pays him 800 million dollars, and can only afford 4 2 WAR starters to back him up
So 8+2+2+2+2 vs a theoretical Cubs Rotation of Arrieta (5), Lester (4), Lackey (3), Hendricks (3), Hammel (1). 16 WAR vs 16 WAR, you gotta pick a rotation to roll with for the 2016 Cubs, and you can pick either of the above, which rotation are you picking?
My gut tells me that much of the 8 WAR-starter's value will be wasted in non-close games, and you'll cough up more losses in close games from the rest of the rotation. I have absolutely no scientific basis for my assertion, though.
Quote from: Eli on March 29, 2016, 08:26:54 AM
Quote from: Tonker on March 29, 2016, 06:54:38 AM
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?
I don't actually know, but it's a good question. ChuckD is probably the only poster here who's qualified to tell us.
I'm swamped so I don't have time right now to get in to the "why", but I pulled team win percentages in games where their starting pitcher gave up 1,2,3... ER dating back to the start of 2013.
Teams won ... of games with a SP who allowed ...
... 80.7% ... 0ER
... 67.5% ... 1ER
... 54.0% ... 2ER
... 40.3% ... 3ER
... 28.1% ... 4ER
... 18.0% ... 5ER
... 11.8% ... 6ER
... 8.8% ... 7ER
... 2.2% ... 8ER
... 0.0% ... 9ER+
So you could add those win probabilities up to see who has the higher sum of expected wins across the two games.
1/5 = .855
3/3 = .805
The 1/5 combo is better ... marginally. But that's because allowing 5ER in a start is really bad. Starters averaged ~5.2 IP per start over that stretch, so 5 ER allowed translates to a 7.64 ERA.
There's more to it though. Run support would obviously be the biggest one. A 5 ER allowed start would be crushing for an anemic offense like the Phillies (scored 6+ just 34 times last season), Braves (35), or Reds (34).
The Blue Jays scored 6+ 70 times (league avg was 46), so they're obviously better equipped win games with a borderline replacement starter on the mound.
Quote from: Tonker on March 29, 2016, 09:06:04 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 29, 2016, 08:54:37 AM
Quote from: Oleg on March 29, 2016, 08:49:49 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 29, 2016, 08:43:18 AM
Quote from: Oleg on March 29, 2016, 08:40:19 AM
I guess that's why Fangraphs rated The Mets rotation first over The Dodgers. But, it's also splitting hairs and you probably can't judge or predict what a whole team will do based on 5 of their players (albeit probably the five most important players on the team). Also, the Dodgers have another couple of pitchers who may provide an extra win or two here or there.
The point isn't even about the Dodgers anymore, I'm asking a theoretical question about WAR. What gives you a better chance to win more games in an ideal world? The 16 WAR rotation that gets half that WAR from one guy, or the 16 WAR rotation that spreads those wins around a bit more? I don't know if we really have any way of getting an answer, but my gut tells me the latter. That was what Tonker was asking, too. Is it really better to have one guy that's hurling a shutout every 5th day, or two guys each giving up 2 runs on 2/5 days.
I'm not sure that's a fair question. if you have two guys who are each giving up 2 runs per start, you have two guys with an ERA of around 2.00 (obviously). So, you basically have 2 x Kershaw.
Quote from: SKO on March 29, 2016, 08:46:22 AM
DPD, but assume in this scenario everything else is equal, run support/sequencing/bullpens, etc. We're just looking at which rotation would be better. WAR tells you they'd both win 16 games more than a team of scrubs, but my gut tells me the team with 4 better than average starting pitchers wins more games than the team with 1 Super Ace and 4 average dudes.
This makes much more sense, except I still think you or Tonker or all of us are undervaluing what "average MLB starter" really means.
The specific ERA doesn't matter, whatever Kershaw does, knock 3 wins off of it, but give me two of them.
Super Ace Pitcher, or SAP, is worth 8 wins. But his team pays him 800 million dollars, and can only afford 4 2 WAR starters to back him up
So 8+2+2+2+2 vs a theoretical Cubs Rotation of Arrieta (5), Lester (4), Lackey (3), Hendricks (3), Hammel (1). 16 WAR vs 16 WAR, you gotta pick a rotation to roll with for the 2016 Cubs, and you can pick either of the above, which rotation are you picking?
My gut tells me that much of the 8 WAR-starter's value will be wasted in non-close games, and you'll cough up more losses in close games from the rest of the rotation. I have absolutely no scientific basis for my assertion, though.
Thanks, Hawk Harrelson.
But, let's look at it this way...if you have Kershaw and 4 average starters, you'll win about 60% of your games, theoretically. Meaning, you'll be throwing out a better starter than your opponent at least 3 out of every 5 starts (Kershaw plus 2 x Average Dudes who pitch against the other teams two less-than-average dudes).
To SKO's question, you're asking me to pick between two of the three best rotations in the NL. I'd take my chances with either one.
Matt Szczur couldn't spell his name on a Scrabble board.
The bullpen's pretty good too (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2016-positional-power-rankings-relief-pitchers-1-15/).
Good stuff from Gammons. There's even a blurb about Fork's buddy Andreoli.
http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-joe-maddon-and-managing-human-beings/
Quote from: R-V on March 30, 2016, 01:46:24 PM
Good stuff from Gammons. There's even a blurb about Fork's buddy Andreoli.
http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-joe-maddon-and-managing-human-beings/
*taps link, page loads*
"gammonsdaily.com
Daily Gammons
Home Gammons Files Hit List Video About
You are here: Home / Gammons Files / Peter Gammons: Joe Maddon and managing human beings
Peter Gammons: Joe Maddon and managing human beings
March 29, 2016 by Peter Gammons"
Who wrote the article? Could it have been Peter Gammons?
Quote from: Saul Goodman on March 30, 2016, 02:24:05 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 30, 2016, 01:46:24 PM
Good stuff from Gammons. There's even a blurb about Fork's buddy Andreoli.
http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-joe-maddon-and-managing-human-beings/
*taps link, page loads*
"gammonsdaily.com
Daily Gammons
Home Gammons Files Hit List Video About
You are here: Home / Gammons Files / Peter Gammons: Joe Maddon and managing human beings
Peter Gammons: Joe Maddon and managing human beings
March 29, 2016 by Peter Gammons"
Who wrote the article? Could it have been Peter Gammons?
It's a good article why do you care about this part.
Quote from: Slaky on March 30, 2016, 03:28:37 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on March 30, 2016, 02:24:05 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 30, 2016, 01:46:24 PM
Good stuff from Gammons. There's even a blurb about Fork's buddy Andreoli.
http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-joe-maddon-and-managing-human-beings/
*taps link, page loads*
"gammonsdaily.com
Daily Gammons
Home Gammons Files Hit List Video About
You are here: Home / Gammons Files / Peter Gammons: Joe Maddon and managing human beings
Peter Gammons: Joe Maddon and managing human beings
March 29, 2016 by Peter Gammons"
Who wrote the article? Could it have been Peter Gammons?
It's a good article why do you care about this part.
The first four things listed are the URL, logo, menu and breadcrumbs, which are repetitive on basically any website. And Gammons has other writers besides himself, so that's why there's a byline.
Also, what you said.
Quote from: Eli on March 30, 2016, 03:30:41 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 30, 2016, 03:28:37 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on March 30, 2016, 02:24:05 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 30, 2016, 01:46:24 PM
Good stuff from Gammons. There's even a blurb about Fork's buddy Andreoli.
http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-joe-maddon-and-managing-human-beings/
*taps link, page loads*
"gammonsdaily.com
Daily Gammons
Home Gammons Files Hit List Video About
You are here: Home / Gammons Files / Peter Gammons: Joe Maddon and managing human beings
Peter Gammons: Joe Maddon and managing human beings
March 29, 2016 by Peter Gammons"
Who wrote the article? Could it have been Peter Gammons?
It's a good article why do you care about this part.
The first four things listed are the URL, logo, menu and breadcrumbs, which are repetitive on basically any website. And Gammons has other writers besides himself, so that's why there's a byline.
Also, what you said.
There weren't any typos for him to point out, so he had to find something else to bitch about.
Quote from: PenFoe on March 30, 2016, 03:48:35 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 30, 2016, 03:30:41 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 30, 2016, 03:28:37 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on March 30, 2016, 02:24:05 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 30, 2016, 01:46:24 PM
Good stuff from Gammons. There's even a blurb about Fork's buddy Andreoli.
http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-joe-maddon-and-managing-human-beings/
*taps link, page loads*
"gammonsdaily.com
Daily Gammons
Home Gammons Files Hit List Video About
You are here: Home / Gammons Files / Peter Gammons: Joe Maddon and managing human beings
Peter Gammons: Joe Maddon and managing human beings
March 29, 2016 by Peter Gammons"
Who wrote the article? Could it have been Peter Gammons?
It's a good article why do you care about this part.
The first four things listed are the URL, logo, menu and breadcrumbs, which are repetitive on basically any website. And Gammons has other writers besides himself, so that's why there's a byline.
Also, what you said.
There weren't any typos for him to point out, so he had to find something else to bitch about.
Agreed. I don't get this Archer post.
Quote from: Slaky on March 30, 2016, 03:28:37 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on March 30, 2016, 02:24:05 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 30, 2016, 01:46:24 PM
Good stuff from Gammons. There's even a blurb about Fork's buddy Andreoli.
http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-joe-maddon-and-managing-human-beings/
*taps link, page loads*
"gammonsdaily.com
Daily Gammons
Home Gammons Files Hit List Video About
You are here: Home / Gammons Files / Peter Gammons: Joe Maddon and managing human beings
Peter Gammons: Joe Maddon and managing human beings
March 29, 2016 by Peter Gammons"
Who wrote the article? Could it have been Peter Gammons?
It's a good article why do you care about this part.
It's not, though. You have statphobia ("not tic-tac-toeing through five relievers with analytically correct match ups in the final three innings of a showdown game").
You have incomplete foundations for opinions (no mention that Starlin was playing and especially hitting like dogshit for almost the entire season and that's why Maddon made the move, not because he's some kind of motivational savant who knew exactly how to get Starlin hot).
You have bizarre, lazy sportswriter cliches and tics (David Ross's Jeteresque Victory Tour? Huey Lewis is old and these kids are young, yuk yuk yuk?).
You have nonexistent editing ("He wants them to embrace the pressure their talent in a baseball-insane environment" ... what?)
Multiple, way too many, and Hawk-esque Gene Mauch references (who last managed in 1987 and has been dead for 11 years).
Plain doe-eyed incorrectness (Cubs ownership doesn't want to be considered stars? Tom Ricketts makes it a point to roam around the park every single game, especially national ones, and pose for pictures, and they did an episode of freaking Undercover Boss).
Regular incorrectness or general laziness (John Lackey "beat the Cubs in the 2015 NLDS" - but no mention that he beat them once in game one and then got rocked for 4 earned in three innings in the clinching game four).
Dramatic overreaches (Addison Russell already the "best player" in Arizona besides Mike Trout? Oh come on).
And what is a heartline and why are David Ross and Ryan Kalish (seriously, WTF with all the talk of Kalish, he's nobody and not even on the radar to even think about cracking this roster ... oh right, he's former Red Sox, which always merits a mention!) heartlines, whatever that is?
There was quite a bit to like but a lot more that wasn't. If I'm the only asshole who got progressively more annoyed the more I read, then fine.
Quote from: Saul Goodman on March 30, 2016, 04:06:57 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 30, 2016, 03:28:37 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on March 30, 2016, 02:24:05 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 30, 2016, 01:46:24 PM
Good stuff from Gammons. There's even a blurb about Fork's buddy Andreoli.
http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-joe-maddon-and-managing-human-beings/
*taps link, page loads*
"gammonsdaily.com
Daily Gammons
Home Gammons Files Hit List Video About
You are here: Home / Gammons Files / Peter Gammons: Joe Maddon and managing human beings
Peter Gammons: Joe Maddon and managing human beings
March 29, 2016 by Peter Gammons"
Who wrote the article? Could it have been Peter Gammons?
It's a good article why do you care about this part.
It's not, though. You have statphobia ("not tic-tac-toeing through five relievers with analytically correct match ups in the final three innings of a showdown game").
You have incomplete foundations for opinions (no mention that Starlin was playing and especially hitting like dogshit for almost the entire season and that's why Maddon made the move, not because he's some kind of motivational savant who knew exactly how to get Starlin hot).
You have bizarre, lazy sportswriter cliches and tics (David Ross's Jeteresque Victory Tour? Huey Lewis is old and these kids are young, yuk yuk yuk?).
You have nonexistent editing ("He wants them to embrace the pressure their talent in a baseball-insane environment" ... what?)
Multiple, way too many, and Hawk-esque Gene Mauch references (who last managed in 1987 and has been dead for 11 years).
Plain doe-eyed incorrectness (Cubs ownership doesn't want to be considered stars? Tom Ricketts makes it a point to roam around the park every single game, especially national ones, and pose for pictures, and they did an episode of freaking Undercover Boss).
Regular incorrectness or general laziness (John Lackey "beat the Cubs in the 2015 NLDS" - but no mention that he beat them once in game one and then got rocked for 4 earned in three innings in the clinching game four).
Dramatic overreaches (Addison Russell already the "best player" in Arizona besides Mike Trout? Oh come on).
And what is a heartline and why are David Ross and Ryan Kalish (seriously, WTF with all the talk of Kalish, he's nobody and not even on the radar to even think about cracking this roster ... oh right, he's former Red Sox, which always merits a mention!) heartlines, whatever that is?
There was quite a bit to like but a lot more that wasn't. If I'm the only asshole who got progressively more annoyed the more I read, then fine.
Okay. But why do you care about the stuff you mentioned in your first post?
Quote from: flannj on March 30, 2016, 04:19:03 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on March 30, 2016, 04:06:57 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 30, 2016, 03:28:37 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on March 30, 2016, 02:24:05 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 30, 2016, 01:46:24 PM
Good stuff from Gammons. There's even a blurb about Fork's buddy Andreoli.
http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-joe-maddon-and-managing-human-beings/
*taps link, page loads*
"gammonsdaily.com
Daily Gammons
Home Gammons Files Hit List Video About
You are here: Home / Gammons Files / Peter Gammons: Joe Maddon and managing human beings
Peter Gammons: Joe Maddon and managing human beings
March 29, 2016 by Peter Gammons"
Who wrote the article? Could it have been Peter Gammons?
It's a good article why do you care about this part.
It's not, though. You have statphobia ("not tic-tac-toeing through five relievers with analytically correct match ups in the final three innings of a showdown game").
You have incomplete foundations for opinions (no mention that Starlin was playing and especially hitting like dogshit for almost the entire season and that's why Maddon made the move, not because he's some kind of motivational savant who knew exactly how to get Starlin hot).
You have bizarre, lazy sportswriter cliches and tics (David Ross's Jeteresque Victory Tour? Huey Lewis is old and these kids are young, yuk yuk yuk?).
You have nonexistent editing ("He wants them to embrace the pressure their talent in a baseball-insane environment" ... what?)
Multiple, way too many, and Hawk-esque Gene Mauch references (who last managed in 1987 and has been dead for 11 years).
Plain doe-eyed incorrectness (Cubs ownership doesn't want to be considered stars? Tom Ricketts makes it a point to roam around the park every single game, especially national ones, and pose for pictures, and they did an episode of freaking Undercover Boss).
Regular incorrectness or general laziness (John Lackey "beat the Cubs in the 2015 NLDS" - but no mention that he beat them once in game one and then got rocked for 4 earned in three innings in the clinching game four).
Dramatic overreaches (Addison Russell already the "best player" in Arizona besides Mike Trout? Oh come on).
And what is a heartline and why are David Ross and Ryan Kalish (seriously, WTF with all the talk of Kalish, he's nobody and not even on the radar to even think about cracking this roster ... oh right, he's former Red Sox, which always merits a mention!) heartlines, whatever that is?
There was quite a bit to like but a lot more that wasn't. If I'm the only asshole who got progressively more annoyed the more I read, then fine.
Okay. But why do you care about the stuff you mentioned in your first post?
Because I noticed it was time to post but I didn't want to type a whole list. You know how it is. Ask Fork.
Quote from: Saul Goodman on March 30, 2016, 05:01:40 PM
Quote from: flannj on March 30, 2016, 04:19:03 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on March 30, 2016, 04:06:57 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 30, 2016, 03:28:37 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on March 30, 2016, 02:24:05 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 30, 2016, 01:46:24 PM
Good stuff from Gammons. There's even a blurb about Fork's buddy Andreoli.
http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-joe-maddon-and-managing-human-beings/
*taps link, page loads*
"gammonsdaily.com
Daily Gammons
Home Gammons Files Hit List Video About
You are here: Home / Gammons Files / Peter Gammons: Joe Maddon and managing human beings
Peter Gammons: Joe Maddon and managing human beings
March 29, 2016 by Peter Gammons"
Who wrote the article? Could it have been Peter Gammons?
It's a good article why do you care about this part.
It's not, though. You have statphobia ("not tic-tac-toeing through five relievers with analytically correct match ups in the final three innings of a showdown game").
You have incomplete foundations for opinions (no mention that Starlin was playing and especially hitting like dogshit for almost the entire season and that's why Maddon made the move, not because he's some kind of motivational savant who knew exactly how to get Starlin hot).
You have bizarre, lazy sportswriter cliches and tics (David Ross's Jeteresque Victory Tour? Huey Lewis is old and these kids are young, yuk yuk yuk?).
You have nonexistent editing ("He wants them to embrace the pressure their talent in a baseball-insane environment" ... what?)
Multiple, way too many, and Hawk-esque Gene Mauch references (who last managed in 1987 and has been dead for 11 years).
Plain doe-eyed incorrectness (Cubs ownership doesn't want to be considered stars? Tom Ricketts makes it a point to roam around the park every single game, especially national ones, and pose for pictures, and they did an episode of freaking Undercover Boss).
Regular incorrectness or general laziness (John Lackey "beat the Cubs in the 2015 NLDS" - but no mention that he beat them once in game one and then got rocked for 4 earned in three innings in the clinching game four).
Dramatic overreaches (Addison Russell already the "best player" in Arizona besides Mike Trout? Oh come on).
And what is a heartline and why are David Ross and Ryan Kalish (seriously, WTF with all the talk of Kalish, he's nobody and not even on the radar to even think about cracking this roster ... oh right, he's former Red Sox, which always merits a mention!) heartlines, whatever that is?
There was quite a bit to like but a lot more that wasn't. If I'm the only asshole who got progressively more annoyed the more I read, then fine.
Okay. But why do you care about the stuff you mentioned in your first post?
Because I noticed it was time to post but I didn't want to type a whole list. You know how it is. Ask Fork.
Well that makes perfect sense.
Quote from: Saul Goodman on March 30, 2016, 05:01:40 PM
Quote from: flannj on March 30, 2016, 04:19:03 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on March 30, 2016, 04:06:57 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 30, 2016, 03:28:37 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on March 30, 2016, 02:24:05 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 30, 2016, 01:46:24 PM
Good stuff from Gammons. There's even a blurb about Fork's buddy Andreoli.
http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-joe-maddon-and-managing-human-beings/
*taps link, page loads*
"gammonsdaily.com
Daily Gammons
Home Gammons Files Hit List Video About
You are here: Home / Gammons Files / Peter Gammons: Joe Maddon and managing human beings
Peter Gammons: Joe Maddon and managing human beings
March 29, 2016 by Peter Gammons"
Who wrote the article? Could it have been Peter Gammons?
It's a good article why do you care about this part.
It's not, though. You have statphobia ("not tic-tac-toeing through five relievers with analytically correct match ups in the final three innings of a showdown game").
You have incomplete foundations for opinions (no mention that Starlin was playing and especially hitting like dogshit for almost the entire season and that's why Maddon made the move, not because he's some kind of motivational savant who knew exactly how to get Starlin hot).
You have bizarre, lazy sportswriter cliches and tics (David Ross's Jeteresque Victory Tour? Huey Lewis is old and these kids are young, yuk yuk yuk?).
You have nonexistent editing ("He wants them to embrace the pressure their talent in a baseball-insane environment" ... what?)
Multiple, way too many, and Hawk-esque Gene Mauch references (who last managed in 1987 and has been dead for 11 years).
Plain doe-eyed incorrectness (Cubs ownership doesn't want to be considered stars? Tom Ricketts makes it a point to roam around the park every single game, especially national ones, and pose for pictures, and they did an episode of freaking Undercover Boss).
Regular incorrectness or general laziness (John Lackey "beat the Cubs in the 2015 NLDS" - but no mention that he beat them once in game one and then got rocked for 4 earned in three innings in the clinching game four).
Dramatic overreaches (Addison Russell already the "best player" in Arizona besides Mike Trout? Oh come on).
And what is a heartline and why are David Ross and Ryan Kalish (seriously, WTF with all the talk of Kalish, he's nobody and not even on the radar to even think about cracking this roster ... oh right, he's former Red Sox, which always merits a mention!) heartlines, whatever that is?
There was quite a bit to like but a lot more that wasn't. If I'm the only asshole who got progressively more annoyed the more I read, then fine.
Okay. But why do you care about the stuff you mentioned in your first post?
Because I noticed it was time to post but I didn't want to type a whole list. You know how it is. Ask Fork.
Please tell me we still have Eli's original masterpiece TIME TO POST flowchart.
Quote from: PANK! on March 30, 2016, 05:21:15 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on March 30, 2016, 05:01:40 PM
Quote from: flannj on March 30, 2016, 04:19:03 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on March 30, 2016, 04:06:57 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 30, 2016, 03:28:37 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on March 30, 2016, 02:24:05 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 30, 2016, 01:46:24 PM
Good stuff from Gammons. There's even a blurb about Fork's buddy Andreoli.
http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-joe-maddon-and-managing-human-beings/
*taps link, page loads*
"gammonsdaily.com
Daily Gammons
Home Gammons Files Hit List Video About
You are here: Home / Gammons Files / Peter Gammons: Joe Maddon and managing human beings
Peter Gammons: Joe Maddon and managing human beings
March 29, 2016 by Peter Gammons"
Who wrote the article? Could it have been Peter Gammons?
It's a good article why do you care about this part.
It's not, though. You have statphobia ("not tic-tac-toeing through five relievers with analytically correct match ups in the final three innings of a showdown game").
You have incomplete foundations for opinions (no mention that Starlin was playing and especially hitting like dogshit for almost the entire season and that's why Maddon made the move, not because he's some kind of motivational savant who knew exactly how to get Starlin hot).
You have bizarre, lazy sportswriter cliches and tics (David Ross's Jeteresque Victory Tour? Huey Lewis is old and these kids are young, yuk yuk yuk?).
You have nonexistent editing ("He wants them to embrace the pressure their talent in a baseball-insane environment" ... what?)
Multiple, way too many, and Hawk-esque Gene Mauch references (who last managed in 1987 and has been dead for 11 years).
Plain doe-eyed incorrectness (Cubs ownership doesn't want to be considered stars? Tom Ricketts makes it a point to roam around the park every single game, especially national ones, and pose for pictures, and they did an episode of freaking Undercover Boss).
Regular incorrectness or general laziness (John Lackey "beat the Cubs in the 2015 NLDS" - but no mention that he beat them once in game one and then got rocked for 4 earned in three innings in the clinching game four).
Dramatic overreaches (Addison Russell already the "best player" in Arizona besides Mike Trout? Oh come on).
And what is a heartline and why are David Ross and Ryan Kalish (seriously, WTF with all the talk of Kalish, he's nobody and not even on the radar to even think about cracking this roster ... oh right, he's former Red Sox, which always merits a mention!) heartlines, whatever that is?
There was quite a bit to like but a lot more that wasn't. If I'm the only asshole who got progressively more annoyed the more I read, then fine.
Okay. But why do you care about the stuff you mentioned in your first post?
Because I noticed it was time to post but I didn't want to type a whole list. You know how it is. Ask Fork.
Please tell me we still have Eli's original masterpiece TIME TO POST flowchart.
Yes please. And if I'm being honest I figured someone would remember my previous BUTTHURT about Peter Gammons being called a "legendary journalist," and memes are memes and that's important.
Quote from: Saul Goodman on March 30, 2016, 05:52:51 PM
Quote from: PANK! on March 30, 2016, 05:21:15 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on March 30, 2016, 05:01:40 PM
Quote from: flannj on March 30, 2016, 04:19:03 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on March 30, 2016, 04:06:57 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 30, 2016, 03:28:37 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on March 30, 2016, 02:24:05 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 30, 2016, 01:46:24 PM
Good stuff from Gammons. There's even a blurb about Fork's buddy Andreoli.
http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-joe-maddon-and-managing-human-beings/
*taps link, page loads*
"gammonsdaily.com
Daily Gammons
Home Gammons Files Hit List Video About
You are here: Home / Gammons Files / Peter Gammons: Joe Maddon and managing human beings
Peter Gammons: Joe Maddon and managing human beings
March 29, 2016 by Peter Gammons"
Who wrote the article? Could it have been Peter Gammons?
It's a good article why do you care about this part.
It's not, though. You have statphobia ("not tic-tac-toeing through five relievers with analytically correct match ups in the final three innings of a showdown game").
You have incomplete foundations for opinions (no mention that Starlin was playing and especially hitting like dogshit for almost the entire season and that's why Maddon made the move, not because he's some kind of motivational savant who knew exactly how to get Starlin hot).
You have bizarre, lazy sportswriter cliches and tics (David Ross's Jeteresque Victory Tour? Huey Lewis is old and these kids are young, yuk yuk yuk?).
You have nonexistent editing ("He wants them to embrace the pressure their talent in a baseball-insane environment" ... what?)
Multiple, way too many, and Hawk-esque Gene Mauch references (who last managed in 1987 and has been dead for 11 years).
Plain doe-eyed incorrectness (Cubs ownership doesn't want to be considered stars? Tom Ricketts makes it a point to roam around the park every single game, especially national ones, and pose for pictures, and they did an episode of freaking Undercover Boss).
Regular incorrectness or general laziness (John Lackey "beat the Cubs in the 2015 NLDS" - but no mention that he beat them once in game one and then got rocked for 4 earned in three innings in the clinching game four).
Dramatic overreaches (Addison Russell already the "best player" in Arizona besides Mike Trout? Oh come on).
And what is a heartline and why are David Ross and Ryan Kalish (seriously, WTF with all the talk of Kalish, he's nobody and not even on the radar to even think about cracking this roster ... oh right, he's former Red Sox, which always merits a mention!) heartlines, whatever that is?
There was quite a bit to like but a lot more that wasn't. If I'm the only asshole who got progressively more annoyed the more I read, then fine.
Okay. But why do you care about the stuff you mentioned in your first post?
Because I noticed it was time to post but I didn't want to type a whole list. You know how it is. Ask Fork.
Please tell me we still have Eli's original masterpiece TIME TO POST flowchart.
Yes please. And if I'm being honest I figured someone would remember my previous BUTTHURT about Peter Gammons being called a "legendary journalist," and memes are memes and that's important.
"Legendary journalist"? I read it too fast. I thought it said "Alleged journalist".
Quote from: Saul Goodman on March 30, 2016, 04:06:57 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 30, 2016, 03:28:37 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on March 30, 2016, 02:24:05 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 30, 2016, 01:46:24 PM
Good stuff from Gammons. There's even a blurb about Fork's buddy Andreoli.
http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-joe-maddon-and-managing-human-beings/
*taps link, page loads*
"gammonsdaily.com
Daily Gammons
Home Gammons Files Hit List Video About
You are here: Home / Gammons Files / Peter Gammons: Joe Maddon and managing human beings
Peter Gammons: Joe Maddon and managing human beings
March 29, 2016 by Peter Gammons"
Who wrote the article? Could it have been Peter Gammons?
It's a good article why do you care about this part.
It's not, though. You have statphobia ("not tic-tac-toeing through five relievers with analytically correct match ups in the final three innings of a showdown game").
You have incomplete foundations for opinions (no mention that Starlin was playing and especially hitting like dogshit for almost the entire season and that's why Maddon made the move, not because he's some kind of motivational savant who knew exactly how to get Starlin hot).
You have bizarre, lazy sportswriter cliches and tics (David Ross's Jeteresque Victory Tour? Huey Lewis is old and these kids are young, yuk yuk yuk?).
You have nonexistent editing ("He wants them to embrace the pressure their talent in a baseball-insane environment" ... what?)
Multiple, way too many, and Hawk-esque Gene Mauch references (who last managed in 1987 and has been dead for 11 years).
Plain doe-eyed incorrectness (Cubs ownership doesn't want to be considered stars? Tom Ricketts makes it a point to roam around the park every single game, especially national ones, and pose for pictures, and they did an episode of freaking Undercover Boss).
Regular incorrectness or general laziness (John Lackey "beat the Cubs in the 2015 NLDS" - but no mention that he beat them once in game one and then got rocked for 4 earned in three innings in the clinching game four).
Dramatic overreaches (Addison Russell already the "best player" in Arizona besides Mike Trout? Oh come on).
And what is a heartline and why are David Ross and Ryan Kalish (seriously, WTF with all the talk of Kalish, he's nobody and not even on the radar to even think about cracking this roster ... oh right, he's former Red Sox, which always merits a mention!) heartlines, whatever that is?
There was quite a bit to like but a lot more that wasn't. If I'm the only asshole who got progressively more annoyed the more I read, then fine.
Look. This is some ridiculous shit. I'm not a Peter Gammons fan but your criticism is basically a whole bunch of picking nits...and out of context to boot.
Gammons is 70 years old and went through a stroke. Maybe you should forgive him for being a statphobe (even if he's much, much more enlightened than a whole host of mainstream writers and analysts who are far younger and less good at writing than he is).
Your second criticism about incomplete foundations is exactly the same thing that you're complaining about (not to mention your absolute miss of the point of the Castro example).
Bizarre and lazy cliches? God forbid someone makes a joke that doesn't land (Ross) or fails to be ultra-contemporary (Epstink invited Heuy Lewis to camp? What, Berl Ives wasn't available?)..
Ooh...look, I caught some faulty editing on a blog post! I can't believe you don't work for the Chicago Manual of Style (does that thing still exist)?
Good work completely missing the point about Mauch.
Your Ricketts thing is about the only thing I found weird about the article but, holy shit, care to split some finer hairs?
I'm not really sure how good Russell has been in ST. I'm not sure I care. Whatever. I'd rather think that he was the best player in the world. I can't believe Gammons didn't use 7000 words of analytics to prove his point.
I have no idea what your problem is with Kalish or Ross or whatever. You're the first person ever to point out that Gammons is from Boston and has a Red Sox slant to him. Did you know that the current president of The Cubs used to be the GM there?
Like I said, I'm no big fan of Gammons. But your "takedown" reeks of pettiness. I get it, it's not some amazing investigative journalism. It's a fucking feel-good story about the manager of, what I assume is, your favorite baseball team. Perhaps you should adjust your expectations. If you can't get some joy out of that story 6 days before the season opens, I don't know what to tell you.
He spelled Scott Servais' name wrong after the Maddon story. Tsk tsk
Peter has some quality butt-tweets though
Quote from: Oleg on March 30, 2016, 09:58:37 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on March 30, 2016, 02:24:05 PMThere was quite a bit to like but a lot more that wasn't. If I'm the only asshole who got progressively more annoyed the more I read, then fine.
Look. This is some ridiculous shit. I'm not a Peter Gammons fan but your criticism is basically a whole bunch of picking nits...and out of context to boot.
Gammons is 70 years old and went through a stroke. Maybe you should forgive him for being a statphobe (even if he's much, much more enlightened than a whole host of mainstream writers and analysts who are far younger and less good at writing than he is).
Your second criticism about incomplete foundations is exactly the same thing that you're complaining about (not to mention your absolute miss of the point of the Castro example).
Bizarre and lazy cliches? God forbid someone makes a joke that doesn't land (Ross) or fails to be ultra-contemporary (Epstink invited Heuy Lewis to camp? What, Berl Ives wasn't available?)..
Ooh...look, I caught some faulty editing on a blog post! I can't believe you don't work for the Chicago Manual of Style (does that thing still exist)?
Good work completely missing the point about Mauch.
Your Ricketts thing is about the only thing I found weird about the article but, holy shit, care to split some finer hairs?
I'm not really sure how good Russell has been in ST. I'm not sure I care. Whatever. I'd rather think that he was the best player in the world. I can't believe Gammons didn't use 7000 words of analytics to prove his point.
I have no idea what your problem is with Kalish or Ross or whatever. You're the first person ever to point out that Gammons is from Boston and has a Red Sox slant to him. Did you know that the current president of The Cubs used to be the GM there?
Like I said, I'm no big fan of Gammons. But your "takedown" reeks of pettiness. I get it, it's not some amazing investigative journalism. It's a fucking feel-good story about the manager of, what I assume is, your favorite baseball team. Perhaps you should adjust your expectations. If you can't get some joy out of that story 6 days before the season opens, I don't know what to tell you.
You say tomato, I say tomahto, you say takedown, I say I was asked what I didn't like so I told them and apparently that was the wrong thing to do so let's call the whole thing off. I'm sorry I didn't like what you liked.
I like reading people who can actually write nice English sentences without resorting posting six consecutive graphs that seem ripped straight from a Calc 134 textbook. We went through this phase in baseball and it's still happening in hockey where YOU GOTTA HAVE HARD DATA TO MAKE AN OPINION.
Fuck that. Gammons knows how to tell a story and the decades of experience and shit he's seen means something.
I can't believe this.
Look, Gammons decided to write about one component of Maddon's managerial system, how he handles people.
We know he embraces advanced analytics, he even refers to "the nerds" and how often he consults them.
Just enjoy, for even one fucking second, that Joe Maddon is fucking awesome in many regards and Peter Gammons decided to shine the spotlight on one of them.
Quote from: PANK! on March 30, 2016, 05:21:15 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on March 30, 2016, 05:01:40 PM
Quote from: flannj on March 30, 2016, 04:19:03 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on March 30, 2016, 04:06:57 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 30, 2016, 03:28:37 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on March 30, 2016, 02:24:05 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 30, 2016, 01:46:24 PM
Good stuff from Gammons. There's even a blurb about Fork's buddy Andreoli.
http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-joe-maddon-and-managing-human-beings/
*taps link, page loads*
"gammonsdaily.com
Daily Gammons
Home Gammons Files Hit List Video About
You are here: Home / Gammons Files / Peter Gammons: Joe Maddon and managing human beings
Peter Gammons: Joe Maddon and managing human beings
March 29, 2016 by Peter Gammons"
Who wrote the article? Could it have been Peter Gammons?
It's a good article why do you care about this part.
It's not, though. You have statphobia ("not tic-tac-toeing through five relievers with analytically correct match ups in the final three innings of a showdown game").
You have incomplete foundations for opinions (no mention that Starlin was playing and especially hitting like dogshit for almost the entire season and that's why Maddon made the move, not because he's some kind of motivational savant who knew exactly how to get Starlin hot).
You have bizarre, lazy sportswriter cliches and tics (David Ross's Jeteresque Victory Tour? Huey Lewis is old and these kids are young, yuk yuk yuk?).
You have nonexistent editing ("He wants them to embrace the pressure their talent in a baseball-insane environment" ... what?)
Multiple, way too many, and Hawk-esque Gene Mauch references (who last managed in 1987 and has been dead for 11 years).
Plain doe-eyed incorrectness (Cubs ownership doesn't want to be considered stars? Tom Ricketts makes it a point to roam around the park every single game, especially national ones, and pose for pictures, and they did an episode of freaking Undercover Boss).
Regular incorrectness or general laziness (John Lackey "beat the Cubs in the 2015 NLDS" - but no mention that he beat them once in game one and then got rocked for 4 earned in three innings in the clinching game four).
Dramatic overreaches (Addison Russell already the "best player" in Arizona besides Mike Trout? Oh come on).
And what is a heartline and why are David Ross and Ryan Kalish (seriously, WTF with all the talk of Kalish, he's nobody and not even on the radar to even think about cracking this roster ... oh right, he's former Red Sox, which always merits a mention!) heartlines, whatever that is?
There was quite a bit to like but a lot more that wasn't. If I'm the only asshole who got progressively more annoyed the more I read, then fine.
Okay. But why do you care about the stuff you mentioned in your first post?
Because I noticed it was time to post but I didn't want to type a whole list. You know how it is. Ask Fork.
Please tell me we still have Eli's original masterpiece TIME TO POST flowchart.
I wish we had the slogger where Eli was a little mortified when I saw it for the first time.
Look, guys, it's spring training for all of us, too. Sterling needed to bitch about a really stupid thing, and we all needed to gang up on him for it, and now we're ready to go for the regular season.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 31, 2016, 08:21:32 AM
I wish we had the slogger where Eli was a little mortified when I saw it for the first time.
Ha. I was indeed. I think you had picked up on the "time to post" thing at some point, but it was a few weeks until you found out there was an actual flowchart. And I felt some brief guilt about you being offended, since I live constant, crippling fear of someone being mad at me. Fortunately, you can take a joke.
Also, I'm 98% sure the "tic-tac-toeing through five relief pitchers" part was NOT an insult to Maddon or to analytics in general. Gammons was simply saying that while Maddon's bullpen management WAS impressive, he was more impressed with his handling of the Starlin situation. And Gammons is right! This Sterling jihad is just a tad misguided.
Quote from: Eli on March 31, 2016, 08:40:33 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 31, 2016, 08:21:32 AM
I wish we had the slogger where Eli was a little mortified when I saw it for the first time.
Ha. I was indeed. I think you had picked up on the "time to post" thing at some point, but it was a few weeks until you found out there was an actual flowchart. And I felt some brief guilt about you being offended, since I live constant, crippling fear of someone being mad at me. Fortunately, you can take a joke.
Fork doesn't make jokes.
Quote from: Eli on March 31, 2016, 08:40:33 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 31, 2016, 08:21:32 AM
I wish we had the slogger where Eli was a little mortified when I saw it for the first time.
Ha. I was indeed. I think you had picked up on the "time to post" thing at some point, but it was a few weeks until you found out there was an actual flowchart. And I felt some brief guilt about you being offended, since I live constant, crippling fear of someone being mad at me. Fortunately, you can take a joke.
If I hadn't made the "Regression Therapy" joke a few times already, now would be a perfect time.
Quote from: Saul Goodman on March 30, 2016, 10:39:58 PM
Quote from: Oleg on March 30, 2016, 09:58:37 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on March 30, 2016, 02:24:05 PMThere was quite a bit to like but a lot more that wasn't. If I'm the only asshole who got progressively more annoyed the more I read, then fine.
Look. This is some ridiculous shit. I'm not a Peter Gammons fan but your criticism is basically a whole bunch of picking nits...and out of context to boot.
Gammons is 70 years old and went through a stroke. Maybe you should forgive him for being a statphobe (even if he's much, much more enlightened than a whole host of mainstream writers and analysts who are far younger and less good at writing than he is).
Your second criticism about incomplete foundations is exactly the same thing that you're complaining about (not to mention your absolute miss of the point of the Castro example).
Bizarre and lazy cliches? God forbid someone makes a joke that doesn't land (Ross) or fails to be ultra-contemporary (Epstink invited Heuy Lewis to camp? What, Berl Ives wasn't available?)..
Ooh...look, I caught some faulty editing on a blog post! I can't believe you don't work for the Chicago Manual of Style (does that thing still exist)?
Good work completely missing the point about Mauch.
Your Ricketts thing is about the only thing I found weird about the article but, holy shit, care to split some finer hairs?
I'm not really sure how good Russell has been in ST. I'm not sure I care. Whatever. I'd rather think that he was the best player in the world. I can't believe Gammons didn't use 7000 words of analytics to prove his point.
I have no idea what your problem is with Kalish or Ross or whatever. You're the first person ever to point out that Gammons is from Boston and has a Red Sox slant to him. Did you know that the current president of The Cubs used to be the GM there?
Like I said, I'm no big fan of Gammons. But your "takedown" reeks of pettiness. I get it, it's not some amazing investigative journalism. It's a fucking feel-good story about the manager of, what I assume is, your favorite baseball team. Perhaps you should adjust your expectations. If you can't get some joy out of that story 6 days before the season opens, I don't know what to tell you.
You say tomato, I say tomahto, you say takedown, I say I was asked what I didn't like so I told them and apparently that was the wrong thing to do so let's call the whole thing off. I'm sorry I didn't like what you liked.
No you weren't.
Quote from: R-V on March 31, 2016, 09:06:15 AM
Also, I'm 98% sure the "tic-tac-toeing through five relief pitchers" part was NOT an insult to Maddon or to analytics in general. Gammons was simply saying that while Maddon's bullpen management WAS impressive, he was more impressed with his handling of the Starlin situation. And Gammons is right! This Sterling jihad is just a tad misguided.
This. I don't know why anyone would think Gammons is anti-stats. He was the first mainstream guy I ever heard talk about things like OPS and FIP, back when those were considered new-wave metrics.
The important thing is Sterling wants to read about baseball stuff while absolutely despising everyone who ever writes about baseball stuff, and he most certainly doesn't want the people writing the baseball stuff to point out that they wrote the baseball stuff.
Quote from: Eli on March 31, 2016, 09:20:17 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 31, 2016, 09:06:15 AM
Also, I'm 98% sure the "tic-tac-toeing through five relief pitchers" part was NOT an insult to Maddon or to analytics in general. Gammons was simply saying that while Maddon's bullpen management WAS impressive, he was more impressed with his handling of the Starlin situation. And Gammons is right! This Sterling jihad is just a tad misguided.
This. I don't know why anyone would think Gammons is anti-stats. He was the first mainstream guy I ever heard talk about things like OPS and FIP, back when those were considered new-wave metrics.
You're right. He's the John Kasich in a field of Rosenthals and Heymans.
Quote from: SKO on March 31, 2016, 08:23:03 AM
Look, guys, it's spring training for all of us, too. Sterling needed to bitch about a really stupid thing, and we all needed to gang up on him for it, and now we're ready to go for the regular season.
Let's do this thing.
Quote from: Eli on March 31, 2016, 08:40:33 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 31, 2016, 08:21:32 AM
I wish we had the slogger where Eli was a little mortified when I saw it for the first time.
Ha. I was indeed. I think you had picked up on the "time to post" thing at some point, but it was a few weeks until you found out there was an actual flowchart. And I felt some brief guilt about you being offended, since I live constant, crippling fear of someone being mad at me. Fortunately, you can take a joke.
a) It would take an awful lot to offend me.
b) If I dished it out and couldn't take it, I'm pretty sure I'd get piled on pretty heavily. And I'd deserve it.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 31, 2016, 10:52:36 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 31, 2016, 08:40:33 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 31, 2016, 08:21:32 AM
I wish we had the slogger where Eli was a little mortified when I saw it for the first time.
Ha. I was indeed. I think you had picked up on the "time to post" thing at some point, but it was a few weeks until you found out there was an actual flowchart. And I felt some brief guilt about you being offended, since I live constant, crippling fear of someone being mad at me. Fortunately, you can take a joke.
a) It would take an awful lot to offend me.
b) If I dished it out and couldn't take it, I'm pretty sure I'd get piled on pretty heavily. And I'd deserve it.
http://hje.me/ci/sbox/day/2011/3/29/p124101136#p124101136
It's a shame the link is broken on the flowchart.
Quote from: Yeti on March 31, 2016, 12:55:02 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 31, 2016, 10:52:36 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 31, 2016, 08:40:33 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 31, 2016, 08:21:32 AM
I wish we had the slogger where Eli was a little mortified when I saw it for the first time.
Ha. I was indeed. I think you had picked up on the "time to post" thing at some point, but it was a few weeks until you found out there was an actual flowchart. And I felt some brief guilt about you being offended, since I live constant, crippling fear of someone being mad at me. Fortunately, you can take a joke.
a) It would take an awful lot to offend me.
b) If I dished it out and couldn't take it, I'm pretty sure I'd get piled on pretty heavily. And I'd deserve it.
http://hje.me/ci/sbox/day/2011/3/29/p124101136#p124101136
It's a shame the link is broken on the flowchart.
It's a goddamn outrage is what it is.
Quote from: PANK! on March 31, 2016, 01:14:00 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 31, 2016, 12:55:02 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 31, 2016, 10:52:36 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 31, 2016, 08:40:33 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 31, 2016, 08:21:32 AM
I wish we had the slogger where Eli was a little mortified when I saw it for the first time.
Ha. I was indeed. I think you had picked up on the "time to post" thing at some point, but it was a few weeks until you found out there was an actual flowchart. And I felt some brief guilt about you being offended, since I live constant, crippling fear of someone being mad at me. Fortunately, you can take a joke.
a) It would take an awful lot to offend me.
b) If I dished it out and couldn't take it, I'm pretty sure I'd get piled on pretty heavily. And I'd deserve it.
http://hje.me/ci/sbox/day/2011/3/29/p124101136#p124101136
It's a shame the link is broken on the flowchart.
It's a goddamn outrage is what it is.
*slaps Gil*
Quote from: PenFoe on March 31, 2016, 01:27:02 PM
Quote from: PANK! on March 31, 2016, 01:14:00 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 31, 2016, 12:55:02 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 31, 2016, 10:52:36 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 31, 2016, 08:40:33 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 31, 2016, 08:21:32 AM
I wish we had the slogger where Eli was a little mortified when I saw it for the first time.
Ha. I was indeed. I think you had picked up on the "time to post" thing at some point, but it was a few weeks until you found out there was an actual flowchart. And I felt some brief guilt about you being offended, since I live constant, crippling fear of someone being mad at me. Fortunately, you can take a joke.
a) It would take an awful lot to offend me.
b) If I dished it out and couldn't take it, I'm pretty sure I'd get piled on pretty heavily. And I'd deserve it.
http://hje.me/ci/sbox/day/2011/3/29/p124101136#p124101136
It's a shame the link is broken on the flowchart.
It's a goddamn outrage is what it is.
*slaps Gil*
*flips Huey's bike*
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 31, 2016, 01:35:23 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 31, 2016, 01:27:02 PM
Quote from: PANK! on March 31, 2016, 01:14:00 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 31, 2016, 12:55:02 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 31, 2016, 10:52:36 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 31, 2016, 08:40:33 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 31, 2016, 08:21:32 AM
I wish we had the slogger where Eli was a little mortified when I saw it for the first time.
Ha. I was indeed. I think you had picked up on the "time to post" thing at some point, but it was a few weeks until you found out there was an actual flowchart. And I felt some brief guilt about you being offended, since I live constant, crippling fear of someone being mad at me. Fortunately, you can take a joke.
a) It would take an awful lot to offend me.
b) If I dished it out and couldn't take it, I'm pretty sure I'd get piled on pretty heavily. And I'd deserve it.
http://hje.me/ci/sbox/day/2011/3/29/p124101136#p124101136
It's a shame the link is broken on the flowchart.
It's a goddamn outrage is what it is.
*slaps Gil*
*flips Huey's bike*
*tosses Oleg*
Quote from: Yeti on March 31, 2016, 03:45:45 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 31, 2016, 01:35:23 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 31, 2016, 01:27:02 PM
Quote from: PANK! on March 31, 2016, 01:14:00 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 31, 2016, 12:55:02 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 31, 2016, 10:52:36 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 31, 2016, 08:40:33 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 31, 2016, 08:21:32 AM
I wish we had the slogger where Eli was a little mortified when I saw it for the first time.
Ha. I was indeed. I think you had picked up on the "time to post" thing at some point, but it was a few weeks until you found out there was an actual flowchart. And I felt some brief guilt about you being offended, since I live constant, crippling fear of someone being mad at me. Fortunately, you can take a joke.
a) It would take an awful lot to offend me.
b) If I dished it out and couldn't take it, I'm pretty sure I'd get piled on pretty heavily. And I'd deserve it.
http://hje.me/ci/sbox/day/2011/3/29/p124101136#p124101136
It's a shame the link is broken on the flowchart.
It's a goddamn outrage is what it is.
*slaps Gil*
*flips Huey's bike*
*tosses Oleg*
*regrets missing Bortsignal*
I know last night was a meaningless exhibition game, but it would sure be nice to see Grimm offer that level of filth on a regular basis.
Good to see the inspiration for this thread title, and arguably the most valuable player on the team, getting some national recognition (http://sports.yahoo.com/news/why--grandpa-rossy--is-the-most-beloved-player-in-cubs--clubhouse-173139381-mlb.html).
Speaking of this thread, thank fucking Christ there's less than 80 hours left until we get this sumbitch started.
Quote from: R-V on April 01, 2016, 03:47:26 PM
Good to see the inspiration for this thread title, and arguably the most valuable player on the team, getting some national recognition (http://sports.yahoo.com/news/why--grandpa-rossy--is-the-most-beloved-player-in-cubs--clubhouse-173139381-mlb.html).
Speaking of this thread, thank fucking Christ there's less than 80 hours left until we get this sumbitch started.
fewer
Quote from: PANK! on April 01, 2016, 03:58:22 PM
Quote from: R-V on April 01, 2016, 03:47:26 PM
Good to see the inspiration for this thread title, and arguably the most valuable player on the team, getting some national recognition (http://sports.yahoo.com/news/why--grandpa-rossy--is-the-most-beloved-player-in-cubs--clubhouse-173139381-mlb.html).
Speaking of this thread, thank fucking Christ there's less than 80 hours left until we get this sumbitch started.
fewer
Math is dumb.
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on December 01, 2015, 02:07:10 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 01:54:28 PM
The Braves can fuck right off with their Soler for Miller talk, by God.
If the Cubs decide to move Soler, it's going to be for a fuckload more than Miller.
Miller's worth maybe Coghlan/Wood and a warm body from the system, or two mid-level prospects.
So I mean maybe Fork wasn't that wrong (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/its-rock-bottom-for-shelby-miller/)
Quote from: SKO on May 26, 2016, 03:30:53 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on December 01, 2015, 02:07:10 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 01:54:28 PM
The Braves can fuck right off with their Soler for Miller talk, by God.
If the Cubs decide to move Soler, it's going to be for a fuckload more than Miller.
Miller's worth maybe Coghlan/Wood and a warm body from the system, or two mid-level prospects.
So I mean maybe Fork wasn't that wrong (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/its-rock-bottom-for-shelby-miller/)
I thought he was overpriced this winter, but I figured he'd at least provide Kyle Hendricks-level competence. I'm positiving the shit out of the assreaming The Genius took on this one.
Quote from: SKO on May 26, 2016, 03:30:53 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on December 01, 2015, 02:07:10 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 01:54:28 PM
The Braves can fuck right off with their Soler for Miller talk, by God.
If the Cubs decide to move Soler, it's going to be for a fuckload more than Miller.
Miller's worth maybe Coghlan/Wood and a warm body from the system, or two mid-level prospects.
So I mean maybe Fork wasn't that wrong (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/its-rock-bottom-for-shelby-miller/)
I'm pretty sure Fork wasn't alone in that opinion.
Quote from: Oleg on May 27, 2016, 09:08:35 AM
Quote from: SKO on May 26, 2016, 03:30:53 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on December 01, 2015, 02:07:10 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 01:54:28 PM
The Braves can fuck right off with their Soler for Miller talk, by God.
If the Cubs decide to move Soler, it's going to be for a fuckload more than Miller.
Miller's worth maybe Coghlan/Wood and a warm body from the system, or two mid-level prospects.
So I mean maybe Fork wasn't that wrong (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/its-rock-bottom-for-shelby-miller/)
I'm pretty sure Fork wasn't alone in that opinion.
I mean we all thought Arizona overpaid for Shelby Miller, I was making a joke about Fork deeming Miller's trade value to be "Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood" and how we rightly made fun of him for it before Miller got traded for a king's ransom.
Quote from: SKO on May 27, 2016, 09:17:57 AM
Quote from: Oleg on May 27, 2016, 09:08:35 AM
Quote from: SKO on May 26, 2016, 03:30:53 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on December 01, 2015, 02:07:10 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 01:54:28 PM
The Braves can fuck right off with their Soler for Miller talk, by God.
If the Cubs decide to move Soler, it's going to be for a fuckload more than Miller.
Miller's worth maybe Coghlan/Wood and a warm body from the system, or two mid-level prospects.
So I mean maybe Fork wasn't that wrong (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/its-rock-bottom-for-shelby-miller/)
I'm pretty sure Fork wasn't alone in that opinion.
I mean we all thought Arizona overpaid for Shelby Miller, I was making a joke about Fork deeming Miller's trade value to be "Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood" and how we rightly made fun of him for it before Miller got traded for a king's ransom.
I still wish I could have heard the phone call where the Barves wanted Kris Bryant for Miller.
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 27, 2016, 09:20:17 AM
Quote from: SKO on May 27, 2016, 09:17:57 AM
Quote from: Oleg on May 27, 2016, 09:08:35 AM
Quote from: SKO on May 26, 2016, 03:30:53 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on December 01, 2015, 02:07:10 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 01:54:28 PM
The Braves can fuck right off with their Soler for Miller talk, by God.
If the Cubs decide to move Soler, it's going to be for a fuckload more than Miller.
Miller's worth maybe Coghlan/Wood and a warm body from the system, or two mid-level prospects.
So I mean maybe Fork wasn't that wrong (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/its-rock-bottom-for-shelby-miller/)
I'm pretty sure Fork wasn't alone in that opinion.
I mean we all thought Arizona overpaid for Shelby Miller, I was making a joke about Fork deeming Miller's trade value to be "Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood" and how we rightly made fun of him for it before Miller got traded for a king's ransom.
I still wish I could have heard the phone call where the Barves wanted Kris Bryant for Miller.
Coppolella: We want Bryant for Miller.
Theo: Everyone asks for Bryant, but we're not trading him.
Coppolella: OK.
Theo: This negotiation is proceeding well.
Quote from: Eli on May 27, 2016, 09:39:22 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 27, 2016, 09:20:17 AM
Quote from: SKO on May 27, 2016, 09:17:57 AM
Quote from: Oleg on May 27, 2016, 09:08:35 AM
Quote from: SKO on May 26, 2016, 03:30:53 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on December 01, 2015, 02:07:10 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 01:54:28 PM
The Braves can fuck right off with their Soler for Miller talk, by God.
If the Cubs decide to move Soler, it's going to be for a fuckload more than Miller.
Miller's worth maybe Coghlan/Wood and a warm body from the system, or two mid-level prospects.
So I mean maybe Fork wasn't that wrong (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/its-rock-bottom-for-shelby-miller/)
I'm pretty sure Fork wasn't alone in that opinion.
I mean we all thought Arizona overpaid for Shelby Miller, I was making a joke about Fork deeming Miller's trade value to be "Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood" and how we rightly made fun of him for it before Miller got traded for a king's ransom.
I still wish I could have heard the phone call where the Barves wanted Kris Bryant for Miller.
Coppolella: We want Bryant for Miller.
Theo: Everyone asks for Bryant, but we're not trading him.
Coppolella: OK.
Theo: This negotiation is proceeding well.
Dave Stewart is a fucking idiot.
Quote from: Eli on May 27, 2016, 09:39:22 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 27, 2016, 09:20:17 AM
Quote from: SKO on May 27, 2016, 09:17:57 AM
Quote from: Oleg on May 27, 2016, 09:08:35 AM
Quote from: SKO on May 26, 2016, 03:30:53 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on December 01, 2015, 02:07:10 PM
Quote from: SKO on December 01, 2015, 01:54:28 PM
The Braves can fuck right off with their Soler for Miller talk, by God.
If the Cubs decide to move Soler, it's going to be for a fuckload more than Miller.
Miller's worth maybe Coghlan/Wood and a warm body from the system, or two mid-level prospects.
So I mean maybe Fork wasn't that wrong (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/its-rock-bottom-for-shelby-miller/)
I'm pretty sure Fork wasn't alone in that opinion.
I mean we all thought Arizona overpaid for Shelby Miller, I was making a joke about Fork deeming Miller's trade value to be "Chris Coghlan and Travis Wood" and how we rightly made fun of him for it before Miller got traded for a king's ransom.
I still wish I could have heard the phone call where the Barves wanted Kris Bryant for Miller.
Coppolella: We want Bryant for Miller.
Theo: Everyone asks for Bryant, but we're not trading him.
Coppolella: OK.
Theo: This negotiation is proceeding well.
It's early but I'm calling it.
Funniest thing I've seen today.
Bumping this because it's a fun read in hindsight. Give it 20 minutes and you too can find out the answers to the pressing questions of October 2015.
Ross/Montero: Can we launch them in to the sun?
Heyward: Is he the next Barry Bonds?
Schwarber: Could he be traded for Felix or Sonny Grey?
Baez: Could he be traded for anything?
Quote from: Eli on October 22, 2015, 09:59:09 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 22, 2015, 09:44:31 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 22, 2015, 09:36:57 AM
I hope this thread title and the content of the first post aren't an omen for the entire offseason.
I don't follow.
Thanks to you, we have to look at David Ross's name all offseason when discussing fun and exciting possibilities.
Is this the part of the thread where I pretend I was sincere about Building a Winner Around (the Intangibles and Leadership of) David Ross, and ask Eli to kiss my leaking ass? No? OK.
Quote from: R-V on November 06, 2016, 02:21:14 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 22, 2015, 09:59:09 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 22, 2015, 09:44:31 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 22, 2015, 09:36:57 AM
I hope this thread title and the content of the first post aren't an omen for the entire offseason.
I don't follow.
Thanks to you, we have to look at David Ross's name all offseason when discussing fun and exciting possibilities.
Is this the part of the thread where I pretend I was sincere about Building a Winner Around (the Intangibles and Leadership of) David Ross, and ask Eli to kiss my leaking ass? No? OK.
Quote from: R-V on October 22, 2015, 10:05:33 AM
When he retires and takes a coaching job, it will be a pleasant reminder that he's no longer on the team.