Cubs trade for Ian Stewart/Weathers pg. 5 (Colvin+DJ)

[jersey cubs fan]

Just out of sheer morbid curiosity, who were your top 6-7 free agent targets? Because I only count 2 of mine as being gone.

 

I had 2 targets, Pujols and Fielder, with moderate interest in Wilson.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Is every discussion in this thread going to be ridiculous?

 

The Cubs are installing a starting 3b coming off a .450 OPS season who couldn't stick on the Colorado Rockies MLB roster. Of course it's going to be ridiculous.

 

(assuming you meant in baseball terms and not all the stupid, non-baseball threadjacks people are attempting).

[Rob]

Just out of sheer morbid curiosity, who were your top 6-7 free agent targets? Because I only count 2 of mine as being gone.

 

I had 2 targets, Pujols and Fielder, with moderate interest in Wilson.

 

The truth of the matter is that two potential targets that will be hard to replace are gone. Pujols and Wilson. That's it. And we never had a shot if Wilson was that intent on going home. We were never in on Reyes, Papelbon, Bell, etc... (nor should we have been). And lamenting the loss of a player like Buehrle would be silly considering how many comparable or better pitchers there are on the market.

 

If you want to go crazy because we didn't get Pujols, fine. That's well within your rights. But don't pretend our entire offseason is over. Most of the guys we were in on are still out there. Hence, early.

[Tracer Bullet]

Is every discussion in this thread going to be ridiculous?

 

The Cubs are installing a starting 3b coming off a .450 OPS season who couldn't stick on the Colorado Rockies MLB roster. Of course it's going to be ridiculous.

 

(assuming you meant in baseball terms and not all the stupid, non-baseball threadjacks people are attempting).

 

As is becoming habit (which TT just pointed out), you know the meaning of a post and ignore it.

[jersey cubs fan]

Just out of sheer morbid curiosity, who were your top 6-7 free agent targets? Because I only count 2 of mine as being gone.

 

I had 2 targets, Pujols and Fielder, with moderate interest in Wilson.

 

The truth of the matter is that two potential targets that will be hard to replace are gone. Pujols and Wilson. That's it. And we never had a shot if Wilson was that intent on going home. We were never in on Reyes, Papelbon, Bell, etc... (nor should we have been). And lamenting the loss of a player like Buehrle would be silly considering how many comparable or better pitchers there are on the market.

 

If you want to go crazy because we didn't get Pujols, fine. That's well within your rights. But don't pretend our entire offseason is over. Most of the guys we were in on are still out there. Hence, early.

 

This is a ridiculous post.

 

I said it's not early and so far they haven't done anything but small market moves. Stop trying to pretend that anybody who expresses disappointment in the current condition of the team is an unreasonable moron freaking out. Don't pretend I said our entire offseason is over. It's no longer early, and our options are smaller now. They can and should pay for the impact players that are available.

[Guest]

Is every discussion in this thread going to be ridiculous?

 

The Cubs are installing a starting 3b coming off a .450 OPS season who couldn't stick on the Colorado Rockies MLB roster. Of course it's going to be ridiculous.

 

(assuming you meant in baseball terms and not all the stupid, non-baseball threadjacks people are attempting).

 

As is becoming habit (which TT just pointed out), you know the meaning of a post and ignore it.

Is it now against board policy to have a little fun?

 

It's the silly season, silly things happen. As long as no one is being attacked I don't see the need to moderate. It's not hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

As is becoming habit (which TT just pointed out), you know the meaning of a post and ignore it.

 

My non-baseball response spoilered because nobody should really care about this stuff:

 

Yes, I appropriated it to make my own point. And you knew the meaning of my post and ignored it to make yours. I'll make mine more explicit: The only thing clogging up this thread is people whining about other poster's personalities and opinions. This is a baseball thread about a baseball player in a baseball subforum on a baseball site, and yet a few people continue to make posts that have zero baseball content, and ironically those posts are complaining that the thread is being polluted because there are too many baseball posts.

 

But now I'm doing it too, so here's some more baseball content.

 

 

Here are some of the quotes from Hoyer about Stewart:

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20111208&content_id=26134136&vkey=news_chc&c_id=chc&partnerId=rss_chc

 

"With our first two significant moves, we've attempted to make the team less right-handed than it has been and we've attempted to add better defense. We feel very good with both moves that we've done that."

 

"We watched a lot of video and talked to our scouts quite a bit, and I think he was searching. I'm not sure what got him off to a slow start originally ... but it looked like he was changing his stance a lot, raising and lowering his hands, opening and closing his stance. It looked like a guy who was struggling and searching."

 

The longer Epstein and Co. have been here, the more intriguing this sort of thing becomes. This isn't the (heavily exaggerated by Michael Lewis) mythical Moneyball Billy Beane. This is a much smarter version of Andy MacPhail and Jim Hendry. Presumably, the extra intelligence will make all the difference. But their emphasis on scouting at the MLB level appears to be a lot bigger than (at least I) assumed.

[RynoRules]

As is becoming habit (which TT just pointed out), you know the meaning of a post and ignore it.

 

My non-baseball response spoilered because nobody should really care about this stuff:

 

Yes, I appropriated it to make my own point. And you knew the meaning of my post and ignored it to make yours. I'll make mine more explicit: The only thing clogging up this thread is people whining about other poster's personalities and opinions. This is a baseball thread about a baseball player in a baseball subforum on a baseball site, and yet a few people continue to make posts that have zero baseball content, and ironically those posts are complaining that the thread is being polluted because there are too many baseball posts.

 

But now I'm doing it too, so here's some more baseball content.

 

 

Here are some of the quotes from Hoyer about Stewart:

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20111208&content_id=26134136&vkey=news_chc&c_id=chc&partnerId=rss_chc

 

"With our first two significant moves, we've attempted to make the team less right-handed than it has been and we've attempted to add better defense. We feel very good with both moves that we've done that."

 

"We watched a lot of video and talked to our scouts quite a bit, and I think he was searching. I'm not sure what got him off to a slow start originally ... but it looked like he was changing his stance a lot, raising and lowering his hands, opening and closing his stance. It looked like a guy who was struggling and searching."

 

The longer Epstein and Co. have been here, the more intriguing this sort of thing becomes. This isn't the (heavily exaggerated by Michael Lewis) mythical Moneyball Billy Beane. This is a much smarter version of Andy MacPhail and Jim Hendry. Presumably, the extra intelligence will make all the difference. But their emphasis on scouting at the MLB level appears to be a lot bigger than (at least I) assumed.

 

 

Wow, that is a HUGE logical leap. You based that conclusion on one quote? That came from guys who haven't been direct with the media since they got here?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The longer Epstein and Co. have been here, the more intriguing this sort of thing becomes. This isn't the (heavily exaggerated by Michael Lewis) mythical Moneyball Billy Beane. This is a much smarter version of Andy MacPhail and Jim Hendry. Presumably, the extra intelligence will make all the difference. But their emphasis on scouting at the MLB level appears to be a lot bigger than (at least I) assumed.

 

 

Wow, that is a HUGE logical leap. You based that conclusion on one quote? That came from guys who haven't been direct with the media since they got here?

 

I added some bold to the original post to help clarify this for you.

 

This isn't some isolated pulled quote. This is how they *always* talk about players.

 

Epstein came here with a reputation for being a stathead. The reality is a lot more interesting than that, and I don't mean interesting in a bad way.

[jersey cubs fan]

"We watched a lot of video and talked to our scouts quite a bit, and I think he was searching. I'm not sure what got him off to a slow start originally ... but it looked like he was changing his stance a lot, raising and lowering his hands, opening and closing his stance. It looked like a guy who was struggling and searching."

 

The longer Epstein and Co. have been here, the more intriguing this sort of thing becomes. This isn't the (heavily exaggerated by Michael Lewis) mythical Moneyball Billy Beane. This is a much smarter version of Andy MacPhail and Jim Hendry. Presumably, the extra intelligence will make all the difference. But their emphasis on scouting at the MLB level appears to be a lot bigger than (at least I) assumed.

 

Everything about Epstein was about better utilizing the information he received, and he always clearly placed a heavy emphasis on scouting. He was the sabr conscious GM who didn't piss off all the old school scouts.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Everything about Epstein was about better utilizing the information he received, and he always clearly placed a heavy emphasis on scouting. He was the sabr conscious GM who didn't piss off all the old school scouts.

 

Maybe I'm alone on this, but I pictured that as "stathead who doesn't mind listening to scouts on low-minors prospects" and such. It's turned out to be more like "scout who applies scientific rigor to scouting and also respects the results of sabermetrics."

[jersey cubs fan]

Everything about Epstein was about better utilizing the information he received, and he always clearly placed a heavy emphasis on scouting. He was the sabr conscious GM who didn't piss off all the old school scouts.

 

Maybe I'm alone on this, but I pictured that as "stathead who doesn't mind listening to scouts on low-minors prospects" and such. It's turned out to be more like "scout who applies scientific rigor to scouting and also respects the results of sabermetrics."

 

I disagree strongly with that. Epstein isn't a scout who respects numbers.

[Guest]

Everything about Epstein was about better utilizing the information he received, and he always clearly placed a heavy emphasis on scouting. He was the sabr conscious GM who didn't piss off all the old school scouts.

 

Maybe I'm alone on this, but I pictured that as "stathead who doesn't mind listening to scouts on low-minors prospects" and such. It's turned out to be more like "scout who applies scientific rigor to scouting and also respects the results of sabermetrics."

 

I disagree strongly with that. Epstein isn't a scout who respects numbers.

 

Genius who knows about numbers and baseball and listens to and values the opinions of scouts is far more accurate.

[Tracer Bullet]

As is becoming habit (which TT just pointed out), you know the meaning of a post and ignore it.

 

My non-baseball response spoilered because nobody should really care about this stuff:

 

Yes, I appropriated it to make my own point. And you knew the meaning of my post and ignored it to make yours. I'll make mine more explicit: The only thing clogging up this thread is people whining about other poster's personalities and opinions. This is a baseball thread about a baseball player in a baseball subforum on a baseball site, and yet a few people continue to make posts that have zero baseball content, and ironically those posts are complaining that the thread is being polluted because there are too many baseball posts.

 

But now I'm doing it too, so here's some more baseball content.

 

 

Here are some of the quotes from Hoyer about Stewart:

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20111208&content_id=26134136&vkey=news_chc&c_id=chc&partnerId=rss_chc

 

"With our first two significant moves, we've attempted to make the team less right-handed than it has been and we've attempted to add better defense. We feel very good with both moves that we've done that."

 

"We watched a lot of video and talked to our scouts quite a bit, and I think he was searching. I'm not sure what got him off to a slow start originally ... but it looked like he was changing his stance a lot, raising and lowering his hands, opening and closing his stance. It looked like a guy who was struggling and searching."

 

The longer Epstein and Co. have been here, the more intriguing this sort of thing becomes. This isn't the (heavily exaggerated by Michael Lewis) mythical Moneyball Billy Beane. This is a much smarter version of Andy MacPhail and Jim Hendry. Presumably, the extra intelligence will make all the difference. But their emphasis on scouting at the MLB level appears to be a lot bigger than (at least I) assumed.

 

This thread isn't bogged down by either TT or I pointing at how close to trolling some of your posts have been. The opinion is fine. The way it's been expressed has been the problem. Just bc your post is about baseball doesn't mean it's welcome. There's nothing ironic about a couple of mods pointing that out to you. That you insist upon ignoring the point of our posts is getting frustrating. Ok, it's beyond that point.

 

My question about the ridiculousness of some topics was intended to suggest that there might be better topics than whether we're 25%, 33%, or 39% through the off-season and whether that's "early." But you knew that.

[Tracer Bullet]

Everything about Epstein was about better utilizing the information he received, and he always clearly placed a heavy emphasis on scouting. He was the sabr conscious GM who didn't piss off all the old school scouts.

 

Maybe I'm alone on this, but I pictured that as "stathead who doesn't mind listening to scouts on low-minors prospects" and such. It's turned out to be more like "scout who applies scientific rigor to scouting and also respects the results of sabermetrics."

 

I disagree strongly with that. Epstein isn't a scout who respects numbers.

 

Genius who knows about numbers and baseball and listens to and values the opinions of scouts is far more accurate.

 

I think that's right. I'd still be surprised if it keeps the old guard off his back.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

He seems to have a lot more faith in his own eyes than just saying "he listens to his scouts." He sees himself as a scout, imo.

[jersey cubs fan]

He seems to have a lot more faith in his own eyes than just saying "he listens to his scouts." He sees himself as a scout, imo.

 

I think other people's eyes were actually scouting him, but they were talking about trying to explain why a decent player had a bad year, not whether or not somebody is actually good.

[Backtobanks]

Quote:

"With our first two significant moves, we've attempted to make the team less right-handed than it has been and we've attempted to add better defense. We feel very good with both moves that we've done that."

 

This quote does conjure up memories of Jim Hendry.

[TruffleShuffle]

Quote:

"With our first two significant moves, we've attempted to make the team less right-handed than it has been and we've attempted to add better defense. We feel very good with both moves that we've done that."

 

This quote does conjure up memories of Jim Hendry.

 

maybe it does, but the cubs were quite right-handed the past couple of years and their defense sucked balls last season, so it's probably a good idea to address these things.

[Tracer Bullet]

Hendry said we needed to be more LH after a year in which we were like last in the league against lhp.

[imb]

The one good thing about the cubs sucking was living in a world where kyle didn't feel it necessary to opine for hundreds of thousands of words about useless topics to find some sense of self-importance again

[Brian]

Any interesting 3B going to FA next year?

 

Worst case scenario he's a warm body where we need a warm body, while they figure things out.

 

Best case scenario he figures things out and we have us a new 3B.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Any interesting 3B going to FA next year?

 

Worst case scenario he's a warm body where we need a warm body, while they figure things out.

 

Best case scenario he figures things out and we have us a new 3B.

 

Wright and Youklis have club options. After them, there's a whole lot of bad unless youre interested in a 38 year old Scott Rolen. Some nice outfielders with Hamilton, Ethier, and Victorino, but the 2013 FA class is all about pitching. That's why this would be the year to make that offensive splash.

[Brian]

Any interesting 3B going to FA next year?

 

Worst case scenario he's a warm body where we need a warm body, while they figure things out.

 

Best case scenario he figures things out and we have us a new 3B.

 

Wright and Youklis have club options. After them, there's a whole lot of bad unless youre interested in a 38 year old Scott Rolen. Some nice outfielders with Hamilton, Ethier, and Victorino, but the 2013 FA class is all about pitching. That's why this would be the year to make that offensive splash.

 

Well there were no 3B this year either.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Any interesting 3B going to FA next year?

 

Worst case scenario he's a warm body where we need a warm body, while they figure things out.

 

Best case scenario he figures things out and we have us a new 3B.

 

Wright and Youklis have club options. After them, there's a whole lot of bad unless youre interested in a 38 year old Scott Rolen. Some nice outfielders with Hamilton, Ethier, and Victorino, but the 2013 FA class is all about pitching. That's why this would be the year to make that offensive splash.

 

Well there were no 3B this year either.

 

Exactly, which is why it's well worth the risk. It also gives us another year to see if Vitters can still be the 3B of the future or if we need to look elsewhere for a long term answer.