Re: Projecting the 2013 Cubs

[Hairyducked Idiot]

oh hey and speaking of pathetic, i see we've gotten to the familiar point where you weirdly declare yourself "right"; with any luck this will end things and we'll all be spared more of your pointless bilge

 

I don't think anyone's even disagreed with me. They've just taken the rather odd stance that Cubs fans shouldn't care about Cubs roster construction.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

You know damn well that had a lot more to do with the fact that we had a manager who would and did play those guys frequently and even start them regularly.

 

Last year's version got 243 plate appearances. Over/under on Matherbridge repeating that playing time?

[Tracer Bullet]

oh hey and speaking of pathetic, i see we've gotten to the familiar point where you weirdly declare yourself "right"; with any luck this will end things and we'll all be spared more of your pointless bilge

 

I don't think anyone's even disagreed with me. They've just taken the rather odd stance that Cubs fans shouldn't care about Cubs roster construction.

 

I count 4 people that disagreed with you in the last 7 posts

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Mather didn't bat lead off in front of an MVP candidate in a year where cubs fans expected the team to be a playoff contender.

 

Do you even know what I'm saying when I say think critically? How can this distinction be so hard to understand?

 

Don't mistake not finding your distinction relevant for not understanding it. I expect the Cubs to try to win baseball games this season, perhaps even with the playoffs as an end results, and I don't think they should be making decisions that hurt that goal without clear gains.

[Tracer Bullet]

You know damn well that had a lot more to do with the fact that we had a manager who would and did play those guys frequently and even start them regularly.

 

Last year's version got 243 plate appearances. Over/under on Matherbridge repeating that playing time?

 

Neifi had 600. Think. Critically.

 

[expletive] it. It's hopeless.

 

Everyone else-see Kyle's total inability to make a simple distinction based on important differences in facts and promise to never agree with him even when he declares himself right and posts with baseless confidence.

[Tracer Bullet]

Mather didn't bat lead off in front of an MVP candidate in a year where cubs fans expected the team to be a playoff contender.

 

Do you even know what I'm saying when I say think critically? How can this distinction be so hard to understand?

 

Don't mistake not finding your distinction relevant for not understanding it. I expect the Cubs to try to win baseball games this season, perhaps even with the playoffs as an end results, and I don't think they should be making decisions that hurt that goal without clear gains.

 

I'm not mistaking anything. This isn't a question of opinion. There are several important points of distinction. You either fail to grasp them or you're willfully ignoring them to troll for attention.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'm ignoring them because they are an ancillary point. The point is that Lillibridge's apparent ascension to the roster is a bad decision. The Perez/Macias comparison was a minor aside. If you have valid reason for disliking them but not Lillibridge, then you aren't being inconsistent, but you're still wrong for not disliking Lillibridge.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'd say this was pathetic trolling even for Kyle, but it worked, so we suck.

[seanimal]

speak for yourselves

[neely crenshaw]

4 plus pages on the cubs "possible" 25th man. We have guys slotted to start that are bad, why worry about if the last guy on the roster is bad?

[Sammy Sofa]

He might steal playing time from Barney AND DeJesus.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

4 plus pages on the cubs "possible" 25th man. We have guys slotted to start that are bad, why worry about if the last guy on the roster is bad?

 

I'm pretty happy with the way they handled most of the roster. If you set aside the Ian Stewart debate and give them a bit of a pass because there's pretty much nothing out there at 3b, then everything else was handled pretty well. They put together plenty of adequate depth in the rotation, outfield and bullpen.

[Guest]

4 plus pages on the cubs "possible" 25th man. We have guys slotted to start that are bad, why worry about if the last guy on the roster is bad?

 

I'm pretty happy with the way they handled most of the roster. If you set aside the Ian Stewart debate and give them a bit of a pass because there's pretty much nothing out there at 3b, then everything else was handled pretty well. They put together plenty of adequate depth in the rotation, outfield and bullpen.

 

I still wish we had signed Keppinger.

[neely crenshaw]

I am not disappointed with how they did things. I think they took some solid chances without screwing things up for the future.

We have that hole at 3rd. We don't know what our catchers will do, or actually which one it will be primarily

We have 2 young kid we hope take the next step

We have a "potentially" solid platoon in right but your better,more powerful, more proven hitter(Hairston) hits the minority of the time(vs lefties)

Soriano was very good, but it's been a while since he has done that. He has been a -war guy pretty much since his 1st year here.

Our bullpen is basically the same, save for the Fujikawa, who has never pitched in the major leagues. Not to mention Marmol's ability to be up and down!

 

These may all or mostly all work out. I am simply saying that I am much more worried about these possibilities than the 25th man.

[Guest]

I am not disappointed with how they did things. I think they took some solid chances without screwing things up for the future.

We have that hole at 3rd. We don't know what our catchers will do, or actually which one it will be primarily

We have 2 young kid we hope take the next step

We have a "potentially" solid platoon in right but your better,more powerful, more proven hitter(Hairston) hits the minority of the time(vs lefties)

Soriano was very good, but it's been a while since he has done that. He has been a -war guy pretty much since his 1st year here.

Our bullpen is basically the same, save for the Fujikawa, who has never pitched in the major leagues. Not to mention Marmol's ability to be up and down!

 

These may all or mostly all work out. I am simply saying that I am much more worried about these possibilities than the 25th man.

 

Whaaaa?

 

And the bullpen is not basically the same.

[davell]

Yeah, you kind of have to look at Villanueva and even Wood or Feldman as bullpen contributors this year. At any rate, I think its much improved over last year.

[neely crenshaw]

the bullpen isn't the same?

To start:

the closer is Marmol

the 2 main set up guys are Camp and Russell.

Add in Fujikawa, and that is the only main addition.Which I said.

yes, Wood and Villanueva may be additions. It would seem like they will be used as a loogy and/or long relief. As far as wins and losses how much will that change things? We won't have to watch some of the garbage we saw last year, but if a long reliever is in, things have already gone bad. A loogy is facing 1 guy, and it may or may not be meaningful.

So although the names have been changed, the guys that count look be the same. Fujikawa is the only guy that could have an impact on game outcomes. He provides depth if he works out, but if he isn't the closer, how many wins does that translate to?

That's what I mean by pretty much the same.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

the bullpen isn't the same?

To start:

the closer is Marmol

the 2 main set up guys are Camp and Russell.

 

That's incorrect already.

[NewUserName]

4 plus pages on the cubs "possible" 25th man. We have guys slotted to start that are bad, why worry about if the last guy on the roster is bad?

 

I'm pretty happy with the way they handled most of the roster. If you set aside the Ian Stewart debate and give them a bit of a pass because there's pretty much nothing out there at 3b, then everything else was handled pretty well. They put together plenty of adequate depth in the rotation, outfield and bullpen.

 

So here is my take on the Lillebridge being the 25th man. He has three main positives. Can play multiple positions, cheap and actually has some appeal to certain fans. Downside is he really isn't very good. That being said he probably is not going to take time from younger players. He is not going to bat lead off on a team hoping to win a championship. He is very expendable and also may have surprising trade value if he were to hit for a decent average. Who else was available that was better? or could have given the Cubs the positives that Lillebridge does. I am not overly thrilled to have him, but this is way different than giving Dusty his toys back in the day.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

He is not going to bat lead off on a team hoping to win a championship.

 

I hope you are just assuming he'll never bat leadoff, because this team should be hoping to win a championship. Joe Mather played this role last year and got 10 leadoff starts.

 

He is very expendable and also may have surprising trade value if he were to hit for a decent average.

 

This is literally true of every position player in all of professional baseball who isn't good.

 

Who else was available that was better?

 

We threw around names all offseason for the reserve infield spot. It's not as if this just came up. I would have loved Ronny Cedeno in that spot for the $1 million or whatever he got from the Cardinals. If we don't want to spend that much, I liked Ryan Raburn as a better fit than what we brought in. That's two off the top of my head.

 

or could have given the Cubs the positives that Lillebridge does.

 

I dispute the idea that he brings positives. If you can't hit at all, and he can't, you could at least play a decent defensive middle infield, which he also can't. Going by bWAR, he's worse than Augie Ojeda or Jose Macias

 

I am not overly thrilled to have him, but this is way different than giving Dusty his toys back in the day.

 

It sure seems like a guy who has been below replacement, both cumulatively and consistently, for years, is being given the inside track at a major league job because Sveum recruited him and the front office couldn't (or couldn't be bothered) to come up with a useful utility infielder given all offseason. Difference in degree, maybe, but not type.

[Guest]

ZiPS:

 

http://i.imgur.com/iPLBylz.png

[Hairyducked Idiot]

ZiPS:

 

http://i.imgur.com/iPLBylz.png

 

Fair enough, but I find ZIPS to be a bit optimistic projecting Lillibridge to a standard he has failed to meet 80% of the time.

[Sammy Sofa]

Soriano was very good, but it's been a while since he has done that. He has been a -war guy pretty much since his 1st year here.

 

That's not true.

 

Our bullpen is basically the same

 

This is also not true.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Sammy Sofa

[Backtobanks]

4 plus pages on the cubs "possible" 25th man. We have guys slotted to start that are bad, why worry about if the last guy on the roster is bad?

 

I'm pretty happy with the way they handled most of the roster. If you set aside the Ian Stewart debate and give them a bit of a pass because there's pretty much nothing out there at 3b, then everything else was handled pretty well. They put together plenty of adequate depth in the rotation, outfield and bullpen.

 

I still wish we had signed Keppinger.

 

Yeah, I posted a long time ago that Keppinger would have been a good signing to fill 3B until Vitters/Lake/Baez could take over. Also, he could provide some backup at SS, 2B, or 1B if needed.

[dew1679666265]

4 plus pages on the cubs "possible" 25th man. We have guys slotted to start that are bad, why worry about if the last guy on the roster is bad?

 

I'm pretty happy with the way they handled most of the roster. If you set aside the Ian Stewart debate and give them a bit of a pass because there's pretty much nothing out there at 3b, then everything else was handled pretty well. They put together plenty of adequate depth in the rotation, outfield and bullpen.

 

I still wish we had signed Keppinger.

 

The guy I really regret not getting is B.J. Upton, though he didn't got paid a little more than I expected.