Random Cubs Musings

[Vinestal]

Your original post is "I don't think it's a good sign if they trade Shark unless they get a MLB ready pitcher who they are confident can start 20+, with around a 3.00 ERA." The logical thing to assume here is that you think Shark fits that criteria, or maybe more, because the alternative is that you "don't think it's a good sign" unless they trade Shark for a pitcher that's already better than he is. You then went on to further crystallize your criteria for "around a 3.00 ERA" and clearly stated what you thought a "reasonable" deal was for him, so I'm not really sure where there's room for misinterpretation here.

There are myriad ways and reasons he can be traded for "a player who is already better than he is". But to be crystal clear, in my opinion the Cubs are in no position to trade him for minor leaguers. If they trade him the need to get better by the trade. It is not a good sign for 2014 if they trade him and don't get better.

I don't see why it matters since they aren't likely to be competing for the division with or without him this hear. He's been very inconsistent with occasional bouts of greatness. He's shown enough that we could probably entice someone to give up a good package of prospects for him this offseason. My opinion is that he's a mid rotation starter but can bring back more value than that in a trade, so they should pull the trigger in that scenario. I realize there are people who think he's a future ace, but I don't see it.

[seanimal]

what on earth? what a weird demand. who trades one asset to get an asset back that is very similar?

 

jed: do you want jeff samardzija?

gm 2: yeah of course, what do you want in return?

jed: something very jeff samardzija-like

gm 2: the [expletive] is this?

[Guest]

Your original post is "I don't think it's a good sign if they trade Shark unless they get a MLB ready pitcher who they are confident can start 20+, with around a 3.00 ERA." The logical thing to assume here is that you think Shark fits that criteria, or maybe more, because the alternative is that you "don't think it's a good sign" unless they trade Shark for a pitcher that's already better than he is. You then went on to further crystallize your criteria for "around a 3.00 ERA" and clearly stated what you thought a "reasonable" deal was for him, so I'm not really sure where there's room for misinterpretation here.

There are myriad ways and reasons he can be traded for "a player who is already better than he is". But to be crystal clear, in my opinion the Cubs are in no position to trade him for minor leaguers. If they trade him the need to get better by the trade. It is not a good sign for 2014 if they trade him and don't get better.

k

I don't see why it matters since they aren't likely to be competing for the division with or without him this hear. He's been very inconsistent with occasional bouts of greatness. He's shown enough that we could probably entice someone to give up a good package of prospects for him this offseason. My opinion is that he's a mid rotation starter but can bring back more value than that in a trade, so they should pull the trigger in that scenario. I realize there are people who think he's a future ace, but I don't see it.

i'm just tired of punting. I'm not a big fan of his either, but with all due respect to Tavis Wood, circa 2013, Shark is the best pitcher on the team. It makes more sense to me to try to work out a reasonable contract and if he's not amenable, trade him at the deadline.

[Soul]

Your original post is "I don't think it's a good sign if they trade Shark unless they get a MLB ready pitcher who they are confident can start 20+, with around a 3.00 ERA." The logical thing to assume here is that you think Shark fits that criteria, or maybe more, because the alternative is that you "don't think it's a good sign" unless they trade Shark for a pitcher that's already better than he is. You then went on to further crystallize your criteria for "around a 3.00 ERA" and clearly stated what you thought a "reasonable" deal was for him, so I'm not really sure where there's room for misinterpretation here.

There are myriad ways and reasons he can be traded for "a player who is already better than he is". But to be crystal clear, in my opinion the Cubs are in no position to trade him for minor leaguers. If they trade him the need to get better by the trade. It is not a good sign for 2014 if they trade him and don't get better.

k

I don't see why it matters since they aren't likely to be competing for the division with or without him this hear. He's been very inconsistent with occasional bouts of greatness. He's shown enough that we could probably entice someone to give up a good package of prospects for him this offseason. My opinion is that he's a mid rotation starter but can bring back more value than that in a trade, so they should pull the trigger in that scenario. I realize there are people who think he's a future ace, but I don't see it.

i'm just tired of punting. I'm not a big fan of his either, but with all due respect to Tavis Wood, circa 2013, Shark is the best pitcher on the team. It makes more sense to me to try to work out a reasonable contract and if he's not amenable, trade him at the deadline.

 

You don't like him but we should just keep him around because he's the best of the mediocre?

 

Pass.

[Clem Fandango]

This is absolutely dreadful writing, but if you're bored...

 

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/9893959/mlb-winter-forecast-teams-national-league-central

 

I like at the end it says "Chad Dotson runs Redleg Nation, a blog covering the Reds." Good thing they let him cover the whole division.

[Guest]

http://deadspin.com/never-before-seen-color-footage-of-1965-baseball-1465241550

[jersey cubs fan]

Pink hat guy!!!

[Post Count Padder]

Daniel Bard has retired one of 13 batters faced over three outings with Caguas in the Puerto Rican Winter League.

Yikes. Bard has actually yet to allow a hit, but he's given up seven earned runs on nine walks, three hit batters and four wild pitches. The Cubs claimed Bard off waivers in September hoping that he'd be able to overcome his wildness, but so far it obviously hasn't worked out. Between the majors and minors, Bard has issued 101 walks over 107 2/3 innings the last two seasons.

Well that's positive.

[Derwood]

Daniel Bard has retired one of 13 batters faced over three outings with Caguas in the Puerto Rican Winter League.

Yikes. Bard has actually yet to allow a hit, but he's given up seven earned runs on nine walks, three hit batters and four wild pitches. The Cubs claimed Bard off waivers in September hoping that he'd be able to overcome his wildness, but so far it obviously hasn't worked out. Between the majors and minors, Bard has issued 101 walks over 107 2/3 innings the last two seasons.

Well that's positive.

 

Bard has gone full-Ankiel

[CubsWin]

Daniel Bard has retired one of 13 batters faced over three outings with Caguas in the Puerto Rican Winter League.

Yikes. Bard has actually yet to allow a hit, but he's given up seven earned runs on nine walks, three hit batters and four wild pitches. The Cubs claimed Bard off waivers in September hoping that he'd be able to overcome his wildness, but so far it obviously hasn't worked out. Between the majors and minors, Bard has issued 101 walks over 107 2/3 innings the last two seasons.

Well that's positive.

I guess that should open up another spot on the 40-man roster. Decisions on who they will protect are due Wednesday. If they cut Bard, they will have 4 open spots.

[Cubswin11]

Daniel Bard has retired one of 13 batters faced over three outings with Caguas in the Puerto Rican Winter League.

Yikes. Bard has actually yet to allow a hit, but he's given up seven earned runs on nine walks, three hit batters and four wild pitches. The Cubs claimed Bard off waivers in September hoping that he'd be able to overcome his wildness, but so far it obviously hasn't worked out. Between the majors and minors, Bard has issued 101 walks over 107 2/3 innings the last two seasons.

Well that's positive.

I guess that should open up another spot on the 40-man roster. Decisions on who they will protect are due Wednesday. If they cut Bard, they will have 4 open spots.

Are there even 3, let alone the 4 cutting Bard would give, guys that are worth protecting? Alcantara is really the only guy I see worth putting on the 40-man to protect. I agree we could open up a spot for the sake of opening one up (for a FA/Trade add) by cutting Bard to remove him from the 40-man and then sign him to a minor league deal (doubt anyone claims him).

[SouthSideRyan]

Fell into a BR wormhole and found that Sosa's worst OBP month in '98 was his insane June where he hit 20 HRs. How does a guy that dialed in only receive 6 BBs?? It's not like his approach hadn't changed by this point, he'd drawn 27 walks in the first 2 months of the season.

[imb]

lmao 34 hits and 20 of them went out of the park. If you'd told me that sosa hit below .300 that month i would have called you an idiot.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

2013 total bWAR from players 25 and under, NL Central

 

Reds 13.3

Cardinals 11.0

Pirates 7.2

Brewers 6.3

Cubs 2.1

[Beer Kaese]

Something that none of you seem to see is that we are close to having too many players than a 40 man roster can protect. We are rapidly reaching the point where we MUST move prospects for players.

[Sammy Sofa]

Really? NONE of us understand how the 40 man roster works? There hasn't been ANY discussion about it on here recently?

[jersey cubs fan]

Something that none of you seem to see is that we are close to having too many players than a 40 man roster can protect. We are rapidly reaching the point where we MUST move prospects for players.

I assume that since they were recently 3-4 names short of 40 they can go ahead and carry 3-4 over the limit for the same amount of time. It's really just a guideline rather than a strict rule? It's like the nfl salary cap, no?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Guys you could probably justify DFA'ing right now if you needed roster space:

 

Bard, Beeler, Cabrera, Lim, Raley, Gamel, Murphy, Vitters, Watkins, Bogusevic, Jackson

 

Guys who are one bad season away from joining that category:

 

Rusin, Barney, Olt, Szczur

 

We're nowhere near running out of room on the 40-man if we really need it.

[davell]

Something that none of you seem to see is that we are close to having too many players than a 40 man roster can protect. We are rapidly reaching the point where we MUST move prospects for players.

We've discussed the 40 man in quite a few threads. And unless everyone here is missing evaluations on quite a few players, we're no where near having a true crunch. Are we in danger every year of having the Matt Loosen 's of the world plucked from us? Sure. Is it likely to affect us in ANY matter? Hell no.

 

Will we soon be making 3 for 1 trades where we're adding impact players? Hopefully, or else we're all likely to go crazy. But our 40 man is definitely manageable currently. It's not even close to being a real issue, nor is our ability to comprehend the daunting task of looking at it. Kyle summed up our current state pretty well, in my opinion. And with trades or without, we're no where near having an actual crunch.

[Beer Kaese]

Guys you could probably justify DFA'ing right now if you needed roster space:

 

Bard, Beeler, Cabrera, Lim, Raley, Gamel, Murphy, Vitters, Watkins, Bogusevic, Jackson

 

Guys who are one bad season away from joining that category:

 

Rusin, Barney, Olt, Szczur

 

We're nowhere near running out of room on the 40-man if we really need it.

That appears to be the most comprehensive list I've seen on any subject. Well done. The problem is that no one, not even AZPhil, does a list of rule 5 eligible 3 years out. The Cubs have added both top end and depth to the system in the last two years. Both AA and A+ were successful last year. That generally doesn't happen if you don't have a mix of high end and mid range talent with depth. Those guys are moving to AAA and AA next year. If you combine top end and mid range talent with cash available to spend you can see a lot of those names fly off the board in a hurry.

 

Bard?

[Beer Kaese]

Something that none of you seem to see is that we are close to having too many players than a 40 man roster can protect. We are rapidly reaching the point where we MUST move prospects for players.

We've discussed the 40 man in quite a few threads. And unless everyone here is missing evaluations on quite a few players, we're no where near having a true crunch. Are we in danger every year of having the Matt Loosen 's of the world plucked from us? Sure. Is it likely to affect us in ANY matter? Hell no.

 

Will we soon be making 3 for 1 trades where we're adding impact players? Hopefully, or else we're all likely to go crazy. But our 40 man is definitely manageable currently. It's not even close to being a real issue, nor is our ability to comprehend the daunting task of looking at it. Kyle summed up our current state pretty well, in my opinion. And with trades or without, we're no where near having an actual crunch.

The mistake in Kyle's post is the assumption that all named are likely to be worthless. Most I can buy, all . . . not likely. My guess is that Bryant, Baez, Wilson and other top end prospects combined with mid range prospests and . . . yes . . . free agents and players acquired via trade will eat up a lot of that space.

[Guest]

Guys you could probably justify DFA'ing right now if you needed roster space:

 

Bard, Beeler, Cabrera, Lim, Raley, Gamel, Murphy, Vitters, Watkins, Bogusevic, Jackson

 

Guys who are one bad season away from joining that category:

 

Rusin, Barney, Olt, Szczur

 

We're nowhere near running out of room on the 40-man if we really need it.

That appears to be the most comprehensive list I've seen on any subject. Well done. The problem is that no one, not even AZPhil, does a list of rule 5 eligible 3 years out. The Cubs have added both top end and depth to the system in the last two years. Both AA and A+ were successful last year. That generally doesn't happen if you don't have a mix of high end and mid range talent with depth. Those guys are moving to AAA and AA next year. If you combine top end and mid range talent with cash available to spend you can see a lot of those names fly off the board in a hurry.

 

Bard?

 

 

There's a reason that no one does Rule 5 lists 3 years out, and it's not an oversight.

 

Look at the rosters of those MiLB levels you're talking about, and find the players who will be Rule 5 eligible in the coming seasons. It's not a higher caliber than the players the team has exposed in the past, or that every team is forced to expose each year.

[Cubswin11]

Something that none of you seem to see is that we are close to having too many players than a 40 man roster can protect. We are rapidly reaching the point where we MUST move prospects for players.

We've discussed the 40 man in quite a few threads. And unless everyone here is missing evaluations on quite a few players, we're no where near having a true crunch. Are we in danger every year of having the Matt Loosen 's of the world plucked from us? Sure. Is it likely to affect us in ANY matter? Hell no.

 

Will we soon be making 3 for 1 trades where we're adding impact players? Hopefully, or else we're all likely to go crazy. But our 40 man is definitely manageable currently. It's not even close to being a real issue, nor is our ability to comprehend the daunting task of looking at it. Kyle summed up our current state pretty well, in my opinion. And with trades or without, we're no where near having an actual crunch.

The mistake in Kyle's post is the assumption that all named are likely to be worthless. Most I can buy, all . . . not likely. My guess is that Bryant, Baez, Wilson and other top end prospects combined with mid range prospests and . . . yes . . . free agents and players acquired via trade will eat up a lot of that space.

While "worthless" may be a strong word for those guys, they are all highly expendable. Most have ceilings of replacement value players/second division role/bench players exactly the types of guys you don't lose sleep over having to cut/DFA/expose to rule 5 to bring in a player via trade/FA or call up an impact prospect.

 

Also who the hell is Wilson?

[Beer Kaese]

Guys you could probably justify DFA'ing right now if you needed roster space:

 

Bard, Beeler, Cabrera, Lim, Raley, Gamel, Murphy, Vitters, Watkins, Bogusevic, Jackson

 

Guys who are one bad season away from joining that category:

 

Rusin, Barney, Olt, Szczur

 

We're nowhere near running out of room on the 40-man if we really need it.

That appears to be the most comprehensive list I've seen on any subject. Well done. The problem is that no one, not even AZPhil, does a list of rule 5 eligible 3 years out. The Cubs have added both top end and depth to the system in the last two years. Both AA and A+ were successful last year. That generally doesn't happen if you don't have a mix of high end and mid range talent with depth. Those guys are moving to AAA and AA next year. If you combine top end and mid range talent with cash available to spend you can see a lot of those names fly off the board in a hurry.

 

Bard?

 

 

There's a reason that no one does Rule 5 lists 3 years out, and it's not an oversight.

 

Look at the rosters of those MiLB levels you're talking about, and find the players who will be Rule 5 eligible in the coming seasons. It's not a higher caliber than the players the team has exposed in the past, or that every team is forced to expose each year.

 

Players are taken in rule 5 every year. There are rules that govern who is eligible.

 

Is it not service time and players unprotected on the 40 man?

[Guest]

There's a reason that no one does Rule 5 lists 3 years out, and it's not an oversight.

 

Look at the rosters of those MiLB levels you're talking about, and find the players who will be Rule 5 eligible in the coming seasons. It's not a higher caliber than the players the team has exposed in the past, or that every team is forced to expose each year.

 

Players are taken in rule 5 every year. There are rules that govern who is eligible.

 

Is it not service time and players unprotected on the 40 man?

 

Correct, players get drafted each year, sometimes Cubs players too. The point is that the type of player who might be exposed in the coming years is not a cause for concern. If the Cubs have to expose Dustin Geiger or Ben Wells to Rule 5 next year, that is not a problem worth worrying about or making moves to avoid.