Random Cubs Musings

[Guest]

Best case scenario: The Cubs go something like 10-2 in their first 12 games, then call Bryant up.

then go 150-0

[NonProfitCow]

Best case scenario: The Cubs go something like 10-2 in their first 12 games, then call Bryant up.

Cubs go 5-7, miss play in game by 1 game, meatballs meatball.

[Guest]

Best case scenario: The Cubs go something like 10-2 in their first 12 games, then call Bryant up.

Cubs go 5-7, miss play in game by 1 game, meatballs meatball.

:banned:

[Guest]

Best case scenario: The Cubs go something like 10-2 in their first 12 games, then call Bryant up.

Cubs go 5-7, miss play in game by 1 game, meatballs meatball.

That would be a case where there would be a little merit to the argument. Everyone knows why the Cubs are doing this, but it doesn't change the fact that they are making a decision to not put their best team out to start the season.

[Guest]

Best case scenario: The Cubs go something like 10-2 in their first 12 games, then call Bryant up.

Cubs go 5-7, miss play in game by 1 game, meatballs meatball.

That would be a case where there would be a little merit to the argument. Everyone knows why the Cubs are doing this, but it doesn't change the fact that they are making a decision to not put their best team out to start the season.

 

There would be no merit because that would be hindsight based thinking. You make decisions based on what the probabilities say is most likely. That doesn't make those bad decisions if the unlikely winds up happening (where we miss the playoffs because we waited a couple of weeks to call up Bryant - which would still carry the assumption that Bryant would have necessarily helped in those couple of weeks more than whoever was playing instead of him).

 

And if Bryant immediately Mike Trouts and you had him up for the whole season and you make the playoffs by one game, that doesn't make it the right move. It makes it the wrong move that worked out in a good way. You can only make decisions based on what the probabilities are going forward.

[Guest]

Best case scenario: The Cubs go something like 10-2 in their first 12 games, then call Bryant up.

Cubs go 5-7, miss play in game by 1 game, meatballs meatball.

That would be a case where there would be a little merit to the argument. Everyone knows why the Cubs are doing this, but it doesn't change the fact that they are making a decision to not put their best team out to start the season.

 

There would be no merit because that would be hindsight based thinking. You make decisions based on what the probabilities say is most likely. That doesn't make those bad decisions if the unlikely winds up happening (where we miss the playoffs because we waited a couple of weeks to call up Bryant - which would still carry the assumption that Bryant would have necessarily helped in those couple of weeks more than whoever was playing instead of him).

 

And if Bryant immediately Mike Trouts and you had him up for the whole season and you make the playoffs by one game, that doesn't make it the right move. It makes it the wrong move that worked out in a good way. You can only make decisions based on what the probabilities are going forward.

Life is a results oriented equation. The best available information says Bryant should be playing baseball for the Chicago Cubs. If they choose to have him start the season for any team other than the Cubs they are choosing not to put their best team on the field. Everyone gets the short term pain for long term gain argument, but that is not a decision inthe best interest of winning the most games this year.

 

If they lose out by a game they can be criticized for their decision. Results matter and it's not a micro decision like putting in pitcher X over Y in game 78. It's a macro decision over the cours of a significant number of games.

[jersey cubs fan]

The best available information says Bryant should be playing baseball for the Chicago Cubs.

 

true, except for the first two weeks. The best available information says they are better off holding him out for two weeks.

[Guest]

Life is a results oriented equation. The best available information says Bryant should be playing baseball for the Chicago Cubs. If they choose to have him start the season for any team other than the Cubs they are choosing not to put their best team on the field. Everyone gets the short term pain for long term gain argument, but that is not a decision inthe best interest of winning the most games this year.

 

If they lose out by a game they can be criticized for their decision. Results matter and it's not a micro decision like putting in pitcher X over Y in game 78. It's a macro decision over the cours of a significant number of games.

 

Let me ask you a question.

 

If you're playing blackjack, and you have an 18, and the dealer is showing a 3, and you hit, manage to pull a 3 for yourself and the dealer ends up pulling a king and a 7, did you make a good decision in hitting your 18?

[jersey cubs fan]

Life is a results oriented equation. The best available information says Bryant should be playing baseball for the Chicago Cubs. If they choose to have him start the season for any team other than the Cubs they are choosing not to put their best team on the field. Everyone gets the short term pain for long term gain argument, but that is not a decision inthe best interest of winning the most games this year.

 

If they lose out by a game they can be criticized for their decision. Results matter and it's not a micro decision like putting in pitcher X over Y in game 78. It's a macro decision over the cours of a significant number of games.

 

Let me ask you a question.

 

If you're playing blackjack, and you have an 18, and the dealer is showing a 3, and you hit, manage to pull a 3 for yourself and the dealer ends up pulling a king and a 7, did you make a good decision in hitting your 18?

hell yeah, you walked away with money baby!!!!!!!

[Guest]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/kris-bryant-and-the-mlb-careers-of-colleges-best-player/ yet another kris bryant article. this one has nothing to do with service time.

[SouthSideRyan]

The right move was to call him up last year when everyone else was called up. They didn't so, oh well. The only annoying thing is going to be if he's held down for 25 days, rather than 12 to keep up appearances

[Sammy Sofa]

The best available information says Bryant should be playing baseball for the Chicago Cubs.

 

true, except for the first two weeks. The best available information says they are better off holding him out for two weeks.

 

He's basically saying that getting an extra year of control isn't a "result" because reasons.

[SouthSideRyan]

Life is a results oriented equation. The best available information says Bryant should be playing baseball for the Chicago Cubs. If they choose to have him start the season for any team other than the Cubs they are choosing not to put their best team on the field. Everyone gets the short term pain for long term gain argument, but that is not a decision inthe best interest of winning the most games this year.

 

If they lose out by a game they can be criticized for their decision. Results matter and it's not a micro decision like putting in pitcher X over Y in game 78. It's a macro decision over the cours of a significant number of games.

 

Let me ask you a question.

 

If you're playing blackjack, and you have an 18, and the dealer is showing a 3, and you hit, manage to pull a 3 for yourself and the dealer ends up pulling a king and a 7, did you make a good decision in hitting your 18?

 

Was I A-7?

[Guest]

The best available information says Bryant should be playing baseball for the Chicago Cubs.

 

true, except for the first two weeks. The best available information says they are better off holding him out for two weeks.

 

He's basically saying that getting an extra year of control isn't a "result" because reasons.

 

well, you can make a pretty good case that if it makes the difference between a playoff spot in 2015 and not, the playoff result is a better result than the extra year result. the problem is you have no way of knowing if that very unlikely scenario is going to play out ahead of time so you can't make a decision based on it happening.

[Guest]

Life is a results oriented equation. The best available information says Bryant should be playing baseball for the Chicago Cubs. If they choose to have him start the season for any team other than the Cubs they are choosing not to put their best team on the field. Everyone gets the short term pain for long term gain argument, but that is not a decision inthe best interest of winning the most games this year.

 

If they lose out by a game they can be criticized for their decision. Results matter and it's not a micro decision like putting in pitcher X over Y in game 78. It's a macro decision over the cours of a significant number of games.

 

Let me ask you a question.

 

If you're playing blackjack, and you have an 18, and the dealer is showing a 3, and you hit, manage to pull a 3 for yourself and the dealer ends up pulling a king and a 7, did you make a good decision in hitting your 18?

 

Was I A-7?

 

damnit i knew i should've been more specific

 

no, you were K8

[jersey cubs fan]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/kris-bryant-and-the-mlb-careers-of-colleges-best-player/ yet another kris bryant article. this one has nothing to do with service time.

 

Not a fan of using "winner of golden spikes award" as the basis for comparison.

[Sammy Sofa]

The best available information says Bryant should be playing baseball for the Chicago Cubs.

 

true, except for the first two weeks. The best available information says they are better off holding him out for two weeks.

 

He's basically saying that getting an extra year of control isn't a "result" because reasons.

 

well, you can make a pretty good case that if it makes the difference between a playoff spot in 2015 and not, the playoff result is a better result than the extra year result. the problem is you have no way of knowing if that very unlikely scenario is going to play out ahead of time so you can't make a decision based on it happening.

 

It just seems like it would even be tricky to quantify whether or not one player took a team to the playoffs. Between that and, like you said, how unlikely it is that that would be the case, it seems like such a silly thing to get worked up over.

[SouthSideRyan]

 

It just seems like it would even be tricky to quantify whether or not one player took a team to the playoffs.

 

I wish both sides would agree to this rather than telling people how stupid they are because it only costs the team 0.4 wins.

[jersey cubs fan]

Mark Gonzales ‏@MDGonzales 2m2 minutes ago Mesa, AZ

Says teammates and coaches want him on the roster

 

Mark Gonzales ‏@MDGonzales 2m2 minutes ago Mesa, AZ

Bryant said he was aware of Boras' comments but said his agent didn't solicit reporters

 

Mark Gonzales ‏@MDGonzales 3m3 minutes ago

Bryant likes been represented by "bulldog" Boras, but says he has full respect for Ricketts

[Sammy Sofa]

Mark Gonzales ‏@MDGonzales 3m3 minutes ago

Bryant likes been represented by "bulldog" Boras, but says he has full respect for Ricketts

 

If you read this like it's being said by Chekov it's pretty great.

[UMFan83]

Mark Gonzales ‏@MDGonzales 2m2 minutes ago Mesa, AZ

Says teammates and coaches want him on the roster

 

Mark Gonzales ‏@MDGonzales 2m2 minutes ago Mesa, AZ

Bryant said he was aware of Boras' comments but said his agent didn't solicit reporters

 

Mark Gonzales ‏@MDGonzales 3m3 minutes ago

Bryant likes been represented by "bulldog" Boras, but says he has full respect for Ricketts

 

I'm glad Bryant is taking the high road publicly and not letting Boras corrupt his mind. It's kind of a shitty situation for him to be in the middle of, especially with all the drama in the media. But you have to put part of the blame on the PA for agreeing to it. The "loophole" had been exploited multiple times already when the last CBA was agreed to a few years ago. The Cubs are playing within the rules, and there's always a very slight risk that they are taking that the player is not put off by this and heads elsewhere when he finally becomes a FA.

[Cubswin11]

Has there ever been this much public outcry, or at least discussion, over a team "exploiting" this rule for a player before?

[Guest]

Mark Gonzales ‏@MDGonzales 2m2 minutes ago Mesa, AZ

Says teammates and coaches want him on the roster

 

Mark Gonzales ‏@MDGonzales 2m2 minutes ago Mesa, AZ

Bryant said he was aware of Boras' comments but said his agent didn't solicit reporters

 

Mark Gonzales ‏@MDGonzales 3m3 minutes ago

Bryant likes been represented by "bulldog" Boras, but says he has full respect for Ricketts

 

I'm glad Bryant is taking the high road publicly and not letting Boras corrupt his mind. It's kind of a [expletive] situation for him to be in the middle of, especially with all the drama in the media. But you have to put part of the blame on the PA for agreeing to it. The "loophole" had been exploited multiple times already when the last CBA was agreed to a few years ago. The Cubs are playing within the rules, and there's always a very slight risk that they are taking that the player is not put off by this and heads elsewhere when he finally becomes a FA.

I don't think Bryant is put off by it at all. I don't think Boras is either. I think they know that its part of the business. If he's as good as advertised the Cubs or some other team are going to pay him handsomely.

[jersey cubs fan]

Has there ever been this much public outcry, or at least discussion, over a team "exploiting" this rule for a player before?

 

Probably not.

 

The Cubs, and especially Cubs prospects, are one of the most talked about things in baseball. Media outlets know this and exploit it. Bryant has been a more productive #1 prospect than just about any prospect in recent memory. Boras is his agent. Plus, over time the amount of public outcry in the internet era has only gone up. So there are a lot of things combining to pretty much guarantee that it would receive the most outcry.

[UMFan83]

Has there ever been this much public outcry, or at least discussion, over a team "exploiting" this rule for a player before?

 

I remember there being some outcry with Evan Longoria in 2008 but I think he quickly signed a contract to eat up his arb years so the outcry went away quickly.