Random Cubs Musings

[Clem Fandango]

Strasburg, IIRC.

[Andy]

It was definitely mentioned with George Springer and Gregory Polanco last year, and I'm sure was played up more than we're aware of by local media types in those cities.

[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.

 

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.

 

definitely. it'd have to be a clear cut scenario where they barely made the playoffs and bryant was basically mike trout.

[UMFan83]

 

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.

 

definitely. it'd have to be a clear cut scenario where they barely made the playoffs and bryant was basically mike trout.

 

and Olt sucked terribly the first 2 weeks of the season.

[SouthSideRyan]

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.

 

Corrupt his mind?

[Guest]

 

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.

 

definitely. it'd have to be a clear cut scenario where they barely made the playoffs and bryant was basically mike trout.

 

and Olt sucked terribly the first 2 weeks of the season.

 

olt doesn't play at all in this scenario. try to keep up!

[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.

Olt/LaStella/whomever hit .400/.500/.600 for 12 games, Cubs go 5-7, miss play in game by 1 game, meatballs still meatball.

[Cubswin11]

[expletive] Rovell... http://deadspin.com/even-the-chicago-cubs-are-owning-darren-rovell-1692276735

[Gmoney08]

Reading about this Rovell guy has been a hilarious 30 minutes.

[Guest]

It was definitely mentioned with George Springer and Gregory Polanco last year, and I'm sure was played up more than we're aware of by local media types in those cities.

 

This seems to be getting a bunch of national attention as well, which I don't remember happening to this extent with those guys last year.

[Guest]

why does it seem like media types are so reluctant to make a really positive prediction on the cubs?

 

they'll seriously spend 10 minutes just gushing about talent all over the field and power and everything, then they'll be like "i predict 80 wins for this team" just because young players. some think even .500 is an optimistic prediction. that's not to say they're all there. many do have them on the fringe of the wild card race and maybe even in a play in game.

 

i mean look at what lineups look like in baseball nowadays. i just look at this roster and all of the talent and i see a team that, on the upper end (i.e. a lot of things go right scenario), can win 90 games. i don't think it's the most likely outcome or anything, but i think mid 80's is pretty damn likely. many are in the "a lot of things go right" = .500 camp, and i think things have to go a little wrong to end up only in the 81-81 range. they bring up where we were last year, but we don't start having to make up for last year's record or something...we all start 0-0 and this is a vastly different roster.

 

also, this despite the fact that four of our starters are established players, two of which are really good. bryant and soler are pretty damn safe bets to be productive and above average hitters in this run environment. i mean, i know they're rookies, but a rizzo, soler, bryant, castro (in whatever order) stretch through a lineup looks pretty damn imposing compared to most lineups we see in the 2015 NL. not to mention how absolutely silly it gets if baez manages to do anything at 2B. the rotation looks very solid. bullpens can be unpredictable but it's not exactly an Achilles heel on paper. like, is it just a lazy/not wanting to stick their neck out thing?

Edited March 19, 2015 by David

[Banedon]

Because Cubs

[Guest]

Because Cubs

 

my favorite is hearing arkush say there's zero chance of them winning a world series this year (they were having a conversation about bryant i think) despite acknowledging bernstein saying he thinks they can nab a wild card. so they can win a wild card but they can't win a world series? haven't we seen the crapshooty playoffs thing enough times by now?

 

i probably should have posted these in rants

[Guest]

It's the 'they couldn't possibly improve by 15 games over last year' fallacy. If they had won 79 games instead of 73 due to better sequencing or something there wouldn't be as much hesitation. There'd still be some because some folks don't pay attention enough to avoid the 'they need a lot of production from unproven prospects to be good' fallacy, but it'd be better.

[jersey cubs fan]

why does it seem like media types are so reluctant to make a really positive prediction on the cubs?

 

they'll seriously spend 10 minutes just gushing about talent all over the field and power and everything, then they'll be like "i predict 80 wins for this team" just because young players. some think even .500 is an optimistic prediction. that's not to say they're all there. many do have them on the fringe of the wild card race and maybe even in a play in game.

 

i mean look at what lineups look like in baseball nowadays. i just look at this roster and all of the talent and i see a team that, on the upper end (i.e. a lot of things go right scenario), can win 90 games. i don't think it's the most likely outcome or anything, but i think mid 80's is pretty damn likely. many are in the "a lot of things go right" = .500 camp, and i think things have to go wrong to end up only in the 81-81 range. they bring up where we were last year, but we don't start having to make up for last year's record or something...we all start 0-0 and this is a vastly different roster.

 

also, this despite the fact that four of our starters are established players, two of which are really good. bryant and soler are pretty damn safe bets to be productive and above average hitters in this run environment. i mean, i know they're rookies, but a rizzo, soler, bryant, castro (in whatever order) stretch through a lineup looks pretty damn imposing compared to most lineups we see in the 2015 NL. not to mention how absolutely silly it gets if baez manages to do anything at 2B. the rotation looks very solid. bullpens can be unpredictable but it's not exactly an Achilles heel on paper. like, is it just a lazy/not wanting to stick their neck out thing?

 

you may call it "just because young players" but it is very reasonable to have doubt about all the of the young hitters the Cubs are counting on to have an offense this year to translate immediately. People generally do not predict players to do stuff they've never done before, and none of these guys has put up a quality major league season. Starlin Castro is 2 years removed from a very disappointing season and still has a reputation for being somewhat disappointing.

 

And the Cubs have been absolutely horrible for several years.

 

The media loves picking the Cubs to be good when the Cubs are good. They were darlings of the media last decade, but it was short lived, and that was partially due to a highly touted farm system being disappointing.

 

I would not call it lazy. I think it's healthy skepticism. The Cubs themselves have pointed to 2016 and beyond when they will truly be competitors. Until you are actually good you are not going to get credit for probably going to be good.

[Guest]

It's the 'they couldn't possibly improve by 15 games over last year' fallacy. If they had won 79 games instead of 73 due to better sequencing or something there wouldn't be as much hesitation. There'd still be some because some folks don't pay attention enough to avoid the 'they need a lot of production from unproven prospects to be good' fallacy, but it'd be better.

 

I think Theo has even alluded to this type of jump before, right? Hasn't he talked about progress not being linear and reaching a point where we'd jump from 75 wins to 90 or something like that?

[Banedon]

Because Cubs

 

my favorite is hearing arkush say there's zero chance of them winning a world series this year (they were having a conversation about bryant i think) despite acknowledging bernstein saying he thinks they can nab a wild card. so they can win a wild card but they can't win a world series? haven't we seen the crapshooty playoffs thing enough times by now?

 

i probably should have posted these in rants

 

Wait, this is Hub Arkush's opinion on baseball that you're getting worked up over?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

why does it seem like media types are so reluctant to make a really positive prediction on the cubs?

 

Because people, and *especially* the media, are slaves to narrative. We want to impose narrative on everything because we don't like randomness as an explanation.

 

"The Cubs are on an intermediate step in their ascent to greatness" is a narrative too good to resist. It's way preferable to "The Cubs are a baseball team who will play baseball games and maybe win a lot of them but who knows because baseball is weird."

[jersey cubs fan]

It's the 'they couldn't possibly improve by 15 games over last year' fallacy. If they had won 79 games instead of 73 due to better sequencing or something there wouldn't be as much hesitation. There'd still be some because some folks don't pay attention enough to avoid the 'they need a lot of production from unproven prospects to be good' fallacy, but it'd be better.

 

I think Theo has even alluded to this type of jump before, right? Hasn't he talked about progress not being linear and reaching a point where we'd jump from 75 wins to 90 or something like that?

Theo has used the word linear so often I am certain he used it in this context, and just about every other possible context.

[Guest]

It's the 'they couldn't possibly improve by 15 games over last year' fallacy. If they had won 79 games instead of 73 due to better sequencing or something there wouldn't be as much hesitation. There'd still be some because some folks don't pay attention enough to avoid the 'they need a lot of production from unproven prospects to be good' fallacy, but it'd be better.

 

I think Theo has even alluded to this type of jump before, right? Hasn't he talked about progress not being linear and reaching a point where we'd jump from 75 wins to 90 or something like that?

 

Maybe, but the people you're talking about are far more comfortable in their own (mostly backwards) logic than what a front office member has to say, especially when the two are opposing viewpoints.

[Guest]

why does it seem like media types are so reluctant to make a really positive prediction on the cubs?

 

they'll seriously spend 10 minutes just gushing about talent all over the field and power and everything, then they'll be like "i predict 80 wins for this team" just because young players. some think even .500 is an optimistic prediction. that's not to say they're all there. many do have them on the fringe of the wild card race and maybe even in a play in game.

 

i mean look at what lineups look like in baseball nowadays. i just look at this roster and all of the talent and i see a team that, on the upper end (i.e. a lot of things go right scenario), can win 90 games. i don't think it's the most likely outcome or anything, but i think mid 80's is pretty damn likely. many are in the "a lot of things go right" = .500 camp, and i think things have to go wrong to end up only in the 81-81 range. they bring up where we were last year, but we don't start having to make up for last year's record or something...we all start 0-0 and this is a vastly different roster.

 

also, this despite the fact that four of our starters are established players, two of which are really good. bryant and soler are pretty damn safe bets to be productive and above average hitters in this run environment. i mean, i know they're rookies, but a rizzo, soler, bryant, castro (in whatever order) stretch through a lineup looks pretty damn imposing compared to most lineups we see in the 2015 NL. not to mention how absolutely silly it gets if baez manages to do anything at 2B. the rotation looks very solid. bullpens can be unpredictable but it's not exactly an Achilles heel on paper. like, is it just a lazy/not wanting to stick their neck out thing?

 

you may call it "just because young players" but it is very reasonable to have doubt about all the of the young hitters the Cubs are counting on to have an offense this year to translate immediately. People generally do not predict players to do stuff they've never done before, and none of these guys has put up a quality major league season. Starlin Castro is 2 years removed from a very disappointing season and still has a reputation for being somewhat disappointing.

 

And the Cubs have been absolutely horrible for several years.

 

The media loves picking the Cubs to be good when the Cubs are good. They were darlings of the media last decade, but it was short lived, and that was partially due to a highly touted farm system being disappointing.

 

I would not call it lazy. I think it's healthy skepticism. The Cubs themselves have pointed to 2016 and beyond when they will truly be competitors. Until you are actually good you are not going to get credit for probably going to be good.

 

but is it really that crazy to expect guys who are being looked at the way bryant and soler are being looked at to be good enough to be competent as 3rd and 4th best hitters in a lineup? that's not really asking a lot by today's standards.

 

i don't think it's really reasonable to be all that skeptical about castro given his track record. he had one very bad year but 4 good to very good ones before his 25th (24th? - i cant keep track anymore) birthday.

[Guest]

Because Cubs

 

my favorite is hearing arkush say there's zero chance of them winning a world series this year (they were having a conversation about bryant i think) despite acknowledging bernstein saying he thinks they can nab a wild card. so they can win a wild card but they can't win a world series? haven't we seen the crapshooty playoffs thing enough times by now?

 

i probably should have posted these in rants

 

Wait, this is Hub Arkush's opinion on baseball that you're getting worked up over?

 

just one example that i heard on monday during a transition from B&B to hub. def not what i'm basing this entire thing on.

[jersey cubs fan]

why does it seem like media types are so reluctant to make a really positive prediction on the cubs?

 

Because people, and *especially* the media, are slaves to narrative. We want to impose narrative on everything because we don't like randomness as an explanation.

 

"The Cubs are on an intermediate step in their ascent to greatness" is a narrative too good to resist. It's way preferable to "The Cubs are a baseball team who will play baseball games and maybe win a lot of them but who knows because baseball is weird."

 

it's preferable because your story is dumb

[jersey cubs fan]

but is it really that crazy to expect guys who are being looked at the way bryant and soler are being looked at to be good enough to be competent as 3rd and 4th best hitters in a lineup? that's not really asking a lot by today's standards.

I don't think it is crazy to think they will be good, but that is a different story than thinking it is crazy to remain skeptical until you've seen it done.

[Guest]

It's the 'they couldn't possibly improve by 15 games over last year' fallacy. If they had won 79 games instead of 73 due to better sequencing or something there wouldn't be as much hesitation. There'd still be some because some folks don't pay attention enough to avoid the 'they need a lot of production from unproven prospects to be good' fallacy, but it'd be better.

 

I think Theo has even alluded to this type of jump before, right? Hasn't he talked about progress not being linear and reaching a point where we'd jump from 75 wins to 90 or something like that?

 

Maybe, but the people you're talking about are far more comfortable in their own (mostly backwards) logic than what a front office member has to say, especially when the two are opposing viewpoints.

 

 

i guess i just want to hear even one of these people say "i think they could win the division"

 

even the most optimistic and positive stop short of it.