4/11 Cubs (Shark) at Cards (Kelly) 7:15 CSN+

[mul21]

You missed the fail by Kalish last night for sure and maybe one other.

[Guest]

Of course, because 3 outings is too small a sample size to give up on Veras already.

 

I don't want to give up on him, I just think he needs some low leverage situations to get his [expletive] back together and he needs to be not giving away games while he figures it out.

 

 

His mechanics are completely off. He needs to be fixed. Declaring someone the closer is stupid to begin with but running someone as messed up as Veras is not too smart.

[sneakypower]

You missed the fail by Kalish last night for sure and maybe one other.

i considered that as a hit attempt, it's not really ever a sacrifice with a runner on the corners unless you're having an inept pitcher bunt there

[mul21]

You missed the fail by Kalish last night for sure and maybe one other.

i considered that as a hit attempt, it's not really ever a sacrifice with a runner on the corners unless you're having an inept pitcher bunt there

 

It was a safety squeeze, that's definitely a sacrifice attempt.

[ConstableRabbit]

There's nothing wrong with getting pissed off about moves that decrease win probability. Yes, on average, it's decreased 1.5-2%...But how about we make moves that don't decrease it at all?

[jersey cubs fan]

You missed the fail by Kalish last night for sure and maybe one other.

i considered that as a hit attempt, it's not really ever a sacrifice with a runner on the corners unless you're having an inept pitcher bunt there

 

It was a safety squeeze, that's definitely a sacrifice attempt.

The sac fails never count the wasted pa where the guy fails to get a bunt down and subsequently makes an out. It's dumb.

[Guest]

NSBB 2004-2011: We need to rebuild.

 

NSBB 2012-2014: BAWWWW Why are we rebuilding?!?!

 

Nobody on nsbb ever wanted to rebuild

 

Also you can rebuild without tanking for 3 years

 

There might be some financial reasons involved but it appears that at least the Astros and Cubs believe tanking is the best way to rebuild in this era of the new CBA. The new CBA promotes tanking as a viable option, even in drafts when there are no Bryce Harpers.

[Andy]

NSBB 2004-2011: We need to rebuild.

 

NSBB 2012-2014: BAWWWW Why are we rebuilding?!?!

 

Nobody on nsbb ever wanted to rebuild

 

Also you can rebuild without tanking for 3 years

 

There might be some financial reasons involved but it appears that at least the Astros and Cubs believe tanking is the best way to rebuild in this era of the new CBA. The new CBA promotes tanking as a viable option, even in drafts when there are no Bryce Harpers.

Yeah, as much as I hate tanking and kind of residually hate Theo for doing it, the fact is the CBA changes post-2011 all but told teams that if they don't think they can make the playoffs they should be tanking. Which is a [expletive] joke, but as long as it's the system, then tanking's the way to go.

[Guest]

NSBB 2004-2011: We need to rebuild.

 

NSBB 2012-2014: BAWWWW Why are we rebuilding?!?!

 

Nobody on nsbb ever wanted to rebuild

 

Also you can rebuild without tanking for 3 years

 

There might be some financial reasons involved but it appears that at least the Astros and Cubs believe tanking is the best way to rebuild in this era of the new CBA. The new CBA promotes tanking as a viable option, even in drafts when there are no Bryce Harpers.

Yeah, as much as I hate tanking and kind of residually hate Theo for doing it, the fact is the CBA changes post-2011 all but told teams that if they don't think they can make the playoffs they should be tanking. Which is a [expletive] joke, but as long as it's the system, then tanking's the way to go.

Its bad for the long term health of baseball. I hope they rework the CBA soon.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The new CBA is really, really not that much different than the old CBA.

[davell]

The new CBA is really, really not that much different than the old CBA.

 

Really? I disagree completely. My guess is Stephen Drew and Kendrys Morales side with me. I know I wish it had stayed the same, that's for sure.

[Guest]

The new CBA is really, really not that much different than the old CBA.

Except the small differences make it difficult to rebuild through free agency and the draft. The intent was to curb spending by the big boys, but the unintended consequences have rewarded teams for not trying. The new CBA sort of rewards the status quo.

[jersey cubs fan]

The new CBA is really, really not that much different than the old CBA.

Except the small differences make it difficult to rebuild through free agency and the draft. The intent was to curb spending by the big boys, but the unintended consequences have rewarded teams for not trying. The new CBA sort of rewards the status quo.

 

It rewards being the best at judging talent.

[Guest]

The new CBA is really, really not that much different than the old CBA.

Except the small differences make it difficult to rebuild through free agency and the draft. The intent was to curb spending by the big boys, but the unintended consequences have rewarded teams for not trying. The new CBA sort of rewards the status quo.

 

It rewards being the best at judging talent.

Enlighten me.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The new CBA is really, really not that much different than the old CBA.

Except the small differences make it difficult to rebuild through free agency and the draft. The intent was to curb spending by the big boys, but the unintended consequences have rewarded teams for not trying. The new CBA sort of rewards the status quo.

 

The new CBA isn't what's making it harder to find useful players in free agency. There's basically two factors at work there:

 

1) League-wide economics, independent of the most recent CBA, are improving the state of affairs for small-market teams and allowing them to keep more of their players

 

2) The aging curve is shifting radically downward, meaning players who reach free agency in their late 20s and early 30s may already be in sharp decline. Better PED enforcement is probably the big cause of this, and my pet theory is that the rise in velocity is also contributing.

[Cubswin11]

The new CBA is really, really not that much different than the old CBA.

Except the small differences make it difficult to rebuild through free agency and the draft. The intent was to curb spending by the big boys, but the unintended consequences have rewarded teams for not trying. The new CBA sort of rewards the status quo.

 

It rewards being the best at judging talent.

Enlighten me.

Guessing he's talking about since spending on the draft and international free agency is capped teams need to do a better job of identifying talent since they are limited on what they can spend and thus the quality/quantity of players they can add every year is minimized.

[SouthSideRyan]

Haha, missed Omar's post, but who could forget those halcyon days of Summer of '08 when everyone begged Hendry to stop trying for 6 years.

[jersey cubs fan]

The new CBA is really, really not that much different than the old CBA.

Except the small differences make it difficult to rebuild through free agency and the draft. The intent was to curb spending by the big boys, but the unintended consequences have rewarded teams for not trying. The new CBA sort of rewards the status quo.

 

It rewards being the best at judging talent.

Enlighten me.

 

It doesn't reward status quo, because status quo is the good rich teams will stay good because they can just overspend on the draft and internation signings in lieu of high draft picks. But that isn't possible anymore. So they will still be rich and good, but will not have that influx of young talent without the willingness to trade away their good older players.

 

You can exploit this system by tanking and stockpiling all that young talent, but most organizations can't afford to screw over their fans for very long and most front offices won't have enough time to benefit from this plan.

 

If you are a good front office that can draft and acquire talent without the help of a top 5 draft pick/allocation, you will be most rewarded. You will win games in the majors but still create maintain value in your system without the benefit of "cheating" (tanking or overspending).

[jersey cubs fan]

Haha, missed Omar's post, but who could forget those halcyon days of Summer of '08 when everyone begged Hendry to stop trying for 6 years.

 

Prayed for it everyday.

[Guest]

The new CBA is really, really not that much different than the old CBA.

Except the small differences make it difficult to rebuild through free agency and the draft. The intent was to curb spending by the big boys, but the unintended consequences have rewarded teams for not trying. The new CBA sort of rewards the status quo.

 

It rewards being the best at judging talent.

Enlighten me.

 

It doesn't reward status quo, because status quo is the good rich teams will stay good because they can just overspend on the draft and internation signings in lieu of high draft picks. But that isn't possible anymore. So they will still be rich and good, but will not have that influx of young talent without the willingness to trade away their good older players.

 

You can exploit this system by tanking and stockpiling all that young talent, but most organizations can't afford to screw over their fans for very long and most front offices won't have enough time to benefit from this plan.

 

If you are a good front office that can draft and acquire talent without the help of a top 5 draft pick/allocation, you will be most rewarded. You will win games in the majors but still create maintain value in your system without the benefit of "cheating" (tanking or overspending).

I mostly agree with everything, but how is being a good a judge of talent more rewarded than it was before? All of the above was equally important before the new CBA.

[jersey cubs fan]

I mostly agree with everything, but how is being a good a judge of talent more rewarded than it was before? All of the above was equally important before the new CBA.

 

You could be a good judge, but maybe not an aggressive spender, or you worked for an owner that would not allow aggressive spending.

[mul21]

The new CBA is really, really not that much different than the old CBA.

 

Really? I disagree completely. My guess is Stephen Drew and Kendrys Morales side with me. I know I wish it had stayed the same, that's for sure.

 

Yeah, the middling FA who would have been Type B guys in the past are the ones who are really most affected by and affecting the market. Theo's exploitation of extra picks is basically gone because of the new CBA and the only way to get compensated is by using a QO, which is a risk in most cases due to the high annual salary it brings with it. Plus, the guys like Morales and Drew are getting screwed by going after a longer deal instead of the 1 year high salary deal.

[mul21]

I mostly agree with everything, but how is being a good a judge of talent more rewarded than it was before? All of the above was equally important before the new CBA.

 

You could be a good judge, but maybe not an aggressive spender, or you worked for an owner that would not allow aggressive spending.

 

It's an even bigger factor in the draft now too. You can't just rely on being able to over slot guys who fall that small market teams let pass by them.