2015 Cubs-Related Trade Deadline Rumor Thread

[Bryants Disco Ball]

When Sofa and David post back to back to back to back, it's really difficult to figure out which one you're reading. Hahaha.

[Guest]

This not the right time to go all in. The right time is when you're the Royals and you have a really good team and you can add a few pieces to solidify your chance at winning a championship.

 

Could not be more unequivocally wrong. The right time is when you need to make a move to increase your chances of getting in the playoffs. Doing it when you're solidly in makes far less sense.

 

The moves are a lot about getting into the playoffs, not very much what you do once you're there.

 

Damn it, David. I don't care about the "just get to the playoffs and anything can happen" card. Not with this current Cubs team. Playoffs or not, the chances of us winning it all this year are so damn remote. I'm not willing to give up a lot of stuff for that unrealistic dream.

 

And, we disagree. I thought it was the perfect time for the Royals to go all-in.

 

The Cubs have 2 of the top 10 pitchers in the NL(and 4 of the top 21) in FIP, a strong bullpen and a lot of talented hitters(including one playing at a near-MVP level). They're on pace to win 87 games in the toughest division in baseball. They are a good team and would be extremely dangerous in the playoffs. Just because they can be frustrating to watch day to day(which is true of 29 other teams because baseball is a game of failure) doesn't change their ability.

 

That said, if you want to talk about going 'all in' like the Royals this year, I don't know if there's ever a time when you *want* the Cubs to do that. Making those moves is an indicator that the Royals know they don't have a large window of opportunity, and they're right. The Cubs should be making the right draft/IFA/development decisions and be spending enough money that there's always a bright future that you don't want to completely mortgage for an incremental improvement in any one season.

 

That doesn't mean you don't try to improve the team though, and I'm happy with the way they approached the deadline. The names they were attached to, Ross, Carrasco, Kimbrel, they were going after guys who if they carried high price tags, were going to help push them this year and in future seasons. Just trying doesn't mean success though, they didn't get one of those guys, and they didn't succeed. By adding Haren they didn't fail and leave a glaring pit of a hole on the roster, and given their behavior since last October(additions of Lester, Montero, Fowler; promotions of Russell and Schwarber) I'm not overly worried, but being glad they didn't mortgage the future for David Price is not equivalent to having a successful deadline.

[Sammy Sofa]

When Sofa and David post back to back to back to back, it's really difficult to figure out which one you're reading. Hahaha.

 

They should all have glowing eyes.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The Cubs should be making the right draft/IFA/development decisions and be spending enough money that there's always a bright future that you don't want to completely mortgage for an incremental improvement in any one season.

 

Taking that into a tangent, how sure are we that we're seeing what we'd need to see from such an organization? We've hit on 2 of 3 top-10 picks, we've traded MLB assets for some good prospects, and we paid a lot of money for Soler. But is the grassroots organizational waves and waves thing really happening? The 2012 draft, for example, feels awfully meh in retrospect.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

This not the right time to go all in. The right time is when you're the Royals and you have a really good team and you can add a few pieces to solidify your chance at winning a championship.

 

Could not be more unequivocally wrong. The right time is when you need to make a move to increase your chances of getting in the playoffs. Doing it when you're solidly in makes far less sense.

 

The moves are a lot about getting into the playoffs, not very much what you do once you're there.

 

Damn it, David. I don't care about the "just get to the playoffs and anything can happen" card. Not with this current Cubs team. Playoffs or not, the chances of us winning it all this year are so damn remote. I'm not willing to give up a lot of stuff for that unrealistic dream.

 

And, we disagree. I thought it was the perfect time for the Royals to go all-in.

 

Then you don't care about reality. That's what the playoffs are. Other than the obvious disadvantage to the wild cards before the play in game, the teams all have more or less equal odds of getting through. That's just what it is.

 

And if you do believe there's such a thing as being built for the playoffs, you can't ask much more than having 2015 Jake arrieta, Jon Lester, and Jason Hammel all on your team.

 

So, go with me on this. Pretend the Cubs make the playoffs this season and someone gives you $1,000 to bet on which team you think will win the Series. When you're looking at the list of eight teams, how many would you pick before the Cubs? I'd probably have seven, which to me, means I don't like the odds despite having a chance.

[Guest]

I'm still not convinced Haren is going to be a significant improvement over our sack of fifth starter crap.

 

damnit all I wanted was kazmir.

[Guest]

This not the right time to go all in. The right time is when you're the Royals and you have a really good team and you can add a few pieces to solidify your chance at winning a championship.

 

Could not be more unequivocally wrong. The right time is when you need to make a move to increase your chances of getting in the playoffs. Doing it when you're solidly in makes far less sense.

 

The moves are a lot about getting into the playoffs, not very much what you do once you're there.

 

Damn it, David. I don't care about the "just get to the playoffs and anything can happen" card. Not with this current Cubs team. Playoffs or not, the chances of us winning it all this year are so damn remote. I'm not willing to give up a lot of stuff for that unrealistic dream.

 

And, we disagree. I thought it was the perfect time for the Royals to go all-in.

 

Then you don't care about reality. That's what the playoffs are. Other than the obvious disadvantage to the wild cards before the play in game, the teams all have more or less equal odds of getting through. That's just what it is.

 

And if you do believe there's such a thing as being built for the playoffs, you can't ask much more than having 2015 Jake arrieta, Jon Lester, and Jason Hammel all on your team.

 

So, go with me on this. Pretend the Cubs make the playoffs this season and someone gives you $1,000 to bet on which team you think will win the Series. When you're looking at the list of eight teams, how many would you pick before the Cubs? I'd probably have seven, which to me, means I don't like the odds despite having a chance.

 

I'd be very likely to lose on any of them, but I'd pick the one with the longest payout odds because they all really should be more or less the same.

 

All your hypothetical demonstrated is that a- you don' have a good sense of how good the cubs really are and b- you still don't understand how the playoffs actually work.

[Sammy Sofa]

So, go with me on this. Pretend the Cubs make the playoffs this season and someone gives you $1,000 to bet on which team you think will win the Series. When you're looking at the list of eight teams, how many would you pick before the Cubs? I'd probably have seven, which to me, means I don't like the odds despite having a chance.

 

There are, coincidentally, only 7 teams with a better record than the Cubs right now. Odds are there's always going to be better teams out there.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

[expletive], I couldn't split the quotes like you, Sofa.

 

But I was saying that I do think the Cubs are going to be pretty damn awesome sooner than later, and while certainly not just winning divisions easy, will be considered one of the best in the NL. I have a tremendous amount of faith in our young guys, and anticipate the team signing a billion dollar TV contract in a few years and being much like the Dodgers to an extent. Which also is the team I'd respond to your question about regarding which legit contenders make key deadline deals.

 

I'm really not trying to pick on this so much, but you say "considered one of the best in the NL" like it's a thing in the future when they have the 5th best record in the NL right now. If a top 5 team isn't one of the best, then what is?

 

That's fair. This is a horrible answer and you deserve better, but it's like porn. I don't know how to truly define what the Cubs being one of the best means, but I will know it when I see it. We all will.

 

And it will be even better than watching porn. I mean, I assume it would be. I don't watch porn.

[Sammy Sofa]

[expletive], I couldn't split the quotes like you, Sofa.

 

But I was saying that I do think the Cubs are going to be pretty damn awesome sooner than later, and while certainly not just winning divisions easy, will be considered one of the best in the NL. I have a tremendous amount of faith in our young guys, and anticipate the team signing a billion dollar TV contract in a few years and being much like the Dodgers to an extent. Which also is the team I'd respond to your question about regarding which legit contenders make key deadline deals.

 

I'm really not trying to pick on this so much, but you say "considered one of the best in the NL" like it's a thing in the future when they have the 5th best record in the NL right now. If a top 5 team isn't one of the best, then what is?

 

That's fair. This is a horrible answer and you deserve better, but it's like porn. I don't know how to truly define what the Cubs being one of the best means, but I will know it when I see it. We all will.

 

And it will even better than watching porn. I mean, I assume it would be. I don't watch porn.

 

I'll watch enough for the both of us.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

David, it's not about picking the one with the best odds. In this game, every single team has the same chance to win it all. Right? Odds, I think I'm being told, go out the window once you're in the playoffs.

 

Which team would you pick?

Edited August 1, 2015 by Bryant's Disco Ball

[sneakypower]

The way some people talk I'm kinda convinced they'd just assume the Cubs would fail in the playoffs if they face any team that technically has a better regular season record.

people aren't insanely optimistic because we've got a .500 pythag

 

i guess you can sort of point to the '06 Cardinals, but they had Mark Mulder's half-season of 7+ ERA and Marquis's full season of 6+ ERA they could happly ignore in the postseason and 3 HOF players in the prime of their careers (all with DL stints, i believe?)

 

meanwhile our 2nd-best player/hitter is a guy who strikes out 30% of the time and is sub-.800 OPS

[Bryants Disco Ball]

[expletive], I couldn't split the quotes like you, Sofa.

 

But I was saying that I do think the Cubs are going to be pretty damn awesome sooner than later, and while certainly not just winning divisions easy, will be considered one of the best in the NL. I have a tremendous amount of faith in our young guys, and anticipate the team signing a billion dollar TV contract in a few years and being much like the Dodgers to an extent. Which also is the team I'd respond to your question about regarding which legit contenders make key deadline deals.

 

I'm really not trying to pick on this so much, but you say "considered one of the best in the NL" like it's a thing in the future when they have the 5th best record in the NL right now. If a top 5 team isn't one of the best, then what is?

 

That's fair. This is a horrible answer and you deserve better, but it's like porn. I don't know how to truly define what the Cubs being one of the best means, but I will know it when I see it. We all will.

 

And it will even better than watching porn. I mean, I assume it would be. I don't watch porn.

 

I'll watch enough for the both of us.

 

Hahaha. Niiiiice.

[Sammy Sofa]

The way some people talk I'm kinda convinced they'd just assume the Cubs would fail in the playoffs if they face any team that technically has a better regular season record.

people aren't insanely optimistic because we've got a .500 pythag

 

i guess you can sort of point to the '06 Cardinals, but they had Mark Mulder's half-season of 7+ ERA and Marquis's full season of 6+ ERA they could happly ignore in the postseason and 3 HOF players in the prime of their careers (all with DL stints, i believe?)

 

meanwhile our 2nd-best player/hitter is a guy who strikes out 30% of the time and is sub-.800 OPS

 

Please, I'm the last guy who anyone can accuse of being overly optimistic about the Cubs. I'm just tired of the talk like it's even a longshot for them to just make the playoffs at this point, or that they're all but a lock to be annihilated even if they did make it.

[Guest]

The Cubs should be making the right draft/IFA/development decisions and be spending enough money that there's always a bright future that you don't want to completely mortgage for an incremental improvement in any one season.

 

Taking that into a tangent, how sure are we that we're seeing what we'd need to see from such an organization? We've hit on 2 of 3 top-10 picks, we've traded MLB assets for some good prospects, and we paid a lot of money for Soler. But is the grassroots organizational waves and waves thing really happening? The 2012 draft, for example, feels awfully meh in retrospect.

 

I dunno, I don't think it's a feather you can put in their cap yet. Drafting in the Top 10 is a luxury, but sometimes that fact can paper over some good decision making(Schwarber is an excellent example) because those are far from guarantees(e.g. the Twins drafts since Buxton). I think they also deserve at least partial developmental credit on some of those acquisitions too. Not so much the Grimms and Ramirezes, but guys with little/no experience above A-ball, like McKinney, Edwards, even Russell to an extent.

 

That said, they could use a better hit rate on those 2-10 picks. From the college pitchers(Johnson, Skulina, Zastryzny) to the raw position players(Burks, Hannemann, Martarano) with the other arms in between(Blackburn, Conway, even Underwood), they haven't had enough success to fill the pipeline. This year has been especially bad in that regard, from the near-MLB guys to Eugene there's been very few true successes. Hopefully it's a blip on the radar and partially an optics thing from the top guys succeeding so extravagantly, but there's definitely more to be done there.

[Guest]

David, it's not about picking the one with the best odds. In this game, every single team has the same chance to win it all. Right? Odds, I think I'm being told, go out the window once you're in the playoffs.

 

Which team would you pick?

 

What on earth does any of this mean?

 

I just said I'd take the one with the longest odds. That means the ones the odds consider to be least likely to win because they'd pay out the best. In reality, the odds of any playoff team would be very very close to 1 in 8, so if I'm getting better value in return than 1 in 8 would imply, that's the team I'm betting on.

[sneakypower]

The Cubs should be making the right draft/IFA/development decisions and be spending enough money that there's always a bright future that you don't want to completely mortgage for an incremental improvement in any one season.

 

Taking that into a tangent, how sure are we that we're seeing what we'd need to see from such an organization? We've hit on 2 of 3 top-10 picks, we've traded MLB assets for some good prospects, and we paid a lot of money for Soler. But is the grassroots organizational waves and waves thing really happening? The 2012 draft, for example, feels awfully meh in retrospect.

my assumption's been that player development is probably lagging behind scouting

 

compare to the Astros who aren't really making the correct decisions in the 1st round but still had a crazy deep system from guys picked after the first, whereas we're pretty relatively thin

[Bryants Disco Ball]

The way some people talk I'm kinda convinced they'd just assume the Cubs would fail in the playoffs if they face any team that technically has a better regular season record.

people aren't insanely optimistic because we've got a .500 pythag

 

i guess you can sort of point to the '06 Cardinals, but they had Mark Mulder's half-season of 7+ ERA and Marquis's full season of 6+ ERA they could happly ignore in the postseason and 3 HOF players in the prime of their careers (all with DL stints, i believe?)

 

meanwhile our 2nd-best player/hitter is a guy who strikes out 30% of the time and is sub-.800 OPS

 

Please, I'm the last guy who anyone can accuse of being overly optimistic about the Cubs. I'm just tired of the talk like it's even a longshot for them to just make the playoffs at this point, or that they're all but a lock to be annihilated even if they did make it.

 

I'm not willing to concede that I believe they could win the World Series, as I don't believe all wild card teams are created equal.

 

But I am willing to concede that if we make the playoffs, I hope I'm wrong and get blasted again.

 

I've actually tired myself out. Great conversation by all. I will now be leaving the board and going to watch porn for the first time. Don't judge me.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

David, it's not about picking the one with the best odds. In this game, every single team has the same chance to win it all. Right? Odds, I think I'm being told, go out the window once you're in the playoffs.

 

Which team would you pick?

 

What on earth does any of this mean?

 

I just said I'd take the one with the longest odds. That means the ones the odds consider to be least likely to win because they'd pay out the best. In reality, the odds of any playoff team would be very very close to 1 in 8, so if I'm getting better value in return than 1 in 8 would imply, that's the team I'm betting on.

 

I think this is what I mean. Pretend you don't get any odds. You just pick the team you think is going to win it all.

 

When you make your pick, would you just go, "This is pointless, all teams have a 1 in 8 chance, so I'll just pick one at random." Or would you study up and pick the team you think is best set up to win it all?

 

If you made the list based on studying up rather than just picking one at random, would the Cubs be No. 1 on your best chance to win it all? No. 2? No. 8?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

If you gave me $1200 on a random team or $1000 on the team I thought was best, I'd take the random one.

[Guest]

 

I think this is what I mean. Pretend you don't get any odds. You just pick the team you think is going to win it all.

 

When you make your pick, would you just go, "This is pointless, all teams have a 1 in 8 chance, so I'll just pick one at random." Or would you study up and pick the team you think is best set up to win it all?

 

If you made the list based on studying up rather than just picking one at random, would the Cubs be No. 1 on your best chance to win it all? No. 2? No. 8?

 

I'd do the first thing. Attempting to predict a champion.in the mlb playoffs is a fool's errand.

[Backtobanks]

A point that I haven't seen posted yet is that getting into the playoffs this year might help all of our young players with the pressure they will face next year when there will be higher expectations. The value of a WC game or playoff series could be invaluable to Russell, Rizzo, Bryant, Arrieta, etc.

[Derwood]

A point that I haven't seen posted yet is that getting into the playoffs this year might help all of our young players with the pressure they will face next year when there will be higher expectations. The value of a WC game or playoff series could be invaluable to Russell, Rizzo, Bryant, Arrieta, etc.

 

Has anyone argued that making the playoffs is in any way a bad thing for anyone?

[Deeg]

Shut up and stop bitching, Idiot.

 

(I'm not implying you're an idiot, by the way. Just referencing you by name).

 

I'm also an idiot. It's convenient that way.

 

I don't think you are.

 

He finally has his broken clock moment, and that's when you choose to disagree?

[Guest]

kyle's not an idiot. just a jackass.