Jump to content
North Side Baseball
Posted

Are we still supposed to start these in the third inning? Oh well. The Cubs take advantage of the DH today by using Ildemargo Vargas, who, yes, historically he hasn't been very good at all, but this year he's been...hm, turns it out he's been even worse.

 

We switch out one broken down infielder who should supposedly be in the prime of his career (KB) for another (Baez). Matt Duffy ascends all the way to the leadoff spot, where it should be theoretically impossible for him to hit into any double plays given the bottom 3 of the line up.

 

Whoever the eff this dude is pitching for the Indians has pitched 9 innings and given up 4 dongs. Last time he pitched professionally in 2019, he was putting up a 5.11 ERA in AA while going 2-13. At this point, I don't have to tell you what this all means.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Old-Timey Member
Posted
The Cubs take advantage of the DH today by using Ildemargo Vargas

 

we can do better than this

Old-Timey Member
Posted
I could have sworn Triston Mckenzie was supposed to start this game, but I see nothing in Twitter about why he was scratched.
Posted
The Cubs take advantage of the DH today by using Ildemargo Vargas

 

we can do better than this

Ron Howard's voice: It turned out that in fact, they could not do better than this.

Posted
I could have sworn Triston Mckenzie was supposed to start this game, but I see nothing in Twitter about why he was scratched.
I watched his last start and he was garbage. His fb sat about 92-93 and it was in the middle of the plate quite a lot. I thought he had more velo than that.
Old-Timey Member
Posted
The bar is practically underground, but with two swinging strikeouts that was maybe Zach Davies best inning as a Cub
Posted
His situation, getting compared to Hendricks, reminds me *alot* of Cubs fans who thought they were getting another Lester when trading for Quintana. It sells the careers of guys like Lester and Hendricks, year in and year out doing heavy lifting for contenders, so short.

 

Given Quintana's track record (in terms of both durability and pitching ability) to that point AND what the Cubs gave up for him, to try and dismiss those sorts of expectations/comparisons as absurd is, well, horsefeathering absurd.

Posted
if you gave heyward 11 strikes against this dude, he would still strike out.

 

The important thing is for him to stubbornly refuse to change his approach despite six years of mediocrity

Posted
Given Quintana's track record (in terms of both durability and pitching ability) to that point AND what the Cubs gave up for him, to try and dismiss those sorts of expectations/comparisons as absurd is, well, horsefeathering absurd.

 

I disagree, a ton of value was tied to his contract situation. He was making like $8-9 million on average for the next half decade (through age 30-31 IIRC) when they acquired him. Given his durability, contract, age, and production the trade made sense for a team that at the time had 3 guys they'd comfortably start over him in a playoff series but needed certainty and innings behind those guys. They gave up a pre-injured SP prospect drafted outside the first round out of HS and an oft-injured COF/DH prospect (not that Eloy can't and won't mash, just like fellow giants Soler or even Cruz to some extent it might take a while to both stay healthy and mash), it's not as if teams would be falling themselves to give up a potential rotation lead for those guys. The optics of that trade suck most because "top 5 prospect" is a phrase that carries alot of weight and counts as analysis these days

 

Not that I'm not annoyed he didn't come in and deliver nearly 10-15 WAR his first 3 years like Lilly did, but the signs were all there that he was more towards that 3-4 starter than a Lester just as the signs were all there that Jimenez and Cease weren't going to light the world on fire immediately. Quintana's best years came during that little deadball era at the beginning of the 2010s, his numbers were climbing with the league's offense (still fine)...This guy was just supposed to be a part of the puzzle, same with Davies, with the offense and more tested guys on the pitching staff taking the lead

 

Lotta words

 

Honestly, this reads like a lot of damage control to try and paint it better than it worked out. Based on his track record to that point and what they gave up, there's basically no chance the Cubs weren't thinking/hoping they just made a move for a top of the rotation starter. The Theo years had a lot of bad pitching moves or ones that didn't pan out, and this falls into the latter. I don't fault them for it; almost everyone thought it was a great move at the time, myself included. But they most definitely were not trading for what they thought would just be some mid tier working slob-type. Lumping him in with the same intentions behind getting a reclamation project guy like Davies is pure revisionism.

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Davies took what 3 pitches to piss away that lead? (Of course, it's absurd that we only have 1 run to begin with.)
Posted
Can we get a Clase just once, ever? You'd have to go back to what...Marmol? to find anything close.

 

Rondon and Strop probably qualify in terms of results, maybe not Strop in terms of stuff but Rondon was fairly elite velocity-wise.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
The North Side Baseball Caretaker Fund
The North Side Baseball Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premier Cubs community on the internet. Included with caretaking is ad-free browsing of North Side Baseball.

×
×
  • Create New...