Jump to content
North Side Baseball

wilk

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    366

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Joomla Posts 1

Chicago Cubs Videos

Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking

News

2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

Guides & Resources

2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

The Chicago Cubs Players Project

2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by wilk

  1. wilk
    As long as they were placed(and kept) on the major league roster for September, no option would be used. Right. Sending them back down next spring would use an option, but that would be the case anyway if they're added to the 40-man roster in the off-season to protect them from Rule 5. Right but I think he meant the "clock" which is calendar years from the time added to the 40-man roster and the time before a player needs to clear waivers to be optioned, etc. But you wouldn't really need to option a player in September anyway.
  2. wilk
    Yes. With a NTC, you can veto a waiver claim.
  3. wilk
    I was talking about his "pitching ability" though and not necessarily his quantity of success. His "setbacks" are what will keep him from being a $150M pitcher and what even made him available to us. As the balance is, I absolutely take his talent and ability (and risks) at that rate.
  4. wilk
    As a couple posters have already pointed out, you offer him arbitration and then you try to sign him for 2 years. However I'd be a little less pleased with the picks than some, so I'd get him signed. If it takes trading Wells or finding a taker for Dempster, we'd find a fit. I'd take Harden before any other starter on the roster going forward considering he's unquestionably the best pitcher.
  5. wilk
    White Sox.
  6. wilk
    He can decline a waiver claim too. So he'd have to accept a move to leave either way.
  7. wilk
    Because the whole draft and process is intended for the benefit of the player. The thought is that if there is another team who is willing yet to put him on the active roster, that is better for the player's career than still being stashed away in a different system. So if a team will give the player the opportunity, that is given priority to a team that will bury him anyway.
  8. wilk
    Exactly! I've seen this debated endlessly and since there are no good official sources it's always left "unsettled." davearm2 is explaining it accurately! The Rule 5 draft is supposed to be for the benefit of the eligible players and that's why every team gets the chance to put him on the active roster before he's just stashed back in the system!
  9. wilk
    No, that's true. Any Rule 5 pick is exposed to waivers before a return trade and then those teams can roster the player with Rule 5 restrictions. They still can't send him down though until he fully clears waivers and the original team declines return or trades him, or he spends the year on the active roster (90 days + DL).
  10. wilk
    And .213 / .282 / .320 / .602 career against lefties, away from Coors. ...
  11. wilk
    Yes, he would not have to be on the active playoff roster. He would remain on the ML roster and playoff reserve list but they don't have to play him in the playoffs. He could also be put on the DL...
  12. wilk
    No, if the Cubs were to remove him from the 25-man roster in any fashion besides a disabled list, he FIRST is exposed to waivers and any team has the chance to claim him along with his Rule 5 restrictions. It's only AFTER he clears waivers that he no longer has the Rule 5 limitations and Colorado can either trade his rights or have him returned to their minor league reserve roster for $25k (or refuse the return, making him Cubs property). We cannot offer anything to Colorado for his rights unless every other team passes on him first. (...definitively. :wink: )
  13. wilk
    The only way they could have done that would be if he first cleared waivers. I think some pitching-starved non-contender (e.g. Pittsburgh or San Diego) would have claimed him and kept him on the roster with the hope he'd contribute in the future. No, they could've sent something to Colorado to get his full rights. Incorrect. He would have to pass through waivers BEFORE Colorado could trade him.
  14. wilk
    We have a :starwars: duel as to who is better Gathright or Tony Gwynn, Jr. Sit back and enjoy the ride, SSR. It's not that at all... Just sarcasm over some terrible reasoning... :wink:
  15. wilk
    Here is Gathright's career line vs. the Angels: .359 .386 .500 .886 Here is Gathright's career line vs. the A's: .348 .426 .435 .861 Wow. I had no idea Gathright was that good. I have officially changed my mind and believe that Gathright is way better than Gwynn. Good to hear because your 25 AB reasoning almost convinced me until I saw these 150 plate appearances. Now it's fact that Gathright is pretty solid.
  16. wilk
    Here is Gathright's career line vs. the Angels: .359 .386 .500 .886 Here is Gathright's career line vs. the A's: .348 .426 .435 .861
  17. wilk
    Well if all we have to do is suppose... But it's not very likely that Patton would be passed up by every other team and that Colorado would want a trade.
  18. wilk
    Psh, I guess none of you want to improve OOTP 10? Fine, I'll do it all myself.
  19. wilk
    I would love the person who secretly PMed me this spreadsheet. Think of it this way... you'd secretly make OOTP10 a lot better?
  20. wilk
    So the 70% after those "6 weeks" is "incredibly efficient?" Ha... And better yet, if we ignore only the 6 weeks after Meph's 6 weeks, Theriot's SB% last year was 58.5%... But hey, for those 6 weeks May-June, he stole FIVE bases efficiently!
  21. wilk
    It's true... Meph's math is always pretty hilarious.
  22. wilk
    BroLight is infamous for his claim that he saw Towers at an Iowa Cubs game in 2006 and Towers told him that he had to trade Peavy and was looking to trade him straight-up for Jae Kuk Ryu.
  23. wilk
    I don't think Theriot is as bad as some people make him out to be. However, I'm not willing to bet that he can reproduce what he did last year either. I expect him to regress towards the norm. He may not, who knows. Either way, his value is as high as it's going to ever be and he's replacable. We either need to sell high on a trade with him this offseason, or just accept he's going to be our starting SS for the next 5 years. What norm, though? Going back to AA in '05, Theriot's posted pretty consistent .300 AVG, low-SLG, OBP-heavy .750ish OPS's, and that's exactly what the Cubs got from him in '08. Seems to me that, if anything, he regressed to the norm in '08, and '07 was uncharacteristically bad. Of course perhaps the better explanation is that Theriot simply hasn't been in the bigleagues long enough to establish a norm in the first place. At any rate, I surely wouldn't be so quick to assume that '07 is it, and that some sort of deline from '08 levels is inevitable. Well, he was the 4th "luckiest" (BABIP-xBABIP) hitter in baseball last year. So that's at least one method saying it's rather inevitable.
  24. wilk
    I agree with most of what you say other than the bolded. That's a sunk cost at this point. It doesn't matter what we gave up to get him. I suppose, though, in the real world, things don't work that way and Hendry would look quite ridiculous if he dumped a player he literally *just* gave up somewhat of an asset for. Carry on. I agree, it's already a sunk cost and it's irrelevant in making the best team. I meant it would expose a lack of foresight and make the whole process a terrible decision. You'd be losing Jose Ceda simply for doing things poorly. At least now you can claim you think Gregg would match the production for even $3M cheaper, if the budget is that tight. But if Wood accepts arbitration, and there's a good chance he does now, it costs you more money no matter what you do. So if it's all about money, offering him arbitration with a sandwich pick being the most likely payoff (not to say it isn't worth something), might not be the best idea at this point. That's why I think the mistake came in trading for Gregg in the first place.
  25. wilk
    Also, there's actually little chance the Cubs get a 1st round pick out of it considering only 14 teams have the pick to offer and if that team signs any other Type A free agent, he's going to rank ahead of Wood. So really you're risking him accepting when all you can assume is a sandwich pick. And if the does accept and you REALLY can't keep him, getting rid of him in Spring and paying only the 45-day termination would cost around ~2M and potentially risk a grievance. It'd be a very bad situation. Keeping him and dumping Gregg at that point is even worse after you gave up Ceda for him... Depending on how cheap Wood was honestly willing to sign for, the mistake was trading for Gregg over keeping Wood. But not risking a messy arbitration scenario isn't all that terrible if Wood wasn't promising to decline, and why would he promise that if this is where he wants to be and the arbitration offer hurts his market value?
×
×
  • Create New...