cubfan

I think he was a dislikable person that had a habit of pissing people off. One of those people was Manfred. I think the combination of Bauers past and pressure from Manfred made it not worth for a team to sign him. MLB teams in the past seemed to have no problem signing players of questionable character so don't think that alone was enough to keep him off a roster. 

It does look like he is probably washed up at this point, or at the very least, the risk reward for signing him is way worse now than it was a few years ago.  

Didn't intend this to be about Bauer, was more interested in seeing more of Conrad. 

I know that Bauer was really unpopular here, but was a chance to see more of Ethan Conrad that I thought was worth while.  I think he came off well. His 2 roommates who were just drafted were there as well. 

Ethan Conrad taking live ABs vs Bauer was posted this morning on Youtube. 

I have almost every channel including all the rsns and it shows up on my guide but says I don’t have the channel and need to purchase.

 

It appears every DirecTV subscriber is getting that message out of market, and some in market (even if they have the right package).

 

From what I've gathered Marquee isn't going to be national on DirecTV in the sports package. I have no clue but I imagine that's probably a different negotiation/agreement and maybe they want to get all the local providers wrapped up first.

They are in Iowa so they should be in market I believe. I'll tell them they'll need to call in and start complaining and see if it goes anywhere. Thanks

Anyone have DirecTV? It is supposed to be on channel 664 but, I can't even get that channel to show up in my guide.

 

I don't see it either. I believe the network doesn't go live until noon though, so it'll likely show up then.

 

Showing up for me now, looks like it launches at 1 pm though, not noon.

My parents have DirecTV and still can't get the channel. Do they need to change packages potentially? What package do you have that is getting the channel? Thanks

Not shocked some of you people would rather the Cubs save a few hundred grand so Todd can find a way to funnel it Trumps re-election, rather than see a man's children have a better life after his ex-wive said she wants him to be able to play for that reason. I hope you guys don't get mad when he has to pay child support witch rolled up change he's saved. #FilthyAnimials

 

horsefeathers people are worse than people who support horsefeathers people (though the line is getting increasingly blurry). Also Addison Russell has made more money in his life than probably 99.9% of other 25 year olds, so we can probably stop with the whole 'food on the plate' narrative. If he's that worried about his kids, he can go find a job like everyone else does.

Who would hire him?

Welp, if Rosenthal is saying it, it makes me believe they're trying. If there was any question that Zobrist is not getting paid, this should dispel any doubts.

 

I believe while a player is on the restricted list their salary does not count against the luxury tax. Not sure how big of an issue that is but that could be just as important as the actually money that would be going to Zobrist in deciding what moves the Cubs want to make.

 

Bastin's article on cubs.com says a player on the restricted list doesn't receive salary.

I know, I was pointing out that the luxury tax concern might be of more importance and I believe a club might choose to pay the player while he is on the Restricted List in certain circumstances even if they don't have to. Just because the Cubs are looking into signing Kimbrel wouldn't necessarily mean they are not paying Zobrist all or part of the contract. The ability to sign someone else since Zobrist is on the restricted list could just because of luxury tax flexibility. That all said, they very will might not be paying Zobrist either especially considering how long he has been gone.

Welp, if Rosenthal is saying it, it makes me believe they're trying. If there was any question that Zobrist is not getting paid, this should dispel any doubts.

I believe while a player is on the restricted list their salary does not count against the luxury tax. Not sure how big of an issue that is but that could be just as important as the actually money that would be going to Zobrist in deciding what moves the Cubs want to make.

Zobrist leaves and Addy comes up. It’s gotta be due to Z’s religious convictions. Or his wife’s.

The only reason that Addy is up is because Zobrist took leave right? If Zobrist was with the team I thought Addy would still be in Iowa. I don't think we can chalk up Zobrist being gone because Addy is coming up. Unless Zobrist heard Addy was going to be back next week and was pissed and left but that seems unlikely.

KB will always bee our Mike Harkey without the MVP. Rest in Peace squinty eye

I was thinking more of our Mark Prior but hoping not.

Harper's contract will expire when I'm 57 years old

I'll be 57 years old when it expires also and now hate you for pointing that out :(

 

theo deserves extreme scrutiny on issues like this one, not the benefit of the doubt.

 

i wish they’d just release russell, but i guess i get it if they trade him for nothing instead. if they bring him back, i think that will probably be it for me as a fan of the team.

 

Just out of curiosity, why are you still a fan now after the Chapman trade then? On some levels, I think Chapman was worse as the front office goes because they choose to go get him with the knowledge of his past.

 

Not to speak for tree, but I imagine it's more of a "straw that broke the camels back" scenario, after Chapman, Murphy, and now Russell.

that makes sense, I guess there is only so much you can take before you question why your are fan of a team.

Considering the way they handled things so far, I'll give Theo the benefit of the doubt.

 

theo deserves extreme scrutiny on issues like this one, not the benefit of the doubt.

 

i wish they’d just release russell, but i guess i get it if they trade him for nothing instead. if they bring him back, i think that will probably be it for me as a fan of the team.

Just out of curiosity, why are you still a fan now after the Chapman trade then? On some levels, I think Chapman was worse as the front office goes because they choose to go get him with the knowledge of his past.

Only if they claim a guy on irrevocable are they “stuck” with him. Revocable both sides can always decide not to do a deal, like the Brewers could’ve claimed Murphy to prevent him from getting to us and just said “no thanks, we won’t do a deal” and that’s that.

 

The Nats could have said “you’re taking him” and the Brewers would be on the hook for the $4 million he’s owed. Only the team that puts him on revocable waivers can pull him back. They claiming team can decide not to make a trade offer, but they can still be forced to accept the player/remaining contract.

Ah, got it. Makes sense. I knew there was a way a team didn’t necessarily have to take or get a guy.

I remember in the late 90's that the Padres got stuck with Randy Myers after putting in a waiver claim. Their goal was to block him from getting to the Braves and had no intention of trading for him. The didn't expect the other team to say you can have him and then have to pay his salary.

Raping a kid is not a "mistake".

 

This isn't a guy that got caught stealing a 6-pack of beer.

 

My initial reaction was the same, but after reading up on the full story, I'm not as sure. I still don't think I'd draft him but there was enough other things going on with the story that is was not as clear cut as I first thought.

 

I read the part where he plead horsefeathering guilty for molesting his 6 year old niece. You probably read the same blog post every other Heimlich truther read which was written by a close family friend in order to try and get him drafted. There's no selling it to your fanbase that you took an admitted child molester and there's no chance that plays in a clubhouse full of athletes with children of their own.

 

The felon wanted to save his family and keep them together by sparing them a trial? GTFOH with that horsefeathers. First, this isn't some traffic violation where you wake up and say horsefeathers it I've got better things to do than go to court on this glorious Wednesday, I'll just admit guilt so I don't have to waste an entire day. If this was some made up charge I think I go down swinging instead of just accepting the deal that labels me a sex offender. Second, why the horsefeathers would you want to keep a family together if they're making up sexual assault claims against one another? Finally, children do not tend to lie about abuse, so just accepting his new innocence claims over the signed horsefeathering plea deal is asinine to me.

I read the SI article. The reason the article gave for the plea was that they didn't think they could win and the plea deal was pretty light compared to what would have happened if he lost. As I said before, reading it didn't change my mind but seems to be more complicated than what I first thought. After reading the article, I'm guessing that he did it, but managed to convenience himself that he didn't enabling him to pass a couple polygraph tests. I'm happy the Cubs didn't draft him but I'm not going to be surprised if he ends up signing with someone at some point.

 

Honestly, I'll consider this whole draft a win as long as we don't pick him.

 

The Cubs don't need the bad publicity, but I wonder on a more societal level whether he should forever be barred based on a teenage mistake (his claims of innocence not withstanding). The move toward felons voting is picking up steam, and I think that's probably consistent with where our society is going. The Obama Administration was very committed to the idea of keeping the official records of teen offenders clean as not to hamper them later on (see Nikolas Cruz). I just wonder if Luke Hemlich is different because he might make millions of dollars.

Raping a kid is not a "mistake".

 

This isn't a guy that got caught stealing a 6-pack of beer.

My initial reaction was the same, but after reading up on the full story, I'm not as sure. I still don't think I'd draft him but there was enough other things going on with the story that is was not as clear cut as I first thought.

https://twitter.com/insidebaseball6/status/957289525998317568

 

Cubs trying to match the Brewers moves by acquiring an aging overpaid OF that they don’t really need?

 

This rumor can’t be true as it doesn’t make sense on multiple levels, not the least of which is helping the Dodgers financial situation

obviously a small part of a 3-way trade that will send Kemp to TB and Archer to the Cubs. (Just in case it was not obvious, I'm not being serious)

I'm too lazy to look this up: Do the Brewers as a small market have to give up any picks for signing Cain?

Someone over on the Brewers boards said they lost the 73rd pick if I remember right.

wasn't referring to him specifically. just the general idea of the "vogelbach fallacy" as someone else put it.

ah.

 

to answer your question, I can't think of any good examples of a DH-only prospect getting much of a return in trade. On the other hand, first base prospects have been traded for very good returns when the bat is big enough.

 

I might be way off, but didn't the Cards have a "1B" prospect several years back that was pretty much viewed as a DH? They traded him as part of a package for an OK return I thought. Ben W something maybe? Either way he was a big bat no position guy that never ended up making it.

 

Brett Wallace

Thanks, was editing my post to add his name when you posted. Not sure if he fits the criteria or not but was the closest I could think of

wasn't referring to him specifically. just the general idea of the "vogelbach fallacy" as someone else put it.

ah.

 

to answer your question, I can't think of any good examples of a DH-only prospect getting much of a return in trade. On the other hand, first base prospects have been traded for very good returns when the bat is big enough.

I might be way off, but didn't the Cards have a "1B" prospect several years back that was pretty much viewed as a DH? They traded him as part of a package for an OK return I thought. Ben W something maybe? Either way he was a big bat no position guy that never ended up making it.

Edit. The guys I was thinking of was Brett Wallace. Not sure if he fits the criteria or not.

@BruceMiles2112: Logan Watkins officially gettiing called up from Class AAA Iowa with Luis Valbuena going to the DL. #Cubs

 

At least someone who could factor in long term. Apparently, Olt's 0-a zillion wasn't good enough.

 

Maybe Alcantara to Iowa?

Couldn't Lake play some 3rd base now as well? Thought he came up as a SS and had logged some time at 3rd base as well. I really haven't kept up with him the last few years though now and maybe that is no longer an option.

Oh man, Peter Bourjos as the centerpiece for Matt Garza could not be more of a Jim Hendry trade.

 

he is a 270-300 ba guy, a 350-260 obp, and high 700's to low 800's ops guy through out his career. faster than heck, good defender....what's the down side?

 

He might have been that throughout his minor league career, but in parts of three seasons, he is sporting a .248 batting average and a .300 OBP. He has a way to go to get to the numbers you are saying he's already at.

 

being sneaky with numbers...he played 8 games in 2010, had the mentioned stat line 2011, which again is better than all but 2 of our guys this year.

at his stat line for last year, he would still be a good addition...

if you knew anything about him other than reading his mlb stat line, it would be no stretch that he would hit 270, with 30 hrs, have a 320-330 obp and push 850 ops. he has never gone down in stats his 2nd season at a level. never is a pretty good baseline for a bet

now did i think he would go 300, slug close to 700 and hit 40+ hrs...no way.

but i guess even without this year, the idea of dropping marmol's salary and getting an actual player certainly would have made as much sense as trading z for volstad, and paying 15mil. to me it would have been well worth the gamble. Now if you want to argue, the angels would never have done it, then you may be right but the argument that trumbo would have been the problem in that deal is crazy.

 

I'll admit, I'm getting confused. Are we talking about Peter Bourjos of the Angels?

 

He played in 51 games in 2010, not eight. He did not have the mentioned stat line in 2011, as his OBP was .327 and not .350 to .360.

 

In 273 games and 835 at-bats, he has a .249 average and a .301 OBP. I don't know him enough to say that he couldn't hit your projections, but I do know enough to say that there is at least some mounting evidence over three seasons that he won't.

I'm pretty sure he is talking about Mark Trumbo. Some of the detail got lost in the quotes and he is talking about a hypothetical trade for Trumbo for Marmol from last year I think.

 

@Buster_ESPN: It still appears the Pirates and the Diamondbacks don't match up on a Justin Upton trade. PIT has pitching, but Ariz. priority is SS help.

 

Castro should be nowhere near the table. However, Darwin Barney and/or Junior Lake could be enticing pieces to a deal. However, we'd need a few much more exciting pieces as the centerpieces. Brett Jackson or Matt Szczur could be one of them.

Seriously? You could put the four of them together and Arizona would hang up laughing.

 

Probably not going to be enough either way but that is one hell of miss quote when you cut off the "Obviously, neither would be the main piece, which could come from the Dempster return." from the original post

Yeah, I realized that after I posted. But I still think the main piece in a Dempster trade could never be the main piece in an Upton trade, no matter how many of our flawed prospects you throw in.

I agree unless we get a hell of a lot more for Dempster than anyone expects and I think the expectations are pretty high already.