Rob

I still don't buy this. Sure, there were people that didn't want to spend money on Pujols or Fielder or Darvish or Sanchez or Upton etc... But I think those were just individual evaluations on those players. I don't think there's ever really been a faction of this board that is dead set against spending on any big free agents. As to the rumored Tanaka money, I'm not thrilled about spending that much on a pitcher. But we've got an obvious hole at the top end of the rotation. We don't look to be able to fill that internally and I'd much rather spend money to fill it than give away potential superstar prospects. There's room in the payroll and there's nobody on the horizon who would appear to be a better target for the money. Back up the truck.

I have my first first date in 13 years tonight, and I wish I didn't so I could just stay home and refresh for Tanaka news. This is far sexier. Sounds like you need to convert Chili's to Chili's-To-Go. This didn't get enough attention. Bravo. :clapping:

Yeah, I think we can wrap this one up early.

That'd be the dream scenario. But I'm guessing it was the Dodgers. It sounds like they aren't that serious of bidders and they were probably more preoccupied with the Kershaw extension.

lmao I would LOVE it if they sprang No. 1 on us out of nowhere. now i hope that's it. It would be hilarious, but it's not at all likely. They're spending a lot on renovations already, which would just be money down the drain. And stadium negotiations usually take months and involve a lot of public input from some councilman who doesn't want the taxpayers stuck with the bill. Besides, so many towns would be willing to vie for the Cubs new ballpark that it wouldn't make sense to do it entirely in private.

I've been to third base in a church. Did you get any hush money from the diocese? [expletive], I was going to make an almost identical joke like 10 minutes ago, but thought it would be too tasteless. Now I am filled with regret. I was pretty proud of it. But I'm a horrible person.

I've been to third base in a church. Did you get any hush money from the diocese?

I went with Almora, which was somewhat surprising to me. But based off the scouting reports we're looking at a low floor guy who could be a 5+ win player if things go well. Soler could be a 5+ win guy too of course, but his path there is pretty much solely dependent on his bat... which leaves him a riskier choice. I also debated Edwards here (and will have a hell of an internal debate at #4), but with pitcher attrition rates being what they are I tend to discount them rather heavily until they reach AA.

Yeah, the best news about this whole thing is that there's an expiration date on the drama.

I honestly would be fine with Baez or Bryant as the #1. I'm leaning Baez today, but I go back and forth on it.

Coming from Bob Nightengale, that actually makes me feel better about our chances.

Yeah. I loved the polls. And we can always do a "where would you insert Tanaka into the list" poll like we did for somebody last time. (Paniagua?)

Play someone at third that can hit decently and play Valbuena at second. Done. And who is that? The bar for offense at 3B is lower than people think. If we could find even a Vitters-level bat that would play there as long as they were an average fielder.

I just keep reminding myself that at least the moves we've made have been good ones. That said, they're all pretty minor acquisitions. There isn't even a Shark trade to look at and say "this move will impact the team in 2016."

The timeframes for Soler and Almora are kinda tough to pin down with any real confidence. Soler appeared to be getting pushed pretty aggressively until the injury slowed him down. As far as Almora is concerned, I could see them being very aggressive if his approach warrants it.

Parks confirmed the order is Baez, Bryant, Almora, Soler, Edwards, Alcantara, and Johnson.

Apparently we claimed Brett Marshall off waivers from the Yankees, and lost Liam Hendricks on waivers to the Orioles. http://i.imgur.com/voP7zKK.png

I still think Justin Grimm can factor into that bullpen. I like him better as a starter, but to be honest there's enough of these guys that I forgot all about him.

There are quite a few talented arms who could spend time in the bullpen this year and emerge as legitimate late innings guys (i.e. Not James Russell) Veras Fujikawa Strop Parker Vizcaino Cabrera Arrieta Villanueva Rondon Wright* Rosscup* Not bad.

It's an alright move. "Proven closer" on a cheap one year deal with an option. Reminds me of the Maholm signing. As for his peripherals, I'm not seeing much to explain why his strikeout and walk rates fell significantly last year. I wouldn't be surprised if they both bounce back up a bit.

Never implemented? Don't you remember Kevin Mitchell at SS?

For his career, Roberts has hit .266/.341/.444 versus lefties and just .233/.310/.362 versus righties. That's not a huge sample size for either so both should be pretty heavily regressed, but he definitely looks like at least like a good platoon option for 3B (especially since UZR likes him). And he could be a fit at 2B if Barney is injured, traded, or just terrible. I have no idea what to make of Kalish's numbers due to all the injuries, but the old scouting reports suggest he could be a starting caliber player if he's actually healthy. Wada is probably a nice upgrade over Rusin as the 6th starter. As for Baker, somebody needs to play C in Iowa.

Slick little move.

We could just look at a player's batting average and guess what that player will hit the next year. But instead we look at BABIP, park factors, GB%, LD%, FB%, IFFB%, HR/FB, baserunning and aging curves. There's even some work done trying to adjust for players against whom other teams will employ severe defensive shifts. The minor little peripherals can sometimes signal when there's a fundamental disconnect between what a player showed in a given year and what they can be expected to do going forward. Ok, HR/FB tells you everything that average distance a ball flies tells you and more. Information is important and looking at things in a different way can be usefull, but sometimes it's informational minutiae. Everything people are looking at functions at the very least of indicators of confidence in other data. If a pitcher's SwStr% matches up with their projected strikeout rate, I feel better about that being their real skill level. If a batter's average distance on flyballs matches up with their HR/FB, then we can feel pretty good the wind didn't just take a couple lucky ones into the basket. But when there is a disconnect in the data, it is not informational minutiae at all. Suddenly, that data becomes very relevant for predicting future performances. If you don't care enough to look into all of this stuff that's fine. But acting like we're just being pedantic doesn't change the underlying reality that these numbers can and do matter.

We could just look at a player's batting average and guess what that player will hit the next year. But instead we look at BABIP, park factors, GB%, LD%, FB%, IFFB%, HR/FB, baserunning and aging curves. There's even some work done trying to adjust for players against whom other teams will employ severe defensive shifts. The minor little peripherals can sometimes signal when there's a fundamental disconnect between what a player showed in a given year and what they can be expected to do going forward. Edit: In this case, Lake had the 36th worst strikeout rate in the majors amongst players with at least 250 PA last season. If that's all you see, it's not the kiss of death (but it doesn't bode well). But when you look closer, his contact percentage was 3rd worst (between Ryan Howard, Chris Carter, Pedro Alvarez, and Carlos Pena). And his swinging strike percentage was 6th worst. It looks like Lake will have to make real progress at the plate just to maintain his current strikeout rate. Improvement would require a pretty epic breakout.