Jump to content
North Side Baseball

rawaction

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    22,435

  • 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 rawaction

  1. rawaction
    Any chance they give up Nate Eovaldi or Allen Webster? Doubt they give up Zach Lee, but the first 2 are ML ready starters with some upside. Eovaldi may be in the majors already, IIRC. Other than that, I don't see the Dodgers having any arms in the system that are really all the superior to the Cubs guys that are back-end of the rotation starters or late relievers. They don't have much in the way of hitting prospects either.
  2. rawaction
    Someone recently Tweeted Goldstein in regards to Vitters improvement on defense, and Goldstein, never one to pull his punches referrered to him as serviceable. According to BR, Vitters has his career best fielding % and his best Range Factor since his first year in Boise. FWIW.
  3. rawaction
    Yeah, that was really obvious. Probably the biggest reason I would have thought really hard about taking him out. I don't know, that last changeup was pretty good. Freese guessed fastball and swung befire the ball left santanas hand
  4. rawaction
    Santana had nothing in the last couple innings
  5. rawaction
    McNutt with a 1-hitter thru 5, but has walked 2 and only 1 K. 7-7 FB/GB right now.
  6. rawaction
    Again off a lefty. What. The. [expletive]. The Iowa big 3 prospects' stats this years vs. LHPs are just stupid. Vitters- .292/.346/.646/.992 Rizzo- .327/.373/.636/1.009 (actually better vs. RHP) Jackson- .357/.435/.821/1.256
  7. rawaction
    Iowa's lineup is up. Still no Rizzo. This pretty much sucks.
  8. rawaction
    That's why I said anyone NOT Castro, Campana, or sometimes Barney.
  9. rawaction
    Seems to me these are the only places a manager can make a real impact. Most other guys I have prayed won't screw up. Sveum is actually making a noticeable positive impact. What else do you want (other than Mather not playing, which I agree with)? Manager also needs to put out the best players on a consistent basis. Put the best pitchers in the best positions to pitch well. In-game strategy (bunts, stolen base attempts by anyone not named Campana, Castro or occassionally Barney, hit-n-run madness, etc).
  10. rawaction
    No hitter broken up in style....BRETT JACKSON BOMB to RF!
  11. rawaction
    Iowa being no-hit thru 5 by Royals top prospect Mike Montgomery. Royals #2 prospect Wil Myers is leading the offense with a 3-run HR.
  12. rawaction
    Torreyes went deep tonight. That's good to see.
  13. rawaction
    I'm really happy with the defense and the baserunning. I can only assume Sveum is a big part of the reason for the improvement in those areas. The people that should be running are 33 of 40 in stolen bases. Not as many bad outs on the basepaths this year. Positioning has been fantastic. That being said, those are probably the least important things for a manager to improve. I think Sveum would be ideal as a bench coach and/or on one of the bases. But he's doing a decent enough job, I guess. He hasn't been bad with the starting pitching. Bullpen usage has been OK. Not much he can do with the lineup/bench, though Mather playing and batting 3rd is annoying.
  14. rawaction
    People use holds in fantasy leagues? One of mine does. I usually just punt it. Yeah, I'm in a roto league and Holds is one of the categories. I usually punt Saves and go for Holds from what are typically better relievers as far as WHIP, ERA, and Ks.....other stats in the league. This year, I'm actually doing pretty well in both categories this year because a couple of my holds guys became closers.
  15. rawaction
    Jackson 1-2 with an RBI single (out trying to get to 2nd on the throw to the plate). Grounded out in the 1st. Vitters lined out to SS. And as was stated, Rizzo NOT in the lineup. Maybe for the 2nd game?
  16. rawaction
    Wait. Iowa is playing a doubleheader today?
  17. rawaction
    The problem with trading a 21-year old 4-5 WAR player in his pre-arbitration years is that the deal only works if you get a 4-5 WAR pre-arb player in return. Not potentially, actually 4-5 WAR. And those teams don't want to trade 4-5 WAR players.
  18. rawaction
    Why? That's perfectly legit. The whole [expletive] point about overpaying RBs is that teams inevitably regret it and it causes problems with the salary cap, because the salary cap forces you to make smart decisions with players. And the last decade or so has shown it's not smart to tie up a heck of a lot of money in RBs. It's much more important to solidify your passing game. I guess this is where I'm getting confused. You acknowledge the trouble with committing too much to a RB but the immediately turnaround and try to negate the primary reason why it is troublesome to commit too much to a RB. That's the difference. I think teams regret it NOT because of the salary cap issues, but the fact that RBs age quickly and get hurt and don't live up to the contract. I think teams are Ok with paying big money to a RB if he proves to be worth the elite contract he's getting paid. If a team pays big money to anyone, they know the salary cap implications in the future. Not saying it has no effect, but it's a lot easier to deal with if you're paying someone that's actually giving you production for that money.
  19. rawaction
    The last 3 SB winners have had below average OLs. The Steelers and Giants lines were particularly bad, bottom 1/5 of the league bad.
  20. rawaction
    I'm just trying to make the point that if you don't want Forte back because you think his knee might explode before he's paid all his guaranteed money, fine. But I don't think the fact that he's a 1000 yard rusher and 1000 yard rushers haven't won a SB in 5 years or the idea that he's going to keep the Bears from improving the rest of the team with a big contract are legitimate reasons to not want him back (though this argument is clearly better than the first).
  21. rawaction
    Seems is the key word. Because that's what you decided you think i'm saying. No, I'm saying I don't know. Your argument is all over the place. I have no idea what you are trying to argue for or against. You've picked on this New Orleans paying 3 guys $7m thing that I don't think supports anything else you've tried to argue, but I really have no idea. That was ONLY specifically in reference to your point that you don't allocate significant money to the RB position. I pointed out a team (the best passing team in the history of the NFL, FWIW) that DID allocate a lot of money to the RB position and DID NOT suffer in the passing game as you stated would happen.
  22. rawaction
    Seems is the key word. Because that's what you decided you think i'm saying.
  23. rawaction
    teams that have a franchise QB and employ a running back by committee, having more than one back that shoulders a majority of the carries, fare better in the playoffs. i really don't know how to say it any plainer terms that you will acknowledge. there is no coincidence. Denver won a playoff game. Houston won a playoff game. Baltimore was a dropped Lee Evans pass and a missed chip shot FG away from being in the SB. The Niners were a couple of fumbled punts away from the SB. Yet, it's the RB by committee (along with QB) that put the Giants and Pats over the top? It's 100% the QB and only the QB which is why the last 5 teams have made it to the SB. Doesn't matter whether they have 1 RB or 4 that get carries. it's funny because you refuse to acknowledge that i have repeatedly said "consistently", you just ignore what doesn't fit your argument. new england has maintained consistent excellence in reaching the super bowl, the giants have won 2, the saints, the colts, the steelers have all won super bowls and gone CONSISTENTLY deep into the post season with a running back by committee. those teams are the standards of excellence. i don't care what teams have won a game in one year or another. The word consistently isn't in any of your posts until now.
  24. rawaction
    The trend isn't that RB by committee wins SuperBowls. The trend is good QBs win Superbowls. And the general trend in the NFL is running the ball is less important to scoring points than it was in the past. It's stupid to think having 1 guy run vs. 3 guys running makes any bit of difference.
  25. rawaction
    teams that have a franchise QB and employ a running back by committee, having more than one back that shoulders a majority of the carries, fare better in the playoffs. i really don't know how to say it any plainer terms that you will acknowledge. there is no coincidence. Denver won a playoff game. Houston won a playoff game. Baltimore was a dropped Lee Evans pass and a missed chip shot FG away from being in the SB. The Niners were a couple of fumbled punts away from the SB. Yet, it's the RB by committee (along with QB) that put the Giants and Pats over the top? It's 100% the QB and only the QB which is why the last 5 teams have made it to the SB. Doesn't matter whether they have 1 RB or 4 that get carries.
×
×
  • Create New...