Jump to content
North Side Baseball

mul21

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    10,865

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

 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 mul21

  1. mul21
    If you've heard their GM talk about it at all, he's said that what was offered was the max of their comfort level and even that was a bit of a stretch. There was no reason for them to potentially cripple themselves in the later years of their deal because really, who knows who will get hurt and what prospects won't pan out and they need to go sign FAs. You can't paint yourself into a corner or you end up with a season(s) like the Cubs had last year. Not signing him for that dollar amount was the right move for them in a whole lot of ways.
  2. mul21
    Man, even when he's positive about something he's dropping back door jabs. He must hate life.
  3. mul21
    No they aren't. They're trying to sell tickets and make a short term splash. Why do you think they don't give out NTCs? Have you not been paying attention for the past 14 years? And the contracts are bad. Old/injury prone guys they paid more than anyone else would have. Yeah, those contracts are terrible. Especially the hilarious backload on Reyes' deal.
  4. mul21
    Cubs got -1.1 fWAR out of the Fukudome/Colvin collective suckfest. Replace that with DeJesus, have Soriano's BABIP bounceback, and suddenly I think you've gained about 4 WAR in the OF even before Jackson shows up. Even with that, Prince, and Headley "coming close" to replicating Ramirez, the offense still wouldn't be good enough to sustain a hit from losing Garza from an already below average pitching staff. You're also likely getting a significant bump in WAR from the 4 and 5 rotation spots assuming we can avoid trotting the same crapfest out there 2 out of 5 days like we did last year.
  5. mul21
    What if they're in at 6/$180? That would only leave $40M on the table and by then, who knows what you'll be able to get on a 4/$40M deal. I don't think it's a bad strategy if that's the way they're going. No idea if being the highest paid player by AAV would be something he's interested in, but it's certainly a possibility and worth a shot.
  6. mul21
    You misspelled fortunate Your point of view on this is just dumb. I'd bet $100 you couldn't accurately explain my point of view on this. Just the fact that you're so totally against giving either one of them any kind of contract is dumb. A shorter deal for a higher AAV is the way to go, but I will agree with you that going more than 6 years for either is a bad idea. Your failure to acknowledge the lack of impact bats becoming available in the next year or two (which the Cubs are in desperate need of) is blinding you. If the Cubs don't get one of these two, the rebuild (and potential ceiling for how good the team can be) will take much longer than if there's still a giant hole at first base.
  7. mul21
    You misspelled fortunate Your point of view on this is just dumb.
  8. mul21
    Taking on Hudson's contract should reduce the price for Headley. Let's expand the deal to include Clayton Richard. How about Barney + Colvin + Szcur + pitching prospect for Headley + Richard + Hudson? I think that's really slanted in the Cubs favor. I'd bet it takes almost that much to get Headley without Hudson or Richard involved.
  9. mul21
    Stealth poster.....and everybody likes to pick on SSR! Plus, he has tiny junk.
  10. mul21
    shut up I really do, the Arkansas State guys I know are really bummed about losing him. Who the hell has "Arkansas State guys"? Work contacts in Jonesboro and Brinkley. I'm very big down there. Not according to Tree's sister.....
  11. mul21
    I don't know, but I think more disturbing is the fact that the Red Sox settled a lawsuit with 7 people he started molesting in the '70s! What the hell? It doesn't say when that was settled, but good lord, somebody had to know what was going on before the late '90s when this supposedly happened.
  12. mul21
    If that makes it a less prospect heavy deal and you can dump say, $4-5 million annually by getting rid of Soriano, I'd do that. Was Hudson terrible last year or is it just the always hurt thing that causes hesitation?
  13. mul21
    http://news.yahoo.com/red-sox-clubhouse-chief-accused-90s-abuse-141402490.html;_ylt=Am4LeN_B1Wg9NjuOZv2W0r2s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNtbWdtY3VmBG1pdANUb3BTdG9yeSBGUARwa2cDMTE0ODg2ZmMtNTg4ZS0zNmMzLWE3MzQtNjYxMjBjOGQ5M2JjBHBvcwMxMgRzZWMDdG9wX3N0b3J5BHZlcgMwOWU4OGEwMC0xZjY4LTExZTEtYWI4ZC1kYmI1M2NjYWNjYTg-;_ylg=X3oDMTFvdnRqYzJoBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25zBHRlc3QD;_ylv=3
  14. mul21
    I had the exact same thought. Yeah, on the other hand, if someone who is borderline [expletive] knows that, how obvious is it?
  15. mul21
    Given the sample size involved, how can you realistically call that an anomaly? Because everything we know about BABIP suggests it is an anomaly. You do realize some guys can maintain a much higher than "average" babip, right? The LD% + .120 or .140 or whatever you use can't be universally applied to everybody. Doesn't work that way. Yes, a large part of players will fall into the bell shaped part of the curve, but you've got slow guys and fast guys and other strange cases who are clear outliers. You still haven't said how you know Headley isn't an outlier. Headley is neither slow nor fast, so we should expect him to be in the fat part of the bell curve. Reading is fundamental.
  16. mul21
    Given the sample size involved, how can you realistically call that an anomaly? Because everything we know about BABIP suggests it is an anomaly. You do realize some guys can maintain a much higher than "average" babip, right? The LD% + .120 or .140 or whatever you use can't be universally applied to everybody. Doesn't work that way. Yes, a large part of players will fall into the bell shaped part of the curve, but you've got slow guys and fast guys and other strange cases who are clear outliers. You still haven't said how you know Headley isn't an outlier.
  17. mul21
    YOU'RE ACTUALLY SAYING "hmm, that road avg. doesn't look quite right, let's arbitrarily just take away 15% of his hits" Except it's not arbitrary at all. It's specifically aimed at correcting an anomaly in the data. That's the whole point, actually... trying to see what Headley would be if he was neither lucky nor unlucky. It may be aimed at correcting it, but you're way off because you either didn't use a specific methodology or just failed to explain it. Therefore, yes, it's completely arbitrary. How did you come up with the numbers? How do you know Headley isn't a guy who can sustain a .340-.350 babip in a relatively neutral park?
  18. mul21
    You're not going to account in any way for the balls that were outs at PetCo that would turn into home runs somewhere else (i.e Wrigley)? I'm not going to take the time to look at numbers, but just leaving that part out makes your analysis flawed.
  19. mul21
    Glad for Ronny, but most certainly too little too late.
  20. mul21
    My contention is that his road numbers are artificially inflated by an unsustainable BABIP, perpetuating a myth that he'll continue to be an .800 hitter outside of PetCo. Ok, but between your assertion that he'll be a .680-.700 OPS guy going forward and the fact that you don't seem to think PetCo could possibly cause a lower than normal babip for a guy, you have to understand why people are doubting you. I think there's a much better chance he's an .800 OPS guy going forward than he is a .700 OPS guy.
  21. mul21
    Mostly because he was bat crap crazy. Also, because he forgot how to hit a baseball.
  22. mul21
    Vitters very likely won't ever play third in the majors on a daily basis, so I don't think you can count on that being an option, especially with the premium it seems Theo is putting on defense.
  23. mul21
    It's just stupid how good Rodgers and the Packers receivers are.
  24. mul21
    This needs to be reiterated. The lack of depth has really destroyed us this year, not just at QB. Damage all across the OLine is a normal thing to expect on a football team, except last year, when we had almost no injuries at all. Two white safeties on the same field is inexcusable by the way, and should be a fire-able offense for a GM. Really, that back up O line guys can't really be expected to perform all that well, especially when there's multiple back ups playing at the same time replacing #1 draft picks. And the safeties really weren't bad at all, but that probably has something to do with playing against Palko.
  25. mul21
    They should have at least stopped to look at that.
×
×
  • Create New...