Exile on Waveland
-
Posts
6,468 -
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
2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by Exile on Waveland
-
That was awesome!
-
http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/cubs/post/_/id/5347/could-soriano-ramirez-be-fits-for-yankees Why are you seemingly so desperate to trade the best third baseman in the NL?
-
I'm still under the impression that Soto is severely undervalued league-wide, so I'm suspicious the Cubs could obtain a remotely fair exchange in a trade for him.
-
I remain more intrigued by Prince Fielder and Albert Pujols. I thought it went without saying that I'm not intrigued by Davis as a replacement for a stud first baseman.
-
Yes, unless it has changed very recently, 10 years is the full vesting time for MLB pensions. So making it to 10 years is very important for players.
-
I remain very intrigued by Davis.
-
While poor Nick Leddy wastes away. I'd bet a whole 5 bucks than Leddy starts the year on the 2nd line. Stan think he's going to seamlessly replace Campbell's transition game, so he's a natural pair on the 2nd with a stay at home guy like Hammer. Yeah, as much as Bowman has talked (gushed?) about Leddy, I can't imagine he won't be in Chicago. Hjamlmarsson/Montador doesn't seem like the type of defensive pairing the Hawks like either. I'd love to see Sopel back for depth, but not sure he'd sign to be the seventh defenseman (I'm assuming Campoli is back too).
-
Levine: Hendry secure but firesale could begin
Exile on Waveland replied to Men in Blue's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
Soccer - Preston North End last won a championship in 1890. Going way out on a limb here . . . the Cubs will break their streak of futility before Preston North End. -
Richards is going to get a gigantic deal and I hope the Hawks pass (while it would be a player-for-player improvement, what would really be the point of moving one monster contract for an even longer, bigger one?). I'd prefer someone like Laich. The Campbell trade, for the time being, makes them worse on the ice but allows them to build depth/improve multiple positions. Will be interesting to see who they target.
-
I think Hill is going to be the third guard, though play a ton of minutes. I think that's what he is; a third guard. He's not really a point guard, though he certainly can defend the position. He'll certainly help. The frontcourt is still the more pressing concern in my book though.
-
I think a Collison-Hill backcourt would be very small. That may be starting to matter a bit less, but still cause for concern. I'm just not sure those two are the best fit together in a starting backcourt. None of this is to say I don't like Hill, quite the opposite, but I think a corrosponding move may be necessary (and beyond moving merely Rush).
-
It's not a strawman, it's reductio ad absurdum. Just because Dunn has stunk so far does not innately mean everyone that didn't want to sign him is/was right (unless someone had a rational argument that Dunn was going to be terrible starting immediately in 2011, which I doubt such argument could possibly exist). Because Dunn's struggles are almost totally inexplicable, there is no nexus between the reasoning against signing Dunn (age/salary/old man skills/defense/whatever) and Dunn's unpredictable tank job (due to . . .????).
-
Sounds like a deal! Wow, that is awesome. =D> I'm trying to decide whether to like this deal. I like Hill, but I liked Leonard and the Pacers lost both their 2nd round pick and the rights to Lorbek. Lorbek will be annoying because he'll probably come over now that he's on the Spurs even though he wouldn't come over to Indiana all these years. I'm just trying to figure out where Hill fits. Is he just the backup point guard/shooting guard? Are they going to push Collison or George to the bench? Before the draft, if you told me the Pacers could turn the No. 15 pick into George Hill, I would have been thrilled. However, I was ecstatic to be able to pick Kawhi Leonard at No. 15. So I'm kind of torn (feel a bit like trading Bayless a few years ago). Leonard is a bit of a redundancy on the Pacers, so I understand it from that aspect . . . but Hill seems a bit redundant too. I'm not sure if he replaces Collison or George or if he's the third guard. I'm pretty happy about the trade, but still digesting. Regardless, the Pacers still need a power forward/athletic big man.
-
I'm not a huge Marrero fan and was glad IU pursued other options. I'd pass if I was Illinois too.
-
At this point, I'm thrilled the Cubs did not sign Dunn. I've also, as far as I remember, only ever been lukewarm on Dunn anyway. I think Dunn showed some personal warning signs of decline -- in addition to his "old man skills" that don't age as well -- that would logically persuade one to be against signing him for a comparative deal. However, I cannot abide the logic of your second paragraph. A decision that is correct in hindsight doesn't inherently mean the decision was correct contemporarily. Some nexus most exist between the reasoning and outcome. For example, say that Prince Fielder miraculously decided he wanted to live in Chicago next year and told the Cubs he'd sign for two years at $10 million per season. The obviously correct decision would be to sign Fielder. One contrarian, though, somewhere someplace, doesn't like Fielder's face and is against the deal. He is obviously incorrect. In the offseason, Fielder gets hit by a car and never plays baseball again. Regardless, the contrarian wasn't "right" even though Fielder never earns his $20 million.
-
Agreed. I don't want either Morris twin. At all. They're athletic and talented and all, but, well, I'll avoid channeling my inner sulley here. I'm hoping for Burks.
-
Nice! I'm watching a Spanish language stream, so I had the added benefit of the "Goooooooaaaaallll" announcement. Not that I understand much else.
-
Who specifically are you talking about? Barney, DeWitt, Baker, Lemahieu? If you want a good hitting 2B, you actually need a pretty good hitter. It's a productive position nowadays. They Cubs have been plugging holes at 2B for a while now and they have only on occasion filled it with actual production. Any of those guys, a platoon, Flaherty, etc. The Cubs have done a pretty decent job producing average-ish middle infielders . . . not so much at all with the corner positions/power hitters/outfielders. That's a big reason I'd look to spend money away from the middle infield. As for second base being productive, I'm not really seeing it. As you said, Barney has been crappy for awhile now, but he's still seventh in the NL in OPS among qualified second basemen. The third-highest is Freddy Sanchez, at merely .730. Among non-qualified second basemen, Barney is still thirteenth out of 37 -- and Baker is fifth. Only four players have OPS's above .800, and one of those only has 16 at bats (Chris Valaika). Seems to me that most second basemen are pretty fungible.
-
Barney has been pretty crappy for a good while now. The Cubs are getting a 688 OPS out of 2B this year, that is 8th in the NL. With Utley finally back in Philly it probably won't be long before they drop to 9 or lower. Middle infield may not be the main area of concern, but the Cubs have plenty of areas that can and/or should be addressed. Get your improvement where you can. I said "grit" because I didn't necessarily mean Barney. Other options seem to exist for the Cubs to be at least somewhat average at second base in the coming years (as they are currently). I don't really see those options on the horizon for first or third or the entire outfield or the full rotation. Further, signing Reyes would decrease either his or Castro's offensive value by moving one of them to second. It would also do nothing to improve the power vacuum that exists in the middle of the order. I also think that Reyes is likely to be more overpriced than most/all the other free agent options based on his position, speed, and (so far) career year. If the Cubs are going on a full-on spending spree, sure, sign Reyes. If the Cubs strike out with all other free agent options, sure, sign Reyes. He's an obvious improvement. But I'd much rather sign Pujols/Fielder and then Kemp/Ethier.
-
Ravech: Doesnt expect to see Hendry next year
Exile on Waveland replied to Dallas Green's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
Is it your implication that Garza is a "marginal major leaguer"? Because that's, uh, false. -
Reyes would seem to be a bad use of resources, in my opinion. Not that's he's not a good player, but I don't see middle infield as the main area of concern at all. I'm relatively satisfied with Castro/grit at SS/2B, and would much rather spend money elsewhere.
-
Cubs do an "It Gets Better" video in support of LGBTQ youth
Exile on Waveland replied to inari's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
Good for them. -
ESPN doing a great job of piling on
Exile on Waveland replied to GlassCow's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
Or opting to have Mark Guthrie face Mike Lowell rather than Dave Veres face Lenny Harris? This makes me want to read all the Game of Thrones books then spoil everyone in the TV Thread. -
ESPN doing a great job of piling on
Exile on Waveland replied to GlassCow's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
Honestly I don't think he catches it. Even if he puts it in his glove, it would have been a snow-cone catch and I think the ball pops loose after his glove hits the railing on the way back down. Man all these years and I feel strongly that he was going to catch that. My thought back then was, it looked on line to his glove, and at that point in the season things like that just seemed to go our way. I think the interference issue is debatable -- the ball/glove look to be right above the railing one way or another and the angle isn't really conducive to a precise answer -- but I've never really understood the argument that Alou wasn't going to catch the ball. His glove is like two feet directly below the ball; if that's not what an impending catch looks like, I don't know what does. It was going to take an unfortunate event for him not to catch the ball. An unfortunate event happened. -
I am totally on board with the "I'm Looking Through You" love. So underrated. "I'm Looking Through You" is fantastic and easily one of the most underrated Beatles songs (in case we're not aware, "Girl"-"I'm Looking Through You"-"In My Life" is a pretty decent stretch of songs on Rubber Soul . . . ). "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite" is just OK as far as Beatles songs go though. As far as pedophilia goes, the age of consent in the United States is 16 years old in 31 states and 17 years old in 8 more.* The age of consent in the United Kingdom is 16 years old.* Meaning, the 17-year-old referenced in "I Saw Her Standing There" was of legal age in 78% of US States and the entirity of the UK. Further, at the time the song was released (meaning, after it was written), the Beatles were 20, 21, 22, and 22 years old. We can debate if that's creepy, but it sure isn't pedophilic. *Note: All the ages of consent are current, because I'm not about to figure out what the age of consent was in the 1960s -- though I seriously doubt it was more stringent then.