Jump to content
Cubs. Giants. Rematch of the 2016 NLDS. Come join our game thread and remember the better times. ×
North Side Baseball

toonsterwu

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,716

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

 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 toonsterwu

  1. toonsterwu
    Just to be clear, as I don't think my post was clear, I don't think he's a 4th OF, I think if someone emerges to make him an expensive 4th OF for a year (and we'd need at least 2 to emerge to make that happen), then you can live with that for a year. All in all, I don't get why you are so upset over this. This money is inconsequential overall to our baseball payroll. It doesn't hamper the team short-term (and actually improves it), it doesn't hamper the team long term. It doesn't start the clock on anyone that you don't need to start it on, and it buys time for a top prospect. I mean, I don't think it's that important to save Ricketts that type of money?
  2. toonsterwu
    Barring a Prince signing, I'm really not expecting them to spend to address the need at 1st base long term, at least, not through FA. If it's not Prince, and no signs are pointing that way, I expect it'll be some current high minor youngster with some potential or a young MLB guy on a small market team that they may try to pry away. Short of it is, I'll be rather surprised if they pursue Votto down the line, unless they simply are that one piece away. But with the years it's likely to involve, I'm just not sure I see it. Guess we have to first get through the mess of 2012 before we can start speculating on that, though.
  3. toonsterwu
    plug in ... who? DeJesus also gives us a top of the order option, allowing us to shift Starlin away from that role. Does it matter who they plug in at this point? Lehair Montanez Snyder....Move Byrd to right and put BJax in CF....if you are in total rebuild mode then plug anyone in and save the money spent on Dejusus. off the top, both Montanez and Snyder are out of the organization. Matt Spencer moved to pitcher. Bobby Scales ... well, i think he's around. It feels like they don't want to rush BJax. All in all, it's a signing that doesn't hurt the club's long term prognosis in any way. If someone better emerges, he becomes a nice 4th OF. If not, he's a passable starter for a year or two.
  4. toonsterwu
    No, I think the main arguments are (in order, a and b are interchangeable though) - a) We don't lose much in the rotation from Z to Volstad. I'm reading through this thread, and I must not be seeing the same Z the last two years that some others are seeing. The Z I saw the last two years was, at best, a passable "3", but more of a "4/5". His fastball velocity was on a steady decline. b) Volstad is a young, lefty arm who velo is still there (this isn't say, a Brian Matusz case where there was a drop in velocity). He didn't struggle as badly with HR's in the minors and in 2010, but did in 2009/2011. It feels like he could correct it. c) We remove a headache. d) Last, but not least, we get something for Z, rather than take the risk into the year. I'm finding it hard to see why everyone is claiming that Volstad is "nothing". He's a solid end of the rotation lefty with the potential to be more. He has above average velo for a lefty, and he's still young enough, barely in his prime years, to develop a bit more. Is this a great return? Of course not. But for Z? Hard to expect a great return. Volstad is a right-hander. And I would rather have him than Z. yeah, i don't know why i kept on thinking left-hander earlier.
  5. toonsterwu
    I think there's very little chance Ryan Zimmerman will leave the Nationals. In fact, I'd be rather shocked. I'm not doubting you, I'm just curious as to why. Does he have a strong commitment to the team and/or city that I don't know about? Would he give a large "hometown discount?" He played college ball in the area (UVA ... I think he's from NC off the top), is well-rooted in the city. I didn't mean for it to come out like fact that he wouldn't - I certainly don't have inside information, but most indications are that he's very happy here, the Lerners are loaded with money and part of their uncertainty over paying for Fielder is supposedly because they know they will give Z a 20 mil+ per year deal in a couple years, and the team is getting ready to be competitive.
  6. toonsterwu
    the next time you find yourself typing the phrase "some decent prospects" or "a few prospects," try listing some names. proposals like "throw in a few prospects and get logan morrison back" are pointless. I dont know the Marlins farm system but is Matt Dominguez + some equivalent of Dae Eun Rhee or Aaron Kurcz more to your liking? As for us, I'd have been willin to send Zambrano his entire salary, Szczur, and McNutt for Morrison and if they truely were trying to move LoMo for personal reasons, that would have been a sufficient package. If they wanted to throw in Volstad, that would be fine by me. Honestly, I doubt Z, Szczur, McNutt would get them to budge on Morrison. Nothing to base it on, just hypothetical, but both those guys, much as I've defended McNutt, have big question marks in the upcoming season.
  7. toonsterwu
    If I had to guess, I'd guess it's more ego and a belief that they can build an organization in the right way, and fairly quick at that too. I don't think Theo comes here unless he gets some assurances that the Cubs can spend enough (perhaps not at the rate before, but enough), and I don't think Ricketts is going to be all that pleased with a 3-5 year rebuild job.
  8. toonsterwu
    Honestly, my hunch is that he's around, they try to see if he rebounds and then ship him off at midseason if he does. If not, it's not that much money for them. I can see a rotation of Garza/Dempster/Volstad/Wells/Wood (if we keep Garza).
  9. toonsterwu
    No, I think the main arguments are (in order, a and b are interchangeable though) - a) We don't lose much in the rotation from Z to Volstad. I'm reading through this thread, and I must not be seeing the same Z the last two years that some others are seeing. The Z I saw the last two years was, at best, a passable "3", but more of a "4/5". His fastball velocity was on a steady decline. b) Volstad is a young, lefty arm who velo is still there (this isn't say, a Brian Matusz case where there was a drop in velocity). He didn't struggle as badly with HR's in the minors and in 2010, but did in 2009/2011. It feels like he could correct it. c) We remove a headache. d) Last, but not least, we get something for Z, rather than take the risk into the year. I'm finding it hard to see why everyone is claiming that Volstad is "nothing". He's a solid end of the rotation lefty with the potential to be more. He has above average velo for a lefty, and he's still young enough, barely in his prime years, to develop a bit more. Is this a great return? Of course not. But for Z? Hard to expect a great return.
  10. toonsterwu
    plug in ... who? DeJesus also gives us a top of the order option, allowing us to shift Starlin away from that role.
  11. toonsterwu
    I think there's very little chance Ryan Zimmerman will leave the Nationals. In fact, I'd be rather shocked.
  12. toonsterwu
    Unless Z was pitching like a stud, Z in the summer might not have netted that much. Contract remaining would've been costly for a couple months, and the fact that a team would've only had him for two months wouldn't help. If he was pitching like a stud, perhaps, but that would've been a risky proposition. If he was pitching at an elite level, then the risk of his option activating becomes a mildly stronger threat. All in all, peace of mind, no real loss in production relative to last year's performance and their "stuff", save a bit of money, and hey, we get a 2nd lefty in the rotation (assuming we keep both). I mean, keeping a Randy Wells for that type of scenario makes sense, since he won't be that costly and potentially had a reason as to why he struggled last year. Z? I like this deal.
  13. toonsterwu
    Travis Wood was relatively well-regarded for a couple years as a prospect. I don't think he falls in that Stewart/Volstad category yet (and I'd hardly say Volstad's pro career has "failed" up to now) because the latter two have had enough time to try and show something.
  14. toonsterwu
    Yeah, I don't think Z was our 2nd best either. Dempster/Garza were clearly ahead for me. You could make a case for 3rd best. I'm pleased with the deal. I didn't really anticipate anything better in the off-season. This was always going to be more of a salary dump for us, and the fact that we got back an intriguing young arm, even if he was at risk for being non-tendered, is better than I expected. I mean, a Z to Volstad move isn't exactly a big drop in ability, relative to what each did last year, and Volstad could cure his HR problems that have turned up to hurt him at times.
  15. toonsterwu
    Considering their focus on adding arms, I wonder if Rasmussen/Conley/James are in the picture, assuming we eat enough of the deal.
  16. toonsterwu
    YES! ... as a total aside, it was fairly evident that they would need 40 man positional depth and triple A roster talent, so I'm still a bit, very, very mildly, miffed that they exposed both Flaherty and Gonzalez. Not that big a deal. I imagine Edgar will have a good chance to grab a starting MI job in Iowa, and Mather should have a good shot at an Iowa starting OF job. So many guys gone, so they should have a chance.
  17. toonsterwu
    On a non-Brett topic ... he isn't a top prospect, but while I was taking care of some errands earlier, I kept thinking, is Rebel Ridling perhaps a bit under-appreciated? Not necessarily under-rated, but under-appreciated, at least, relative to his 2011 campaign. Let's assume a) His peak isn't a true indicator of his true ability, but rather 2 really hot months but b) That his peak indicates that his ability might be a bit better than his 3 down months, particularly from a power perspective (this is a bigger assumption obviously) If you accept both assumptions, if he's anything slightly better than his down months, he's still mildly intriguing. An athletic enough guy who can play corner OF, with a solid glove at first, and good raw power. I don't anticipate that he'll ever be able to adjust his swing enough to hit for a high enough average, but I could really see him put up monster numbers in PCL next year. As an interesting comparison, look at Ridling's numbers in AA Tennessee vs. Rizzo's numbers in AA Portland and look at the month by month splits (not saying Ridling is as good as Rizzo, and the 4 year age difference is a gigantic gap, but it's an interesting comparison of numbers). Again, not saying Ridling is top 30, or even top 40 (borderline), but just that he might be a touch under-appreciated.
  18. toonsterwu
    out of curiosity, and partly to try and move the conversation in a different direction, how exactly do you think Brett Jackson will do JCF? No more floor/ceiling - just how do you think he'll perform, say, next year, and in his prime years.
  19. toonsterwu
    I posted some predictions in the other thread, but don't be surprised if Sickels surprises and gives Antigua a B-. He had suggested awhile ago, in a Q&A, that he thought Antigua was a possible B-. I will be surprised if Rhee is a B-. He thought, awhile ago, that Rhee was closer to a C, and we had a discussion on that. Wouldn't surprise me if Maples pedigree gets him a B, and it wouldn't surprise me if Szczur/McNutt are B-.
  20. toonsterwu
    WSR - check his revised list below. I argued to get Whitenack on there, and in the revised list, Whitenack is on it. It's possible John simply forgot about him since he was on the shelf.
  21. toonsterwu
    Unless I'm misreading things, I think JCF's point is just that, suggesting a 3 WAR floor seems to imply that he has no bust potential. I like Jackson, have argued that his ceiling is a bit under-rated, but he definitely has some bust potential. I think it's probably fair to say that, based on past guys (such as Stubbs), that Jackson has a good chance of being a 2.5-3.5 WAR type CF soon, but floor seems to imply that he's definitely that good from the get-go and that there's no chance he'll be below that.
  22. toonsterwu
    With Penalver, I think a lot of folks are waiting to see how the bat looks in XST/rookie league. A lot to like, but right now, slick fielder with some bat ability that is far away is probably tough to crack a top 40 list. He's often the lost third wheel to Hernandez/Amaya, but it wouldn't surprise me if Penalver really surged in a year or two.
  23. toonsterwu
    - if BJax is sort of the default 1, I wonder how many people would argue for Szczur or McNutt over Baez as 2 (I actually have Marco ahead of Szczur/McNutt, but I figure I'm in the clear minority there). - the Sickels discussion made me think of PJ Francescon, who I took off my board so long ago that I hadn't pondered him in awhile. He'd be a very good sleeper candidate to watch next year. Some positive reports on the secondary stuff, and solid enough fastball.
  24. toonsterwu
    yeah, i don't know why i thought that said 138 last night. [expletive] tired, but yeah, 2 AB's short, and looks like he's a few days shy of the rookie limit days limit as well.
  25. toonsterwu
    I don't dislike Sickels raw list (41 including Flaherty/Gonzalez) all that much, but can't say I like it. I mean, most of the guys that I think should be on there are, but he's put some guys in there that I think there are legitimate debates about. Granted, back end of the list is back end of the list. After some arguing, I think the list looks a bit better now. He wants Bianchi in there, which I find debatable, but he did the work (for KC) and didn't feel like taking him out. Okay, fair enough, his list. He wants Jay Jackson in there (who is probably a borderline top 40 case, I have him more on the back end of the top 50) to indicate he was wrong about Jay several years back. Ugh, doesn't seem like a good rationale to rank someone for me. Kirk/Jokisch in there bother me. I'd rather see a raw arm like Willengton Cruz ahead, but Kirk/Jokisch don't offer significantly better fastballs than Rusin. He likes Kirk, so he wants him on, and he thought Jokisch was more of an unknown, so he wanted him on. The former I can understand (also because of draft pedigree), the latter, eh.
×
×
  • Create New...