toonsterwu

I'm not a Dusty fan, but the one thing to be said is he brought some stability and consistency to the Nationals. By all accounts, Matt Williams wasn't good, and Dusty did bring some stability there while showing some attempts to modernize. All that said, there aren't many GM's left that are liable to hire not only an old guy, but an old-school guy like Dusty, so he's pretty much done. He was pretty much a fall-back for the Nationals a couple years ago (who was it, Wally Backman?). Dusty stabilized things there, particularly early this season when the bullpen was a mess. He really didn't do anything egregiously bad there. Next manager there is walking into a great situation, albeit a high pressure situation with the impending Harper drama. With Adam Eaton coming back and Victor Robles likely getting a look soon, that's such a young and dynamic positional core (Turner/Robles/Eaton/Harper/Rendon) to go with veterans like Murphy/Zimmerman. They need to find a way to dump Wieters, but they won't be able to. There was chatter of interest in Alex Cora, but he's gone, so I'm not sure where they go. Rizzo tends to hire old-school-ish people, and this firing seemed to come from ownership, so it'll be interesting. As a side note, for all the Harper drama, if the Red Sox spend big this off-season, and the Yankees continue their youth movement and decide against giving monstrous contracts ... there might not be as much Harper drama as one might think. After all, Boras is superbly close to the Lerner group (I mean, you can chalk the Scherzer contract up as top talent, but getting a team to give out money for Wieters?) I'm sure other teams will step to the forefront and offer huge contracts, but it's just hard for me to see the Nationals getting over-bid on that one.

Color me crazy, but I'm not so sure that I would put Contreras below Rizzo. Bryant is clearly the top guy, but a cost-controlled catcher showing plus offensive production and is solid defensively? That is a difficult asset to find. This isn't a knock on Rizzo, more a plus for Contreras. A better way to put it is that those three are our core guys, and the chances of any of them being dealt is fairly slim. I would put Addison Russell a clear notch below, primarily because the lack of offensive development and consistency just hasn't garnered him that right to be with that top group. I'd probably put him clear of the other guys (that is, a notch ahead of Baez/Happ/Almora/Schwarber) as of now, with the discussion point centered around Baez. _____ I'm still surprised at the lack of concern shown for the lack of production out of the leadoff spot. Yes, pitching is of a higher concern this offseason, considering we need a mid-rotation starter and a closer to start, and probably an end of the rotation starter and another pen arm. Still, outside of a huge spending spree or huge trades (which might be possible), we might be limited in how much we can do, and increasing the impact of the offense shouldn't be out of consideration. Tbh, I am mildly curious about Jacoby Ellsbury. Yankees seem likely to want to move on, and while the remaining contract is bad, if they chip in some money (say 8 mil per year) and the Cubs didn't part with anything all that interesting ... Ellsbury is still a decent player when healthy, and would slot well at the top of the lineup. To be clear, Ellsbury isn't at the top of the list of guys I'd have interest in, but was a passing thought. Some sort of trade for Ellsbury/Robertson wouldn't be that bad if they chipped in money.

The whole Russell/Baez comment by Theo seems to read, to me, that they are aware of Addison's issues, but for now, are giving him time, but if there's some struggles in the future, they may revisit it. And as gilby notes, at some point, Addison's lack of offensive development has to be taken into consideration, particularly as it pertains to value. All that said, I don't anticipate them making any sort of move prior to 2018. Russell's earned enough rope and has shown flashes that, combined with his youth, doesn't make it likely that they'll move on. ____ I am mildly surprised at Theo's insistence that a top of the order hitter isn't that significant. Yes, this lineup can score runs, but Bryant/Rizzo/Contreras would be put in a better position to do some damage if there was more consistency in the ability of the person ahead of them to get on base.

Red Sox. In terms of real life, much as i've pondered it, I'd be stunned if they deal Benintendi or Betts. From a hypothetical perspective, sure, it might make some sense for them to package Price's contract with one of them to address some needs, while swinging the door open to maybe make a deal for Stanton. The biggest issue, IMO, is the addition of Eduardo Rodriguez, a promising young arm coming into this own, at least, on paper. That just seems way too much. davell may be right that that package might not net Betts alone in a hypothetical. _____ No way do I think the Phillies move on from Aaron Nola. Young, cost-controlled front of the rotation type arm. He fits their window. Shark is interesting. In this market, though, it's hard seeing minor leaguers being enough, considering our farm system and where the guys are. I could see something like Happ and minor leaguers perhaps being enough. Thing is, Shark was quietly very solid. I think it would get quite a bidding war going for him, as the remaining contract, while big, isn't that bad that you say no to a productive guy coming off a good year. This presumes that the Giants even want to move on from him, which seems debatable.

I definitely would be curious what it would take to get Robertson. Yankees are loaded in the pen,and they might have to shell out big bucks for Masahiro Tanaka. I mean, Sabathia's gone, leaving the core rotation as Severino/Gray and three big question marks. It's clear that their window is open, and it's hard to imagine Chance Adams AND Justus Sheffield starting next year in the rotation. 1 of the 2 (Adams as the 5th starter) seems plausible. For all the talks about Yankees money, Hal has, relatively speaking, trimmed things down. Robertson wouldn't require a long time commitment, and is a proven closer. All that said, I've never loved Robertson, and I'm not sure how we match up. Tbh,pondering it now, I wouldn't be absolutely stunned if they shopped Betances, although it would be somewhat selling low on him. Betances might be able to net them something more significant, or be a part of a package to net them something more significant. They sure do have a lot of options, though. As for the Orioles, they do seem to be leaning towards keeping most of the pieces together. I think it's a mistake, personally, but it seems likely they'll explore the market for a veteran starter or two to fill in behind Gausman/Bundy. How, dunno, since they aren't exactly loaded with chips and don't have it in their DNA to spend big on FA SP's. I mean, the system has guys who feel like late inning pen arms types (Tanner Scott comes to mind, Cody Sedlock should be moved back to the pen to salvage something). Feels like a team would have to overwhelm them for them to move someone. Givens is likely being groomed as the closer of the future there.

I don't see them shifting Alzolay to the pen full-time (although I could see a scenario where he starts 2018 as a starter in AA, and if he does well, gets promoted (AAA or bigs) as a pen arm as he reaches his innings limits, and then he starts 2019 getting some more seasoning in AAA, or maybe gets a crack at the 5th starters job. Again, that'd be a very positive scenario, with a lot of things going right. All that said, I'm surprised at the notion above that Alzolay might not be a good pen arm. I would actually think strike throwing capability, mid and maybe upper 90's out of the pen, and a solid breaking ball would be an excellent menu for a dominating late inning arm.

We're gonna sign guys, no doubt about it, but I'd be as open to the idea of moving some arms into a fast-track pen lane. Anyhow, I offered up the combination of Gregerson/McGee, but Shaw/Swarzak and others would work as well. I would also explore the trade market. Brad Brach comes to mind ... but here's a name I never imagined that I might be curious about getting back - Blake Parker. He turned in a quality season this year, is about to get a bit more expensive, and I wonder if the Angels might want to sell high on him (he's a bit older) to try and get more significant assets. Tis a thought. Probably not, as they'll probably view him as a cheap, solid pen arm.

Much as I've been talking about Yelich, I don't really expect them to move him UNLESS it's a sweet deal. I mean, Yelich himself is the type of deal that should be able to net a couple key building blocks for them, with his production, youth, and friendly contract. Chen's contract might be enough to convince them, but it sure feels as if the easiest path is clearing Stanton and spare pieces, and I gotta think someone will pony up for Stanton. Still, Chen's contract is worth a thought, and depending on the level of tear down they initiate, it may be close to enough. It's 3 years left at a lot of money, but even if we had into free agency, we're likely looking at 3 years for someone who will come with a modicum of risk. At the end of the day, it'll come down to his medicals. To be quite honest, I would, in some respects, view the top of the lineup with as much urgency as the starting pitching and pen. I keep wondering if there's some sort of dream trade involved where we combine Heyward's contract with say someone to get some necessary assets. Unlikely, but I wonder. I hate the idea they floated on FS1 ... something like Heyward for Ellsbury or another bad contract. That'd be stupid.

More I think about it, more I am curious about what it might take to land Cesar Hernandez. I mean, it's a nice surge in the past 1.5 years. He's getting costly, and Scott Kingery just had a huge season in the minors and may be ready to challenge for a spot at 2nd. If it doesn't take an arm and a leg, he'd be a good glove at 2nd and a possible leadoff option. That opens the Cubs up to shop Baez and other pieces for perhaps a young starter. Of course, I may be under-valuing what it might take to get Cesar Hernandez in this scenario.

I'll be honest - I thought this was a flawed team, and never liked the matchup with the Nationals ... but I thought they could handle this matchup. The lack of offensive productivity is as much a testament to the Dodgers as it is about our key guys slumping. It happens. This was a flawed team that made it back to the NLCS. Looking ahead, barring a miracle ... for all the focus on the rotation, I'm not that concerned about it. Don't get me wrong - we definitely need another starter, and probably 2 (some sort of reclamation project type for the 5th starter is fine), but we shot our minor league bullets to get our TOR for next year already, and Lester/Hendricks are fine. I think Arrieta's gone. The market for the top tier guys is going to be costly, and I'm not sure if we're ready to dip in that financial pond. I'm not setting high expectations on the rotation front - if we do somehow land Otani or Darvish, awesome. I'm more concerned about the areas that we can likely make a bigger impact - the lineup (specifically, a top of the lineup type hitter) and the pen. On the lineup - I think we badly missed Fowler's productivity last year, and I think finding a way to get a more productive bat in there at the top (I mean, Cubs #1 hitters OBP was fairly bleh iirc) would put the dangerous Bryant/Rizzo/Contreras grouping in a better position to do damage. Of course, the areas where we can add guys are fairly limited, and that probably means making long-term decisions on guys like Schwarber/Baez/Almora. I would love someone like Christian Yelich, as I think he would be great leading off, but that might be shooting a bit high, as he'd likely cost a ton. I wonder about someone like Cesar Hernandez - a good glove at 2nd, and a better propensity to work the count at the top of a lineup. Still, is he an upgrade on Jon Jay to justify making these moves? Dunno, I'm not sure what the answer is, other than the revolving door isn't the best option. For all the talk about the Red Sox needing a power bat, I wonder if they'd be open to some sort of Schwarber for Betts type of deal? Probably not. As for the pen, well, I'm not real sure what to do there. I think Wade Davis might be too costly to keep, so I'd like to target someone cheaper, while still building up pen depth. With all the ways that pen arms are "found", I just don't know if spending big on the pen is worth it when the problems clearly run deeper than that. Don't get me wrong - we're going to have to spend on the pen, whether it be with trades or money in FA, but shelling out big bucks has never been my cup of tea. Perhaps Wade Davis' former Rays running mate in Jake McGee, plus another veteran, like Luke Gregerson, could be brought in to compete for the late inning roles. Maples/CJ Edwards will be in the mix next year. Specifically, though, I'd like to see the Cubs make decisions on some arms in the minors and see if they could help for the pen. I'm thinking Trevor Clifton might be a thought - he might be able to ramp it up a bit more and be a bit more electric out of the pen. I'd like to see them move, if he's around, Duane Underwood to the pen and see if there's anything there. There are other guys - do the Cubs feel Alzolay can make it as a starter? If not, fast-tracking him as a pen arm could help, with his strike-throwing capabilities. I still see a bit of Zach Britton in Justin Steele, so I still wonder if Steele might be better off moved. The short of it is this - our window is now, and while in general, you build starters until they can't do it anymore, the Cubs may have to, on certain players, ask if it's worth it for them to keep plugging them along as starters if they could perhaps help in this window.

As for Hendry, good for him. He's seen a stellar quick rebuild, and maybe he's learned some things with the Yankees. There were good moments under Hendry, so I wish him the best.

Like others said, an arm and a leg, and that might not be enough. That said, I think there's almost zero chance that they would shop them together. For all the talk about Stanton's burdensome backloaded contract, someone's going to pay for it. Boston makes a ton of sense, as it feels like a Dombrowski move and they have the assets. I have my doubts the Yankees would get in on this, but they can't be ruled out if they offer some combination of Frazier/Torres/Sheffield. I mean, I wonder about the Cardinals, if they can clear out the space for the contract. I'd also add any of the teams with strong systems could take a peek. After all, they'd have Stanton to build around. but they may have to cut costs in the interim if their sheets can't fit it in. Yelich ... not sure they move him. He's affordable and good. I'd love to have him, though. Defensive metrics are pretty bleh in CF, iirc (off the top, the numbers in CF weren't horrendous this year, but he's certainly below average at best), but I might be able to live with it. Have a late inning CF replacement ready and shift Yelich to LF late in the games. Having Yelich leading off would be awesome for this lineup. Yelich/Bryant/Rizzo/Contreras? Awesome. Still, don't see it happening (although perhaps they would have interest in Baez?) I wonder if they might try slapping Wei-Yin Chen's backloaded contract with say Ozuna and see if someone might bite (assuming Chen can pass his physicals, but he did pitch late in the year). If they desperately need to chop money off, getting someone to take Chen's deal off might save them from more drastic moves, even at the cost of Ozuna. I wonder if any team would bite on some sort of deal like that ... or if they'd need the Marlins to eat part of Chen's deal.

It really comes down to what the All-22 shows, though. At a glance at that game, and I was out so wasn't paying huge attention, it did seem like the boxes were stacked and they were selling out against the run a lot. If a defense is doing that, I don't care how talented you are as a runner ... it's just going to be tough sledding. One of the more under-rated runners in recent history was Maurice Jones-Drew, and I remember a lot of his games with crappy QB's ... he'd get the hand-off and it'd seem like the defense was in the backfield already as they sold out on the run (obviously, wasn't always like that, exaggerating for effect). Add in a simplified offense with a rookie QB ... and it'd be tough sledding, and that's before we get to questions on the quality of the opposing defense. All that said, there's a fair argument that a really elite running game might've been able to do more to balance things out and create a bit more space. Again ... how one defines elite, and it is subjective, makes the determination here.

Well, that was one weird, long game. At the end of the day, I thought the Cubs chances increased exponentially when Gio Gonzalez was the starter instead of Tanner Roark. With the way the bats had been scuffling, Roark, I thought, might've given us more problems. A 4 pitch guy who has solid enough command, mixes it up, and had a strong 2nd half? I thought that might've given the Cubs some trouble. I've never liked Gio Gonzalez's "effective wildness". A lot of interesting calls in the game, particularly the Baez backswing (will be interesting to see what the league eventually says, as the rulebook seems to be clear on it), but the Cubs gutted out a tough win after being down early, and the Cubs move on. I've oddly been positive about the Cubs chances against the Dodgers in the playoffs, and I still feel that way. I imagine Quintana goes Game 1, with Lester Game 2? Dunno, as tough as the Dodgers are on paper, I feel like the Cubs can wear them down enough. That said, Dodgers pen has been lights out. Gonna be a good series. I seriously hope they make a chance to the pen. Granted, there's not that many moves available, so really, I'm looking at Hector Rondon and/or Koji Uehara (if he's ready). There's no point to carry Lackey AND three lefties (a bit more justification for the 3 lefties, particularly if Montgomery becomes the only long man).

I don't necessarily disagree with that. That was my first thought as well, that they went looking for a bad body shortstop. I mean, after all, if I think Paredes is going to hit for higher average and lower pop than Peralta, that's arguably a far different player. This isn't great either, but another thought that ran through my head was Asdrubal Cabrera. Although, I tend to think if Isaac pans out, he'll hit better than Asdrubal did (for average, that is).

It's possible that Paredes ends up hitting for more power ... after all, quickly scanning Peralta's history, there was a lot more power volatility from year to year than I recalled. In general, I view Paredes, if he pans out, as someone who should hit for a higher average than Peralta.

So I would argue that the Bears have an top back, a great tandem with Tarik Cohen. Heck, as a UVA fan, I always thought that with a better OL and QB, Smoke Mizzell might've been able to live up to his 5-star billing (although he didn't help himself). I haven't checked stats for the OL in ages, but I'd imagine that the Bears grade fairly well in that regards. Does that constitute an elite run game? I guess it comes down to how you view that term. I tend to think of an elite run game as one that can chew down the clock, with dynamic versatility and the ability to drive ahead, and make things easier for your QB. I tend to think of an elite run game as one that goes hand-in-hand with your QB play, so it's really tough to judge. Actually, we'll get a pretty good gauge tomorrow on how top notch this Bears run game is, as the game plan is likely to be slimmed down dramatically to help Trubisky out. Forced to make an answer, I'd say yes, that the Bears have an elite run game. After all, while the Steelers have struggled more than most thought, the Bears stole a win there.

What did they say about Paredes? Basically the next Kinsler and the Cubs' Jay Buhner? Probably He got a Jhonny Peralta comp. That's reasonable for a positive scenario. There's a lot of similarities in terms of bad body but the ability to be steady defensively. Not sure Paredes will hit with as much pop as prime Peralta did, but I guess it's possible (particularly if the balls keep flying like they did this year).

Quintana's the right man at the right time. As deep and balanced as the Nationals lineup is, I'd place more emphasis on containing the lefties, relatively speaking. That is, I'd rather not let Harper and Murphy get going. If Rendon/Zimmerman/Werth/Turner carry them, so be it, it's a deep and talented team. So random thought on the game - I get why CJ Edwards was in there ... and if a similar situation came up in this series, I don't have a particularly problem with him pitching to Harper. Now, I'd rather roll the dice with Montgomery, but I get it, and then let Montgomery deal with the righties, but that probably shows, as my above comment does as well, that I put a lot of value in holding Harper down and not letting him carry them in a short series, and I certainly get managerial decisions might consider that to be a bit shortsighted. All that said, if anything, with a chance to put a stranglehold on the series, I would've considered going to Davis for Harper. I mean, I don't know the numbers off the top, but weren't Davis' numbers against lefties superb? If I'm going down to Harper, I'd rather go down with Wade making a mistake, knowing that was my best guy. With the off day coming up, he should be rested enough for an inning in game 3. I get why Maddon didn't and wouldn't consider it, but all the post-game questions on Edwards by the media, while understandable, seems to fail to acknowledge the Nationals bench and balance, and how it makes it difficult to go batter by batter in these late-game situations with the Nats. I mean, Rendon raked against lefties this year. In some respects, I still sorta wish they had carried Rondon instead of a third lefty, or even Lackey. I mean, he struggled in August, but seemed to have found a rhythm in September again. I'm just not sure three lefties were necessary because I just don't see it as likely that they will definitively go batter by batter late in games, as it's simply too hard to do that against the Nats unless you burn out your pen (along with the fact that CJ and Wade were excellent against lefties). Anyhow, entering the series, I think everyone would've been happy with a split, so Cubs are fine. Here's hoping Scherzer's great pen session was just ... a great pen session.

I really like the Yankees chances against Cleveland. I wouldn't bet on it, as I'm not that gutsy, but as good as the Indians are, the Yankees can really shorten down games, and their bullpen is that deep. Now, they'll need some innings out of their starters,but assuming nothing is as train-wreck bad as Severino was today ... I think an interesting decision for the Yankees will be when to pitch Severino. with such a short outing, I guess they could bring him back Game 2 and have him lined up for Game 5. As bad as he was, the whole body of work this year grants him a mulligan now that they've won. Of course, Game 2 and 5 is also Kluber ... and obviously the chances of winning go down. I wonder if they hold him off until Game 3 ... Either way, it's going to be a tantalizing series in terms of matchups. If Giradi can get say ... 3 out of his starters, he really wouldn't be blamed if he turned it over to the pen that early, with all those off-days.

This was my least favorite match-up, but then again, there are only a handful of teams, and well, this has been the expected match-up for awhile now. Around mid-season, I wouldn't have given us much of a chance, but the Cubs are probably heading into the post-season in as good a spot as possible. Yet, the Nationals probably have the advantage in the starting rotation, their lineup is arguably deeper and a bit more balanced, and well, heck, I'm not so sure I wouldn't take the rest of the Nationals pen over the Cubs, outside of the closer spot. Tanner Roark had a strong 2nd half, so it's not likely that Dusty will force feed Strasburg and Scherzer for 2 starts a piece. On paper, I just think the Nationals are the better team. Despite all that ... can't help but I think we've got a shot. I think this goes 5. If I had to make a pick now, I'd probably go with Strasburg in a decider, much as it hurts.

Eh, I was sorta high on Underwood, but he's had spurts before. This is a nice start, nice stretch, but he really had to finish strong, and start well in aaa next year. Too much stagnation for him in last couple of years. If it wasn't the state of the system, I'd move him to the pen already.

i'm having trouble seeing how it could even hurt this is about as little i've cared about what we traded away in any trade one of my teams has ever made If Candelario becomes an above average hot corner guy soon, one might wonder if he could've netted more in the off-season. Again, don't really think it'll hurt that much, but the possibility is there.

I get the intrigue with the assets and I'm not nearly as high in Gray as others, but I thought Yankees got a steal here. I'm not sure I've ever cared for Kaprelian as a midrotation arm, and Mateo needs a lot of time.

I loved this deal. Yes, it could hurt, but this was a go for it deal at a cost of a blocked guy in Candelario and a raw asset in Paredes. Its the type of move you live with when you go for it.