goonys evil twin
-
Posts
13,551 -
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 Tracker: Picks & Bonuses
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by goonys evil twin
-
Now Carlos, don't be stubborn
goonys evil twin replied to Schwarber Fan's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
3+ wins, 30+ Ks, and a couple points in ERA could mean a lot this coming arbitration season. Not to mention a completely clean bill of health. It might not affect him if he was a free agent, but arbitration is all about the numbers. -
Juan has a .333 OBP, not .340-.350. He was at .326 last year. You can't assume he'll give you .340-.350. Furthermore, it doesn't make much sense to compare him to Cedeno and Izturis. Izturis is signed through next year, while Cedeno costs peanuts and is easily replacable. Izturis will be in the lineup. Juan Pierre is a free agent, which means the Cubs can let him go, which they should. Signing him would be asinine. You don't have to focus on anything to let him walk. You're already screwed by having Izturis out there, there is no reason to make it worse by keeping Pierre out there.
-
Well I never said I didn't like young pitchers. Far from it. I love young pitching, largely because it's cheap pitching, which is an efficient use of resources. But Washburn was in his fifth season of major league action in 2002, while Lackey only started 18 games. Donnoly was a 30 year old rookie reliever. And FRod got called up late. They did not go into that season with the equivalent of a Rich Hill as their 3rd starter. They had several big money veteran arms, guys they were able to expect solid, if not spectaculiar seasons from. As a team, they had the 5th best ERA in the league the year before. The Cubs are cellar dwellers with bad pitching. They need a lot of help.
-
Possibly it would have been better, but better than this is not necessarily acceptable. A dozen years, and one 90 win season. I think it's more than just the implementation, the theory is flawed from the top. They failed to recognize that Altanta actually developed great position players. I don't know of a single recent WS champ that didn't develop a very good bat from within, aside from the DBacks, that haven't even been in existence as long as MacPhail has led the Cubs. You also have to remember that MacPhail's theory wasn't just to virtually ignore position prospects, but it was also to steer clear of any and all big time free agent bats. He dipped a toe into the Hampton market, but never allowed a sniff at any difference making bats. It would be one thing to devote all minor league resources on pitchers, and then to sign guys like Vladdy, Beltran, Rodriguez, etc. It's entirely different to put your minor league resources on pitching, then only acquire bats that you can get on the cheap.
-
BP's Great Leap Forward/Two Steps Back
goonys evil twin replied to CaliforniaRaisin's topic in Cubs Minor League Talk
I don't expect much from Dopirak, but I'm holding out some hope. -
Juan should be nowhere near this team next year, if we actually care about a productive lineup. you are right. it would be impossible for a team with pierre leading off to get to the playoffs or world series let alone win them. I don't believe I said it would be impossible. It would be a bad idea though. Juan Pierre was a 25 year old making a million dollars when his team won. There's nothing wrong with getting the kind of production Pierre provided that year for that money. The problem is, as mediocre as that season was for him, he's been worse in 2005 and 2006, and, at 30 in 2007, will probably fail once again to regain his peak. In addition, he'll probably get paid anywhere from 7-10 times what he was paid that season, for less production, because there's always a handful of GM's in baseball who are terrible at performing cost/benefit analyses, Jim Hendry included.
-
Not sure how the Angels fit as an example. But the Marlins and A's go with youth out of necessity, they can't afford anything else. And they are much better at developing their youth. The question is whether or not you want to contend next year. If you're building for the future, by all means stay away from veteran arms and let the youth develop. But if you are trying to increase your odds of conteding next season, it would be a terrible mistake to go into 2007 with Hill projected as the 3rd best pitcher. That is unless, of course, you are pouring a ton of money into a lineup that will vault to the top of the runs scored list, which I wouldn't object to.
-
Now Carlos, don't be stubborn
goonys evil twin replied to Schwarber Fan's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
Wise enough, or so distrustful of the Cubs, whether it be the perceived motive to hold back his arbitration award by limiting his chances to boost his numbers, or their longstanding inability to properly detect and/or treat pitcher injuries, that he had to go to somebody else? My concern would be that his agent is telling him the Cubs are hazardous to his health, and he should not trust them. The other is that he believes the Cubs are trying to screw him financially by not allowing him to profit from a couple more wins, several more strikeouts and a lower ERA, which a couple more starts could do for him by the time February rolls around. -
Actually there are plenty of reasons. First and foremost would be his team could be so bad that it would be nearly impossible to win 15 games. He can't do it all on his own. But you kind of make my point for me. It would be a big mistake to simply say, well, he was good in the minors, and he was good for a nice stretch here in 2006, therefore he's going to win 15 games and be our number 3. A more reasonable approach, and one that would greatly improve the Cubs chances of winning, would be to set-up the rotation so that you aren't counting on Hill to be your 5th starter. He's not going to be great for 30+ starts. Like most young pitchers, he's going to have his ups and downs. In the end he might be great, he might be terrible, or he might be a prototypical number 3 starter. He's not a lock for anything, however, and it would be a major mistake to build your team on the assumption that he is a lock to be good enough to justify having him as your #3 starter going into the season.
-
Well, setting aside the ignorant tone of your post, my first suggestion, and one I've made a thousand times, would be to try Jones out there. Sorry did I offend your overly sensitive nature sweety. Jones? Like as in Jacque Jones? Great suggestion....no....no really. I'd rather you said Pie but Jones is....you cannot be serious. Might as well get Lofton for a year. In the defence of JP. Put him in the line-up suggested and he'll produce and have a great year. Jones will have a...er...a...a year just like this year if not worse. But on the bright side the Cubs strikout totals will be maintained. Matthews Jr. would have been a better suggestion. Marion Jones would have been better. Juan doesn't produce, why would the lineup change that? Strikeout totals are meaningless, what matters is OBP and SLG, that's what produces the big R, which is how you win baseball games, which is the point. Unless of course your goal is simply to field a team of stereotypes from a bygone era.
-
The "develop arms and then trade them for bats" isn't a bad idea, but it's his GM that has held onto his arms much, much longer than he should have. Juan Cruz for one should have been dealt before 2003 if he wasn't going to be used, when he still had good value. I think it's a bad idea. Arms are inconsistent and unreliable. It's nice to develop a lot of them, but it's necessary to develop position players. By going into it with almost a complete disregard for position players, the Cubs were doomed to carry on the tradition of non development.
-
The point is to get 4 guys better than him, not to actually label him with a number. If we're calling Hill the 3, that means the team will have only 2 pitchers who will project to have better seasons than Hill. And that would be a terrible mistake.
-
Well, setting aside the ignorant tone of your post, my first suggestion, and one I've made a thousand times, would be to try Jones out there.
-
I like what Hill is doing, and have liked him for quite a while. But I sure as heck won't be penciling him in to carry over his recent 9 game stretch into all of 2007. I'd try and build the rotation so that he's the 5th starter, or at least counted on to do no more than what a 5th starter might do.
-
I don't think it's that, though. He put up pretty darn good power numbers and his LD% is fairly reasonable. What most people have been criticizing him for is his lack of patience, which tends to be something that works across aluminum and wood bats. I wonder what his coaches told him they wanted to see out of him. I wouldn't at all be surprised if they told him some crap like they wanted him swinging the bat alot, being more aggressive at the plate than normal in order to quickly adjust from aluminum to wood. Either way, I'm not impressed with his showing, but, like I said, I'm waiting until after next season to declare him a good or bad pick. I'd wait longer than next year before declaring him anything, but my early impression remains skeptical, and will until he improves significantly. Oh, and you are probably dead on as far as what he's being instructed to do by the Cubs.
-
Juan should be nowhere near this team next year, if we actually care about a productive lineup.
-
You realize he's got a .319 OBP right now, and 737 OPS? Since his playing time started to increase, post all star, he's hitting just .255/.328/.377. Pagan has some physical skills, but he's no 4th outfielder. For a while he was living off of a supposed power advantage over Murton, thanks to a nice opening day and a just back from the DL 2 homer game that kept his SLG artificially inflated. Pagan has a crappy minor league history, whose only strong point was an acceptable, but far from outstanding isoD.
-
I think it depends on the new manager and what they do with the rest of the bench. Theriot seems to have earned a spot as utility infielder. Pagan does make a decent 4th OF. Having both of those guys on the bench eliminates the need for Bynum's speed- the only tool he possesses. The silver lining, even if Bynum and Pagan make the team, is that neither are making any money and are therefore easily expendable for more attractive bench options. If Soto replaces Blanco- as he should- the Cubs have the luxury of having half their bench set for less than they paid Perez. Whoever the new manager is, he's going to be a Hendry hire, which means he'll be a guy who likes people like Bynum on the roster. I would be shocked if either Freddy or Pagan are gone. Angel is a 5th OF (a 4th should be able to start for a month or two without hurting the team - Angel can't). Bynum has probably done more than any previous "25th" type player that Hendry has been smitten with. I think he'll concentrate more on spending on pitchers and a big bat than finding more veteran 25th men. Pagan, Bynum, Theriot and a catcher probably account for 4/5ths of the bench (assuming they foolishly go with 12 pitchers again), with a veteran corner man taking the other spot, unless Murton moves to the bench as well.
-
In a thread about restocking the minor league system, I would just like to point out that MacPhail has had over a dozen years to turn things around, and Hendry has been there most of the time. Andy came in and saw an entire organization in turmoil, with crap for a minor league system and practically zero major league talent. He's failed miserably with the "draft and develop pitchers, trade for bats later" strategy. With the resources the Cubs have, they should be able to win 90+ games in 2007 and improve the farm system. By 2008 they should be a dominant franchise. But going off more than a decade of proof, there's little to no hope this actually happens.
-
They are out of options due to spending 3 years on the 40 man roster with their former teams. They could be sent to the minors but would have to clear waivers. That could be done at the end of ST. Bynum clears pretty easily. Pagan probably doesn't. Not only do they not have enough time to be arb. eligible, they cannot ask for their release. As far as I know, their fate is up to the Cubs. Hendry can offer them pretty much whatever he wants, and as long as he keeps them on the 25 man roster (a near lock), the Cubs own their rights.
-
Hello $150m payroll. Ain't going to happen. Contrary to your claim, there aren't a lot of players who had bad years, at least in terms of what was expected. Most Cubs players were either up to expectations, or exceeded them. The problem is that those expectations were so low to begin with, like with guys such as Pierre and Jones. If you want to do a lot of the things you suggest they do to make the team better, one of the first things they have to do is cut bait with Pierre. JP doesn't come close to justifying his salary. He's not productive. He's a one dimensional player with far too many flaws to be consider a must have.
-
This is the quote I take issue with: How does the 7 spot protect a guy from running? Whether or not he gets on base is entirely up to him. And once he gets on base, his best chance to not run is to have a guy up to bat who will hit a homerun. In the 7th spot, you probably have a far great chance to have to try to break up double play grounders or move to 2nd on sac bunts and whatnot. Besides, the team is eliminated from competition, it's not like they are desperate for a 2 hole hitter who will "make things happen" on the bases right now. The 2nd hitter should never be stealing with the sluggers at the plate, and you wouldn't hit and run there either. This is just Dusty outthinking himself by using his dated, and failed logic/strategy to sound like a true baseball man.
-
I don't know, that's why I put the ?. I should have just asked like you did to avoid confussion. I think they're both just arby eligible. I hope I'm right, but I have a feeling that only Pagan will be with us next year. Neither Pagan nor Bynum are arbitration eligible, let alone free agents. They had a combined service time of about a week coming into this season.
-
I didn't see the play on replay, but was his arm really hit as he threw? I don't think they were claiming his arm was hit, just his body, which can greatly affect the trajectory of any pass.
-
Renting Out Wrigley & Skipping Practice
goonys evil twin replied to Laura's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
Which kind of goes back to my thought that it wasn't necessarily the corporate outings getting in the way, rather a lack of desire by the coaching staff to get on the field in the first place. I can't blame the business side for taking away the field time unless the baseball people are actually making an effort to use it and being denied. Considering how frequently the same mistakes are made by so many players on this team, I don't think the coaching staff has made much of an in season effort to work on stuff. If I recall correctly, Dusty's standard answer to questions regarding fundamentals was that they'd "have to work on that next spring."