Jump to content
North Side Baseball

goonys evil twin

Old-Timey Member
  • 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

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by goonys evil twin

  1. I don't know what "way better" means, but AGon is better than Neifi. And his 1 year $3m deal is more team friendly than Neifi's 2 year $5m deal.
  2. That was more health related, IIRC. I think it's a different scenario and the circumstances surrounding it. It was partially health related. But he still gave Dempster the job even though he was the worst of the candidates in spring training, and he had Rusch and Mitre available for the duty. The point is Dusty has a history that would seem to indicate Cedeno is not a lock to start at SS, at least not for long.
  3. They don't hurt his chances with this regime in charge. They think he's good, and couldn't give a crap about his OBP.
  4. I've heard this storyline all offseason, and I'm still waiting for the proof this season. Hendry called Dempster his closer all last offseason and still Dusty found a way to foolishly put him in the rotation.
  5. No he cannot, unless you already have a great lineup around him. AGonz II is better than Neifi. He played his entire career in a pitchers park while Neifi played much of his career in Coors, accounting the career discrepency. Adjusting for park factors Sea Bass is better. That's not anything close to hooey, it's stone cold fact.
  6. Walker turns 33 in May. What are the chances he significantly declines this year? I meant at this stage of his relationship with Hendry, Baker and the Cubs. Not this age. I think he's perfectly capable of being a starting 2B. He'd be my starting 2B on this roster and hit 2nd in the order unless I could trade him for a significant upgrade elsewhere while getting adequate production at his position.
  7. Maybe, but that is often where people let impressions take over reality. People who watch Jeter everyday claim he's one of the greatest with the glove. But nearly every other source puts him in the middle of the pack at best, and quite often in the bottom half. I'd like to see somebody break down video from every ball put in play. Take all the plays that went between the 2B and 3B, time every ball from the time it leaves the bat to the time it hits the OF grass (or is fielded), measure the distance from where the SS was. There has to be a way to translate that into seeing who really were the better fielders and which guys that may look flashy actually don't get to as many balls as they should. That'd take a lot of time though, and I'm not sure if it would work.
  8. I think that sources prediction was a bit unrealistic, expecting improvement out of a pitcher Maddux's age. But he's going to have a better year if only because he'll be given a spot all year long, while Williams will have to unfairly battle with Rusch for time. The key for Maddux is to keep that HR total down. The control is still there, but that HR total doubled from career norms in the 2003-2005 timespan. [edit - I mean doubled per year, not doubled the career total] BTW - Didn't the Bill James endorsed pitching prediction give Maddux a similar 2006 line? I have to disagree about Maddux's control. His lack of control is exactly why the HR have gone up, and why he's so less effective. His success was based on pinpoint accuracy, and he can no longer hit that pin. He's still got better control than most, but not enough to prevent the inevitable late career decline.
  9. Even if he's not traded I can't see him being an everyday guy at this stage. I think Hairston or Neifi is going to take up much of the playing time at 2nd regardless of what happens on the trade front.
  10. Boston also can afford a weak bat in the lineup, because they have a better lineup than the Cubs. Ortiz and Ramirez are better than Ramirez and Lee. Plus, Varitek, Crisp, Nixon, Loretta, Youkilis provide a much better supporting cast than the Cubs have. So, Boston not only is Alex better than Neifi, his teammates are better than Neifi's teammates, which makes it easier to cover his shortcomings. And from a pitching standpoint I would say Boston's top end has as big an upside as the Cubs, and they have better depth in the rotation. They do have health questions on the pitching staff, like the Cubs, but unlike the Cubs they have a potential top 2/3 offense to make up for some potential setbacks on the staff. There are questions in the bullpen, but their best guys stack up favorably with the Cubs best relievers, and the Cubs have health/consistency quesitons of their own. Both teams have potential top 3 pitching staffs in their league, but injuries or setbacks could put either in the middle of the pack. The difference between the team is Boston is going to be a top 3 offense in their league, the Cubs won't. Boston can afford a mediocre bat here and there, the Cubs can't.
  11. Boston players are immune to cancer, so it doesn't matter.
  12. I don't know. I was just wondering because if he gets a 140 game bonus for another 1M than the Perez deal is better IMO. But AGonz is better than Neifi. In what ways? In every way. AGonzII OPS+ the past three years, 100, 79, 85, career, 78. Neifi 65, 71, 77, career 65. Alex is considerably younger and much more likely to outproduce Neifi this year. And his team only gave him a 1 year deal, as opposed to the Cubs who foolishly committed to Neifi for 2 years.
  13. I think that sources prediction was a bit unrealistic, expecting improvement out of a pitcher Maddux's age. But he's going to have a better year if only because he'll be given a spot all year long, while Williams will have to unfairly battle with Rusch for time.
  14. I don't know. I was just wondering because if he gets a 140 game bonus for another 1M than the Perez deal is better IMO. But AGonz is better than Neifi.
  15. Sure, he sucks with the bat. But I would love him to come in for a late inning defensive replacement of Todd Walker or Ronny Cedeno if we need to hold a lead. His glove really is outstanding. But I'll agree he is paid too much.. I wouldn't. I think just as often as the better glove helps you, you end up losing the lead some other and need the better bat later on. I've seen too many games where the better hitters were on the bench after being double switched for defense late and the team needed to score. Most runs are scored in some way other than a middle infielder not getting to a ball. And most times an average fielder doesn't get to a ball that a great fielder would have, that guy doesn't even score anyway.
  16. I've got no problem paying Hairston $2.5m as a bench man. The guy who is getting wasteful amounts of money is Neifi, because he clearly sucks. Hairston at least gives you a shot at decent numbers. Neifi is a lock for bad numbers. I wouldn't have much of a problem with a straight up $5m platoon of Walker and Hairston. There's nothing wrong with spending on the bench. A couple bench players are going to end up with nearly as many plate appearances as many starters get anyway. The key is spending that money on guys who have a chance to contribute, as opposed to guys who are guaranteed to fail.
  17. Replacing Neifi with Lugo is what improves the team, because the Cubs seem set on either getting rid of Walker, or letting Neifi take a lot of his playing time. They value the defense far more than the offense this offseason, so Walker is being scapegoated as the reason the pitchers weren't that good last year.
  18. Wasn't it 1 year $3m? That's less than Neifi's 2 year $5m contract. The 2006 salary may be more, but the 1 year vs 2 year committment makes a big difference.
  19. Because they believe he's in a pretty steep post 30 decline. He's older, bigger and slower than he was when he got the reputation as a solid glove man. They thought he was very sloppy, and lazy in the field. And his offense just doesn't justify the salary. Perhaps they just realized their mistake in giving him that contract in the first place. Top notch hitting middle infielders were getting a lot of money, and that started to trickle down into the less impressive hitters. Renteria, with a couple decent years in the 26/27/28 age range, had everybody believing he could keep it up. Maybe the whole Theo thing was really just a cover to allow the team to back away from that bad signing without Theo having to trade away his own mistake. The new guy is 1.5 years younger, solid defensively, and much cheaper. His 1/3 is more favorable than the 2/5 the Cubs gave Neifi.
  20. A) Rusch is a weaker link than Wuertz. B) Rusch is going to be in the starting rotation to begin the season. C) 7 relievers is a big possibility, especially since they probably don't even have 6 competent bench players going to camp. D) None of those other relievers is a consistently effective enough pitcher to count Wuertz as the odd man out.
  21. So far the money for Prior and Hairston were both below what I initially thought they'd be (before I heard about their submitted figures).
  22. I've been here for years, and I've never found a hangout for Cubs fans, or Bears fans for that matter. But I haven't really been looking. There are Steelers and Eagles/Phillies bars near me, and I've heard of a Cleveland Indians place, though I've never been. I do run across Cubs fans all the time though. And it's not that hard to convince most bartenders to throw on a Cubs game for you, assuming it's being televised here (although it does take a lot of explaining to get them to channel 307 if they have directv).
  23. Wuertz wouldn't have any value in a trade? How so? Relievers are extremely sought after. The Arthur Rhodes trade shows you what middle relief can get you in trades. Rhodes is an old inconsistent reliever who also costs a lot more than Wuertz. Even if you couldn't get a lot for MW straight up, you could certainly package him for something meaningful. If Wuertz was on the White Sox last year people would talk about him a lot more than just as good depth. He pitched well, and could help a lot of teams, including big market perennial winners like Atlanta, Yankees and Red Sox, not to mention Philly and the Mets, who all have to rely on guys who aren't better than Wuertz in their bullpen. At verious times in their careers, Dempster, Williamson, Howry and Eyre were all less effective than Wuertz was last year. We can't be certain all 4 of them will be better next year, and should not pretend it's a guarantee.
  24. Why would Hendry get credit for Wood or Garland? Wood came along in the prior regime. Garland was drafted when Hendry was in charge of scouting, but he was traded a year later for a dime a dozen reliever. Willis was drafted when Hendry was scouting director, then traded when he was assistant GM. And there wasn't much scouting going on in the Prior situation. I give Cubs brass credit for Zambrano, and for finding Willis. But they gave up Dontrelle too easily to be given credit for his rise.
  25. I was only stating that if, given a choice, I'd rather let Wuertz or Novoa (Novoa sooner than Wuertz) rather than to trade Williamson for a near-worthless prospect. Williamson can be a shut-down middle-to-setup reliever and I just don't see that kind of ceiling for Novoa or Wuertz - two pitchers who will not be on a fully-healthy Cubs pitching roster. And then what happens next year when somebody else can name their price with Wuertz while Williamson leaves for the big bucks? Williamson for a near worthless prospect isn't a realistic part of the discussion, so it's silly to even bring up. There is no such thing as a fully-healthy Cubs pitching roster. Wuertz should definitely be on this team. Novoa isn't in his class.
×
×
  • Create New...