Jump to content
North Side Baseball

davearm

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    673

  • 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 davearm

  1. davearm
    Let him play next year for the $3M he's due to buy out his 2007 option. Seems fair to me. The Cubs already owe him that money. And if Wood is as true blue as he says he is, he'll take that offer knowing that he hasn't exactly earned the last several million the Cubs have paid him.
  2. davearm
    Guzman is an inferior hitter though, you'd be gambling away a better player for the flexibility. Guzman's drawn comparisons to Miguel Cabrera and Juan Gonzalez, and not so long ago was viewed as a better prospect than LaRoche. Heck he was the Dodgers' #1 on BA's list in 2005, with LaRoche at #5. It's true that he's not progressed this year, but perhaps that creates a terrific buy-low opportunity.
  3. davearm
    The great thing about Joel Guzman is that he can play 3B if no ARam, or OF if ARam's back (or never left). LaRoche sounds fantastic, and in a vaccuum, I'd certainly prefer him to Guzman. But Guzman's positional flexibility (and LaRoche's inflexibility, which limit the options on handling this ARam situation) goes a long way toward bridging the gap between the two guys, IMO. Either guy for, say, Maddux and Hill would be a huge win for the Cubs, IMO.
  4. davearm
    Marcus Giles' .707 OPS is rather unimpressive. And considering he's arb. eligible, and will probably make somewhere in the $4.5-5.5M range in 2007, I say pass big time. I agree, I'm not too keen on Giles. Too bad a guy like Todd Walker isn't available. Todd Walker and Marcus Giles aren't even in the same class. Giles is a 5-7 win player (actually 9 wins in 2003). Walker is a 2-3 win player. Don't let his injury-deflated stats for 2006 fool you. Giles would be a terrific option at the top of the order, as well as at 2B.
  5. davearm
    C'mon Jimmy get your butt in on this one! Braves: Linebrink Cubs: Giles Padres: Maddux + Aardsma/Ohman/Wuertz
  6. davearm
    Probably right. What else could we add? Think aloud, please. Walker? They've got Ramon Martinez playing 2B with Kent on the DL. Ohman? Beimel is the only lefty in their pen with Perez out the door. Nevin? As insurance on Nomar and a RH power bat for the bench.
  7. davearm
    I don't know that I agree with that. Walker is an everyday player, and would add a solid and steady bat to that lineup. He'd do the same in Seattle or Detroit as well. If I were Hendry (and I somehow doubt that Hendry is this astute any longer) I'd set up deals with both Texas and Seattle and see if one was willing to outbid the other. Regardless, Texas could use him in the lineup every day, and Kinsler would be my beginning asking price (I'd of course throw in money and/or a prospect). Walker is not an everyday player on a contending team. At least not one with its regulars healthy. I wish he was too, but we really need to admit that he isn't.
  8. davearm
    I'm impressed with Ethier as much as the next guy, but I'd prefer Maddux for Joel Guzman straight up, if it meant we could hold onto our relievers. If the Dodgers are sold on Ethier and Kemp, then Guzman becomes more expendable (although I realize he could just go back to 3B).
  9. davearm
    Because they are terrible, like I explained in the original post. I'm not expecting top flight stuff for Williamson, just not the garbage we ended up getting. To rip Hendry for getting "garbage" for Williamson suggests you have firsthand knowledge that Hendry could have made a better trade, and gotten better than "garbage". If that is indeed the case, then by all means, enlighten us with what other deals were available. Obviously I don't have knowledge of specific players that were available, but it would be pretty difficult to find a package worse than the one we got. These guys will be two of, if not the two worst pitchers in Peoria. Think about that for a second. If you don't know the situation, then why assume the worst? For all you know, every other GM giggled and hung up when the words 'Scott Williamson' came off of Hendry's lips. About the best you can do is argue that Hendry might've waited a week to see if anyone else got desperate enough to top the Pads' offer. Of course the risk there is that maybe the Pads' offer disappears, and you're left with an even worse return, or nothing at all. And that Peoria comment is completely irrelevant. Scott Williamson had a 0% chance of contributing to the Cubs going forward beyond '06. These guys have a small chance, but at least it's greater than 0.
  10. davearm
    Because they are terrible, like I explained in the original post. I'm not expecting top flight stuff for Williamson, just not the garbage we ended up getting. To rip Hendry for getting "garbage" for Williamson suggests you have firsthand knowledge that Hendry could have made a better trade, and gotten better than "garbage". If that is indeed the case, then by all means, enlighten us with what other deals were available.
  11. davearm
    I think Maddux has 2 goals left in his baseball life: quality of life (i.e. he's on record saying Chicago is his favorite city other than his home in Vegas) and he wants to see the Cubs win a World Series. Obvioulsy, the latter isn't happening in 2006, but with the Cubs financial reach, it could still happen in 2007. That's why I think he (with Boras) and Hendry will reach a 1 year deal. Hoops, if you're right, and those really are the foremost considerations in Maddux's mind, then doesn't it make sense to approve a trade that will boost the Cubs' outlook for 2007, play out the next two months in another city, then re-sign with the Cubs in November? Like you said, the WS isn't happening in 2006, but it could in 2007. This would (presumably) bolster those chances. Win-win.
  12. davearm
    I am. I'd love to see the Cards give up a ton and end up paying Willis post arbitration money based on win totals and hype. Exactamundo. If any team is going to gut their farm to get Willis, let's hope it's the Cards. Willis has several comps that peaked before age 25 -- Steve Avery, Ismael Valdez, Jim Abbott, Mark Mulder (it seems like he's peaked). Is Buehrle poised to join the list? The Cards need young arms on their staff, it wouldn't hurt to give up Duncan who has overachieved, Reyes who projects to be middle of the rotation, and an A level prospect. If Willis' career track follows with those comps' careers, then Reyes for Willis alone will be a bad deal for the Cards.
  13. davearm
    I am. I'd love to see the Cards give up a ton and end up paying Willis post arbitration money based on win totals and hype. Exactamundo. If any team is going to gut their farm to get Willis, let's hope it's the Cards. Willis has several comps that peaked before age 25 -- Steve Avery, Ismael Valdez, Jim Abbott, Mark Mulder (it seems like he's peaked). Is Buehrle poised to join the list?
  14. davearm
    and so the market for our best trading chips shrinks a little more. NOW, JIM! DO SOMETHING FOR CS!! Well that does sort of blow a hole in the theory that relievers are demanding ridiculous returns, but having one top name come off the market does increase the value of everyone still left.
  15. davearm
    The Cubs have a lot the Dodgers could use at the moment. They've reportedly expressed interest in Maddux. They have the middle relief help that LA could use. Dempster may interest them as a closer. And with Kent out Todd Walker might even interest them. If the rumors of bad blood between Colletti and the Cubs are true, I don't see much happening on this front. It's become quite funny to me. We have all of their missing pieces. Here's a question. What would prevent Hendry from sitting down with Aramis Ramirez and saying, "you've got this opt-out clause, so here's what we'd like to do. We'd like to trade you to the Dodgers, and then have you opt out, so we can re-sign you. On the first day of free agency, I'll put on the table the exact same 4/$45 deal with a 2-year void option." And then everything goes down just like that. Cubs send Ramirez for, say, Joel Guzman, play him at 3B for the next couple months, then re-up with Ramirez after the season, and move Guzman to the OF in 2007. Is there anything to prevent this sort of handshake agreement?
  16. davearm
    Actually, I think the next stat to look at is SLG. I second that. I third that Wow I guess I wasn't clear, because a whole lot of folks missed the point. SLG isn't an element of OBP. If two guys (or teams) have equal OBP, then AVG will tell you which is producing more runs from that same OBP. Remember that the issue at hand is walk rate versus hit rate (AVG). SLG may trump them all, but that wasn't what the argument was about.
  17. davearm
    This statement is correct, and proves CubColtPacer's point, because the next stat to look at is AVG. If OBP is equal between Team A and Team B, the team with the higher AVG is going to score more runs, because hits are 2-3x more effective in producing runs than are walks. Everybody agrees that more OBP is better. But if you had to choose between more hits or more walks to achieve that higher OBP, you'd better take more hits. The Cubs' problem is that they get a similar numbers of hits, but many fewer walks, than their opponents (thus Cubs' OBP < opp OBP). One solution is to leave hits unchanged, and get as many walks as the other guys (such that Cubs' OBP = opp OBP). An even better solution is to leave walks unchanged, and get more hits than the other guys (such that Cubs' OBP = opp OBP). In the former instance, runs scored should be roughly equal. In the latter, the Cubs should score more than their opponents.
  18. davearm
    I hate to say this, but I see Jason Schmidt going to the Mets. Sabean has a recent history of STUPID trades (AJP for Nathan/Bonser/Liriano, Williams/Aardsma for Hawkins, and Hawkins for Kline), and I could see Sabean trading Schmidt for Bannister (or Heilman) and Fernando Martinez, BASED on his recent history. I am saying based on Sabean's RECENT history, not what the Giants. My guess is...Sabean will NOT get enough for Schmidt, if he trades. Well in that case, let's trade Pierre and Rusch for Schmidt, and get a foot in the door to signing him this offseason!
  19. davearm
    The most exciting part of this rumor is that the White Sox a) might become interested in Juan Pierre, and b) are not reluctant to pay for rentals with top-end prospects.
  20. davearm
    So long as it's interim, who cares.
  21. davearm
    Here's something I've been wondering lately. The Cubs have gradually acquired a whole slew of OFs that were at one time or another viewed as high-end prospects... Pagan Negron Montanez Jackson Pie Add to that guys like... Fuld Coats Sing And of course, Matt Murton. What are the chances that the Cubs can piece together a complete OF from this collection (plus Jacques as a platoon partner for one of them), for '07 and beyond? A whole OF of youngsters would be extremely risky, but extremely cheap, too... leaving a ton of $$$ to spend in other places.
  22. davearm
    Cubs: ARod Yanks: ARam, Willis, Walker/Jones Marlins: Hughes, Pie, Aardsma
  23. davearm
    If we could manage to acquire Marcus Giles, than Walker for Heilman looks even better.
  24. davearm
    How about we offer a package of vets (pick and choose from Walker, Williamson, Dempster, Jones, Pierre, Nevin), plus a young arm (one of Marshall, Guz, Hill, Marmol) for Hughes and Tabata? Maybe if they're getting a young, ML-ready starter with a lower ceiling than Hughes', that makes it more doable. Plus Jones and Dempster are more than just rentals.
  25. davearm
    My take: The Yanks are still mulling over who to target, and Jones is a prominent name on the list of candidates. Once they decide who their top target is, Cashman will place the call and be very aggressive in pursuing that player. So in other words, don't fret over the lack of contact between Cashman and Hendry. If the Yanks decide they have to have Jones, then they'll have Jones... just like always.
×
×
  • Create New...