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

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by davearm

  1. davearm
    Tejada isn't nearly the fan favorite in Baltimore that he once was. Guys like Markakis, Roberts, Bedard, and Guthrie get the attention these days. Lots of O's fans are hopeful that Tejada will be traded, actually.
  2. davearm
    you say that as if the Cubs have had hitters go elsewhere and blossom into great hitters since...oh, let's say anytime in the past 20-25 years. Joe Carter wasn't to shabby now was he, I believe he has a couple rings on his finger! I wasn't talking about just hitters I was talking about any player, pitcher, batter and ballgirl for that matter. Joe Carter was pretty terrible. Sarcasm? Joe Carter is a guy that the stathead acronym crowd thinks is vastly overrated. His OPS+, WARP3, RATE etc. measures are all uninspiring. Carter played in an era where hitting 30 HRs and driving in 100 runs was enough to be considered a great player. Those standards are changing (or have changed), and Carter doesn't measure up nearly as well on the newer sabermetric scales.
  3. davearm
    That debate wasn't nonsense. This forum allows people to discuss Cubs topics (as well as other topics) and express their opinions on said topics. A poster expressing their opinion is not 'nonsense.' Also, there is no universally accepted definition of just about any subjective topic or phrase. If there were, there would be no need to discuss or debate prospects, players, or teams. Fair enough. I still say that the ambiguous nature of the question inevitably will lead to this thread devolving into a long and ultimately hopeless semantic argument over what constitutes an "elite" prospect. If there's value in that exercise, then carry on.
  4. davearm
    This is just like the "natural SS" nonsense. Come up with a universally-accepted definition of "elite prospect," and we can answer the question.
  5. davearm
    Well said CCP. People are quick to observe Murton's sparse playing time and immediately jump to the conclusion that the Cubs don't like the guy and/or don't see much value in him. That's certainly a plausible explanation, but it's hardly the only one. And as you note, Hendry's made some comments that indicate they still place a high value on the guy.
  6. davearm
    It seems to me that the treatment of the deferred money would have to be expressly stipulated in the trade. However absent any specific language, my assumption would be that the deferred dollars from before today would be the Reds' responsibility, and the deferred dollars for the rest of '07 and all of '08 would be the Cubs' responsibility. The latter would amount to only a small percentage of the 57.5 total. I seem to recall $6M of the '08 amount is deferred. So absent any other agreement, my take would be that the Cubs would be on the hook for 1/3 of this year's $12.5M ($6.5M/3 deferred and $6M/3 due this year), all of next year's $12.5M (with $6.5M deferred), and either the $4M buyout or $16.5M in 2009. $2M + $6M due this year and next. $2.17M + $6.5M deferred. $16.5M or $4M buyout in 2009.
  7. davearm
    Let's cut to the chase here with a simple yes or no. Do you think MLB teams are "beyond idiotic" for allowing a player acquisition decision to be influenced by what is observed over 3 games? Cutting a complicated question down to a simple yes or no doesn't help the conversation much. Case in point, yes or no, are you still beating your wife? What's complicated? It's incontrovertable fact that a) teams commonly go and scout the players they're interested in acquiring; b) the scouting spans only a handful of games; and c) the final go/no-go decision is influenced by the scouting report. Is this practice "beyond idiotic?" Yes or no? It's complicated because it's all a matter of degree. Would it be beyond idiotic to allow the scouting reports to be 100% of your decision? No doubt. What about 50%? Still, almost certainly. 5%? Most likely not. The question isn't really whether or not scouting can be a valuable tool. Nobody is debating that. The question is whether you are able to place the scouting report in the proper context. A scout sent to see Dunn in the 12 games before the last three would have a radically different report than one based on the last three. Without having other thing drastically influencing your decisions, scouting reports aren't going to help you much, if at all. The point I'm making, and you seem to agree, is that observing Dunn for the last few days should impact how the Cubs view the guy, and what they'd be willing to pay for him. The degree to which this all matters is uncertain, but whatever change has occurred since Thursday has been to decrease his value. Hence the original statement pages ago, "hopefully the Dunn fanatics took notice of Dunn's 3 consecutive o-fers this weekend," because his value took (or at least should have taken) a hit because of it.
  8. davearm
    Let's cut to the chase here with a simple yes or no. Do you think MLB teams are "beyond idiotic" for allowing a player acquisition decision to be influenced by what is observed over 3 games? If a team did that, and used 3 games as any sort of significant deciding factor, then yes, absolutely. I didn't think I needed to be any clearer. The only exception might be to confirm a player's health after an injury, but I'm not sure 3 games is even enough to determine that for sure. That was a straightforward answer, and I appreciate it. FWIW, never once did I say, or imply, that Dunn's poor weekend should be a "significant deciding factor" in this whole thing. That notion came from folks jumping to conclusions and inferring things that aren't implied. That said, Dunn's weekend is not something to ignore, either. It's just another piece of evidence to slot into the "con" column of the ledger, and it's enough to knock down your willingness to pay a bit. And that alone might be enough to tilt a borderline deal into the "no" range.
  9. davearm
    Let's cut to the chase here with a simple yes or no. Do you think MLB teams are "beyond idiotic" for allowing a player acquisition decision to be influenced by what is observed over 3 games? Cutting a complicated question down to a simple yes or no doesn't help the conversation much. Case in point, yes or no, are you still beating your wife? What's complicated? It's incontrovertable fact that a) teams commonly go and scout the players they're interested in acquiring; b) the scouting spans only a handful of games; and c) the final go/no-go decision is influenced by the scouting report. Is this practice "beyond idiotic?" Yes or no?
  10. davearm
    Let's cut to the chase here with a simple yes or no. Do you think MLB teams are "beyond idiotic" for allowing a player acquisition decision to be influenced by what is observed over 3 games?
  11. davearm
    Seriously? You don't understand why I'm focusing on "he sucks in August in September" issue? It's because the proposal is that we obtain the guy for August and September. Not hard to understand whatsoever. People are taking that statement far too literally. I didn't mean that the fact that his boxscore reads 0-12 is the reason to shy away. The reason to shy away is that the guy had unimpressive ABs all weekend, and from a scouting/skillset perspective did basically nothing positive. Because he's not. As proof of his inconsistency, I cited the August and September swoons. The seasonlong statistics you posted didn't demonstrate consistency. If anything, they demonstrated a downward trend.
  12. davearm
    Question for you davhern (not to be confused with davearm). What do you think of the common practice of a team sending a scout to watch a trade target play for a few games? You know, the typical stuff you hear all the time: "trade talks between the Blackjacks and the Turbos are heating up, and this weekend the Blackjacks had a scout in Mudville to watch Slugger McLain." Is that little bit of standard operating procedure that basically every MLB team follows "completely and utterly laughable" too? If you can't realize for yourself that basing a player acquisition decision on what is done over 3 games is beyond idiotic, I don't know what else to say. You're evading the question (perhaps wisely). What I'm asking is, what is your explanation for why MLB teams base player acquisition decisions upon what scouts observe over 3 games? Is it your position that the MLB teams that engage in this activity (which seems to be all 30) are "beyond idiotic?"
  13. davearm
    Not to make excuses, but Dunn hasn't been on a team that has had much to play for in August and September either. And Griffey is almost always hurt toward the end of the season...in 3 years he has 31 AB's. Dunn absolutely tanked toward the end of last year, and the Reds were in the hunt the whole way.
  14. davearm
    Dunn has not consistently produced for several years. His numbers have been all over the board, actually. I posted this earlier, but the closest thing to consistency Dunn has shown is that his numbers plummet in August and September. You're really reaching here. 2004: .266/.388/.569/.957 2005: .247/.387/.540/.927 2006: .234/.365/.490/.855 2007: .263/.364/.548/.912 That's rock solid compared to targets like Dye, who have been all over the map, or targets like Payton who don't sniff Dunn's down year production. TT if you think I'm reaching, you really need to go back and read some of the earlier posts in this thread. To summarize: since he became a regular player, Dunn's played 5 Augusts, and 4 Septembers. In those 9 months, he has: 1 monthly OPS of 1000 2 monthly OPSs between 800 and 850 1 of 799 1 of 700 4 below 600. 4 of 9 below 600! That's not good. At all. Dunn being a poor late-season hitter is not just some figment of my imagination. The numbers bear it out.
  15. davearm
    Question for you davhern (not to be confused with davearm). What do you think of the common practice of a team sending a scout to watch a trade target play for a few games? You know, the typical stuff you hear all the time: "trade talks between the Blackjacks and the Turbos are heating up, and this weekend the Blackjacks had a scout in Mudville to watch Slugger McLain." Is that little bit of standard operating procedure that basically every MLB team follows "completely and utterly laughable" too? There's a large difference between the two. First of all, the spirit of the original post was "Dunn had a couple 0-fers, see he's not all that good". That's not what scouts are looking for. They're looking to see Dunn's swing, how he handles himself in the field, etc. And even then, I think that should be weighed relatively lightly compared to the body of work of a player when considering a trade target. Scouting a target can be very worthwhile when you're trying to find a guy who may have a breakout second half or someone who will turn it around(see: Kendall, Payton, Church, etc.). But when you're talking about trading for a guy who's consistently produced for several years, there should be a lot less emphasis on what a scout may see in a brief stretch. Dunn has not consistently produced for several years. His numbers have been all over the board, actually. I posted this earlier, but the closest thing to consistency Dunn has shown is that his numbers plummet in August and September.
  16. davearm
    Your stats vs skills point is well taken, but the fact remains: teams make go/no-go decisions on trades all the time based upon scouts' observations over a small number of games. Do you think a scout sent to observe Dunn's skillset would go away with a positive recommendation for his GM based on what he saw this weekend?
  17. davearm
    Question for you davhern (not to be confused with davearm). What do you think of the common practice of a team sending a scout to watch a trade target play for a few games? You know, the typical stuff you hear all the time: "trade talks between the Blackjacks and the Turbos are heating up, and this weekend the Blackjacks had a scout in Mudville to watch Slugger McLain." Is that little bit of standard operating procedure that basically every MLB team follows "completely and utterly laughable" too?
  18. davearm
    I guess I'm in the 1% of Cub fans that would still be open to trading Z in the next day or two for a big haul of promising youngsters. Even though I recognize that is certain not to happen.
  19. davearm
    Hopefully the Dunn fanatics took notice of Dunn's 3 consecutive o-fers this weekend.
  20. davearm
    If his contract for next year is voided if he's traded during this year, how do they trade him in the offseason? It's not that his contract is voided, it's that the club option for 08 is voided. All the Reds have to do in the offseason is exercise the club option during the window its open, and then trade him off... but they can't exercise that option yet. I read someplace that if Dunn's option is exercised, he cannot be traded without his permission until after June 15th. No, I don't have a link.
  21. davearm
    Try telling that to the half dozen or so contending teams that are trying to add a league average starter this week, and (so far) having no luck. Exactly...I think this is a stingy market this year, and I'm honestly not thinking there's going to be much in the way of big name trades. I think Kendall and Linebrink might about as big as it gets. I think the odds are high that Teixeira ends up someplace new, and he'll certainly be the biggest name, akin to Carlos Beltran in 2004. Beyond that, I'd guess the Sox make at least one significant trade involving Dye or a pitcher. At least one of the many relievers on the rumor circuit will change hands.
  22. davearm
    The Cubbies have a large inventory of nice trade chips, IMO. As rawaction noted, non-contending teams will value guys can be put right into the lineup without much of a dropoff and provide years of cheap production. We've got that in spades. I'd love to play this year and next with an everyday lineup consisting of 4 bonafide veteran stars, plus DeRosa, plus 3-4 league min guys from amongst Cedeno, Pie, Soto, Patterson, Murton, Theriot, Fontenot, Pagan. That'd be a real nice roster. All that's missing from that equation at the moment is that fourth veteran star to put with Lee ARam and Soriano. Griffey and Tex are the two top candidates for the role, IMO.
  23. davearm
    Try telling that to the half dozen or so contending teams that are trying to add a league average starter this week, and (so far) having no luck.
  24. davearm
    Some of the rumored packages for Tex are pretty darn scary. BOS: Youkilis + Lester ATL: Salty + Andrus + prospect LAD: Loney + Ethier + prospect Those are some stiff pricetags right there.
  25. davearm

    davearm replied to UBlink's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk

    Exactly. The answer depends entirely upon how "natural SS" is defined.
×
×
  • Create New...