CubColtPacer

It's pretty much impossible to throw it to a player who's getting doubleteamed off the ball. Hammons did his job in the offense guarded by two men basically the entire shot clock. It's up to the rest of the team to exploit that four on three, and they did a miserable job of it.

Fowler would be a huge upgrade as a 4th OF with the current OF configuration the Cubs have. Right now, the Cubs OF has 3 main issues surrounding it. They are relatively weak against LHP. Heyward absolutely needs to stay healthy or the Cubs have to scramble either putting an IF into CF or putting a huge downgrade in talent into CF. And the Cubs have two defensive question marks in the OF and they would probably like a defensive replacement for one of them in the late innings. Coghlan's a good player, but he doesn't solve any of those issues. Fowler solves them all. The hard part is managing the playing time/development of everybody. For example, the best thing for the 2016 Cubs would be to have Fowler take a decent amount of Schwarber AB's against left-handers, and also for him to take Soler's AB's in the cold April home games. Between that and somebody likely getting hurt over the season, Fowler would likely have tons of at-bats. But is that best for the development of those two players? And if Fowler has to take a more limited role because they want to develop the other two, I don't think he would sign no matter the money they were offering.

There's not really anything in the NBA rulebook about intentional fouls. The rule on flagrants cites "unnecessary", but the NBA has never interpreted this type of foul to be part of it. Teams do this type of foul all the time with the hack a strategy. They often tell the ref they are going to foul the guy and then wrap him up in the backcourt. This is certainly an innovative way to do it though that I've never seen before.

you're absolutely right: they're not equal. 7/210 with a player opt-out after three years is a much better proposition for the team As TT pointed out, this just isn't true. If there was no trading, there could be an argument made. But if Price is good enough that he wants to opt out after three years, than he would have positive trade value. And in fact, I would make the argument that teams are even more irrational in trade value for great players. We have seen aces get traded for significant assets even at market value contracts. The opt out robs you of all that. Is it worth losing a player over an opt out? That's a different question and is case by case. But the opt out causes a smart thinking ball club to lose the highest value scenarios out of the deal. All that smart thinking leads to not getting top targets. I mean, in a purely academic sense it's true. But the team is competing against other teams for the player's services. Also, if Price is really good for three years creating surplus value, the team isn't trading him unless there have been a series of unfortunate accidents to the level or a Cardinals team drinking problem. I don't know why it has to be said again, but I'll go ahead and do it. The object is to win the most games possible. All that is being said is that it's not a trivial thing to throw in. Sometimes you have to add in an opt out clause to get a player that you want, just like sometimes you have to go an extra year or bump up the money by a couple million per year. But the thought that a 7 year deal with a 3 year opt out is preferable to a club over a straight 7 year deal is just not correct.

Because he didn't actually grab the facemask. He hits it on the way to grabbing his shoulder. The rule is you have to grab it and then either hold on or twist. That didn't happen. Several years ago, even incidental contact with the facemask was a penalty. That isn't true in the NFL anymore. I'm not surprised they made the call because it looks like a face mask in live speed action. It's an understandable call to be missed but it was missed. Unbelievable that they can't go to the replay for penalties like that. I understand not allowing regular holding calls to get reviewed, but a call like that, which isn't a judgement call at all, should be eligible for review. Also, I liked the old incidental facemask 5 yard penalty. The distinction is key IMO, but whatever. Even if they did review that, I'm not really sure that would've been reversed. In real speed, that absolutely 100% looked like a face mask. On the replay, it still looks like the defender got a finger on the face mask, although obviously it wasn't anywhere close to what appeared to happen in live speed. As long as there's any contact to the head area of a QB, based on the NFL's rules, that's a penalty. They do need to make PI/face mask/unnecessary roughness penalties reviewable though. Based on the rules though, he's not a QB at that point of the play. He loses that special protection as soon as he throws the original pass. Practically, you might be right, but it's not according to the rules.

Because he didn't actually grab the facemask. He hits it on the way to grabbing his shoulder. The rule is you have to grab it and then either hold on or twist. That didn't happen. Several years ago, even incidental contact with the facemask was a penalty. That isn't true in the NFL anymore. I'm not surprised they made the call because it looks like a face mask in live speed action. It's an understandable call to be missed but it was missed.

you're absolutely right: they're not equal. 7/210 with a player opt-out after three years is a much better proposition for the team As TT pointed out, this just isn't true. If there was no trading, there could be an argument made. But if Price is good enough that he wants to opt out after three years, than he would have positive trade value. And in fact, I would make the argument that teams are even more irrational in trade value for great players. We have seen aces get traded for significant assets even at market value contracts. The opt out robs you of all that. Is it worth losing a player over an opt out? That's a different question and is case by case. But the opt out causes a smart thinking ball club to lose the highest value scenarios out of the deal.

This Kordell Stewart one from college against Michigan is the longest one I can ever remember seeing. It didn't quite make the end zone, but Stewart also throws it from maybe the 28 yard line so it traveled a little farther than the Rodgers one did:

Well it is...just not after Nov 3rd. It is, but it isn't. Not many trades happen and hardly anyone even knows when the trade deadline takes place. Forte wasn't hurt at the time of the deadline, but not sure how hard the Bears were trying to move him or if anyone really had any desire to make an offer. As ugly as some team's running games are, you would think someone would have been interested in a guy like Forte. I guess the asking prices just aren't worth playoff consideration, or added strength for the playoffs. I'm pretty sure Forte got hurt the Sunday before the deadline. He was in some rumors, and then the injury happened and there was just no chance after that.

I don't think it will happen, but I'm rooting for the scenario where Memphis and Ole Miss both win out. That would be a fascinating discussion if a 2 loss Ole Miss team wins the SEC championship, you have either a 1 loss Alabama team or a 1 loss LSU team that doesn't make the championship game, and then an undefeated Memphis sitting there with the victory over Ole Miss.

What will be interesting is to see how much the front office values budget projection that is still years out. With Arrieta two years out from free agency, and with that also the year that arbitration raises start rolling, I don't know how they're going to feel about committing 80-90 million over three starting pitchers between 2018-2020. We don't know if they're going to just play for the next couple years and deal with things as they come, and we really have no idea how they're projecting the budget to increase by 2020. It's hard to come up with a great philosophy for what they should do when some of the big picture questions are still so cloudy. I know they are going to go after starting pitching, but I have no idea if they are going to go after an elite guy or not.

they have been for a while. cardinal fans have been too. and white sox fans. and i don't think this will be the beginning of the end of anything, nor should it be. it's great the way it is. They won't touch the divisions or get rid of the 1 game, but I could see an NBA style re-seeding becoming a thing. Still two wild cards and division winners get an automatic berth, with the possibility that division winners have to be in the play-in game instead of the wild card teams. that would ruin the added importance to winning the division, which was part of the motivation behind the current setup. The current setup was instituted partially to help the #1 seed. The other two division winners are in the exact same placement as they were most of the time before the switch, which is playing each other in the first round. There are advantages to that tweak in the system besides just helping the teams with the best records. It also creates some more potential races down the stretch. You could have had a scenario two weeks ago where the Pirates, Cubs, Mets, and Dodgers were all racing to try to stay out of the 1 game playoff. That would have quite a bit more pop to it than just the Cubs/Pirates and Mets/Dodgers figuring out who gets home field in their inveitable series. Having divisions makes sense economically, and a weak division keeps more teams interested in the playoff race longer while not actually allowing more teams in the playoffs, which is good for baseball. However, having division slots locked into particular spots on the bracket creates less intrigue and more teams locking up their spot down the stretch which is not good for the game. Then add in the occasional fluke year like this one where even St. Louis is at a disadvantage because of the setup, and they are the #1 seed!

The NFC East has to be close. I don't see anybody in that division who I feel is going to win 10 games right now. Obviously that's due to Dallas's injuries, but that's still a problem.

I'm fairly certain people make that observation every single season. The top QB's on average keep getting older and older though. Breaking them up into segments: 33 and older Manning, Brady, Brees, Romo, Rivers, Roethlisberger, Palmer, Manning, Mccown 30-32 Rodgers, Ryan, Flacco, Smith, Cutler, Fitzpatrick Under 30 Luck, Wilson, Newton, Stafford, Tannehill, Bradford, Bridgewater, Kaepernick, Dalton, Foles, Bortles, Winston, Mariota, Carr, Cousins, Taylor, Hoyer That under 30 crowd is rough. Luck and Wilson obviously have top 5 potential. Newton might have it if he ever got weapons, but hasn't really improved since he got into the league either. The second year players aren't off to promising starts for that sort of potential, and obviously the rookies haven't had enough time. But there's going to be a massive gap when the top list starts retiring, and the last 7 drafts have not produced very many great QB's. There should still be time because most of those guys will play 3-5 more years, but the trend has to reverse pretty quickly, and some of the guys will start declining before they officially hang it up.

The other possible reason to extend Arrieta now is that it might be easier to extend him for a shorter amount of years. For example, if the Cubs gave him a 5 year deal now, they could have him for his age 30-34 seasons and plan to let him walk after that. He would probably be much more interested in that sort of deal now to guarantee future security than a 3 year deal when he hits free agency. In that scenario, they don't necessarily even need to get that much of a discount on the money. Normally of course the money would have to be sufficiently discounted to account for the risk of injury, but in this case the majority of the benefit would come in not having to worry about locking him up for ages 35-37.

Castro has actually been getting regular playing time because of injuries. He's started 7 out of 8 games since Soler went down. I agree with you that the initial theory didn't seem to make sense, and I'm glad it was cleared up quickly.

Unless I'm counting wrong, raw only has 24 players on his postseason roster. 8 starting position players, 4 starters, 7 relievers, and 5 bench players. So at least one of the couple bench players being thrown around could join that group.

That's probably true of anyone who is so unconventional because our minds are trained to reject what they do. To give an example on the other end of the spectrum, I think it was even harder to watch non-dominant Marmol pitch. He was still effective (as Hendricks also is), but it was a chore watching the race between walks and strikeouts.

If the Cubs get Price, I hope they would trade Arrieta. I know that's very unlikely to happen because teams rarely go in multiple directions at once like that. But I trust in both the Cubs ability to develop pitchers, and also I feel they are going to be one of the strongest free agency players. I'd much rather take advantage of a team who is going for the sure thing ace, and avoid the question of extension at 32 or not altogether. Now of course that is partially based on when and how much the Cubs payroll is going to explode. If they're planning on going to 200 in the next five years, then maybe you do keep Arrieta and just go for it. If you can't get Price, then the calculus around an Arrieta extension changes quite a bit as well.

Doubleheaders are swept just over half the time the last 10 years. Usually ending in a split is a myth.

So what is so different this year? Is he similarly bad this year as he was in 2013? He just seems to have so much trouble making any kind of major adjustment in-season. I mean, most players are going to have trouble with major changes to varying degrees, but it seems like he just keeps trying to pull the ball to duplicate what happened last year, but when that doesn't work he just can't try anything else. Just above everything changed this year. Walk rate came down to the worst of his career. HR/FB fell from 10.3 to 5.5%. IFFB% is the highest of his career. GB/FB is the highest of his career. He replaced a ton of hard hit balls with soft ones. LD% is by far the worst of his career. BABIP dropped precipitously. 2013 was better in many ways. 31.7% hard contact rate vs. 22.8% this year. 13.5% soft rate vs 24.4% this year. 19.9% LD rate vs 15.4% this year. 7.6% IFFB rate vs 13.2% this year. Slightly better contact numbers. The only things that pop out that this year has an advantage in are lower BABIP (.276 vs .290) and lower HR/FB (5.5 vs 6.3) but considering the vast differences in type of contact, those differences should probably be higher than they are. As you said, he keeps pulling the ball and he's not getting results any more. And now he doesn't seem to know what to do.

Castro's 2014 is in many ways what you would want for him. Lots of hard contact, increased home run production, best walk rate of his career. It also was a very different player than he had been in 2010-2012. Best HR/FB rate of his career, as was said above best walk rate, higher strikeout rate than his first three years, noticeably worse contact percentage (even contact percentage in the strike zone), pulled the ball quite a bit more. One thing that was consistent with 2010-2012 was the super high BABIP of .337, but since he didn't achieve it the same way it was hard to tell if it was for the same reasons. It was a very good season that wasn't necessarily a fluke, but it was also so different from the rest of his career that no one knew if it would continue or not. The slash stats are so ridiculously similar to 2010-2012 that it's easy to just lump 2014 and say that all 5 of his seasons are instructive going forward. And while that's true in some sense, in many other ways the Castro of the first couple years is simply gone. If he does come back to being good, it will probably be closer to the 2014 version of himself, but who knows how likely that it is.

That letting Castro go on August waivers would be a defensible opinion. You don't even have to agree with it, you just have to not think it's utterly crazybuckets. But it would be an overreaction at this point; he has a decent chance of rebounding and at least being serviceable next season. He's not making a ton of money next season and there's really not a better option they need to seek out, especially if they keep him in a backup role. Like I said, technically anything that frees up money for the relatively budget-strapped Cubs is defensible; that doesn't actually mean it's automatically the best decision. The problem isn't really Castro's money for next season, it's the money he's guaranteed after that. If he has a poor 2016, there very well may be no teams interested in him, and the Cubs would just have to ride out a very expensive backup MI for three more years. Keeping him until he's proven that he's flamed out destroys the chance to pass off the value that contract relief would give you. Considering the updside on him is maybe a 3 win player, and the peripherals are mostly trending in the wrong direction over the course of his career, it may be the best move to let him go if some team is willing to take on the entire contract. It's a reasonably tough decision at this point. I probably wouldn't do it because as horrible as he's been this year, losing a MI option this late in the season could leave the Cubs perilously thin with an injury or two. How the budget is going to evolve over the next 3-4 years changes the decision quite a bit as well, and that's something the Cubs have a much better idea of than we do.

Putting all the weight on the future (which is what you said they did) means tanking, especially in the trade market. Most trades are trading present value for future value. If they only cared about the future, they would have done that. The trade market is pretty much a zero sum game in that respects. Teams trade present for future value all the time. Occasionally there's a different motivation for a deal, but not very often. The Cubs tried to trade future for present in two different ways at this deadline. They just weren't willing to trade very much of the future, whether because the player coming back returned some of the future value they gave up (but not all of it), or the player coming back was insignificant enough to not cost much future value.

My guess is this is the main reasons they were so focused on players with control. They didn't want to expend too many resources on rentals, so they went for the home run players. They didn't land any of them, so at the last minute they pivoted to rentals that wouldn't cost very much. It feels like they saw this season as a good opportunity, but the seasons upcoming as even better. So they tried to balance out those two thoughts. But instead of balancing the two thoughts, they placed all the weight on future seasons. Again. I don't think I agree. If they had placed all their weight on future seasons, they would have sold. There was never even a hint of that from the front office. They were buying all the way, trying to make a splash but being cautious about it. There are three main types of players available at the deadline. Quality rentals, players with control, and non-quality rentals. The Cubs refused to do the first, chased heavily after the second, and ended up with the third type. Is that the right move? I don't know. Maybe they should prioritize this season over others. But the front office hardly threw away the season. IMO, they clearly cared about this season, even if they might still care about other seasons a little more. They wanted to upgrade the team for this year.