CubColtPacer
-
Posts
13,865 -
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 CubColtPacer
-
I didn't know that was possible either (declining a club option and then offering arbitration). If that's happened then that should be true for pre-arbitration as well.
-
From Cots: http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2003/01/transactions-glossary.html
-
Even if the Cubs can decline that option and still have him under team control (which I'm still not sure of because I don't know that you can decline an option and then still be able to tender a contract) I don't think the Cubs will be able to offer him anything they want. The 80% rule still applies in this case. Every site seems to be different on exactly how much Samardzija is making this year though so it's unclear on how much that 80% number would be.
-
I think declining either option would lose team control. That's probably why they were put in the initial contract-to make sure that he would have to have enough experience to go to arbitration by the end of the options. Even if the Cubs hadn't started his major league career until he ran out of options in 2011, that would still have left him going to arbitration by the time the club options ran out.
-
I thought the club option was for 6.5 next year which was just an impossible number for the Cubs to even think about. Learning the 6.5 was spread out over two different club options (3 next year and 3.5 the year after) makes me think he at least has a chance of being re-signed. Really though I have no idea what the Cubs have in him. He gave up HR's in 3 straight outings and hasn't given up one the rest of the season. The walks have been way, way down the last month and a half. And the strikeouts have been pretty consistently strong all season long.
-
Yeah, I'm wondering that too. Would that have been your plan to keep depth?
-
So you are ignoring trading Gorz? At the time the Cubs traded Gorz they had plenty of pitching depth and no place to put him. I don't consider that one a mistake. By the time Silva was released the equation had changed significantly.
-
You're ignoring McNutt getting hurt multiple times in two months and Silva, who was better than Gorz in 2010, quitting well after the trade was made. . Silva flipped out when asked to go to the minor leagues. Every major league pitcher is going to flip out when asked to go to the minors. Then the Cubs released him. He didn't quit. They knew, or at least if their scouts did any homework on the guy they knew, that Silva would not take kindly to a demotion to the minors. If he was their planned 6th guy, they should have kept him. That was probably the only real mistake in this pitching depth question. The Cubs by the end of ST knew that Wellemeyer was hurt and Jackson was hurt. Looper was likely to retire if he didn't get a major league job. They should have kept Silva around. I don't think it's normal behavior for a pitcher to refuse a trip to the minor leagues only to sign a minor league deal 10 days later with another team, but they should have known that Silva might not react normally.
-
Franklin started the year as the Cardinals closer until he blew up. Miller is a situational LH who rarely pitches to more than 2 batters. 28G/12.1. Saito is a closer. The only one close to Wood may be Latroy Hawkins-16G/15.1. Both middle relievers, but Hawkins has never been asked to close out a game this year. Wood is 24G/24 and 3 blown saves. And so it goes. Wood hasn't had the chance to close out a game this year either. He's been strictly a middle reliever/setup guy.
-
Was it to save cash or to get a pretty solid deal in return for a pretty average pitcher? Gorz's a nice pitcher and I was happy when he was here, but he's not so good that you pass up a deal where you get three intriguing prospects - especially when you consider that, at the time, we had Silva still around and he was similar to Gorz last year. I thought the Gorz deal was because there wasn't room in the rotation and the Cubs have said several times that he didn't transition well to the bullpen (which is part of the reason why Z was moved there last year). Gorz was also out of options so putting him in AAA was not an option.
-
6/13 Brewers (Wolf) @ Cubs (Dempster) 7:05 CSN
CubColtPacer replied to Prizefight's topic in Fred Hornkohl Game Thread Forum
That actually isn't that bad against a left-handed pitcher. Obviously it would be a lot better if the Cubs had 2 of Byrd/Soriano/Johnson back, but that lineup still has the potential to do some damage. It's certainly not worse than just about every lineup the Cubs have put out since the injuries started. -
So the Cubs are 22-22 (not including one start from Wells/Cashner)) basically when Zambrano, Garza, and Dempster throw? Color me skeptical they'd maintain that ratio. Wait, given that the Cubs are .500 when their 3 best starters pitch, your assertion is that number has nowhere to go but down? No, he's saying that he's skeptical that the Cubs would also be .500 when Wells and Cashner pitched if they have only been .500 when the top 3 pitched this year. And while that might be true, with how bad collectively the top 3 have been the bar that Wells and Cashner would have to make would have been significantly lower and very reachable.
-
That has nothing to do with what you said. In terms of FO evaluation it does. The cubs go from an avg pitcher and an unproven yet talented #5 to Coleman and Davis. Yet STL replaces Wainwright with McClellan and pitches like a top of the rotation starter. McClellan hasn't been that good. The ERA still looks pretty good (but he still only has an ERA+ of 93) and the peripherals are below average. Not even close to top of the rotation at least in this scoring environment. The Cardinals have been good because their offense increased by 30 OPS points in a year where a normal offense was decreasing by 20 points. That has moved them up the rankings offensively significantly.
-
Beane can be blamed for the lack of offense his team has. He has had Nelson Cruz, Andre Ethier, and Carlos Gonzalez all in his hands at one point and has virtually nothing to show for them leaving during their cost controlled years. His trading away his high priced stars was a mixed bag. He got great value for one and almost nothing for a couple of others. He's had enough breaks to build a good team even with the lowering of payroll (which hit almost 80 million dollars before dropping sharply), but he's made too many major mistakes to capitalize on it. He also hasn't had that much wiggle room, and it can certainly be argued that he has to gamble more because of his payroll. I would still be just fine with him being hired, but he probably shouldn't be considered the expert talent evaluator he once was considered to be. If I had to pick any GM in the league right now he probably would be in the 10-15 range.
-
That's really the average reliever salary? What's the median? I don't know the median either. There are some really high end contracts (Rivera, Cordero for example), but a ton of guys making next to nothing too. As a complete and utter guess, I'd say Kerry is probably on the lower end salary for veteran relievers though. Relievers seem to be either incredibly cheap or way too expensive. It's hard to find guys in the middle ground like Kerry is in. Really? I think there are plenty of $1-2m relievers out there. Yeah, there are a decent number of them. Last year there were 11 FA relievers that signed 1 year deals for between 1 and 2 million (including the two endpoints). The year before there were 5 and the year before that 7.
-
That's really the average reliever salary? What's the median? According to this article, he's right: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=5915468 The last time I could find a median was 2007 and it was 950,000 then. It probably has gone up a little bit since then.
-
Well then you just aren't remembering accurately. He did a lot of things wrong, like hiring Lynch and Hendry and allowing Baker to come here. But he did spend and allow spending, he just got weird about it at times. What major free agents did the Cubs acquire during his entire time with the Cubs? Was Alou the biggest one? MacPhail did allow spending but he wasn't willing to spend on any one player. It was a widely played story that one of the biggest reasons why the Cubs were suddenly landing free agents in the 2006-2007 offseason was because MacPhail was gone. It could be that all those reports are wrong (and I think they are probably slightly overplayed), but they are out there.
-
Well, that is obvious (although before anybody goes nuts there was never anything saying that the Cubs would ever consider Coletti). Are there examples of small market GM's succeeding in big markets? I admit I don't know enough to know for sure on this subject. I just remember MacPhail refusing to go out into free agency and spend and wonder if that will be the same for other GM's-especially when they are accustomed to filling holes by using other means.
-
It's played out only because there's only so long you can win 90 games on a shoestring budget. I'd be very happy to let a guy with a history of exploiting baseball people's idiocy try and do it again with twice the payroll. I'd be afraid that the same things that happened with MacPhail would happen with Beane. It's not easy to change your philosophy when you are transitioning from a small market with certain expectations to a big market with different expectations. I'm not sure Beane would be that much better with a bigger payroll. MacPhail was completely different though. He was completely beholden to the way a good baseball man would do it and apparently trying out for role as commisioner the entire time. I don't see Beane holding down payroll just to keep the establishment happy. I don't think Beane would keep down payroll but I would be worried about an unwillingness for large contracts. A small market stays away from large, long contracts as much as it can. But that's not a good trait for a team like the Cubs to have. Would Beane try so hard to be efficient that he would end up keeping the Cubs away from the best players/
-
It's played out only because there's only so long you can win 90 games on a shoestring budget. I'd be very happy to let a guy with a history of exploiting baseball people's idiocy try and do it again with twice the payroll. I'd be afraid that the same things that happened with MacPhail would happen with Beane. It's not easy to change your philosophy when you are transitioning from a small market with certain expectations to a big market with different expectations. I'm not sure Beane would be that much better with a bigger payroll.
-
I would think Boozer/Gibson/Asik is a pretty good start to a frountcourt. They would need one more player, but I don't necessarily think that player would have to be an impact guy.
-
The problem is who do the Bulls get that can replace him? Deng played over 39 minutes a game last season (and 42.9 in the playoffs) so the Bulls would probably have to replace him with two different players. And subtracting Deng/adding Ellis is a huge step down defensively for the Bulls. Depending on who they got to replace Deng, the Bulls might not be a defensive first team anymore. From an outsider's view, Deng might not be the best player in the world but he fills so many roles for that Bulls team that I don't know how they give him up for anything less than a star. Noah would probably be easier to replace.
-
Minor League Discussion & Boxes 6-10-11
CubColtPacer replied to Outshined_One's topic in Cubs Minor League Talk
I'm not sure if it's adjustments or just BABIP correction. His BABIP is still a little light but in an acceptable range now (.279). A player like him who is on pace to hit between 15-20 home runs in a year and is striking out less than 10% of the time should be hitting at least .280. For Vitters lowering that strikeout percentage has been his major step forward this year. If he only strikes out 10-12 percent of the time he can afford to not walk much, hit for decent power and still be an ok major leaguer. Hopefully he can figure out one of the other two areas (hit for major power or walk a little more) which would give him a greater chance of success. -
There is a thread in the minor league forum on this topic. Here's the link: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=56205&start=25
-
Colvin just can't catch a break this year. He has hit 2 HR, at least 2 of his 4 doubles have gone off the wall (I can't remember on the other two) and only two singles all year.