Jump to content
North Side Baseball

stitchface

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    7,243

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 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 stitchface

  1. stitchface
    I can see your point but I have to say I would like Bradley more than some of the characters we had in 2005. I cannot remember a Cubs team I disliked more than the 2005 version.
  2. stitchface
    Nor are they much good at identifying free agent relievers.
  3. stitchface
    Oooh, good question. The scuttle-butt on this bd. has often been "why are we paying so much money to a middle reliever?" Darn good question. Wish I had an answer. That's one way to look at it, I was thinking that a lot of people love to ride wood for his injuries limiting his pitching time, yet would be fine paying a closer similar money (on an IP basis). Well, for better or worse, the cost of closers and relievers has gone exponentially in recent years. I guess we'll all just have to deal. Easy to see why when you look at the yankees, angels, and white sox. what seems to be missed is that the angels and white sox largely produced their dominant pens with cheap young talent or re-worked cheap talent. The Cubs seem to miss the boat on giving their young pitchers a chance. Maybe Hendry and Dusty didn't watch KRod and Jenks. Its hard to believe with as many live arms as the cubs have drafted in the last ten years they haven't produced a single effective reliever. So I have to ask, are they not there or are they not getting the chance? I tend to think the latter - particularly after watching how dusty and baylor before him, have handled wuertz, wellemeyer, farnsworth, etc etc.
  4. stitchface
    I'll tell you two reasons I don't like the Eyre and Howry deals: 1. They aren't likely to repeat their 2005 numbers for the next three years. 2. Dusty is likely to limit their effectiveness by using them for one batter at a time.
  5. stitchface
    Oooh, good question. The scuttle-butt on this bd. has often been "why are we paying so much money to a middle reliever?" Darn good question. Wish I had an answer. That's one way to look at it, I was thinking that a lot of people love to ride wood for his injuries limiting his pitching time, yet would be fine paying a closer similar money (on an IP basis).
  6. stitchface
    Lots of folks are talking outta both sides of their mouths these days: "I'd rather sign FAs than trade our prospects...but don't spend so much money!" I think few people would make gross generalizations like that. Some free agents are worth the money and some aren't. I think trading Pie would be great if we got ARod in return - if we get Pierre in return, not so much.
  7. stitchface
    Raise your hand if you would be disappointed if wood threw 100 innings and posted Ryan's numbers?
  8. stitchface
    Kind of depends on the age of the proven player. Once the proven commodity is past their prime, you lose that guarantee of production. I would agree the cubs don't have any can't miss prospects though they have several possible stars.
  9. stitchface
    The Red Sox should be ridden for trading bagwell because they traded him for a forgettable player. the garland trade is more comparable than the willis trade or this one. personally, I wouldn't mortgage the farm for a pitcher with beckett's history but it could turn out to be a steal for sox. Let me ask this: would you trade Wood for that package?
  10. stitchface
    Really? Perez .681 OPS compared to Podsednik's .700 last year seems pretty comparable to me? Pods .671 in 2004 is below Neifi's career .681. Neifi is probably slightly more valuable defensively (certainly if Pods is playing left). Basically, Podsednik has had one good season. I don't see any reason to think his contributions are any more than Neifi's. Oh, and I am quite certain quite a few GMs consider VORP when making transactions. They also use PECOTA. And Beane does listen to scouts - case in point how long TLong hung around Oakland.
  11. stitchface
    oh, you can be ignored easily enough . . . :D
  12. stitchface
    I really hate to see pinto traded for pierre. I think he is worth more than that. Van Buren and Novoa can go.
  13. stitchface
    I'd rather have clement than rusch or maddux. what is his salary though?
  14. stitchface
    I wish Denver had an MLB team . . .
  15. stitchface
    Will everyone here complain in 2007 then if he hits the DL :? But how many will survive without a heart attack if the Cubs win the world series because Z, Prior and Wood all have career years in 2006? I'll still be in euphoria if the cubs win the world series. I think you have to consider the progression of young arms in making this decision. If Guzman becomes a prospect again, perhaps you let him walk. I personally think Wood is going to have a great second half of his career but much over $10 million is tough to risk.
  16. stitchface
    and he has been traded to the padres for a ptbnl.
  17. stitchface
    I think you would score more by passing on furcal and signing giles.
  18. stitchface
    I think the Lawton deal is irrelevant both in retrospect and at the time. Since he was only going to take ABs away from Murton, it was a bad idea if anything.
  19. stitchface
    Why?
  20. stitchface
    I think Millwood would be great, but who does he replace? Maddux? Rusch? Wood? I don't really agree with the argument that we have to improve our offense to win, if we improve our defense (meaning pitching and fielding) we can also win. The idea is to score more than you allow so you can win by preventing runs as well as scoring them. So, I like the idea of signing Millwood. He is a far better option than Rusch. The biggest reason I would opt for offense instead of pitching, is that hitters are far more reliable - they are more likely to continue producing at career levels and not get hurt than pitchers. I also sense that pitchers cost more per win added than hitters. But, Hendry has a poor record in obtaining hitters so perhaps our best hope is to obtain pitchers.
  21. stitchface
    Not at the price the Cubs are paying him. They could find a good glove no hit SS for less.
  22. stitchface
    At his age if he was waived and no team in MLB was willing to pick him up to put on the 25 man roster then I don't see why he would be worthy of a 40 man spot (especially not worthy enough for BP to call it "dumb" to trade him). Macias is not worth a spot, but there a probably guys you could make better arguments for using the spot on than Leicester. Personally I don't see why Koronka is holding a spot either. BP didn't call the trade dumb, they called necessitating the trade by having Neifi and Macias on the 40 man dumb.
  23. stitchface
    Some favor trading him to Texas. Firing Baker would have been a favor to Leicester.
  24. stitchface
    Cheap ones. Young ones. Players with at least one useful skill.
  25. stitchface
    Unfortunately yes. So keeping Macias will cost us a prospect. As will signing Neifi and Eyre prior to the Rule V draft. Was Hendry worried Neifi would sign elsewhere? Did he feel the need to lay out $11 million immediately for Eyre? These are some more examples why Jim Hendry is a bad GM.
×
×
  • Create New...