StylesClash

Is Choo capable of playing anything close to a tolerable Center Field at this stage of his career? Choo would also be able to take over for Fowler at the top of the lineup. I suppose the question is do the Rangers want to dump the remaining 100 million left on his contract. And if so how much would they be willing to eat.

Baez could very easily put together a better year, power wise. But from an OBP standpoint it wouldn't shock me if Zobrist was ahead of Baez by 30 or more points. With Schwarber, Rizzo and Bryant the lineup should have enough power. So working the count and taking Walks should be the priority for the middle infield. If Baez and Castro are both dealt Zobrist would look real nice hitting in the two hole. A Fowler, or possibly even Gardner, one/two top of the lineup punch with Zobrist would be a good combo to set the table for the middle of the lineup. Run production, be it by OBP or SLG, should be the priority (as far as hitting goes - because runs saved on defense count too but factoring that in can be a little more nebulous) always. You don't need to piece together a lineup that way ("oh we have enough power, let's add some OBP"). Ideally, you want guys good at both things. That said, It's far easier to be a more productive hitter as a guy who works counts well and gets on base. Either way, though, Zobrist probably is the more productive offensive player next year. Obviously we'd all love a lineup filled with players that are adept in taking walks and hitting for power. But that's not realistic to expect from every position. So considering we have three power bats in the middle of the lineup I'd prefer to focus on having two hitters at the top of the lineup who are adept at working the count at putting up high OBP's. Zobrist would absolutely fill one of those spots. lineup "fit" is largely irrelevant. it's a bunch of individual guys doing things as individuals that add up to runs for the team. So you don't believe in the concept that the top of the order is meant for table setting (aka working the count and getting on base at a high rate). While the middle of the order provides the power. It seems as though you believe each hitter is their own individual entity that isn't connected at all to the rest of the lineup. I personally disagree with that concept whole heatedly. When it comes to our lineup next season obviously its easy to get excited about having three potential 30 homer players hitting in the middle of the lineup. But if Fowler isn't brought back I see two holes at the top of the order. Russell strikes out way too much to hit at the top of the order (and his walk rate, while solid, doesn't make up for the lack of contact). Castro is too inconsistent to be relied upon in a key lineup spot. I'm hopeful Soler's late season disciplined approach will continue into 2016. But considering how awful he was for the first several months of last season, as well as his history of injuries, I'd prefer starting Soler in the sixth spot and move him into the two hole if his Walk rate continues at the rate they ended this past season at. While everyone is focusing on what two arms are added to the rotation, and deservedly so, I'm very curious to see who Theo will manage to replace Fowler with. Not only will this person need a solid amount of defensive range, to compensate for the lack of Corner Outfield range, but they could very possibly be expected to hit leadoff as well. I'm no where near sold on Almora as the Center Field option of the future. So if Baez could be dealt for a rangy Center Fielder with a great eye at the plate I'd have no problem pulling the trigger on that deal (rather than Baez for a Pitcher).

Baez could very easily put together a better year, power wise. But from an OBP standpoint it wouldn't shock me if Zobrist was ahead of Baez by 30 or more points. With Schwarber, Rizzo and Bryant the lineup should have enough power. So working the count and taking Walks should be the priority for the middle infield. If Baez and Castro are both dealt Zobrist would look real nice hitting in the two hole. A Fowler, or possibly even Gardner, one/two top of the lineup punch with Zobrist would be a good combo to set the table for the middle of the lineup. Run production, be it by OBP or SLG, should be the priority (as far as hitting goes - because runs saved on defense count too but factoring that in can be a little more nebulous) always. You don't need to piece together a lineup that way ("oh we have enough power, let's add some OBP"). Ideally, you want guys good at both things. That said, It's far easier to be a more productive hitter as a guy who works counts well and gets on base. Either way, though, Zobrist probably is the more productive offensive player next year. Obviously we'd all love a lineup filled with players that are adept in taking walks and hitting for power. But that's not realistic to expect from every position. So considering we have three power bats in the middle of the lineup I'd prefer to focus on having two hitters at the top of the lineup who are adept at working the count at putting up high OBP's. Zobrist would absolutely fill one of those spots. And in case anyone forgets that a lineup full of power bats isn't necessarily the best option, remember the 2004 Cub lineup. If memory serves me correctly they led the National League in Homers. But were mid pack in runs scored. That's the perfect example of a team that could have sacrificed power in a position or two to get a player who could consistently be counted on to make the opposing pitcher work hard and take a lot of Walks.

Baez could very easily put together a better year, power wise. But from an OBP standpoint it wouldn't shock me if Zobrist was ahead of Baez by 30 or more points. With Schwarber, Rizzo and Bryant the lineup should have enough power. So working the count and taking Walks should be the priority for the middle infield. If Baez and Castro are both dealt Zobrist would look real nice hitting in the two hole. A Fowler, or possibly even Gardner, one/two top of the lineup punch with Zobrist would be a good combo to set the table for the middle of the lineup.

He peaked at #3 prospect in the game, so best case scenario you could have dreamt on just about anything, especially given the fact that he was a CF with pretty much a 5 tool skillset. We also had a Center Fielder who at one time was the number three prospect in baseball in Corey Patterson. Wonder if Taveras would have fared better. I was actually surprised to see how good Patterson's Double-A stats were in 2000. I've heard he was supposedly rushed to the big leagues that year. But a 21 year old Center Fielder with an OPS of 829 certainly warrants consideration for a big league promotion. Especially when you consider how bad we were in 2000. A toolsy 21 year old Center Fielder, who's raking in Double-A, is certainly capable of giving fans hope for the future when promoted at the end of a bad season.

If Óscar Taveras hadn't died St Louis may have kept Shelby Miller on their roster. He'd be a big help with the loss of Lynn, likely loss of Lackey and Garcia's lack of durability. I wonder if in hindsight one year of Jason Heyward was worth four years of Shelby Miller. Anyone have some projections on the type of player Taveras could have become best case scenario?

Eric Brynes, on MLB Network last night, threw out a rather bold trade idea. Baez, Castro and Strop to the Mets for Matt Harvey. Two years of Strop and the inconsistent Castro are obviously worth Harvey. If you're Theo and are confident in Harvey's long term health I would think you'd be very tempted to pull the trigger on that deal. Russell is entrenched at Short, and La Stella or Coghlan could handle Second. Thoughts on Harvey's long term durability and who's worth dealing Baez for?

Is five years/80 million for Shark a realistic prediction? I know his WHIP was much better than his ERA indicates. But a pitcher getting 80 million coming off a year of an ERA at nearly five seems steep. Plus he'll be 31 next year, and realistically has only had two seasons where he performed at an 18 million year rate. A few months ago I thought Shark would have to settle for an incentive laden one year deal, and then possibly take advantage of the weak pitching class next off season. Looks like I was wayyyyy off.

I make that deal for Chris Sale and walk away with a massive smile on my face. Sale is durable, doesn't walk many batters,racks up plenty of strikeouts, is only 26, and is signed for four more years at very reasonable rates. While possibly getting 30 homers from a middle infielder is mighty tempting to keep, its not as if we haven't been burned by toolsy hitters with a piss poor approach at the plate time and time again. And while I'm a fan of Soler I wouldn't let him stop me from acquiring an ace with no major flaws (in his prime). I highly doubt Sale is going anywhere, but what about Quintana? I can't believe he hasn't been mentioned yet. Obviously Sale isn't on the trade block. I was simply responding to a very odd comment about not wanting to deal Baez and Soler for any pitcher in baseball. I understand that people value young talent because of their cheap salaries, and prefer not to deal them for pitchers (because of the injury risk). But saying Soler and Baez aren't worth dealing for any pitcher in baseball is a ridiculous statement to make (especially when the risk of busting for one of those two players is rather high).

I make that deal for Chris Sale and walk away with a massive smile on my face. Sale is durable, doesn't walk many batters,racks up plenty of strikeouts, is only 26, and is signed for four more years at very reasonable rates. While possibly getting 30 homers from a middle infielder is mighty tempting to keep, its not as if we haven't been burned by toolsy hitters with a piss poor approach at the plate time and time again. And while I'm a fan of Soler I wouldn't let him stop me from acquiring an ace with no major flaws (in his prime).

Honest to god I don't understand everyone going crazy over Heyward. Being 26 and playing great defense are certainly factors working in his favor. But the past three seasons he's shown no power. And while his ability to work the count is solid, a career 353 OBP isn't exactly all world caliber. Unless the thought process is Heyward's numbers will solidly improve as he enters his late 20's I think the idea of giving him 200 million is ridiculous.

I'm not excited at all about the possibility of giving a soon to be 32 year old corner outfielder, with minimal power, a 4 year deal worth 20 million per season. Bringing back Fowler, ideally for only three years, and keeping the starting lineup as is would be fine with me. Hopefully Theo doesn't get cute and move Schwarber back to Catcher. The idea of taking an elite bat and putting him into a position that will make him more likely to get hurt and wear down at the end of the season doesn't make much sense to me. The appeal of getting elite offensive production from a position without many dominant bats is understandable. But in my mind its not worth the increased possibility of getting hurt. I'll be keeping my fingers crossed that Theo is able to buy low on Shark. I've heard his fastball velocity was fine this season. So if Bosio were to take a look at Samardzija's starts this season and determined his struggles could be fixed with some mechanical tweaks I'd love the idea of a three year deal. So in summary I'm hoping for a three year Fowler contract, Schwarber staying in Left Field and Shark coming back on a two or three year deal. I can't imagine, considering the pitching depth on the free agent market, a fourth year would be needed. Then ideally Baez could be dealt for a high upside starting pitcher.

We're talking about a 33 year old who two years in a row has had awful second halves. Its possible a small market team would take a chance on buying low on Hammel (since he's only due nine million dollars). But unless a team throws something of real quality value Theo's way I'd prefer keeping Hammel and having him compete for the fifth starter's spot. Worst case scenario is Hammel continues to pitch poorly and gets banished to a long relief role.

Upgrading the bench should be a priority too. I know its not the headline grabbing process of going after Heyward, but I think we can all agree that La Stella and Coghlan shouldn't be the top options off the bench next year. I wonder who the current equivalent to Daryle Ward could be. Aka someone with some pop who can work the count and take the occasional walk late in the game. I'd have no problem dealing someone along the lines of a Travis Wood or La Stella to acquire a veteran power bat for the bench.

Fried chicken, beer and video games show a lack of dedication to maintaining quality physical condition. Atleast the choking part shows frustration over an underachieving season and a lack of hustle. Obviously it's still not the right thing to do. But atleast there's a reason behind it that's somewhat understandable. There's nothing admirable about making 10+ million a year and not doing what you can during the season to stay in top shape.

So with a bullpen full of guys with minimal postseason experience you don't like the idea of acquiring one of the best clutch relievers in recent memory? And it's not as if Papelbon spends his time drinking beer and eating fried chicken during games, which is something one of our pitchers can't say. He gets hot when he sees players not give max effort. With everyone getting all hot and bothered over a show of emotion, which I'm sure happens several times a year all across the league (just not on television), it's possible he has negative trade value. So I certainly am not against buying low on an excellent postseason reliever (who's only signed for one more year). And my main point for Strasburg is that while his regular season innings pitched history is just tolerable at best, having one more potential ace for October is the key. Plus dealing Baez doesn't create a hole on the roster. Castro and La Stella should atleast be competent at Second Base. Wasn't the pen pretty much outstanding this postseason? Why is getting someone with "postseason experience" worth so much as to bring in a really expensive jerk? Plus, he is getting older, wasn't that dominant this year, and shows signs of his performance collapsing. My main point with bringing up Papelbon is Washington, because of the bad publicity he gained near the end of the season, likely wants to move his contract. So if eating a good chunk of it allowed for the acquisition of a starting pitcher with tolerable regular season durability, and legit ace ability, I wouldn't be opposed to doing it.

So with a bullpen full of guys with minimal postseason experience you don't like the idea of acquiring one of the best clutch relievers in recent memory? And it's not as if Papelbon spends his time drinking beer and eating fried chicken during games, which is something one of our pitchers can't say. He gets hot when he sees players not give max effort. With everyone getting all hot and bothered over a show of emotion, which I'm sure happens several times a year all across the league (just not on television), it's possible he has negative trade value. So I certainly am not against buying low on an excellent postseason reliever (who's only signed for one more year). And my main point for Strasburg is that while his regular season innings pitched history is just tolerable at best, having one more potential ace for October is the key. Plus dealing Baez doesn't create a hole on the roster. Castro and La Stella should atleast be competent at Second Base.

Two of Strasburg's past three seasons he had a more than acceptable innings pitched total. Plus the goal with Strasburg shouldn't necessarily be 200+ innings pitched. It's to get him to October. The Cubs don't need 200 innings from Strasburg to make the playoffs. I do think though that with Lester turning 32 and Arrieta blowing by his single season innings pitched total that it would behoove Theo and Jed to acquire another pitcher that come October is capable of going head to head with anyone in LA or NY. Strasburg is that guy.

Three of the past four years Strasburg has pitched 150 innings. And his highest WHIP during this four year stretch was 1.15. Combine that with the fact Strasburg leaving after 2016 would yield two high end compensation picks and I'm comfortable dealing away a physically gifted middle infielder who's approach at the plate leaves a lot to be desired. Personally I don't see how one year of an ace (with tolerable durability), plus two quality comp picks isn't worth even considering for a boom or bust toolsy hitter. Plus dealing away Baez doesn't leave a hole open on the roster, since Castro or La Stella would be able to take his spot at second base.

Strasburg has a career WHIP below 1.1 and ended the season on a high note. We would need a lot more than an inconsistent middle infielder who cant take a walk. The more intriguing scenario is giving up Baez for one year of Strasburg (as well as the comp picks if he werent brought back). One year of dominant power pitching, and two high end compensation picks, is worth the boom or bust toolsy Baez in my mind. I like Strasburg for Baez a lot. I don't think the Nats would though. It's too much of a risk for Rizzo who may well be on the hot seat this year. Who do the Padres have not name Cashner? Their GM loves to make risky gambles. Because of the Harper altercation, and high salary, does Papelbon have negative trade value? I wouldn't be opposed to taking on Papelbon's contract if it sealed the deal for a Baez/Strasburg trade. Of course Papelbon would have to agree to accept setting up for Rondon. But I like the idea of adding a postseason proven reliever to a young bullpen. Plus it provides insurance incase Rondon gets hurt or underachieves.

Strasburg has a career WHIP below 1.1 and ended the season on a high note. We would need a lot more than an inconsistent middle infielder who cant take a walk. The more intriguing scenario is giving up Baez for one year of Strasburg (as well as the comp picks if he werent brought back). One year of dominant power pitching, and two high end compensation picks, is worth the boom or bust toolsy Baez in my mind.

Tonight and precisely one other time. Game 1 vs. St. Louis, when Lester gave up a home run to go from 0-1 to 0-2, then was pulled after walking the next batter. Both with Lester, who will get more starts than any of our pitchers. Not knowing the proper time to pull your ace is an issue. Of course many managers struggle with riding a veteran dominant starter too long. Maddon is just another example. And I still hate the decision to let Hammel hit in game four. Maddon is very lucky Lackey didn't stick with his four seam fastball in that at bat. Maddon knew he would have a quick hook with Hammel. Combine that with having multiple pitchers in your pen who are good at eating innings should have meant taking out Hammel when presented with a great RBI opportunity.

Also when you're facing an ace pitcher, have a runner on second base with no one out and a hitter at the plate who has flat out said he feels uncomfortable hitting in the cold, you tell that hitter to bunt. You alter your strategy as a manager based on the conditions. And I'd say having an ace on the mound in freezing weather, with a bad cold weather hitter, calls for different strategy than hitting at Wrigley in excellent weather.

Considering Arrieta allowed four runs in his last start and we have a garbage fourth starter there seems to be a whole bunch of possibly misguided optimism about winning the next four games. Plus Maddon hasn't been good at all, the entire playoffs, of realizing the proper time to pull the starting pitchers. How many times this postseason has a starter been pulled after allowing an additional run or two towards a deficit.

Anyone have Jon Lester's career stats pitching on three days rest? If we're down 2/1 or 3/0 heading into game four I'm sure that's the likely scenario. Also who's likely to take Russell's spot on the 25 man roster? And considering the Mets only have one lefty reliever, Jon Niese (who isn't even good against lefty hitters), I'm hoping Maddon backs off his approach of replacing Schwarber late in games. Losing Schwarber's bat in the 7th or 8th inning, when there isn't even a good lefty in the Met pen to counter him, isn't worth Jackson's defensive upgrade. One of these days I've got a real bad feeling Schwarber will be lifted when up by a run or two, the lead will be blown, and then Austin Jackson's weak bat will drag down the lineups chance of making a comeback.