MSG T

Happy that when player who fit the profile the FO is after, they will pay handsomely to get them. Concerned that an overweight, untested pitcher may be the free agent they pay the most for this offseason. Thanks, Tim.

That's kind of how I feel. I'm happy, but conflicted.

i'm going to assume it's because theo is going to trade marmol to the nationals for bryce harper And Strasburg...

there is nothing to like in either. valbuena's value? he's cheaper. you however have been a huge backer of stewart based on stats that don't exist. he has been had his entire career save for 80 games four years ago. you simply will not admit to any chance of being wrong or the new FO not making a good deal. right now. colorado got the better of the deal. colvin is better, but it really doesn't matter. colvin would not change this club. he probably would not be in the future here either, it's actually better for him, because he will at least be a part time starter if not more in colorado. we needed someone to play third base. stewart was down but was once highly thought of, and same for colvin. it was definitely a deal that should have been made, it had potential to help, and limited cost if it didn't. which is what this particular team needs. i hate to use the word "bum" with any of these guys. they are in the major leagues which makes them good, but neither is the answer nor do i think they were ever supposed to be, if stewart worked out and g=could keep 3rd base warm until hopefully vitters is ready, then great but he hasn't. it's just hilarious that people keep defending the deal, and stewart in general when it's ok that it didn't work out. it's ok that colorado got the slightly better end of it. we are better with dejesus, lahair and rizzo which are really the who replaced colvin not stewart. This reads like two different people took turns writing it. Yes people are defending the deal because it was worth taking the chance on Stewart based on what they have up. Whether the deal works/worked out is immaterial. It was worth doing because, as you point out somewhere in there, we needed a 3B and Colvin wasn't going to help this team. I haven't seen anyone that is saying, in hindsight, that the Cubs "won" the deal, just that it was worth making and losing Colvin doesn't matter.

Why? 833 road ops, 861 ops against lhp...so I don't think there's an obvious Coors Field rebuttal here, or something similar. His road OPS was middling or worse until around the Strasburg game, so it surged pretty late as part of the ridiculously unsustainable tear he was on in June and into the very start of July. He's only had 61 PA against LH pitches this year, so it's pretty safe to chalk that up to sample size; him hitting 150 points above his career OPS against lefties clearly is not going to last. And yes, there is the Coors Field factor; Coors, besides it's usual attributes, caters nicely to his strengths (even better than Wrigley; it's often considered the best park in baseball for LH hitters), so in the off chance he has figured something out it's likely largely in part due to his new surroundings. Over his last 30 PA he's put up this line: .154 .241 .192 .434 That's a tiny sample size unto itself, but it's a good microcosm of how wildly his numbers can fluctuate. Tyler Colvin had zero future with the new FO: he's an overly aggressive batter who can't walk and strikes out left and right and can't play defense. Basically the choice was coming down to him or LaHair, and if one is having trouble trying to figure out why they went with LaHair they only need to look to Colvin's 2011 season. Stewart was and is an intriguing buy low reclamation project who plays good defense at a position of extreme need for the Cubs. Colvin had no future with the team; Stewart was effectively a low risk investment who would be far more valuable to the Cubs if he panned out (or pans out) until they found a long term option at 3B. Exactly. Even if Stewart never makes it back after surgery and this season is all we get, it was worth the trade and the chance he figured something out. Colvin would have no present or future with this club for the reasons Mojo listed.

By then, you'd have to figure that one of those 3 NL Central teams would be out of the race. That means that about half the games would be against teams no longer in the race. Either way, numbers as a sept. call up have to be taken with a grain of salt due to sample size whether they're good or bad. Of course it's possible, or even likely, that a couple of those teams are out of it by then. But they still aren't going to be pitching nothing but AAA pitchers the rest of the year. Vitters would still see mostly ML quality pitching during a Sep call up, however. I do agree about reading too much into the Sep numbers, but more for the sample size reason than because of quality of competition.

This is the optimal plan. I won't mind this approach at all if that's what they decide to do. On the other hand, there may be some benefit to bringing him up now as opposed to waiting until Sept. Last year, the Padres rushed Rizzo and he struggled. Then he went back to AAA and raked. Rizzo is a more patient hitter than Vitters. However, I don't believe it's going to ruin Vitters to bring him up now and send him down when he struggles. In fact that might actually reinforce the idea that he needs to work on pitch recognition, working counts. There's something to be said for doing that against better competition than he'd see as a Sept. call up when he'd be facing some of the same pitchers that he's already had success against. If the Cubs called him up in time for their Sep 1st game against SF, 19 of 31 Sep/Oct games would be against teams currently in pennant/WC races. 2 v SF 4 v Wash 7 v Pitt 3 v Cin 3 v Stl The rest are 6 v Hou, 3 v Col and 3 v AZ. Now the teams involved could very well change, however, even given a couple dropping out by then, AAA scrubs won't be making every start for all of those teams. Out of 31 games he'd probably see 26-28 legitimate (read current) ML pitchers.

Wait, so Meyer could potentially go in a trades for: a) Denard Span, b) Ben Revere or c) Matt Garza. Perhaps we could offer them Garza AND Reed Johnson. Why?

This.

Now we're even for 1984. You couldn't have possibly been around in 1984. Nothing could make up for that. See you in hell, Steve Garvey. Well, I WAS alive in 1984, but I was still very young. I was three during those playoffs. I have only very brief memories of that season, like "Jody Davis hitting a double" on a WGN game and that was it. I can remember watching their games before heading to the high school for my games. Toward the end of the season, I'd rush home after football practice to (hopefully) catch the end of the games. I remember the clincher in Pittsburgh very well, my dad actually had a tear in his eye. I also remember being depressed for a week after the lost in San Diego. There is nothing that can make up Steve [expletive] Garvey.

Those numbers you quote are for 80 PAs, 12 in the month of July. And his BABIP for the season is .100 higher than his career average. Blind squirrel. Colvin would mean nothing to this Cubs team.

A couple of tweets said it was his elbow. Threw a pitch to the backstop then asked to be removed.

Where? Why? Places like Baseball Prospectus and Hardball Times have done articles about it in the past. The idea is that some in the industry suspect that the extra day of rest doesn't really help much in terms of avoiding injuries or maintaining performance, but nobody wants their team to be the test subjects. I remember reading such articles a long time ago. I seem to recall Neyer discussing it, but may have been bp it tht. I don't recall a 75-pitch limit but maybe that's new or the rockies are crazy. Wasn't part of the argument for the 4man rotation that pitchers don't really get 4 days rest. I seem to recall the articles talking about the pitchers resting the day after a start then throwing on the side the rest of their time off. I'm not going to go all gaga if people agree or disagree with the premise, but I see absolutely no reason it can't work, in terms of pitcher performance and health, if teams do it correctly. They don't really need arbitrary pitch counts, they just need to pay attention to the pitchers and watch for signs of fatigue and make a change when those signs appear. Although, no way in hell would I use a 4 man rotation if Dusty Baker was my manager. Of course, no way in hell would I hire Dusty in the first place.

[attachment=0]ImageUploadedByTapatalk1340996195.259543.jpg[/attachment] Don't know if this is sized right, if not sorry.

Both of my boys first game.

I'll be there on the 29th. Happy!

How about Pierzynski instead?

Stewart isn't what we hoped he could be and I'd still rather have him than Colvin.

Goldstein can be an ass, but a whole lot of the people that tweet him deserve it.

My problem with the FO is exactly that - what the expected timeline to be close to contending (or actually a contender) actually is. When Theo signed a 5-year contract, I expected a serious contending team within 3-4 years. Now it seems we're talking about waiting until 2016 to see whether our prospects actually can play at the ML level. Rizzo and Soler look like "sure things", but everybody else is a maybe. Hopefully some of these trades (Garza, Dempster, Soriano, etc.) will bring young players that have some ML experience and success so that we can plug them in this year. More 20-year old prospects strengthens the minor league system and increases the chances that some minor leaguers will eventually help the team, but we need to start filling holes in 2013 and not in 2017. You really think they won't a single top pitcher/player for 4-5 more years? They won't wait until all of their current 20 year olds are proven in the majors before signing FAs, but they do need to acquire some more young talent. I'd bet they are improved next year and competitive by 2014.

Because despite not taking walks right now, he's a 22 year old 4-5 WAR player at this point. You're not accounting for positional value (and having to move off SS is speculation at best, as right now he both appears to be greatly improved and grades statistically as one of the best at his position). You're also looking at him through an outdated offensive lens. Lots of people are guilty of looking at most players this way right now. The environment is much different than it was even a few years ago. Would you not agree that in order for this offense to improve and become more consistent our ability to work the count and draw walks needs to improve? Why not use our most valuable trade chip to make this happen. I simply see a player who epitomizes the over aggressiveness which has plagued our lineup for years and don't get excited over the premise of him being one of the key pieces of the franchise. You do realize Castro, at 22 with a ton of development ahead of him, is very close to being the best SS in baseball. What do you expect him to be in, say, 2-3 years? As David said, he's a 4-5 win player right now, he's going to get better. Yes he'd be even better if his walk rate improves, which I think it will (though to what degree I don't know). But still, he's still on track to be the best SS in the game with his current walk rate. It would, and should, take a stupidly great package to get him. Like two young, current ML who are also getting close to being stars, and that's a starting point.

Replay would take the excitement out of those bad calls.

$40 million seems like too much unless we have an incredible scouting read on him that says he's getting close to MLB ready. You are really cutting away at the risk:reward ratios at that point. Holy [expletive], they have to spend money at some point, Kyle. Just asking, but is there something keeping them from giving the guy a 5/$20 contract and a $20 mil signing bonus? Not those exact figures, obviously, but a huge signing bonus coming out of this years budget and a, relatively, small 4-5 year contract. Is that even allowed?

Well then...

I'll take the out of control hustler is he's better at baseball, otherwise give me the talented underachiever. BTW, Juan Pierre his only season in Chicago? 1.8 bWAR