Jump to content
Help us design a better North Side Baseball for you by filling out this user survey, click here! ×
North Side Baseball

Backtobanks

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    7,353

  • 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

2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by Backtobanks

  1. Backtobanks
    I can't see us getting real close to .500 unless they get someone to help the offense or somebody outperforms what is expected. at least kyle shows his reasoning and tries to back up his claims. all you ever say is "i don't think they'll be .500 because i dont think they'll be .500" I'm sorry, I thought we were allowed to express our opinions on this site. Looking at Kyle's post he "can't shake the feeling that this team is really close to .500" which sounds alot like his opinion until the "real projection systems start coming out."
  2. Backtobanks
    I can't see us getting real close to .500 unless they get someone to help the offense or somebody outperforms what is expected.
  3. Backtobanks
    It's relevant to the discussion we were having if you read the posts before you posted.
  4. Backtobanks
    I understand what you're getting at, but I don't really see it that way. Overall what matters is the net effect a given player has on your team. Obviously, there are cases where you can cover up one guy's deficiencies (i.e. maybe a super awesome CF can cover for the guys next to him), but by and large, what matters is how many net runs that player gets you. Doesn't really matter where it happens (although, obviously, with offensive metrics being more reliable, offense is easier to predict/measure the effect of). You may not see it that way, but I'm sure most of the GMs do. Most of the DHs in the AL were playing regularly somewhere in the field before they became a DH. And this is relevant because....? Most of them are (and have been) one dimensional players their whole careers. The Adam Dunns of the world were butchers at every position they ever played.
  5. Backtobanks
    I understand what you're getting at, but I don't really see it that way. Overall what matters is the net effect a given player has on your team. Obviously, there are cases where you can cover up one guy's deficiencies (i.e. maybe a super awesome CF can cover for the guys next to him), but by and large, what matters is how many net runs that player gets you. Doesn't really matter where it happens (although, obviously, with offensive metrics being more reliable, offense is easier to predict/measure the effect of). You may not see it that way, but I'm sure most of the GMs do. Most of the DHs in the AL were playing regularly somewhere in the field before they became a DH.
  6. Backtobanks
    Okay, but roster decisions don't happen in such a vacuum. You mean teams don't sign players that are very good offensively, but are weak on defense (or vice versa)? I would think there are probably 1-2 positional starters on most teams that would fit that description. No. He means that both things matter. Of course both matter, but if your team is weak offensively, then you might sacrifice some defense to fill a spot offensively (or vice versa). The Cubs have done a good job of adding pitching, but most of that pitching is not going to hold other teams to 1 or 2 runs. Their offense needs to be upgraded if they are going to translate stronger and deeper pitching into wins.
  7. Backtobanks
    Okay, but roster decisions don't happen in such a vacuum. You mean teams don't sign players that are very good offensively, but are weak on defense (or vice versa)? I would think there are probably 1-2 positional starters on most teams that would fit that description.
  8. Backtobanks
    My post about Swisher was purely thinking offense rather than defense because the offense is still pretty pathetic. Obviously, signing Swisher isn't going to happen, but it would certainly be a good fit offensively.
  9. Backtobanks
    Perfect? As what, a RF? RF, middle of the order power bat, sub for Rizzo at 1B, great OBP.
  10. Backtobanks
    I know he's way to expensive and too old, but Nick Swisher would be the perfect fit for this team.
  11. Backtobanks
    It's nice to have some depth rather than Raley/Rusin/Vostad/Coleman for the rotation. As you mentioned, you need to have the depth when you have a few starters with injury histories.
  12. Backtobanks
    Fom MLBTR: The Orioles have spoken with at least six teams about possible trades, Brittany Ghiroli of MLB.com reports. The Orioles are seeking a middle of the order bat, but aren't willing to trade their best prospects to obtain one. While there's some interest in pitchers such as Brian Matusz, Jake Arrieta, Chris Tillman and Zach Britton, there are indications the Orioles wouldn't want to trade more than one of them. Plus, their trade value isn't particularly high. Read more at http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/#sE7KrrFg4axzAmF9.99 How about a deal with the Orioles: Soriano + Vitters + $$$$ for Tillman + Betemit. Soriano gives them a DH/ middle of the order bat, while Betemit gives us a platoon 3B/utility IF (including a little experience at 1B). Adding Tillman gives us another option for the rotation now and in the future.
  13. Backtobanks
    I've posted before saying that I don't see much (if any) improvement over last year's team at this point. Obviously a big trade or FA signing changes any projections for 2013, but most trade proposals would probably lower this year's win total and hopefully add to the future win totals. Right now I'm thinking somewhere around 65-67 wins.
  14. Backtobanks
    True. The division is probably the weakest it's been in over a decade. Mine as well go for it now. I would't be surprised if the Yankees and Red Sox found themselves at the bottom of that division for the first time in God knows how long. Not sure it's even happened since they expanded to 3 6 divisions. This being said, knowing the Yankees and Red Sox, it likely won't take them long to buy their ways back to the top. This makes it an ideal time for the rest of the division to take advantage. It makes it the ideal time for all other teams (including the Cubs) to take advantage before the Yankees and Red Sox get back to spending like drunken sailors.
  15. Backtobanks
    I don't think a GM is going to catch any grief when he gets in one of those hot streaks and starts hitting 3-4 HRs in a week, especially if he's cheap and probably playing DH.
  16. Backtobanks
    Yeah, it would have been nice to get in on the Royals or Blue Jays action.
  17. Backtobanks
    And as long as we're using wins as the basis for determining "better", there's a good chance that there will be another sell-off at the trade deadline affecting the win total. By August, there's a good chance that some combination of Soriano, Garza, Marmol, DeJesus, Camp, etc. might be gone and replaced by prospects.
  18. Backtobanks
    I'm ready to have my mind changed, but the discussion was about the 2013 Cubs compared to the 2012 Cubs. I would certainly hope that another 12-18 months will make a difference or else the FO has been really fooling us. Actually, I think most people thought the Cubs were closer to a 75-win team last year. Hopefully they won't underproduce this year, but I would imagine there will be another sell off at the deadline which will bring the win total down again this year. You can at least be honest with us, you're not ready to have your mind changed. It's fair to point out though that many(myself included had the Cubs around 75 wins last year instead of 70. Overestimating the bullpen and underestimating how much the front office valued the service time of Rizzo and Wood were the two biggest factors there. With Marmol's pitch selection overhaul + the addition of Fujikawa, and there being no potential service time issues on this year's team aside from maybe Vizcaino(who isn't counted on by anyone right now), neither of those would be an issue for this year's squad. I am being honest. Right now I don't see this team very much improved over the preseason 2012 team. The rotation is slightly weaker, the bullpen is stronger, and the offense is basically the same as the 2012 team at this point last year. Again things can (and probably will) change in the next 3-4 months which would affect my opinion.
  19. Backtobanks
    Tim, the discussion was about comparing the 2012 Cubs and the 2013 Cubs at this point of the offseason. Nobody expected Byrd and Soto to completely fall off the cliff offensively. Byrd was coming off .276/.324/.395/.719 in 2011 and .293/.346/.429/.775 in 2010 while Soto was coming off .228/.310/.411/.721 in 2011 and .280/.393/.497/.890 in 2010. I certainly expect Rizzo to improve, but will he surpass LaHair (1st half)/Rizzo (2nd half) production? So again comparing what we expected from Byrd and Soto to what we should expect from Schierholtz and Castillo doesn't seem too much of an improvement. 3B is still a question mark since all of the candidates are basically the same as last year.
  20. Backtobanks
    I'm ready to have my mind changed, but the discussion was about the 2013 Cubs compared to the 2012 Cubs. I would certainly hope that another 12-18 months will make a difference or else the FO has been really fooling us. Actually, I think most people thought the Cubs were closer to a 75-win team last year. Hopefully they won't underproduce this year, but I would imagine there will be another sell off at the deadline which will bring the win total down again this year.
  21. Backtobanks
    I would guess you answered your own question by mentioning the "whole sociopath thing".
  22. Backtobanks
    Again, I don't understand why somebody hasn't gone after Soriano yet especially when we were reportedly willing to eat 90% of his contract.
  23. Backtobanks
    You feel this is a 100 loss team at this point? If so, no real point in going further in conversation. Last year's team wasn't a 100 loss team at this point either. We are better now at this point than last season at this point. We have Rizzo now. Baker. Feldman. Our best pitching prospect. A new potential closer. Castro signed long term. Solar. This time last year we did have Dempster and Marshall and Cashner. I'll say we have gotten better at this point than this point last year Rizzo, Baker, and Feldman will probably underproduce LaHair, Dempster, and Maholm for 1st half production. (obviously Rizzo is an upgrade long-term) Castro signed long term is great, but doesn't add or detract from the 2013 Cubs. Our best pitching prospect and Solar are great, but neither will be helping this year's team.
  24. Backtobanks
    You feel this is a 100 loss team at this point? If so, no real point in going further in conversation. Last year's team wasn't a 100 loss team at this point either.
  25. Backtobanks
    From MLBTR: After picking up Mike Adams and John Lannan, Matt Gelb of the Philadelphia Inquirer looks at what is left for the Phillies to spend on an outfield upgrade. By Gelb's math, the Phillies could sign an outfielder with an average annual salary of approximately $7MM and be right up against the tax threshold. Read more at http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/#EMd9JXptWE71BcCY.99 Soriano could certainly fit into that financial situation.
×
×
  • Create New...