Jump to content
North Side Baseball

jersey cubs fan

Old-Timey Member
  • Posts

    67,903
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    63

 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 jersey cubs fan

  1. I'm hardly breaking any new ground there. At the very least they should come in with a clear track record of starting, which Cashner did not do.
  2. A) They didn't methodically build up his innings. B) The Cubs minds? Seriously? The fact that it may not have cross the minds of the reckless, foolish, overmatched dolts that ran the Cubs makes me wrong? The consensus on Cashner at draft time was he was a reliever. The Cubs thought they could make him a starter and they did a piss poor job of trying to convert, or reconvert him back into one, let alone one who a reasonably smart person would think could make 30+ starts with 200+ innings in a season.
  3. No. No, no, no. You can't make that statement. Pitchers have to prove they can handle a workload before you can pretend there is no reason to believe they cannot. Cashner had very little workload under his belt when he was drafted. He had very little workload as a professional before being moved to reliever on the big league club. He'd done very little as a pro when they handed him a starting job. If spending 1 year as a college reliever doesn't bring up durability concerns, spending 2 years as a juco starter hardly makes the case that you can do. Being a starting pitcher at the major league level is hard. You have to start quite a bit before anybody can have any reasonable faith in your ability to do it over a substantial amount of time. You don't start at a baseline of "the guy can handle it", you have to wait until he does a lot more than Cashner did in the minors before that becomes the assumption.
  4. You are making completely unsubstantiated assumptions here. Since when does a guy making it through a college season as a starter make it obvious he can do it in a major league season? There was nothing obvious about his ability to handle the workload. In 2009 he made 24 starts, but he only averaged less than 4 and a third in those starts, so he was hardly anywhere close to actually handling a full starters workload. You can rack up 100 innings before the all star break in the majors. There were questions both about his ability to be effective in 6+ inning stints, and whether he could actually last for 6 innings every 5 days for 6 months.
  5. In theory, but those value acquisitions don't exactly always pan out and on teams like the Cubs there's plenty of room (and need actually) for both types.
  6. If it was an either/or situation only then you'd have a point.
  7. That is hardly "exactly the same". Samardzija has twice as many professional starts as Cashner. Samardzija had three times as many professional innings as Cashner going into this season. Going from a reliever to a starter is not necessarily wrong. They way they did it with Cashner was much more reckless than the way it is being done with Shark right now.
  8. Because 4 years isn't that short of an amount of time, and it's not some expiration date. You could always keep him longer.
  9. He was a college reliever who needed to be stretched out cautiously if they had hope of turning him into a major league starter, and 30-something starts into that process (when they were typically 3.5-5 inning starts) they abandoned it for a bunch of 1-inning relief innings. Then tried to make him a major league starter right after that. It was reckless.
  10. A work in progress that is only signed for 4 years. Is that a bad thing? I think people went a little overboard with the whole "years of team contract" obsession this offseason.
  11. So are they doing their best to drive down revenue this year?
  12. I would like to think that the Hendry regime (and the Cubs organization) learned to manage pitch counts on a young starter after Wood AND Prior. Unfortunately after the Prior/Z wave they really only pushed out guys like Rich Hill and Randy Wells so we never really got to see if anything changed. They were very cautious with Andrew Cashner. I thought they were very risky with both of them, how they yanked them back and forth from starter to reliever and back.
  13. you could probably steal something similar from any number of high school teams.
  14. Yep, we pursued him but wouldn't give him the deal he wanted. Thus we passed on him. Yeah, they pretty clearly passed on the guy. It wasn't a blind bid or anything like Darvish, he wanted a deal the Cubs wouldn't offer.
  15. What the hell is wrong with writing about what happens in sport? Is everybody just supposed to shut up and not write or say anything until the 100-game point? There's nothing dumb about writing about what happens over the first month of the season. It's dumb to make assumptions that those things will hold steady the rest of the year, but that's not what he's complaining about. that is what he's complaining about, the entire rest of the article lampoons the stupid inferences writers make from the first few weeks of baseball results If a team starts out a season well what the hell is dumb about saying they started out the season well? Baseball writers write plenty of stupid stuff about baseball, and 99.9% of it has nothing to do with inferences writers make too early in the year. They can write incredibly stupid stuff on day 163. Trying to come off like Mr. Smart Guy who is too smart to fall for small sample size chunks of a season and then going the self deprecation route to excuse his own "dumb stuff" is stupid. If a team starts a season with a really good record, you better write about that if you are covering that team. It would be dumb not to.
  16. http://deadspin.com/5912959/would-the-steinbrenners-really-sell-the-yankees Who knew Kathy Geiss was part of the Steinbrenner family? http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17nmbz8yf96hbjpg/xlarge.jpg
  17. I think this is incredibly stupid. What the hell is wrong with writing about what happens in sport? Is everybody just supposed to shut up and not write or say anything until the 100-game point? There's nothing dumb about writing about what happens over the first month of the season. It's dumb to make assumptions that those things will hold steady the rest of the year, but that's not what he's complaining about.
  18. It is, and it's harmless. But at the same time, it's not inconceivable that Hester could thrive in a new system. He grew in his first two seasons as a receiver and that was with a hack of an OC in Ron Turner. He went from that vanilla college system to Martz's overly complex system and took a step back. But he's still only got 4 years of WR experience under his belt now, no more than a typical 2nd year player. In a scaled back system that is still led by real NFL coaches, and with a really good QB and finally other legit targets around him, Hester could take a significant step forward as a receiver.
  19. Yeah, that's probably good.
  20. So if they can't take one of these 3 guys they will take one of these 3 guys? Thanks for the clarity Jim.
  21. Forgot about this. So does that we mean we get a free pick just for sucking? are they giving 6 to the 6 worst records and 6 to the 6 lowest revenues? Or do you need to have a combination of bad record and low record?
  22. they wrote an article about Rizzo's current status and couldn't get anything but months old quotes?
  23. cameron maybin and andrew miller were the biggest names involved
×
×
  • Create New...