Jump to content
North Side Baseball

davearm2

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,776

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 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 davearm2

  1. davearm2
    1) I said "at least average." A couple of those spots could be a lot better than average. 2) We still have at least $35 million to spend 3) Average teams can have slightly above-average seasons, and above-average teams win the WS sometimes. 4) Your level of "inspiration" isn't really the end-goal towards which Hoystein should be working. You said at least average. I disagree. Just plain average fits for me. If you think this team can contend for the WS, and I don't... that's OK.
  2. davearm2
    How is Fielder not elite? At worst he's one of the 3 best sluggers in the game today. Fielder is one-dimensional. He's very good at that one dimension. His all-around game is not in the elite category, for me anyway. His WAR numbers bear this out.
  3. davearm2
    I think you are really underselling the state of the team. Assuming $130 million is the payroll, we have at least $35 million left to spend. We have likely average production, at least, from C, SS, 2b and RF, and could easily get it from LF and CF too. We have at least three average starting pitchers and an above-average bullpen. Average at numerous spots isn't particularly inspiring.
  4. davearm2
    The reason to trade Garza is if you don't anticipate making a WS run within the two years you still control him. Like you said, "having a team of pre-arb players mixed with a bunch of bad untradeable contracts is not good". Hence, that WS run isn't on the immediate horizon. But I don't understand why a WS run can't be anticipated. This team is going to have the potential at least for a 130Mil payroll. You should never pay that much money for a team that isn't anticipated to push for the WS. That's true in theory. Unfortunately, most of that money's already spent, and the team's still just not that good. You said so yourself. What's left to spend of that $130M isn't enough to buy your way to a WS contender.
  5. davearm2
    Hopefully NSBB won't be far behind.
  6. davearm2
    You misspelled fortunate Your point of view on this is just dumb. I'd bet $100 you couldn't accurately explain my point of view on this. I can. You'd only dole out that kind of money on some dream idealistic perfect world scenario guy like Mark Texiera that will surely work out better than Fielder. Wrong. There's an enormous chasm between "dream idealistic perfect world scenario" and "guy with obvious red flags". I wouldn't dole out a contract that figures to be in the top 10 in MLB history to a guy with obvious red flags. Call me crazy I guess. Besides which, people want to make Fielder an elite player (and pay him as such). He's just not elite, even if we ignore the red flags.
  7. davearm2
    You misspelled fortunate Your point of view on this is just dumb. I'd bet $100 you couldn't accurately explain my point of view on this.
  8. davearm2
    The reason to trade Garza is if you don't anticipate making a WS run within the two years you still control him. Like you said, "having a team of pre-arb players mixed with a bunch of bad untradeable contracts is not good". Hence, that WS run isn't on the immediate horizon.
  9. davearm2
    Pointless semantics. In this case, "value" and "status as an asset" are interchangeable. Because it's the only way you can try and defend your pointless stance? No because there's no meaningful difference between the two. They're inextricably linked.
  10. davearm2
    You misspelled fortunate
  11. davearm2
    So in two years you can have: $15-20 million earmarked for Garza or $15-20 million earmarked for a starting pitcher 2-3 MLB players in their pre-arb years. Scenario B sounds pretty nice. It's not perfect, of course. It's risky to write off extending Garza and assuming you can find pitching later. But if the return is good enough, that's a risk I'm willing to take. Well said. The angle here is you trade Garza for young talent to a team that would rather not wait a year to sign Cain/Hamels/etc. The risk to the Cubs is not getting anyone from the Cain/Hamels/etc. pool next offseason.
  12. davearm2
    This is becoming a real [expletive] storm of conflicting reports and conjecture. Just like every winter meetings. And every draft week. And every trade deadline.
  13. davearm2
    The rest of the article actually talks about Prince specifically and how much value the author expects him to have over his upcoming contract. It's definitely worth a read. At any rate... the premise that bad-bodied, one-dimensional sluggers age poorly has long been a sabermetric tenet and it would seem that premise still holds up. Is it a certainty? No. Nothing is. But if we're gonna bet against the odds, I'd much rather do it for 5 years than 7. :good: The number of allegedly saber-savvy NSBBers that have lost all objectivity over Fielder and Pujols is pretty crazy. Look through B-R's list of comps for Fielder to find quite a few. Then take a look at the front-page article on Fielder to see how their WARs have trended.
  14. davearm2
    Why? Because my opinion hasn't changed?
  15. davearm2
    If the Cubs sign Fielder and then trade Garza, that would seem to be a conflict of interest unless they are getting a guaranteed young stud pitcher, which is basically not going to happen. Why? The persistent message of Hoystein is that the Cubs want to make moves that help them both now and in the future, but if they conflict, then the long-term means more. Fielder on a six-year deal fits that description. He's a short-term and long-term asset. Garza, at the moment, is merely a short-term asset. If you have a chance to flip a short-term asset for a long-term asset, you do it. Fielder is a short-term asset and a long-term liability. If you sign Fielder or Pujols, it signals you're trying to win now. Yup, that's the only possible outcome of such a signing. Absolutely no regard for the future signing bums like those. We heard you the first 5,000 times
  16. davearm2
    If the Cubs sign Fielder and then trade Garza, that would seem to be a conflict of interest unless they are getting a guaranteed young stud pitcher, which is basically not going to happen. Why? The persistent message of Hoystein is that the Cubs want to make moves that help them both now and in the future, but if they conflict, then the long-term means more. Fielder on a six-year deal fits that description. He's a short-term and long-term asset. Garza, at the moment, is merely a short-term asset. If you have a chance to flip a short-term asset for a long-term asset, you do it. Fielder is a short-term asset and a long-term liability. If you sign Fielder or Pujols, it signals you're trying to win now. If you're trying to win now, you don't trade away Matt Garza (unless it somehow makes the bigleague team better immediately). Conflict of interest was the wrong term. Conflict of priorities would be more like it.
  17. davearm2
    I don't follow. Headley has a .735 career OPS @ .339 BABIP, correct?
  18. davearm2
    mysteriously, you're ignoring the effect of Petco's HR suppression on his OPS too Well you'd be wrong about that, but just for kicks, explain the impact you think I'm missing. What I see in the numbers is that Headley's HR/FB and HR/AB ratios are pretty stable between home and away. And as I showed earlier, Headley's HR/H ratio is actually a tad higher at home. Bottom line, if you want to try and make an argument that PetCo has suppressed Headley's power, then you necessarily have to delve into the notion that the mechanics of his swing would be fundamentally different if he played in a different home park. Maybe they would, who knows. It's just a really nebulous and speculative argument.
  19. davearm2
    Or could be less than that, if his BABIP normalizes. Correct. He will probably be less productive if his BABIP dips from .339 to .334 as your extrapolation suggests. In that analysis, the point of reference is .735 OPS, not .805.
  20. davearm2
    Or could be less than that, if his BABIP normalizes. Look my point all along is that the .805 career road OPS that people (naturally) gravitate to when evaluating what this guy could/would be outside of PetCo comes with a gigantic asterisk. It's about 80 points higher than his LD% would predict.
  21. davearm2
    Thus the sieve I ran.
  22. davearm2
    Especially when that skill apparently vanishes at home.
  23. davearm2
    Actual BABIP: .339 small math error on dave's part, too. the road expected babip number using his formula is .338. Isn't 18.8% +.140=.328? Besides, I thought the "standard" for correlating to LD to BABIP was .120 not .140. For someone who can run the math (I can't at the moment) can you project what Headley's OPS would be if he managed to keep his .339 BABIP but his HR and double rate from the road was applied to his home numbers? I think that's about the highest we could reasonably expect without some sort of swing change (which still might be possible if the reports are true). Headley with his .773 OPS last year had the 5th highest BABIP in baseball among players with 400 PA's or more. You might be surprised to hear that the correction you suggest isn't all that impactful. As a percentage of all hits: 2B 3B HR XBH Home 19.9% 2.0% 7.5% 29.4% Away 22.3% 1.3% 6.9% 30.5% He basically has 1% more XBH on the road than at home. His road OPS @ .339 BABIP is .744.
  24. davearm2
    Actual BABIP: .339 small math error on dave's part, too. the road expected babip number using his formula is .338. .188 + .140 = .328
  25. davearm2
    I wouldn't exactly call it short sighted. His inability to see that if we build the team the way he wants that we will absolutely suck isn't shortsighted? It's absurdly conservative, needlessly frugal, and no doubt, stubborn. But I don't see how putting all his focus on developing from within while punting the next several years is short sighted. I was using it as the inability to see the future, so being his inability to see that his plan (which is supposed to be about sacrificing now to go for the future) actually doesn't make us any better in the future unless we are extremely lucky, makes it short sighted. Anyway, we agree on the things that are relevant, so no point to have a grammatical debate over minor details. My plan is not about sacrificing now to go for the future. My plan is about not making poor decisions with longterm consequences out of desperation to return to respectability ASAP.
×
×
  • Create New...