Jump to content
Can the Cubs build on the momentum of last night's win? Join our game thread! ×
North Side Baseball

Dr. Cub

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    667

  • 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 Dr. Cub

  1. Dr. Cub
    This. I'm not advocating a trade for him if it takes all our best prospects and players. I'm not too concerned with the anxiety. It would be a slight concern, but he appears to have it in check. His asking price is way too much for the Cubs to partake in so I wouldn't dream of trying to pull the trigger on a deal. We've got some great young arms coming up through the system that I'd be much more inclined to keep instead of deal away for Greinke. No, This. I just can't imagine him fitting into a market much bigger than KC. Bingo, we have a winner!!!
  2. Dr. Cub
    Seriously? Blah is 3 years in the MAJORS of 117, 119, and 110 ERA+? Blah is 3.2, 2.0, and 3.8 WAR? The catcher thing I'm assuming/hoping is sarcasm.
  3. Dr. Cub
    And they used the same reasoning each of the past two times they said Wells wouldn't be any good. I was in the camp that didn't buy into Wells after his first good year, but he had another pretty solid year last year and his peripherals got a little better. I don't think he'll be an ace at any point, but there's nothing in Garza's history to convince me that he's likely to get much better than he's been either. And you haven't shown me a single stat that leads me to believe he has room to improve on what he's done to this point. Are H, HR, and BB per 9 not peripherals? They ALL got worse with Wells. Mainly because he's a mediocre pitcher with very mediocre talent. Garza has 3 solid years in the majors producing 115ish ERA+, and solid 3.3ish WAR. That to me is a favorable upgrade even with the cost difference.
  4. Dr. Cub
    Huh? BR has him at 2.4 WAR in 2010, and an ERA+ of 100. With previous WARs of 9.0 (his CY year), 4.2, 2.7, 0.1, 0.6, 3.8 going backwards. Not exactly stellar.
  5. Dr. Cub
    Okay, now here's a guy who compares closer to Garza than Wells with the exception of one amazing year. Talk about overpaying for not much difference in potential value. His ERA+ this year was worse (not by much) than Wells and Garza. However, previous to that, Zach and Garza have similar years of ERA+. Similar WAR also between him and Garza, without the anxiety and depression issues and MUCH cheaper in prospect and financial costs.
  6. Dr. Cub
    This was said when he was first called up, after his first year and it's being said now. I don't know if Wells will continue to be a solid pitcher or if he'll collapse, but I also don't see any reason to think Garza will get a lot better from his career 4.45 xFIP. If I'm gambling either way, I want to gamble with the guy that doesn't cost $5 million. It's being said now because there is a history of blah with Wells. If it walks, talks, and acts like a duck.......
  7. Dr. Cub
    A 4.09 and 4.24 xFIP are not opposing numbers. Plus, his K/9 improved by 1, while his BB/9 increased only .4 from his first to his second year. Garza has had only one year in the majors like Wells' 2010 and none like his 2009. $5 mil is a lot to gamble that Wells has been a fluke for two years and Garza will get 30 xFIP points better by moving to the NL Central. Wells will NEVER have another year like that, it was a complete aberration. Garza will simply outproduce him over their respective careers. I would go as far as to say I would not be suprised if Wells is a hilarious afterthought in 2 years.
  8. Dr. Cub
    I'll give you that he's a year younger and has better stuff, but that isn't worth $5+ million difference between the two. And I haven't seen anything to show Garza has been significantly better than Wells to this point. We won't know for a while, but I think the 5+ million difference is a bit much. Regardless of that, Wells has a lengthy history of being mediocre in the minors, and two opposing years in the majors at age 27/28. Garza has history of pitching well in the majors at a much younger age. The fact that their potential, going forward based on "stuff" is also quite different is enough for me to accept the cost difference.
  9. Dr. Cub
    Which also means we have a much less clear idea of exactly how good Wells will be. He's already been a lot better than many people thought he would be, while Garza hasn't turned the corner yet despite better stuff than Wells. I don't see any reason to pay Garza $5+ million when we have Wells for significantly cheaper. Garza hasn't been significantly better than Wells. I would say a 6 year history of being very mediocre with exception of his '09 year in the minors, plus one great year, and then a massive decline are enough for me to believe the 2 good years were the aberration.
  10. Dr. Cub
    Wells has a much smaller sample size to choose from. In other words, in 3 years (assuming Garza came to the NL) those numbers would be vastly different.
  11. Dr. Cub
    Who cares about Wells' stuff? What do you see in his makeup that suggests that he will start giving up walks or allowing HRs? His K's aren't impressive, but they could go down (i. e. decreases FB velocity) and he'd still be effective. Garza apparently has really good stuff but doesn't locate it well. Location is probably Wells' best asset and one doesn't lose it with age. His H, HR, and BB per 9 all increased last year in addition to a significant jump in ERA, and a massive decline in ERA+. Also, as I stated, I care about his "stuff".
  12. Dr. Cub
    Wells is more than a year older with a lesser resume. Yes he is. Apparantly I've forgotten that August comes before November. I agree completely with the resume comment. I want Garza, as long as the cost isn't beyond Wells and a mediocre prospect.
  13. Dr. Cub
    I guess I would have to say I'm biased because I think the 102 ERA+ for Wells is more the pitcher he is than the 146 ERA+. I don't have faith in Wells stuff at all going forward. I think the difference in changing leagues is enough to warrant the cost difference. If I had to choose who to take with cost being an issue; I believe in Garza over Wells at 4 million cost difference. Much more than that and it would be increasingly difficult to justify. I'm not saying he's ever going to be Halladay, but I would be willing to bet that Garza (barring injury) has a longer and much more productive career from here on out compared to Wells. The age difference is negligible. Wells is a little less than a year older than Garza.
  14. Dr. Cub
    Somehow what I was writing disappeared. Anyway, price difference should easily be $5m+ this season with Garza being arbitration eligible coming off a 15 win sub 4 ERA season. Also, ERA should not be only way you judge him, and I believe his ERA might not be as good as advertised. It isn't. In fact, his ERA+ was actually worse than Wells in 2010. Plus... Garza's 2010 WAR - 1.8 Wells' 2010 WAR - 3.3 Where are you getting these numbers? BR has them as: Garza --- 2.0 Wells --- 2.9 In addition, Garza had a better WAR than Wells last year.
  15. Dr. Cub
    I'm questioning if you've watched either of them pitch if you think he's a significant upgrade, especially when you factor in cost. Garza has better stuff, but he's been far from dominant. Furthermore, when you consider that he's a fly-ball pitcher that pitches roughly half his games in a stadium that suppresses offense, his numbers look even worse. Of course, you forget to include that he pitches in the AL and the AL East, at that. Same division as the Yankees/Red Sox (two teams that put up massive number of runs a year). Again, his ERA+ and WAR was worse than Wells last season. Since ERA+ is calculated using league ERA and adjusts for ballparks, I fail to see how he's much of an upgrade. His fly-ball tendencies are a bit scary, as well. This would not be a move that would make the Cubs noticeably better, and it would end up costing them more money. If they could trade some spare parts for Garza, then sure. But trading a significantly cheaper pitcher who's been pretty much just as effective doesn't make much sense. The ERA+ was 102 to 101 in favor of Wells. No wonder you didn't put the numbers up. The three years previous, Garza had a 117, 119, and 110 ERA+. Last year Wells had a better WAR. The year previous to that, Garza had a better WAR.
  16. Dr. Cub
    Somehow what I was writing disappeared. Anyway, price difference should easily be $5m+ this season with Garza being arbitration eligible coming off a 15 win sub 4 ERA season. Also, ERA should not be only way you judge him, and I believe his ERA might not be as good as advertised. I agree wholeheartedly about ERA not being the only thing to judge them on. Just quick and easy to find. I guess I could see the $ difference being that much too. Curious as to why you think his ERA might not be as good advertised? Especially since it's his worst in years, and a move from facing DH's to pitchers in the NL potentially?
  17. Dr. Cub
    Because I don't want to trade anything more than that. I think Garza is a little better, but he is more expensive, so the difference in ability is offset by price. It seems to me this team is intent on adding second tier starting pitching. I don't see the need. The price difference is around 3-4 million, so not too much. I would say Garza is more than a "little" better, with a longer track record of consistently good pitching. Garza was more than 1/3 of a run better in ERA (obviously that difference is likely to be much greater in switching the 2 pitchers leagues), plus a WHIP of 1.40 for Wells, and 1.25 for Garza. The typical ".50 ERA difference" in switching leagues makes these two pitchers quite different. Now as for intent on adding 2nd tier pitching talent, I couldn't agree more.
  18. Dr. Cub
    Garza won 15 games last year. Awesome.
  19. Dr. Cub
    I don't know how you guys are not seeing the beauty of this potential signing!!! For your information, you super saber guys, Adam had a .924 OPS with runners in scoring position last year. Also, he had a whopping 1.302 OPS at Wrigley!!! Dunn, Schmunn!!! Go get him Jim!!! I have your sound reasoning all ready for you.
  20. Dr. Cub
    I think you're dead on, and it scares the beejeezus out of me.
  21. Dr. Cub
    He had right shoulder bursitis, had exploratory surgery. Never found anything that appeared to be important. Rehab progressed extremely slowly though. Wanted to pitch near end of season, but wasn't allowed to do so. Is supposedly topping out in the low 80's right now. If I'm wrong on any of this, please correct me....... Of course I can't remember where I read it, but the last thing I read said he was in the mid to upper 80's.
  22. Dr. Cub
    This just in.....Jim was recently seen with a bandage on his forehead riding around in a 1988 DeLorean.
  23. Dr. Cub
    I can't say for absolute certainty, but I'm going to say not many people on this board wanted Cameron over Byrd. I definitely did not want Cameron over Byrd.
  24. Dr. Cub
    Big Z is my number 5!!!!! Hells yeah!!!
  25. Dr. Cub
    Congrats to Matt. Always liked the guy. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=5650587
×
×
  • Create New...