SouthSideRyan
-
Posts
48,493 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
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 SouthSideRyan
-
I don't doubt that there is a method here that will payoff in the future. I just have a problem with ignoring 2012 when it was possible to make the team competitive without ruining their chances in the future. What's competitive? 80 wins? Shooting for 85 and hoping you get lucky and make the playoffs? You loved that so much with Hendry, I'm surprised to see you advocate for it now. There is nothing wrong with that when it is used as a stepping stone. It becomes a problem when year after year you hope things go your way to accomplish this. There is something wrong with it when not trading assets that have no value after 2012 hurts the team in later years. Keeping mediocre players to hope for 85 wins in 2012 makes no sense when those players can't help the team in 2013 when there's a better chance at winning. The return for those mediocre players probably won't help the team in 2013 and beyond either. -
They don't have to be that good. The guys with expiring contracts will give the Cubs a combined zero WAR in 2013, after they're gone. They do if they're going to make the Cubs "significantly better" in 2013-2014. No they don't. If Wood is average next year, he can be traded for a much better player before 2013. You've taken a guy whose value to the cubs ends in 2012 and turned him into a very good player in 2013 by getting cheap, solid production that is incrediblly valuable. We're not getting Travis Wood for Ryan Dempster, Marlon Byrd, or Joey Etcetera.
-
Are you seriously saying that it could be easier to move from a 60 win team to contender than it would be an 80 win team to contender in one offseason? I don't want to put words in MR's mouth, but if the Cubs were to trade all of the remaining guys with expiring contracts (Dempster, Byrd, etc.) for top prospects that will spend 2012 in AAA and 2013 in MLB, then it's pretty easy to get to the conclusion that the team is worse off in 2012 but better off in 2013. those are going to be some really good trades. They don't have to be that good. The guys with expiring contracts will give the Cubs a combined zero WAR in 2013, after they're gone. They do if they're going to make the Cubs "significantly better" in 2013-2014.
-
It's less than 3 players each offseason, and among those players are peak seasons from Andres Torres, Kelly Johnson, and reclamation projects like Jayson Werth and Chris Carpenter. Plus, the Cubs needed more than one of those players to be serious competitors in 2012. Seriously, lets let 2012 go. Signing one of the best free agents available this offseason could absolutely have helped in competing in 2013 and beyond. That's where my frustration comes from. I didn't understand where your numbers were coming from, as I thought you were only using free agents signed in the last three years. Sorry. Are the chances of signing a free agent that puts up a 5+ WAR really that much less than obtaining somebody in the draft? If I were to guess, trades for soon to be major league stars is the most efficient way to obtain stars. Which suggests that a Garza trade would make sense. The numbers are players who've put up 5+ WAR over the last 3 years, not who's been acquired during that time.
-
Didn't read the defined terms, I see. He wasn't traded to the Rangers after reaching the majors? Wasn't he still a rookie his first year with the rangers? I don't know how TT counts players with less than a year of ML service time. The overall point is he wasn't acquired as a FA. ETA: he had more time in the majors in Cincy than I thought. My bad. Don't know anything about baseball, I see. (burrrrrrrrrn) He was drawing triangles at the time.
-
Unreal.
-
HUGHUGHUGHUGHUGHUGHUGHUGHUGHUGHUGHUGHUGHUGHUGHUG
-
Maybe Stevens will take the job.
-
How long does a guy have to put out numbers far worse than his xFIP before we can say it's meaningful? People seem to agree that Z had the ability to outperform his, and that Glendon Rusch wouldn't come close to his, at what point would you say we can say that about somebody? I don't think 3 seasons from Volstad is enough, but I find it simplistic to just say look at the peripherals and say he's primed to do better.
-
I think the point is that Theo tanking 2012 to make 2013+ better doesn't mean all of the failures of 2012 are on him, as jersey seemed to suggest. Rather, you hired a great GM to fix your organization, give him more than 1 season to do it. Can everyone stop acting like people are saying Theo's an idiot and I give up on him forever? You can be pissed about a certain move, or even a certain offseason without losing faith in the big picture.
-
Also, as an added bonus, during those 3 years we get to waste cheap 5+ WAR seasons from Starlin Castro. If we're blowing an offseason that could have made us a playoff team or near playoff team, why are the following two seasons already written off when we've only gotten rid of expiring contracts and added guys under control for several years? This was prior to reading your clarification from my last post.
-
Also, as an added bonus, during those 3 years we get to waste cheap 5+ WAR seasons from Starlin Castro. If we're blowing an offseason that could have made us a playoff team or near playoff team, why are the following two seasons already written off when we've only gotten rid of expiring contracts and added guys under control for several years? This is becoming somewhat maddening. Having good players under team control I agree is a good thing. Mediocre players, or players who were once good and are no longer good, I don't see much of a value in. There's plenty of value in average cheap players. You don't want a full roster of them, but baseball players do not follow a standard bell curve. There are not tons of average players out there, so if you have some of them for cheap that's helpful to make sure that you don't have a hole at certain positions. And that's my biggest problem with acquiring Volstad on purpose. He may wind up a cheap average player for us this year, but we're not trying to win games this year, so what's the point. By time he matters to us, he's no longer cheap.
-
Yes he is, he's also from Chicago. Please give him the same chance that Chester Frazier got. It would behoove Weber to give the Chicago kids the same chances he gives the less talent out of state kids. My hope is that the Northwestern game showed that gimpy Maniscalco doesn't need to be on the court as anything but a role player, and that he'll turn the reins over to Abrams. My concern is that he'll see we only won by 1. Hopefully Abrams playing 30 minutes of turnover-less ball will push him towards the hope side.
-
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/all-about-arbitration/ Fair point on Volstad possibly returning something decent if he manages a good half season.
-
How is that risky? What are you risking? A young starting pitcher with some upside and 3 years of team control, apparently. 1 year (at market value) of team control that matters.
-
Also, as an added bonus, during those 3 years we get to waste cheap 5+ WAR seasons from Starlin Castro.
-
I can't buy that argument. It's like claiming the Iraq war is Obama's war. Until Hendry's contracts roll off, the team still has his footprint. The front office inherited a mess. They could have continued to band-aid the mess as has been done for 3 straight years, or they could blow it up and build it the their own way. Soriano's under contract for 3 more years. So the team is still Hendry's team until 2015??
-
$$$ West Virginia fans are more apt to buy shirts that say "Orange You Glad We Won" instead of regular Orange Bowl Champions t-shirts? [expletive] tees.
-
Additionally, you mention we have a nice supporting cast of role players, I wouldn't expect a role player to deliver 3+ WAR. We need more than just 5+ WAR players.
-
I have a problem with your conclusion here. Basically, we just keep signing averagish floor lottery tickets and hope one turns into Jose Bautista while we wait for the farm system to produce elite players? I don't see how that doesn't turn into a 75 win team for the next 3 years.
-
Yeah, but from what I've read Henry kills it at practice. Scores at will, we get in games and can't score. Then he looks and sees what Ryan Boatright is doing at UCONN, he was better than him in high school. Hung 40 on him. The whole thing is a mess. Somehow we need to get better at communicating with our players. No, we need an offense with some imagination and creativity. I love the motion, but you have to add wrinkles to it here and there or it doesn't work year after year. And you have to recruit guys who can run it. Having no actual point guard right now just kills their offensive capabilities. Abrams is a point guard. I'm just worried that this concern about having a true point guard is going to lead to Orris getting like 15 minutes/game next year, at which point I wouldn't blame anyone for transferring.
-
I mean, I get that it sucks sitting on the bench, but they are freshmen, how much were they expecting? I'm quite certain Weber has difficulty communicating their future to them, but shouldn't Jerrance be able to do something?
-
Well, I'm going to go jump off a skyscraper
-
WTF
-
Someone should let Theo know.
