Jump to content
Cubs vs. Nationals — Today's Game Thread is Live! Click to Join » ×
North Side Baseball

JudasIscariotTheBird

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    10,391

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

 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 JudasIscariotTheBird

  1. JudasIscariotTheBird
    For me the comparison is more general: two depreciating assets at 3B with salaries preventing their respective orgs from getting better. Bryant's salary alone is projected to be just under 10% of the cap and could break that number next year. Cozart will cost $5+ million to roster than Bryant will in 2020, a big factor in what made him easier to move Yeah, that's the reason why he was "easier to move." http://www.flowjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/judge-judy-eye-roll.gif
  2. JudasIscariotTheBird
    It's just a rough comparison. Bryant's actually projected to make like $40 million through arb or so over the next two years to Cozart's 1 year and ~$13 million so arguably the Cubs have even more to gain than the Angels did. The cap space offers flexibility over that time frame so the Cubs can reset, maybe even help them recoup some of the money they lost between renovations and launching the network I still don't understand how you compare Cozart (.247/.300/.399/.699 with avg. of 17 HR and 59 RBI) with Bryant (.284/.385/.516/.901 with 32 HR and 92RBI). Well, you can compare them. You can compare how much better a team is with one of them on it, as opposed to the other...
  3. JudasIscariotTheBird
    Correct, don't trade Bryant. Not what the post I originally replied to considers an option. I'm assuming Regular was being a touch hyperbolic there.
  4. JudasIscariotTheBird
    What? The way I see it...right now there is a market for 3B. Buyers and sellers. We don't HAVE to trade Kris. When the Merry-Go-Round ends, there is either going to be a team missing a 3B, or there are going to be some 3B looking for jobs. In one case, Kris's value has decreased. In the other, his value increased. I don't understand why January is some magically horsefeathers month for trading him. It will either be better, worse, or the same as now. Why not stand pat and see if we can get an actual haul if someone gets desperate? Because teams don't really get more desparate and up offers in practice, they find another way before then. Do you see more blockbuster trades in November/December or January/February? Do Free Agents tend to get more than expected by waiting until January/February, or less? Maybe you can talk yourself into it if we were in a 2018 world where no one has done anything at this point, but it's clear this is a pretty normal moving market. I don't especially care about the frequency that trades occur in January, party because I don't especially want to trade Bryant. The point is that, on average, Bryant's value shouldn't be expected to be lower in January than it is now. If that is indeed how it works, that the market for 3B demand dries up by then...then you just don't trade him. No biggie.
  5. JudasIscariotTheBird
    ...why? Waiting to trade Bryant hurts your ability to get maximum value for him. Since the only logical reason to trade Bryant is predicated on thinking his value is at an artificial high, you're punting that benefit by waiting. What? The way I see it...right now there is a market for 3B. Buyers and sellers. We don't HAVE to trade Kris. When the Merry-Go-Round ends, there is either going to be a team missing a 3B, or there are going to be some 3B looking for jobs. In one case, Kris's value has decreased. In the other, his value increased. I don't understand why January is some magically shitty month for trading him. It will either be better, worse, or the same as now. Why not stand pat and see if we can get an actual haul if someone gets desperate?
  6. JudasIscariotTheBird
    ...why?
  7. JudasIscariotTheBird
    Man, I still don't follow your logic. A 10-6 Bears would still be more likely to make the PO. He isn't saying that. Obviously, if the Bears win all their games, their chances of making the playoffs increases. He is saying that if you simulated the season, say, 100 times, and then would looked at all of the instances where the Bears were in the playoffs, there would be more instances of the Bears being 9-7 and in than 10-6 and in, merely because going 3-0 is very unlikely.
  8. JudasIscariotTheBird
    Well, someone came up with a potential reason earlier. If the Cubs feel that he is past peak and will begin to decline, there could be a strong argument to trade him now. You have to be *really* sure that the shoulder or whatever is going to create a steeper decline phase than normal (or something like that), but there can be scenarios where it makes sense to trade him. I personally don't feel it is likely that scenario is playing out in real life, but logical hypotheticals do exist. This isn't a rebuttal as much as it is a genuine question, but do you think situations like that actually occur, where the Cubs would have pretty definitive insight into a presumably injury driven decline, but other teams wouldn't be aware of it? I don't think it would be a question as to if other teams were AWARE of it or not. Of course they are aware of the fact Bryant has had shoulder injuries and there is risk involved with that, and of course a physical would be a part of the deal. Its more a question of teams appraising value differently, be it due to different regression curves assigned to Bryant, competative windows, owners that are suddenly miserly, whatever.
  9. JudasIscariotTheBird
    He's not wrong. The Cubs are a big market team so, the only reason to trade the best player who is in his prime and still two years from free agency is... I don't really know the reason. Well, someone came up with a potential reason earlier. If the Cubs feel that he is past peak and will begin to decline, there could be a strong argument to trade him now. You have to be *really* sure that the shoulder or whatever is going to create a steeper decline phase than normal (or something like that), but there can be scenarios where it makes sense to trade him. I personally don't feel it is likely that scenario is playing out in real life, but logical hypotheticals do exist.
  10. JudasIscariotTheBird
    I think a 9-7 Bears playoff team is more likely than a 10-6 one. The Eagles don't matter, they and the Cowboys are both 6-7 and they play each other. Neither one can win the wild card. What? Well, let's say the Bears go 2-1. In order for the Eagles to catch the Bears, they would then need to go 3-0. In order for that to happen, they would have to beat the Cowboys, which means they win their division, which means they don't matter, as far as the Bears' playoff chances go. (The same situation applies to the Cowboys). Only the Rams and Vikings effect the Bears hopes of getting a wild card spot.
  11. JudasIscariotTheBird
  12. JudasIscariotTheBird
    Yeah for his RBIs! RBIs! ...he had 5 WAR
  13. JudasIscariotTheBird
    Trading Kris Bryant to extend Javier Baez is not giving a damn about the long term health of the roster (at least as far as being WS tier competitive is concerned). Extending Baez after multiple slaps in the face is just pandering to whatever fanbase is left, he's a great player and Cub but when a .330 OBP would be career high for the team MVP that team is screwed Team MVP?! He was runner up in the NL for the MVP vote with a .326 OBP. Take your stat cherry-picking and gtfo. You talk bad about my boy again and I'll cut you.
  14. JudasIscariotTheBird
  15. JudasIscariotTheBird
    Yeah, no way in hell Quintana and Yu are "salary neutral."
  16. JudasIscariotTheBird
    https://media.giphy.com/media/J4ODmDUTc3zWmPdcLl/giphy.gif This isn't the epic ownage you think it is. If you think the not-even-a-technicality that you consume your media by following BCB or whatever on facebook instead of visiting the actual url absolves you from the absurd, fantastic ownage you just got handed, then you would be Derwood.
  17. JudasIscariotTheBird
    Lol, I’ve never visited either of those sites, but sure. Uhhhh lol viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3195&p=383940&hilit=Derwood#p383933
  18. JudasIscariotTheBird
    Ohio State is in unless they get absolutely crushed and even then maybe they are. The discussion that's interesting if Wisconsin wins, especially by a decent margin, is Wisconsin vs Oklahoma. I don’t think Wisconsin would get in over OSU. After all OSU did beat them earlier this year, has played a harder schedule (I think), lost one less game, didn’t lose to Illinois, and overall has played significantly better with both metrics and the eye test. I do think they’d have a shot to finish over Oklahoma although that would cause quite the drama to have a 2 loss conference champion over a 1 loss. But Oklahoma has not looked all that impressive from what I’ve seen this season and I don’t think they are one of the 4 best teams this year Yeah, all clearly true, which is why I was puzzled by the 538 odds.
  19. JudasIscariotTheBird
    So, if Wisconsin manages to win this game, do they get in over OSU? 538 has the Badgers as a slight favorite to do that, which seems mildly weird to me.
  20. JudasIscariotTheBird
    So if Wisconsin manages to win this game, do they get in? Over Ohio St.? Five thirty eight has it as essentially a coin flip (assuming a Badger win, which is obviously a lot). Edit: whoops.
  21. JudasIscariotTheBird
    The giveaway in this case was "wanting to be close to New Jersey."
  22. JudasIscariotTheBird
    I can understand why a team like this could have more variance, but why would it be any more likely to underperform Pythag than overpreform? They go hand in hand. Pythagorean assumes that variance is noise and eventually levels out, if it's a feature/bug of your team design, then you're more likely to underperform it. To put a name to the variance, a team that sacrifices outfield defense for some extra offense will be more likely to see variance in low scoring games where everyone's hitting poorly, or maybe when the wind is blowing in and the offensive advantage is neutralized and the defensive disadvantage magnified. We're talking in generalities here, but that's how it can manifest. I don’t think that’s right. Variance goes both ways. If it trends toward underperformance, that isn’t variance. Thus, the modeling... Edit: Are you saying this kind of line up would be more likely to win big and lose small, and thus pythag is a bad way to measure win prob? I half agree if that is what you are saying. I’m not convinced that kind of team would, in fact, be more likely to have that happen than the exact opposite asymmetry.
  23. JudasIscariotTheBird
    I can imagine in my head that having three poor-range defenders in the OF can cause cascading defensive problems, but isn’t it also true that having a lot of high OBP guys in the same line up has a similar, positive cascading effect for runs scored? Do we still have a heavily GB-producing pitching staff? Can we trust Theo to have models of this kind of stuff? You can definitely model it, and to a certain degree (in the value sense) a run is a run. However, we've seen the consequences of a team that has imbalances in building the roster this way, you get uneven performances, underperform pythag, etc. Given the outward messaging being around balance when it comes to the offense, I'd be surprised if they sought out an extreme in the form of 3 sketchy defensive OF being starters. I can understand why a team like this could have more variance, but why would it be any more likely to underperform Pythag than overpreform?
  24. JudasIscariotTheBird
    For me it's less about Nick's defense, which I think is below average but ultimately fine, and more the cumulative effect on the outfield. Schwarber in left, Heyward in center, and Nick in right are each individually okay, but cumulatively it could lead to some real problems. Not to mention Happ as the primary backup. Yup. The sum of the parts could be quite ugly, I think you could still make a Schwarbs/Heyward/Nick OF work to the point of it not killing you but we’d have to bring in a Billy Hamilton type to throw in to CF like every game we got a lead in the 6/7 innings and we’d also have to get back to shifting a lot and be good at it. There’s also the part where Nick very well may take up almost all the available money we have to spend this offseason and there’s plenty more holes to fill. It was discussed yesterday, but Souza could be a nice alternative to Nick if he’s healthy and he’s probably only going to cost $3-6 mil for 1 year to re-establish his value. I can imagine in my head that having three poor-range defenders in the OF can cause cascading defensive problems, but isn’t it also true that having a lot of high OBP guys in the same line up has a similar, positive cascading effect for runs scored? Do we still have a heavily GB-producing pitching staff? Can we trust Theo to have models of this kind of stuff?
  25. JudasIscariotTheBird
    I'm on a University of Illinois message board - cleverly disguising myself by using the exact same user name - and there's one guy who is talking about how great it is that Kendrick Nunn (former U of I basketball player, kicked off the team after pleading guilty to domestic battery) is getting a shot in the NBA, while simultaneously saying in a different thread that Kaepernick should never be in the NFL again. Sample size of one I know, but those people are out there. Unless I am mistaken, Derwood is saying ALL Nunn/Addi supporters are also Kaep haters. I claim there are too many straight-ticket racists for that to be true.
×
×
  • Create New...