Jump to content
North Side Baseball

SRQCub

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    257

  • 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 SRQCub

  1. SRQCub
    That's because you place really bad valuations on the present season and on prospects. Really, really bad. Lol, how so?
  2. SRQCub
    You're going to be very disappointed when the actual 2016 Cubs show up looking remarkably like the 2015 Cubs, give or take a starting pitcher. If the 2016 Cubs have Price and Baez, I would take that over Hamels and Castro. And you still have prospects to use next season, along with Castro to deal for an OF this offseason. I just don't want to see good prospects go for a rental right now.
  3. SRQCub
    It's an indication of what is possible. There's not point in puting down a blanket "This is what they would/won't do." There are only probabilties. That's not actually true. There are only probabilities? So, what are the probabilities that this team that has struggled at the plate all year begins to hit against the likes of Kershaw/Greinke/Latos or Scherzer/Zimmermann/Gozalez or Wacha/Martinez/Lynn? No, nothing is a guarantee. I guess I just don't get where all the optimism is coming from, and have a hard time using the 2014 Kansas City Royals as a beacon of hope. If the Cubs had, say, traded for Hamels, why would teams like the Dodgers or the Cardinals be so likely to be able to handle Hamels/Arrietta/Lester any easier? You just want to be in the playoffs because things can wildly sway in either direction. Because they are better at hitting the baseball and scoring runs? We're behind the Dodgers, Cardinals, Pirates, Giants and Nats in nearly every offensive category.
  4. SRQCub
    What they've done over the years is prove they can lose a whole lot of baseball games. While building a system that can win a whole lot of baseball games.
  5. SRQCub
    The bolded sentence is where I disagree with you. The farm system is not what we thought it was back in March. Graduating Bryant, Russell and Schwarber has really hurt what was a terribly top-heavy system. That doesn't mean we don't have pieces to trade, but trading for impact would significantly hurt the system, and would do so in a year where you likely don't feel as good about your chances as you may in 2016. So "hurt" the system; this is supposed to be the FO that can replenish it with smart drafting and signings. Everyone knew Bryant and Russell were definitely coming up this year, so Schwarber being a regular in the lineup at this point is the only real surprise. Why would it be worse if the farm is momentarily depleted this year because of trades as opposed to the next? Are they "hurting" the farm system if they make a big trade in this coming offseason? Honestly, this comes across as being more worried as to how the system will be ranked for 2016 moreso than the Cubs doing what they can to compete this year. I don't believe that they can truly "compete" in 2015. I think they can in 2016. That's where I'm ultimately coming from.
  6. SRQCub
    It's an indication of what is possible. There's not point in puting down a blanket "This is what they would/won't do." There are only probabilties. That's not actually true. There are only probabilities? So, what are the probabilities that this team that has struggled at the plate all year begins to hit against the likes of Kershaw/Greinke/Latos or Scherzer/Zimmermann/Gozalez or Wacha/Martinez/Lynn? No, nothing is a guarantee. I guess I just don't get where all the optimism is coming from, and have a hard time using the 2014 Kansas City Royals as a beacon of hope.
  7. SRQCub
    The bolded sentence is where I disagree with you. The farm system is not what we thought it was back in March. Graduating Bryant, Russell and Schwarber has really hurt what was a terribly top-heavy system. That doesn't mean we don't have pieces to trade, but trading for impact would significantly hurt the system, and would do so in a year where you likely don't feel as good about your chances as you may in 2016.
  8. SRQCub
    Oh, okay.
  9. SRQCub
    In a vacuum, yes. I don't know what this is supposed to mean. It means that there are other factors that the FO has to consider, obviously. Are they in a position to take on payroll right now? Is there a reasonable package that brings back the arm and the bat necessary to compete with teams like the Dodgers, who have what appears to be infinite resources right now? It also means that teams make moves to rent players in the regular season that they wouldn't always target the following offseason. So, if you can save prospects required to rent guys like Leake or Kennedy, maybe this FO prefers that? Honestly, I don't know what they're thinking at this point.
  10. SRQCub
    Without looking it up, name 5 position players and 3 starting pitchers on the Giants. So, not trying to be snarky, but what does that prove? Those nameless players are hitting the ball much better than the Cubs are. They are significantly better in the slash categories and are scoring a half run a game more than we are. We are pitching a little better than they are. Is there a reasonably priced starter and a decent bat available? If so, why has the FO not made a move for either? Could it be that money really is keeping us from taking on much salary right now?
  11. SRQCub
    In a vacuum, yes.
  12. SRQCub
    In a five or seven game series? Yes, please. Check where the Royals' offense was about mid-July last year. It was not good, and it only regressed as the season continued. Yes, they certainly hit better in the playoffs, but that's not an indication of what we'd do. Even at their worst, they were a much better offense than we've seen in Chicago this season. I don't mean to sound like I'd prefer not to make the Wild Card. I'm just going to be much less disappointed than many others if we're patient and wait until the offseason to add the pieces we'd need. And if we get something done that helps our chances in the playoffs this year, that's great.
  13. SRQCub
    Apparently, someone at ESPN is speculating that the Dodgers will try to turn Wood into Price. It was on air, so I don't have a link.
  14. SRQCub
    Exactly which is why they need a pitcher even just a journeyman. if they didnt have those 6 beeler / richard starts who knows what the record would be now. the whole "dont sell the future for a wildcard" idea is soo true, but you mean to tell me all of the top say 20 prospects are the future? I think we are seeing a major part of the future at Wrigley already. if it means trading a couple guys who arent contributing this year, (aside from Baez) why dont they do it? Arent they supposed to be restocking with the IFA ? if you ask me anyone who plays C, 1b, 3b in the system can and should be moved if possible, schwarb, bryant rizzo are going no where.. I don't disagree that a Mike Leake or Ian Kennedy type of pitcher would be a solid addition to the rotation. And if those guys come at the cost of Castro or a "prospect" like Vogelbach, sure, go for it. I just don't think that making the Wild Card round is a "must" in 2015. If we do, it's gravy. If we don't, 2016 was always going to be the true beginning of contention anyway, right?
  15. SRQCub
    they have a surplus of guys in the minors they should at least go get a 5th starter even a leake type. unless you suggest just throw in the towel with 60 games left this season "Throwing in the towel" is selling players from a team that has played into Wild Card contention over the 1st 100 games. It isn't "throwing in the towel" to not go for the 5th spot in the playoffs (when the separation between the top 3 teams and the Cubs is so dramatic.) I'm fine with being patient, signing a couple of important pieces for 2016 and then trading from depth to acquire whatever other piece remains. If you're talking the difference between a pennant and a wild card spot, you do it. When you're talking about the difference between playing one do-or-die game for the right to get your brains beaten in by the Dodgers or Nationals, I don't feel a sense of urgency there. Except there's no guarantee that the better team wins in the playoffs. No, of course not. But do you like the idea of this lineup facing any of the Cards, Dodgers or Nats? I'd rather be patient and wait until we have an opportunity to start at even, if that makes sense. But I'm also not saying that we shouldn't do anything. I just don't think that it is a "must" at this point.
  16. SRQCub
    they have a surplus of guys in the minors they should at least go get a 5th starter even a leake type. unless you suggest just throw in the towel with 60 games left this season "Throwing in the towel" is selling players from a team that has played into Wild Card contention over the 1st 100 games. It isn't "throwing in the towel" to not go for the 5th spot in the playoffs (when the separation between the top 3 teams and the Cubs is so dramatic.) I'm fine with being patient, signing a couple of important pieces for 2016 and then trading from depth to acquire whatever other piece remains. If you're talking the difference between a pennant and a wild card spot, you do it. When you're talking about the difference between playing one do-or-die game for the right to get your brains beaten in by the Dodgers or Nationals, I don't feel a sense of urgency there.
  17. SRQCub
    I'd rather him stay in Milwaukee and not going to one of our 2 competitors for a playoff spot if the mets are going for it to a degree, theo has to do something, we have been ahead of them all season in the wildcard Why, exactly? Why do we have to sell pieces of a very bright future to try to beat the Mets for a Wild Card spot? Because its been a long time Well, that's just silly. You don't get impatient because you have a chance to be the 5th team into the playoffs (behind 2 teams who are much, much better than you) when you are facing a window of competing for championships.
  18. SRQCub
    good just in time for the cubs to come up there I'd rather him stay in Milwaukee and not going to one of our 2 competitors for a playoff spot if the mets are going for it to a degree, theo has to do something, we have been ahead of them all season in the wildcard Why, exactly? Why do we have to sell pieces of a very bright future to try to beat the Mets for a Wild Card spot?
  19. SRQCub
    It's not really all that surprising, given Tulo's injury history and his enormous contract. Hoffman is not a terrible return, given the financials.
  20. SRQCub
    Toronto still has plenty left to make a move for pitching. I don't think they're done.
  21. SRQCub
    Released today, according to CBS.
  22. SRQCub
    Finnegan was well thought of coming into the season. Feels like Lamb has been around forever. Arm injuries, but supposedly his velocity and stuff is back. Lamb really has pitched well this year. His return from injury has taken some time, but his K rate has returned to pre-injury levels, and he is keeping the ball on the ground at a higher rate than he has in a while. WHIP has returned to pre-injury levels as well. I think he has a chance to be solid at the next level. But what does this return mean in terms of the Cubs pursuit of players at the deadline? Any bearing at all on the perceived pricetag of certain players?
  23. SRQCub
    The Giants rotation is 20% Bumgarner, 20% Chris Heston trying to keep up his current pace, and 60% mediocrity or worse. Don't be a 'today was bad so everything is bad forever' person. Perhaps his use of "significantly" better was too complimentary toward the Giants, but I do think he's right that they are better. I'm more confident in them winning a playoff spot than the Cubs. And it has nothing to do with today. The use of "significantly" was overstating the truth, but the point that "there's not much than can be done to change that" isn't realistic, either. There are plenty of pieces available to change this lineup. At the same time, there is plenty of reason to ride out this season with what we have and begin to put better pieces into place this offseason, while holding onto most of (if not all of) our valuable trade commodities. i know you're new here, but you're going to have to learn that this type of rational and level-headed response is not appropriate for game threads. Lol, sorry? I'll try to be a little more belligerent next time.
  24. SRQCub
    Should have done this.
  25. SRQCub
    The Giants rotation is 20% Bumgarner, 20% Chris Heston trying to keep up his current pace, and 60% mediocrity or worse. Don't be a 'today was bad so everything is bad forever' person. Perhaps his use of "significantly" better was too complimentary toward the Giants, but I do think he's right that they are better. I'm more confident in them winning a playoff spot than the Cubs. And it has nothing to do with today. The use of "significantly" was overstating the truth, but the point that "there's not much than can be done to change that" isn't realistic, either. There are plenty of pieces available to change this lineup. At the same time, there is plenty of reason to ride out this season with what we have and begin to put better pieces into place this offseason, while holding onto most of (if not all of) our valuable trade commodities.
×
×
  • Create New...