Jump to content
North Side Baseball

dew1679666265

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    20,547

  • 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 dew1679666265

  1. dew1679666265
    Not if we got some good development from guys like Castro and Headley (just now hitting his prime and was around a .500 SLG guy in the minors) and got healthy, bounceback years from Sizemore and Soto. It'd be a high risk team that could lose 90 games, but the rotation would be the best in the league hands-down and the offense would have some upside.
  2. dew1679666265
    Haha, yeah Dontrelle has always been a good hitter I think. Had the Cubs kept Dontrelle and had him and Z in the lineup, it would've been Maddux/Glavine all over again (except they wouldn't have pitched as well). It's easy to overlook a big part of Z's production, though, since almost no other pitcher provides much/any positive offensive value.
  3. dew1679666265
    There's no reason it shouldn't be.
  4. dew1679666265
    I think we could piecemeal together an offense good enough to score more than one run a game in that scenario. Add Chase Headley, maybe Grady Sizemore in right, find a lefty platoon partner for Soriano (DeJesus?), start BJax in center, watch Castro improve offensively. That's not going to be a good offense, but there's going to be some pretty impressive on-base ability there and some really good defense. Rotation Garza Wilson Darvish Dempster Wells Lineup Castro Headley Sizemore Pena Soto Soriano/DeJesus Jackson Barney P
  5. dew1679666265
    i'm not particularly excited to watch the 2012 cubs in which no position player slugs .500 It's kind of exciting to think of a rotation including Garza/Wilson/Darvish/Dempster/Wells, though.
  6. dew1679666265
    I do agree that there are some troubling numbers from Z that don't necessarily give me a lot of confidence in him going forward. That said, Z is still a very unique pitcher in that his offense actually provides positive value (and significantly so at times). If you include his offensive WAR in with his pitching WAR, you have this the past 3 years: 4.6, 2.8, 1.9. That bumps his two year average up to 2.3 and his three year average up to 3.1. For the record, Fangraphs has his offensive WAR as 1.0, .5, and 1.0 the past 3 seasons.
  7. dew1679666265
    He does fit the grinding out ABs philosophy a bit better, but I guess I question whether we'd get him on a 1/$6 type deal like we have with Marlon. The one year may be likely, but just off the top of my head $6 million seems lower than he'd get. Maybe not though. I just don't see it as an improvement of any significance and there are better things to spend our time on then swapping Byrd for DeJesus. I don't hate it or anything, though. However, that is a good point about his platoon split. Hadn't noticed that, but too bad he's not a righty - he could platoon with LaHair in right and they'd put up some really nice numbers.
  8. dew1679666265
    I'm struggling to see any appeal to DeJesus over Byrd in any way. Byrd is older and isn't lefthanded, but on one year deals the former isn't very significant and I doubt Theo cares that much about the latter. The past 3 seasons, DeJesus has been an 8.5 WAR player and Byrd has been a 7.8 WAR player. You might see a very slight improvement in going from Byrd to DeJesus, but likely not much - and we're certainly not likely to get a great return for Byrd in trade. Bringing Wood back is cool if he comes really cheap again, but then Piniero? Outside of his one 4.7 WAR season (which he's really unlikely to replicate), he's posted a 5.0 WAR in the past 5 seasons. We've got a number of young pitchers who could give us a 1.0 WAR this year and they'd have the upside to be better. Piniero does not, as he'll be 34 next year. These aren't throw the season away moves, these are make signings simply to make signings with no rhyme or reason behind them moves.
  9. dew1679666265
    ...because, really, the "move" was exercising their half of the option, knowing he would decline his half. So, did he screw up, or is he reporting that we're not even going to try to keep him around? http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-1101-cubs-chicago--20111101,0,6456912.story From that quote, it sounds like Sullivan is saying the Cubs didn't offer him a multiyear deal prior to Aramis declining his option. It doesn't seem to address whether they'll offer him anything moving forward, though.
  10. dew1679666265
    Like dextermorgan said, you're looking for very different things in a major league and minor league manager. There are plenty of guys throughout the league who have been given minor league managerial opportunities but have never sniffed the majors. Why? Because that's how management views them to be at their best. There's no doubt in my mind that Ryno preaches sound fundamental baseball and wants to teach that to the players. That seems to be his best asset as that's one of the biggest things he's talked about and it's one of the most popular explanations behind why people support Ryno as manager. The thing is, by the the time you reach the majors you're probably just about as fundamentally sound as you're going to get (with the exception of super young players like Castro). If you have a manager who's going to focus on teaching fundamentals, you need to put him where he'll have the most impact and his teaching will be most impactful - in the minors, where they're still learning this stuff. It's been my position all along that Ryno is more of a minor league manager than he is a major league manager and Theo offering him the Red Sox AAA job does nothing to change my mind about that - and it also says nothing about Theo's interest in him as a major league manager.
  11. dew1679666265
    Why would Callaspo be cheaper coming off his best season while also entering your prime? He'll turn 29 next year so he's been in his prime for a couple of years, but that's probably nitpicking a bit. The biggest reason he might come cheaper is because he has one less year of arbitration years. Headley/Stewart are FAs in 2015, Callaspo is a FA in 2014.
  12. dew1679666265
    I'm not arguing actively refusing to make a trade, I just don't think we'll get good value for a lot of our players this offseason. Most of our needs can be filled through free agency either through elite stars (Pujols/Wilson/Prince) and/or cost effective, useful players (Francis/Chen/Bedard/Sizemore/etc). Since a number of our better prospects either are "untouchable" (Castro, BJax, Cashner) or had down years/questions (McNutt, Szczur, Vitters, Whitenack) that depress their value on the trade market, I'd rather just keep them and let them build their value back up rather than sell low on them. If a good trade presents itself, I'm all for making it. But other than Danks I don't think there's anybody truly valuable that we really need to pursue this offseason. Nobody I've seen anyway - and that includes Wright.
  13. dew1679666265
    I watched Aramis in the minors when he was a Nashville Sound, was one of the biggest proponents of the trade for him in 2003, and he was my favorite Cub for the past 9 years. Really sad to see him go, but it's probably in the best interest of the team.
  14. dew1679666265
    This is what I expect to happen. Prince and Boras will probably just wait around, see what Pujols signs for, and then ask for a dollar amount a little less than that number. For instance, if Pujols gets $28 million AAV, then Prince likely asks for $25 AAV.
  15. dew1679666265
    Still ranks below the awful Yunel for Alex Gonzalez deal. Wren's made some really confusing decisions as GM.
  16. dew1679666265
    Honestly, I'm generally in favor of not making trades this offseason. The only one I've really gotten behind is the Danks trade and that's one that I'd equate very much to getting Garza. I'd be more than willing to move McNutt in a package for Danks (though that one may take Cashner). I guess my thought is if McNutt's value has dropped that much in a year's time then you're selling low on him if you deal him now. Unless you really believe he won't rebound, then it seems like better use of the asset to keep him and give him the opportunity to rebound. If that means don't make a trade of significance this offseason, I'm ok with that - especially since our needs could more than adequately be filled through FA (as easy as signing Pujols/Prince/Wilson can be).
  17. dew1679666265
    I do agree that McNutt is hardly an elite prospect, however he's not a longshot to make the majors and be productive either. Given Headley's power issues and the lack of certainty that the power will improve upon moving to Wrigley, I don't see him as a good bet to become anything more than a nice, cheap option that you let walk as soon as he hits FA. As I see a very good chance that McNutt is at least that type player, I'm not keen on the idea of making that swap. To put it another way, we got Garza for Archer/Lee/Guyer/Fuld. I was against the trade at the time, but did acknowledge that Garza was at least a very good pitcher and a borderline elite one, I just questioned whether he'd make that next step. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think McNutt is much, if any, worse than Archer as a prospect and maybe better. To me Headley is a much more questionable bet to become a cornerstone type player than Garza was at the time, and my thought is that McNutt in a package ought to get us better than a guy who really needs to improve to reach elite status.
  18. dew1679666265
    I did read the article and saw that difference, but lazily didn't go back and check to see which came first - the post or the article. If the article is the more recent opinion, then I'll quit being argumentative. Though I still question the far part of Headley's cost being higher than Stewart's. More yes, but far more I'm just not sure I buy. Like you said, though, it's more gut feeling for us than anything provable.
  19. dew1679666265
    Wow, McNutt's a bit much I'm thinking. I could see them asking for him, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable giving that much up for either. I'm thinking I'd only give McNutt in a package for a cornerstone type player and I'm just not sure Headley or Stewart is that.
  20. dew1679666265
    There still needs to be motivation to move him out. If he's out of options, I could see them having some motivation if they've completely given up on him. But considering he's only had the one awful year, I don't know if that's a good assumption to make. I think it's just as easy to assume that they were in the middle of a pennant race (at the time) and made a rash decision to get some quick offense and they plan on giving him the job again this season. I just don't see the likelihood that the asking prices are so different that Stewart is your #2 option and Headley doesn't even make your top 4-5.
  21. dew1679666265
    It's a possibility. Though, I'm not overly worried about them trading Vitters in a Headley deal. I'm actually a big fan of Vitters, but I think I'd do that deal if I had to. It would obviously depend on Hoyer's belief in Headley and Theo/Hoyer's belief in internal options, but if Hoyer was convinced Headley's numbers would jump moving to Wrigley, I'd be fine with getting him for Vitters. It also depends on what Vitters' value is around the league - I honestly don't know how well other teams value him as a potential trade chip and the answer to that would play a big role in determining how seriously I considered the trade. Here's my reasoning: We know at worst Headley will be a decent, cheap option at third for the next three years. There's a chance his numbers may improve and he becomes a very good third baseman who we consider bringing back after his arbitration years. With Vitters, the upside is far higher than Headley, but so is the risk. There's a very realistic chance Vitters never makes the majors or is cup of coffee and done type player. We'd be trading a major risk for certainty with upside who's cheap.
  22. dew1679666265
    To make you a bit more conflicted, I'd guess there'd be a good chance Vitters would be in a hypothetical Headley deal. Though my guess is he'd be in either deal, unless Byrnes hates him or something.
  23. dew1679666265
    I think it depends largely on what Byrnes thinks of Headley and what the Rockies want for Stewart. I don't know why the Rockies would be any more motivated to deal Stewart than the Padres would be to deal Headley. Both are the same distance from FA, neither has lit the world on fire in the majors, but both also had really good minor league numbers. Unless I'm missing a prospect chomping at the bit to get to Colorado that San Diego doesn't have.
  24. dew1679666265
    Signing two high injury risks scares me. I'd much rather shoot for Jeff Francis or Wei-Yin Chen instead of Chris Young. He'll be 33 next year and hasn't pitched 100 innings since 2008. I'm not even sure the upside is much since his best two years (2005 and 2007) were 3.7 and 3.4 WAR years. That said, my #1 pitching FA choice remains C.J. Wilson.
  25. dew1679666265
    What makes you so strongly prefer Stewart to Headley? Is it purely slugging and prospect related? I get preferring Stewart to Headley, but not by as much as you seem to.
×
×
  • Create New...