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
    He can put up a .900 OPS with very good defense (which would be a decline in both offense and fielding) and still not be a handcuff on the franchise. There's little chance he'll be OPSing 1.000 when he's in his late 30s, but at the same time there's little chance he'll be OPSing .750 in his late 30s. He's a patient, intelligent, well-conditioned player who is probably one of the 2-3 greatest players ever - and maybe the best ever. Those players have a higher rate of success late in their careers than your general good player. The mindset with Soriano by some people was "maybe he'll play great for a couple years because he's going to be terrible soon." With Pujols, it's "he'll likely be incredible for about 3-5 years and then probably really good from there." There's really no way to compare Soriano and Pujols' deals in any way, shape, or form. There was no indication whatsoever that Soriano would age well, he was a very inconsistent player at the time, and he didn't have the skills to have any success once he started to decline. Pujols is a 100% different player than Soriano in every aspect, even without regard to the fact that Pujols is historically great. There's plenty of reason to think Pujols could be productive into his mid-late 30s, whereas there was none with Soriano.
  2. dew1679666265
    Apparently we have to be ready to win next year since Pujols either won't be a Cub after that or won't be any good after 2012. I don't understand that either.
  3. dew1679666265
    The posting fee concerns me. I'd hate to have a Daisuke-type situation where we pay a monster posting fee, a monster contract, and then Darvish disappoints (not necessarily tanks like Daisuke, but isn't the stud he needs to be for that type of money). I'd prefer to focus on Wilson and the lesser-known Japanese arms potentially coming over.
  4. dew1679666265
    He'd be significantly cheaper and to a certain extent is more of a known commodity. Cheaper, yes. Significantly? Depends on what you think Wilson will get. If you think he'll end up at $18+ then Oswalt might be significantly cheaper. If you think he'll fall more in the $15-17 range, then I doubt it. I'd be stunned if Oswalt got less than a Ted Lilly with the Cubs type deal and probably more in monetary value. I don't know how much more of a known commodity he is either. He has a longer track record, but has thrown far more innings, is older, and is far more likely to decline or fall off a cliff than Wilson is. Barring injury for either, worst case scenario for Wilson is probably what Oswalt has done the past couple of years. Worst case scenario for Oswalt is that he takes another step back and is a 1-2 win player in his next deal.
  5. dew1679666265
    It's not been finalized. Cubs and Sox still working on it and Theo said a third party (Bud presumably) could get involved.
  6. dew1679666265
    He said during his time in Boston after agreeing to terms with the Cubs kind of felt like Milton in the basement with his Swingline stapler.
  7. dew1679666265
    Nothing other than that he'll discuss some things from over the past year with Quade and go from there.
  8. dew1679666265
    For what it would take to get him and for the likely cost going forward, I'd want closer to 2005-2008 overall numbers than 2010. I'd also want his fielding to rebound to at least average, which it hasn't been since 2008. There's simply too much that has to improve for me to be comfortable with the pricetag he'd come with both in prospects and money.
  9. dew1679666265
    He's been less patient and struck out more on the road than at home, though. It's possible Citi Field has made him a radically different player than he used to be, but I'm not sure enough about that to put my concerns aside and support giving up the prospects and money it would take to get him.
  10. dew1679666265
    Without regard to accuracy, I'm going to assume they meant Ari and not David.
  11. dew1679666265
    I don't think park is having much to do with it. As I posted earlier in this thread, he's declined steadily on the road since Citi Field opened, whereas his numbers have been up and down at home. His overall decline has actually been propped up by his home numbers, rather than brought down.
  12. dew1679666265
    If I could sign Wright for 1yr/$15 mil, I'd do it. However, it's the combination of paying him $15 mil next year, having to work out a new contract after that (what will his demands be?), and giving up potentially elite (for your system) prospects for him. If he deems himself still an elite player and won't sign for anything less than elite money, then the Cubs, for example, could be giving up BJax/McNutt/Cashner/Liria for one year of non-elite (possibly) David Wright. That's not a good proposition.
  13. dew1679666265
    Yep.
  14. dew1679666265
    I wouldn't. Wilson's the better pitcher (4-5 WAR vs 3-4 for Oswalt), he's younger, and has far less mileage on his arm. Plus, if you give 5 years to Wilson you have him for his elite years and then through his age 36 season. If you give 2 years to Oswalt, you don't get his elite years, but you still have him through his age 36 season. I just don't see the upside to Oswalt.
  15. dew1679666265
    What's your view on signing Pujols? On the CC idea, I'd be fine with giving him a 6 year deal and getting 4 elite years. Unless you think CC is going to just fall off a cliff at 35 (possible), then his decline would take him from elite to great to very good and then the contract ends. To put it another way, he may be a 7 WAR player the next two years, 6 WAR two years after that, 4 WAR, and then 3 WAR the final two years of his deal. I'd be fine with that. My opposition to CC is not that he'd be declining at the end of his contract, but that his AAV will probably be in the $23-28 range, which would put us out of the Pujols/Prince sweepstakes. Given the pitching upcoming this offseason and next and the fact that hitters are less of a risk than pitchers, I'll pass on CC in order to go after Pujols/Prince.
  16. dew1679666265
    I'm not sure how much interest I'd have in Ichiro at that point at any cost, but it's possible his name and Japanese following may get him overpaid even then. I probably should have used Quentin instead of Ichiro in the $10+ million category, though.
  17. dew1679666265
    That's the thing, I'm wondering if we'd be able to buy RF that season. Off the top of my head, we could be looking at $85-95 million tied up in 5 players in 2013 (assuming roughly $15 million for Upton and Garza, each, just to use a number). That would give us less something like $70-80 million to fill 20 other roster spots. Can we put another $10+ million into an Ethier or Ichiro at that point? Maybe we can, but I'd want to know for sure how open with the pocketbook Ricketts will be before I feel good about that scenario.
  18. dew1679666265
    His decline has been both home and away, though. His road BB% has dropped to 7.0% last year and 7.4% this year after being at 13.0% his first year in Citi Field. That's led his road OBP to go from .401 to .326 to .323 the past three years. His road wOBA and OPS have also dropped steadily in the past three years. His numbers at home have fluctuated down in 2009, up in 2010, and then down in 2011. Overall, his BB% dropped every year from 2007 to 2010 before rebounding some this year. His K% spiked in 2009 and 2010 to as high as 24% before falling a bit to 21.7% this year. His OBP has dropped pretty steadily from .416 in 2007 to .345 this year (held steady in 2008-9). His SLG has also dropped from .546 in 2007 to .427 this year. His wOBA has also dropped every year since 2007, from .420 to .342. His fielding got pretty good in 2007 and 2008, but then has been horrible the past 3 years (-10.0, -10.6, -10.5). He's still a good player, but I'm not sure if he's the type of guy I'm clearing out my farm system for unless my scouts are convinced he's heading for a rebound.
  19. dew1679666265
    I'd still prefer Wilson to Oswalt (younger/less mileage primarily), but this is good news. It either gives us another fallback option or the bidding on Oswalt might take away a suitor from the Wilson sweepstakes.
  20. dew1679666265
    I think most of us agree that it makes more sense to keep him than to pay him to pitch somewhere else, but I think Zambrano has finally got on management's last nerve. I'll be interested to see what Theo/Hoyer do with Z. CCP made a good point a while ago that a new GM probably wouldn't put his neck on the line that early with a guy the fans had turned on, but that was before somebody with Theo's stature was a realistic option. Would the fans be more receptive to Theo giving Z another chance?
  21. dew1679666265
    What do we do in RF in 2013 after we're paying big money to Soriano, Pujols, Wilson, Upton and Garza? Szczur may be ready by then, but if he's not we don't have much in the way of OF prospects who are both good and ready. We probably couldn't go get a Kemp or somebody and if Szczur isn't ready we wouldn't have access to cheap RF production. I guess my question is this: Is a CF/RF duo in 2013 of Upton/? better than BJax/Kemp? That ? could be anywhere from Szczur to a cheap scrap-heap platoon. Unless Ricketts goes crazy with payroll, which would be fine with me.
  22. dew1679666265
    My hunch is probably no. Overall, I don't think David Wright is that elite superstar he was several years back, but the Mets are likely to value him that way, and I just don't know if I see a package of Brett Jackson, Trey McNutt, and one or two more being enough. In all honesty, after seeing the numbers somebody posted a while back (maybe bukie or Kyle?), I'm not sure I want to give up what it would take to get him. He was declining pretty consistently if I recall correctly.
  23. dew1679666265
    No. I actually didn't hear the Gammons snippet, so I don't know the context of that... but I meant the SI clipping from last night that referred to a tidbit in the Tribune that Theo may look at Maddux as a pitching coach. Ah, ok. I was thinking about the Gammons blurb when I responded to AI. Completely forgot about the other one.
  24. dew1679666265
    I think that's what the rumor is. Theo targeting Maddux as the new manager. The rumor reported in the Tribune was as pitching coach. The blurb you posted on page 3? The wording and placement of the quote made me think that Maddux and Bud Black were being rumored as managerial candidates.
  25. dew1679666265
    I'd be really surprised if he got less than 7-8 years when all is said and done. Teams will probably start the bidding at 6 years and Prince/Boras will likely start at 10 and then they'll settle in the middle.
×
×
  • Create New...