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 may well. We'll see what he does in the offseason. I don't see the benefit to doing that in the media instead of behind the scenes. What good does Ricketts do by threatening a bunch of people's job in the newspaper or online? I'm quite sure everybody in the front office is trying as hard as they can to put together a winning team, they just haven't been doing a very good job of it.
  2. dew1679666265
    He should expect to get those questions and he's fielding them instead of avoiding the media completely - so I guess he's being a big boy and not shirking his responsibility. However, he shouldn't be giving answers that only serve to increase how often those questions are asked. By brushing off the question, he would have made fans made. By hemming and hawing he would have made other fans mad. By answering the question the way he did, he made other fans mad. By saying the team sucks and he's pissed at Hendry, he would have made Hendry and most people in the organization mad. No matter what answer Ricketts gave, somebody was going to be mad. So he just gave as positive a comment as he could - nothing wrong with that. My mistake, I was going off memory. It was somebody else who wanted him to sound angry.
  3. dew1679666265
    Well, if Ricketts only goal this year was to be .500 and hope for the best, I would certainly hope he'd keep that part to himself. Talk about a good way to enrage an already testy (although increasingly apathetic) fanbase. But I don't know about that. Part of me feels he really thought this team could make noise, which is a scary thought. I'm sure his goal was for the team to make the playoffs and win the World Series, but it wouldn't surprise me if Ricketts knew there was little flexibility on the roster and recognized that expecting more than a .500 season or so was being unrealistic. Obviously he couldn't say that to media members, so he glossed over the question and gave as positive an answer as possible. I simply don't see a problem with it.
  4. dew1679666265
    And Ricketts could simply say: "I am evaluating everyone and lets leave it that". After that, say: "Thanks, guys", and walk away. He really sounds like an idiot (whether he meant what he said or not) to use the injury card as an excuse for this horrid team. And speculation only increases that Hendry's days are numbered and then the first question (and an endless amount after that) in Hendry's next press conference is whether he thinks he'll be fired, whether he's talked to Ricketts about his job, etc. Thus making his job more tedious because he has to field even more questions about his job security. I think the earlier comment about expectations was right on. If Ricketts knew this would be a difficult year and that we'd be fighting to stay around .500 most of the year, then he made a 100% accurate statement that the biggest thing wrong with this team is injuries, because without all the injuries all at the same time this team is probably a lot closer to .500 than it is now. By answering the way he did, Ricketts showed faith in the original team that was constructed and didn't open any new cans of worms.
  5. dew1679666265
    And then the questions immediately start popping up about how much blame should be pinned on Hendry, how much on Quade and is either of their jobs in jeopardy. That's exactly the answer the reporter wants because it opens Ricketts up to follow up questions trying to bait him into saying he's considering firing Hendry/Quade. There is no "right" answer to the question, you simply spin it as positively as you can and move on. The important thing isn't what Ricketts is saying to the reporter anyway, the important thing is what Ricketts truly believes - and those two things could be completely different.
  6. dew1679666265
    If all he does is hem and haw and avoid the question, then a whole group of fans are complaining that he didn't answer the question and he obviously doesn't care about the team if he's not showing more fire than that. If he responds with simply, "no comment" then reporters and fans start rumormongering that he's obviously extremely upset and a complete clearing of the front office is eminent and then he spends the next month answering those questions. I also don't see how your suggestion of what Ricketts should have said makes him any more fiery or placating to the angry fans. His best choice was to answer as positively as he could and that's what he did. The answer was meaningless, as it should have been.
  7. dew1679666265
    What exactly would you have liked him to say? How do you approach that question with professionalism and still say the talent on the team is lacking? It's a loaded question that the reporter knows he's not going to get an accurate answer to, but has to ask anyway just in the random chance that the owner vents more than he ought to.
  8. dew1679666265
    It depends on the player - which I think is what you're saying here. Should some team decide it wants Soriano, I'd take a couple of low-ceiling A ball guys if the other team will eat a large chunk of the money. If it's Pena or Kosuke, I'd eat much more of their salary if it would get us better prospects. Dumping salary shouldn't be that large a concern for this team, however, considering how many prospects we have coming up and how much salary we're already freeing up in the near future.
  9. dew1679666265
    They may not match the best Cardinals and Brewers teams of the past decade in one offseason, but they don't have to do it in one offseason. Ideally they do, but not having a great team next year (and only next year) shouldn't impact signing Pujols or Fielder one way or the other. Both will be very good to great hitters for us for at least 3-4 years (unless Pujols really is broken) and perhaps more, meaning they're long term and not short term signings. I could easily see this team without the overabundance of injuries all at once and with Pujols contending for the playoffs next year. After that, even more money comes off the books and we can start looking at another FA splash with a guy like Matt Kemp or an ace pitcher if one is available. All our holes don't have to be fixed in one offseason just because we sign Pujols or Fielder. In fact, adding one of those two players will hide some of the holes we do have.
  10. dew1679666265
    The Cardinals haven't had many, if any, legitimately good teams around Pujols for a long time. They've largely had Pujols, Carpenter, Wainwright and a bunch of grit for most of Pujols' tenure. The Brewers have had some nice players in Fielder's tenure - Braun, Hart, Gallardo - but their rotations have been mostly awful and they've dealt with injuries to key guys like Gallardo. The Cubs could easily field a better team than most of the squads Milwaukee and St Louis put out there if we sign Pujols (and he OPS' 1.000) or Fielder.
  11. dew1679666265
    To me it's not so much that guys are getting hurt, it's that so many guys are all getting hurt at the same time. Wells and Cashner were both out at the same time and as soon as Wells was about to come back, Garza goes down. Then, Byrd, Reed and now Soriano each go down and are all on the DL at the same time. Overlapping all of that is Soto's DL stint and now Baker's. Injuries are going to happen, especially on an older team, but all at the same time? That's definitely some bad luck.
  12. dew1679666265
    Very possible. Though I'm not necessarily expecting a mid-.800s OPS out of LeMahieu on a regular basis. LeMahieu is three years younger than Barney and is 6'4 vs Barney's 5'10. There's a ton more room for growth for LeMahieu than there is for Barney even if his performance in AA this year were simply a hot streak. That said, I believe there were reports that LeMahieu bulked up over the offseason, coinciding with his SLG spiking.
  13. dew1679666265
    Barney has had 286 career ML plate appearances and has posted a .680 OPS in that time. This isn't a grizzled veteran who we know is going to give us good production consistently. We may not know how good LeMahieu will be in the majors, but we wouldn't be benching a guy with an extensive major league track record either.
  14. dew1679666265
    And the latter is more likely than the former at this point, and probably much moreso. However, as long as he's cheap and has good stuff he's a better option than Berg - who's cheap and doesn't have good stuff. He's not likely to be a major improvement for any team, but Stevens is much more likely to be claimed than Berg.
  15. dew1679666265
    At the time it was. Dempster has gotten progressively worse the last three years, a trend that looks well on its way to continuing this year. Still a solid pitcher, but not even close to being a #1 like the management would probably claim. Some people don't like xFIP, but here are his previous four years' xFIP: 2008: 3.69 2009: 3.76 2010: 3.74 2011: 3.43 His peripherals have been kind of all over the place since 2008, some have gotten worse for a year or two and then gotten better and some have improved and then dropped off. His ERA has consistently gotten worse each year since 2008, but ERA isn't one of the better tools for measuring a pitcher's success. His WAR has dropped consistently since 2008 as well, however.
  16. dew1679666265
    And I'm not clamoring to find anybody at all to replace Barney at second base. I wouldn't be in favor of spending resources to go find another second baseman with the other holes in need of filling on this team. If one fell in our laps, fine, but we don't need to spend time seeking one out. However, Hendry just called up one of the Cubs' best prospects - a guy with the potential to be a very good offensive second baseman. Barney's a nice player and has quite a bit of value as a short term starter and role player. However, there's simply not a lot of upside to him and outside of his March/April numbers this season, he's been dreadful offensively in the majors. He posted a .241/.294/.291/.585 line last year in 30 games and in May his numbers are .303/.324/.323/.647. Coupled with his defense, Barney's still a nice player to have around even if his May line is what we can expect from him (I'd expect better than that though). However, if LeMahieu can produce anything like his potential indicates, he'll blow away Barney's ML career .680 OPS.
  17. dew1679666265
    Don't be so sure. Decent middle relief is hard to come by, and I wouldn't be shocked at all if someone plucked him. If your a team in need of a reliever, may as well take him, and if he sucks, let him go. Yeah, a low-payroll team like the Royals or Twins would do well to pick up Stevens. He still needs work, but he's cheap and has good stuff. I'd have much rather they DFA Berg or somebody with lesser stuff than Stevens. I don't like that move at all.
  18. dew1679666265
    I love seeing this. If we're going to make a splash in free agency, we need cheap role players who can provide value at the ML level and Campana has gotten off to a good start at being one of those players.
  19. dew1679666265
    I don't understand, should we not try LeMahieu at second because Barney is a role player and we don't have the Yankees' payroll? LeMahieu is going to be cheap for quite some time and has the ceiling to outproduce Barney by a pretty wide margin. If both hit their ceilings, LeMahieu will be the far more productive player. I don't think we should pass that up because in 4-5 years LeMahieu will be paid a lot more than Barney (if both hit their ceilings). Or am I misunderstanding your point? As for minor league numbers not translating - it's not like we're talking about an unproven rookie (LeMahieu) and a reliable, consistent veteran (Barney). Both are rookies and both are very unproven. Barney has more time in the majors and in that time he had a very productive month (.803 OPS in March/April) and a bad month (.647 OPS in May) and was awful in 30 games last year. Barney's no shoe-in to be productive at this point and doesn't have a lengthy track record to support passing on a guy who has a much higher ceiling for certainty of production. If I've got two players who have proven little to nothing in the majors, I'll take the guy with the far superior minor league numbers every time - and that player is LeMahieu.
  20. dew1679666265
    Ever since he got off to a hot start to begin the year, I've been a supporter of Barney. I don't dislike him and I was fine with him starting at second to start the year. However, he's a guy who didn't hit much in the minors and so far he's been a better fielding Ryan Theriot - no patience, no power, all production is via singles. That's perfectly fine production at second base as long as he's cheap, but LeMahieu has the potential to be so much more than Barney ever has been. If the decision is between two cheap Cubs minor leaguers, I'll prefer the guy who hit very well in the minors and has the potential to be a good to very good offensive second baseman over Ryan Theriot with better defense. Barney's best role in the future for the Cubs will be as a solid pinch hitter with good defensive versatility. You're not getting the best value for him if you're trying to force him into the starting lineup.
  21. dew1679666265
    I'm not sure anyone would be willing to buy high on him at this point. Also, let's not give the job to LeMahieu just because he has a higher ceiling. I'd much rather give LeMahieu a chance to establish himself now since he's up rather than keep him on the bench in favor of a guy with a low ceiling like Barney. Barney's a nice player to have around and had a really nice start, but he's cooling down and LeMahieu could be a real plus starting long term.
  22. dew1679666265
    That's my concern with this move. Castro won't be benched, Barney is unlikely to be benched and there's no way Aramis would be benched as well. If LeMahieu isn't starting, I don't like calling him up over lesser prospects. If they're thinking about a platoon with Barney (who has cooled off quite a bit of late) at second or just starting him full-time at second, then I'm very intrigued by this move.
  23. dew1679666265
    You can be happy to have him on the team even if you realize his ceiling isn't very high. As long as you recognize his weaknesses and keep them in perspective, he can be a fun player to watch in the right situations - pinch running and playing defense.
  24. dew1679666265
    Probably as much as we could trust an interim GM like Randy Bush. From a pure job security viewpoint, Hendry is probably a better option than promoting an interim GM midseason. Hendry will see himself having a shot at keeping the GM job beyond this season no matter how the team performs in the second half (pointing to injuries, primarily) while an interim GM is clearly fighting for a permanent job. Hendry's a much better bet to have the long term interest of the team in mind than an interim. That's not a reason not to make a move if you feel it's necessary, but concern over his long term outlook shouldn't be a reason to fire him.
  25. dew1679666265
    in favor of who? the imaginary #3 and #4 hitters the cubs have on their roster? You could easily make the argument in favor of a 1-4 of Kosuke, Castro, Pena, Soriano. That's 4 of the 5 best wOBAs among the Cubs' starters. On an interesting note, Aramis and Barney have the lowest wOBAs among the starters with Barney at .316 and Aramis at .315.
×
×
  • Create New...