dew1679666265
-
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
-
Having him as the 24th or 25th player on the team is perfectly fine with me. I don't want him in the lineup consistently unless injuries necessitate it (as they have now), but he's cheap, young, versatile, plays excellent defense and excels as a pinch runner. He won't hit much at all probably, but he certainly brings value to the team.
-
I'd hate to see LeMahieu called up to sit on the bench. If he's being brought up as an injury replacement for Baker, it seems like ABs would be sporadic and it's hard to see them benching Barney for him after Barney's start.
-
I don't think the Nationals are trading Bryce Harper He said one of the best, not the best.
-
I don't think we have any players who could net Montero and i don't know of anything else particularly good the Yankees have in their system. Not that any of the players you mentioned would net much right now.
-
Also, the Cubs may have that frontline ace people are clamoring for in-house. I wasn't the biggest fan of what we gave up to get Matt Garza, but he's followed up being a good to very good pitcher his entire career with pretty dominant numbers in a small sample size this year. 1.82 FIP/2.43 xFIP are really impressive numbers and very much improved over what he's done with the Rays. I don't see him as a dominant ace in the mold of a Halladay, but if he's taken a step forward in his age 27 season, then we may have that ace in-house at a reasonable cost for a while longer.
-
Ideally, yes. However, you can succeed even if you're not in an ideal situation. The position the Cubs are in has them with a couple guys with fringy superstar potential (McNutt, Brett Jackson), a huge boom/bust guy (Vitters), and a ton of players who project to anywhere from decent ML starters to very good starters. Ideally you have more superstar caliber guys in your system, but the Cubs don't. There's nothing you can really do about that in the short term, however, so the key is working with that the best you can. If you can fill 20-23 spots on your roster cheaply with those guys, then you combine the third highest payroll in the majors and you have more money than most teams to go get a couple of guys like Pujols, Fielder, Hernandez, Votto, Kemp, Reyes, etc. Is it the best position to be in? No, but it's a very winnable situation given the upcoming options in free agency, the money the Cubs have to spend and Hendry's ability (if he's still the GM after this year) to go out and get good values in trades.
-
I'm confused about what point you're making. I think he's making fun of his earlier post: You're probably right. I was just trying to figure out if he was still calling the signing bad or just joking about his original typo.
-
I thought about making a DLee's butt joke, but figured I wouldn't do it justice.
-
Reynolds would be an interesting option. A big fat no thank you to the other options. Wow, you can go cheap without going horrifically awful. A Baker/DeWitt platoon honestly might outproduce either Betemit or Figgins at this point. However, I'd be extremely interested in Mark Reynolds - that'd be a really shrewd move I think.
-
We could just flex our big-market muscle to solve first and third base this offseason: Sign Pujols to play third base and Fielder to play first base. Power problems solved.
-
I'm confused about what point you're making.
-
If I'm the Mets' GM and I hear that from another GM, I chuckle a little and say "yeah can you believe what a knucklehead Wilpon was there? Anyway are you interested or should I click over to line 2? I've got a bunch of other teams calling." And you better hope there are teams out there offering more. It may not ultimately change what the Mets get for those players or it may, but it does make Alderson's job a little bit harder because he's got to deal with Wilpon's comments.
-
It won't cause teams to lose interest, but it's potential ammo for teams to use in negotiations. For instance, if a team calls interested in Beltran and the Mets are looking for elite talent in return for him, the opposing GM can cite Wilpon's comments as a reason why the Mets are asking too much. It's hard to get the most for your players when your own owner makes the comments he did.
-
Soto. Is he still around? Here and there. When Koyie Hill isn't being awesome.
-
who the hell cares if he's right? it's a joke for an owner of a baseball team to be openly disparaging individual players. I'm trying to think of some cagey reason why he would do this. I've got nothing; it's just supremely unprofessional and a piss-poor business decision. People on here complain about Hendry driving down players' value when he's ready to trade them, but at least he waits until their value is really low already. Wilpon just gave some great ammo to opposing GMs looking to drive down the trade value of Beltran, Reyes and Wright should the Mets fall out of contention and look to sell. It's hard to sell guys as elite players (which you could argue with all three) when the team's owner openly admits they're not elite players.
-
Throughout the entire first ARod contract, the Rangers never had a payroll higher than $105 million. The smallest portion of the Rangers' payroll that ARod took up during his time there was 1/4. At the same time, ARod posted WARs of 7.8, 9.8 and 9.1. The contract was fine, it was the wrong team to give out that contract, however.
-
I think the debate over how much profit Pujols has to bring in has ended, if that's what you're referring to (and I'm pretty sure it is). I know I'm done with it.
-
I actually posted that before I realized the contract was front loaded. That changes my opinion some, though ARod's very good numbers this year appear boosted by quite a bit of luck (.304 BABIP vs a 12.9 LD%). Right now he looks like a mid-.800s OPS guy being paid $25-29 mil over the next few years if he doesn't decline at all. Knowing it's frontloaded, I'd lean toward taking it but it gets a lot less attractive when you know you're missing out on the awesome numbers at the front end of the deal.
-
Right now, no. But that's because we missed his best years. ARod will turn 36 in July and already posted wOBA's of .413 and .405 (6.0 and 4.5 WAR respectively) his first two seasons of his deal. Since then he's been at a .363 and, so far, .383 wOBA. Next season, Pujols will be 32 and, at the corresponding age, ARod posted a .449 wOBA (9.2 WAR) followed by the .413 and .405 wOBA seasons. I'd take ARod's contract if we could start back at his age 32 season.
-
Mets owner Fred Wilpon apparently doesn't think too highly of the talent Beltran, Wright and Reyes have.
-
So if the Cubs sign Pujols, keep their payroll the same and their profit goes up, they haven't made money? They have. Despite Pujols. They could have made even more. So you can prove that the increase in profit was not due to Pujols and that he had no impact on the profit increase? How so? I showed the analysis earlier. A reasonable estimate for Pujols' impact on the Cubs' revenue is $10-15M. So they'd make $10-15 million over and above what their current (2011) revenue is without adding to the current (2011) payroll. That's definitely a profit. Maybe not a maximization of profit, but it's certainly profit.
-
So if the Cubs sign Pujols, keep their payroll the same and their profit goes up, they haven't made money? They have. Despite Pujols. They could have made even more. So you can prove that the increase in profit was not due to Pujols and that he had no impact on the profit increase? How so?
-
So if the Cubs sign Pujols, keep their payroll the same and their profit goes up, they haven't made money?
-
Yes, you're correct that the Cubs would be more profitable if they dropped payroll to $100 million and played Colvin at first. That's not something that might happen, though. Mojo's comment was in regard to Pujols making the Cubs more money than they are making now if they sign him - that's an accurate statement. The "walking moneybags" was in reference to how he would be more profitable to the team than any other FA or trade options they could invest that $30 million into - and that, as well, is accurate. If the debate were about whether or not to spend that $30 million extra each year, then you're argument would be completely relevant. However, the debate is which scenario is more profitable for the team - signing Pujols or allocating that $30 million to multiple other players. If the money is going to be spent either way - which it presumably is - then Pujols will make the Cubs more money than the alternatives, and that's what's relevant to Mojo's original comment.
-
If they took the $30 million a year they'd be paying him and instead pocketed the money, then yes, you'd be right. However, they're not going to drop payroll to $90-100 million next season (I wouldn't think) and pocket the $30 million each year. So it's not a matter of Pujols being worth more than that $30 million, it's a matter of him being worth more than the overall cost increase the team would incure by signing him. They're reallocating funds, not spending new money that hasn't been spent previously.