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
-
That's pretty exciting.
-
I do love that part and the increase in his IsoD as well, but the K rate went up and the production down (wOBA and wRC+ both dropped a lot).
-
I understand how good Russell is and I've not said a bad thing about that portion of the deal. But Shark is a legit TOR pitcher and he has fewer innings on his arm than pretty much any 29 year old stud you're going to find. We got a great talent, but we gave up a great talent too and the 2nd and 3rd pieces are intriguing, but questionable. Not a bad deal by any stretch, but I'm not sure it's exciting either.
-
I don't care about how many games the A's won with him pitching. His xFIP was half a run higher than his ERA and he was walking 3.3 guys per 9 that season too. He's apparently got some awesome stuff, but it's going to take Bosio magic to make him better than, at best, average. If Bosio can work that magic, though, I get a ton more excited about the deal.
-
Very good points. Like I said before, I'm probably being too hard on McKinney and maybe I'm a bit gunshy about lower level prospects after seeing so many burn out. A lot of his numbers dropping a lot in high A (granted, with some getting better) doesn't help either.
-
Let me clarify in case I need to - I'm not upset we made the trade and I don't think it's a bad trade. It's a good deal and one we should have made since it presented itself, I'm just not excited about it.
-
I'm not arguing that and I certainly am not complaining about the Russell portion of it - if we could get him, we needed to do it. I guess I wanted more out of the 2nd and 3rd pieces, though.
-
I see what you're saying and don't necessarily disagree, I'm just having trouble getting excited about the McKinney/Straily portion and I kinda felt like I should be excited about every piece of a Shark/Hammel deal.
-
If the season ended today, he'd be averaging 2.4 WAR the past 6 seasons. It increases to 2.6 WAR if you're conservative about the rest of the season and say he'll post 1.5 WAR the rest of the way. Maholm has had 1 season better than that and 2 seasons as good or better than either of those numbers. Hammel's a very good bet to post a 2-2.5 WAR and a decent bet to be better than that. As for the cost, I'm not sure it'll be as high as you think. He is 32 and it's his peripherals and advanced stats (WAR and FIP/xFIP) that are impressive, not really his traditional stats). That may depress his value some.
-
I may be too hard on McKinney, I just had very, very high requirements to be happy with a Shark trade. I was very strongly in the "don't trade Shark unless you get a deal you can't pass up" and, outside of Russell (that's an extremely important note I don't want to be overlooked), this just doesn't strike me as too good to pass up - especially when adding in Hammel. Is Russell good enough to make the trade too good to pass up all on his own? Maybe, but that's a huge amount to bet on one 20 year old prospect. I don't know - I don't want to come off as particularly critical of the trade, just not sure I'm excited about it.
-
Or Straily could be a 2 WAR pitcher as his ceiling. I don't dislike that portion of the trade, just feel like it wasn't great value.
-
Going by fWAR, Hammel has had 2 seasons of almost a full win more than Maholm (3.7 and 3.8), another season of close to Maholm's peak (2.6) and this year he's on pace for around a WAR of 4. He's better than Maholm and I might like Vizcaino more than Straily (that extra year of control of Maholm is important, but Hammel is still the superior pitcher and that should mean more). The Russell/McKinney for Shark part of the trade doesn't bother me as much - mainly because of Russell. There's just a ton of risk in McKinney.
-
Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm a bit torn on this trade. I love Addison Russell and how much he contributes to our stacked minor league roster, but it just doesn't seem like we got that much outside of him and we gave up 2 great trade chips to get him. McKinney seems like a slightly better version of Almora, is very young and has a ton of bust potential. Straily is 25 years old and it'll take Bosio magic to make him anything better than kinda average. It just seems like we put all our eggs on one player (Russell) and that seems awful risky for a legit TOR pitcher in Shark and a very solid veteran in Hammel. I feel like we should have done better than Straily and maybe better than McKinney. Somebody convince me I'm wrong.
-
Stanton?
-
Ok, I see what you're saying now.
-
Not that it's a terribly significant amount and it's probably nitpicking, but the 6/135 number comes out to $22.5 per year, doesn't it? Shark is arbitration eligible next year. I figured the contract would replace that year.
-
Not that it's a terribly significant amount and it's probably nitpicking, but the 6/135 number comes out to $22.5 per year, doesn't it?
-
Me too. I think you can get a guy with Shark's potential AND another piece or 2. I'd rather save the 100Mil, get a couple prospects and then have an assload of money to spend to fill the holes from whatever prospects don't pan out. I think it's a needless gamble to trade away a current ace in the hopes that you get somebody exactly like your current guy plus a couple other pieces. If some team wants to blow us away with a Bundy+Gausman/Harvey+a couple lesser pieces or something similar, I'm all for trading Shark. I would have a very, very small window of what I would accept, though, and not deviate much. Spending in FA isn't particularly exciting either, since most of the guys available will be older/worse/more expensive than Shark. If he really is demanding something silly like $135, then maybe you need to make a move. At this point, though, I'd say it's as likely as not that Mark Rogers knows there's a year and a half before he's a FA and this is a negotiating ploy. There's still plenty of time to negotiate and/or convince him we want to win games.
-
Given the position we're in and the control left on Shark, I'd rather keep him and hope he becomes more amenable to an extension than drop my expectations. I wouldn't settle for a "good enough" trade for him.
-
Money is involved in there too. With the awesome player, you're going to be paying him like an awesome player. That means, when you're dealing with a cheapskate owner, less money to put toward the rest of the team. By calling up the 1-2 players who become good (or maybe awesome), you still have that $300 or so million you're not paying the awesome player to improve in other areas (if the cheapskate owner chooses to do so). I'm definitely not against adding Stanton at whatever cost. But there does come a point in time (basically Baez + Bryant) that I think we're shooting ourselves in the foot a bit unless the Ricketts are ready to get serious about actually spending enough to win at a high level.
-
Hammel Trade Rumors
dew1679666265 replied to CubsWin's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
Ok, I see what you're saying. I guess I'm just hanging on to Olt's one-time elite talent (maybe a little too much). -
Hammel Trade Rumors
dew1679666265 replied to CubsWin's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
I definitely see your point. However, the combination of Olt's most likely outcome being Valbuena with a chance for more, Olt's age (26 vs 29) and team control, makes him more appealing to me. It would take a lot for me to give either, though. -
Hammel Trade Rumors
dew1679666265 replied to CubsWin's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
The premise that a rebuilding team should value upside over production (to a reasonable degree) or the premise that the Cubs don't appear to be planning to invest in contention within the next couple of years? If it's the latter, I'd be glad to throw in some qualifiers so that the comment isn't as definitive (probably should have anyway to keep it from turning into another debate over that). So basically, if the Cubs aren't planning to make a serious run at contention in the next couple of years, I'd prefer Olt's upside. If they have plans to commit to contention within the next couple of years, I'd prefer Valbuena's certainty. -
Hammel Trade Rumors
dew1679666265 replied to CubsWin's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
With no apparent plans to make a real run at contending within the next couple of years, though, I'd rather gamble on the upside. If we were right on the edge of making a real push at contention, I'd agree with you that Valbuena's immediate production and flexibility means more. In our situation, though, I think I'd rather take the gamble. -
http://insider.espn.go.com/blog/buster-olney/post?id=6248 Is this true? I thought he was after this season. Cot's has him as arbitration eligible after this season and a free agent after 2015.