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
-
I haven't heard that at all. The only thing I've heard is that Ricketts promised all profits from the team would be invested back into the team, leading me to think a drop in payroll would be unlikely. I have not heard any such thing. If the team tanks and fans disappear, perhaps. But I think they will at least maintain status quo. Haven't heard about a decrease in payroll or haven't heard about the profit going back into the team? about the payroll decrease. Ok. That's what I figured, but wanted to make sure.
-
I haven't heard that at all. The only thing I've heard is that Ricketts promised all profits from the team would be invested back into the team, leading me to think a drop in payroll would be unlikely. I have not heard any such thing. If the team tanks and fans disappear, perhaps. But I think they will at least maintain status quo. Haven't heard about a decrease in payroll or haven't heard about the profit going back into the team?
-
That doesn't necessarily mean he's going to decrease payroll. The Red Sox have been very dependent on their farm system with Epstein in charge, yet their payroll hasn't decreased. My guess is he means the core of the team won't be built around free agents (Soriano, Lilly, Dempster) and trades (Lee, Aramis), but instead on developing players from the minors.
-
I haven't heard that at all. The only thing I've heard is that Ricketts promised all profits from the team would be invested back into the team, leading me to think a drop in payroll would be unlikely.
-
The SEC does it. Tennessee/Alabama play every year despite being in separate divisions, UGA/Auburn is the same, UF/LSU, MSU/UK, Ark/SC, Miss/Vandy. SEC teams play the other 5 intra-division games and 3 against the opposite division – two that rotate, one that remains steady. I don't know that only UM/OSU being the repeating game would work, but they could set up "rivalry" type games like that between divisions. UT/Bama, UF/LSU and Auburn/UGA are all very heated rivalries.
-
Would Lee/Berkman for Gonzalez/Lind be reasonable? I'm second in the league in BA, but I need power pretty badly and that's the one thing Lind has been able to do this year. I think that'd be reasonable. Thanks. I'll counter him with that and see what he says.
-
I've said the whole time that good decisions must be made, but that's true for any team. If we hand out a bunch of big contracts for mediocre players and relievers, then we won't have the payroll space to become competitive again. But my point is that we'll have the payroll space to build a competitive roster if good decisions are made. There's no reason this team should be mired in mediocrity beyond the 2011 season because of contracts that run out after the 2011 season (which is all our big contracts outside of Z and Soriano).
-
I've never questioned that it's more difficult, but at the same time, big contracts to productive players are to be expected and it's rare that a big contract won't become a hindrance down the road. The key is limiting them and at this point, the big contracts from 2012 on are limited (just 2 of them). My primary point in this whole debate is that unlike what others have said, the contract situation this season is not likely to keep us from contending for the next 5-6+ years. There are those who have said we won't have a chance to be competitive again until 2015-2016 because of contract situations now and there's just nothing to that at all. The current contracts will likely keep us from being competitive this year and next, but we'll have plenty of payroll space the next two offseasons to build a very competitive team by 2012.
-
But at the same time those teams are already much better than Chicago. Those teams simply have to tread water, the Cubs have to get significantly better. That certainly makes it more difficult, but it doesn't keep us from being able to contend once we only have $37 mil (Soriano and Z) in bad contracts by 2012. And if Aramis can rebound next year, then we're better off than Boston and just slightly worse off than the Phillies. And I like Z's chances of being good next year more than almost anybody else I listed.
-
Boston has $15 mil in Lackey (33 in 2011), $14 mil in Drew (36 in 2011), $10 mil in Daisuke and $5.5 in Scutaro (36 in 2011) committed for the 2011 season. That's almost half of their committed money that could be bad, unproductive players. The Phillies have $20 mil in Howard, $12 mil in Raul Ibanez, $12 mil in Brad Lidge (35 in 2011), $5.4 in Placido Polanco (36 in 2011) and $10 mil in Joe Blanton. That's nearly $60 mil in contracts committed to 2011 that could be underperforming to bad. The Yankees are in a better position than the previous two with really only Burnett (16.5 mil) and Posada (13.1 mil) as likely bad contracts. The Cubs have Soriano (19 mil), Z (18 mil) and Silva (12 mil) as likely underperforming contracts. I'm not sure how to classify Aramis since this is his only bad season, but he'll make 14 in 2011. So that's $63 mil in 2011 in underperforming contracts, if you include Aramis. The Cubs are a little worse off than the rest, but not by leaps and bounds.
-
I wish the SEC would go away from divisions in basketball, to be honest.
-
Would Lee/Berkman for Gonzalez/Lind be reasonable? I'm second in the league in BA, but I need power pretty badly and that's the one thing Lind has been able to do this year.
-
Nope. Innings pitched per game started for Cubs starters in the Lou era: 2007: 5.9 2008: 5.9 2009: 6.0 2010: 6.1
-
Maybe starters seem to be going longer this year because they've been better and able to pitch more innings more effectively? Or maybe I'm just wrong.
-
You're right that we won't just starting signing people like crazy starting November 1, 2012, but at the same time it's very significant that we only have three big contracts that run through the 2012 season. Is it ideal? No, but if this team doesn't contend by 2012-2013 it won't be because of Lee, Lilly, Kosuke, etc's contracts. Spread out over the next two offseasons we'll have close to $100 million to spend on free agents and trades. We also have a promising group of minor leaguers about to come up who should be able to contribute at a cheap cost. There's no reason why we can't contend by the 2012 season.
-
Yes, but it seems that he's been "harder" on his starters this year than he has been in the past, no? It's certainly possible that I'm imagining this [insert the Fred Signal] but it seems starters are getting taxed a little more this year. I just remember wondering about Lou's starter use when he was hired (typically my primary concern with any manager) and feeling like he really hadn't really over-taxed his starters in his time with the Cubs coming into 2010. Early on this season may have been because the bullpen was struggling, but that excuse is gone now. Like I said, I may be off on this and haven't looked it up yet. That's the perception I'm getting though. This is purely perception on my part as well, but I agree with you. I don't recall Lou being very tough on the starters in previous seasons and generally thought he did well at keeping the pitch count down for the starters. I think he tended to abuse Marmol a couple years ago, though.
-
Huh? Most of the contracts are all off the books after 2012. You just have to sign the right FA to go along with whoever the farm system produces. Yeah, current contracts won't hold us back from being able to compete again by 2012-2013. Most are off the books by after the 2011 season and we'll have two FA classes to supplement what our farm system can't fill. The key will be making good decisions leading up to the 2012-2013 seasons.
-
In a league that scores R, 2B, 3B, HR, RBI, SB, BB and AVG offensively, I've been offered Matt Holliday for Cliff Lee. Our pitching scoring is W, K, SV, HLD, ERA, WHIP, QS. I'm doing well in pitching categories and Lee is probably my third best starter (I've also got Greinke and Price). My current OF is Garrett Jones, Shane Victorino, Kosuke, Ryan Ludwick and Jose Guillen (four start). My question is, do I make this Holliday for Lee swap, or do I hold out for a bit more. I have Berkman at first and the guy who's offering the deal has both Adrian Gonzalez and Nick Swisher. Is there any way I could do a Gonzalez for Lee swap, maybe if I include Berkman or something? Or would the Holliday trade be a good one?
-
I'd probably do the trade myself then. It'd be preferable if you could get it done without Oswalt, but I think you're getting a good deal either way since you seem to really need saves.
-
Less underutilized and more failed prospect. The Angels waived him and the White Sox saw something in him and took a chance. That's what I took KingCubsFan to mean. I'd like to point out that Jenks was waived in part because he was nuttier than a bag of Snickers. The guy lit his pitching arm on fire for cripes' sake. This is true. And I'm not really saying the Angels were wrong in letting him go, but Williams deserves credit for picking him up off the scrap heap and allowing him the opportunity to turn into something.
-
My thought on the trade would be if the upgrade from Figgins to Phillips would be worth the dropoff from Holliday to Gutierrez. I don't really see Gutierrez being overly valuable, but maybe I'm underrating him. It seems like you'd lose more steals than you'd gain power, but I guess it depends on who you'd be benching if you went with the Figgins to U and Dunn to OF scenario. Another important question would be, do you need saves pretty badly? If so, the closer part of the deal becomes more valuable. I'd probably pick Bell as the closer since he'll either get save opportunities if San Diego stays good or be traded somewhere where he'll get saves. I might try to give somebody less valuable than Oswalt in the deal, though if it fills needs I don't think you're really overpaying.
-
Less underutilized and more failed prospect. The Angels waived him and the White Sox saw something in him and took a chance. That's what I took KingCubsFan to mean. Simply because you take one good thing from a GM doesn't mean you're following his model. Kenny Williams, like Jim Hendry, has some strengths as a GM. Emulating the good things they do is a positive and doesn't mean that you're going to follow the entire model they lay out.
-
Bobby Jenks was originally in the Angels' organization and was waived because of underperformance and the Sox claimed him. He would qualify. Santos was originally drafted by the Diamondbacks and bounced around the minors until the Sox picked him up, traded him to the Giants and then 11 days later re-acquired by Chicago (weird). He would also qualify, though he hasn't exactly had a long resume of success to this point.
-
Unless Lou and Rothschild are right and he's got a flaw of some type in the stretch that is causing him to be more hittable.
-
They sound like angry, mutated, giant hornets buzzing nonstop. I keep expecting a Hitchcock movie to break out at every soccer game.