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
-
Motte and somebody were up in the pen. How many pitches has he thrown? He had 102 going into the tejada at bat. I'm just surprised LaRussa left him out there in a bases loaded, best hitter at the plate situation. Yeah, it was kind of odd. Bases empty, two out for Pujols. Latroy entering to face him. Thaaaaaaat'll end well. You're right, it did end well. :D Pujols grounds out to second.
-
Motte and somebody were up in the pen. How many pitches has he thrown? He had 102 going into the tejada at bat. I'm just surprised LaRussa left him out there in a bases loaded, best hitter at the plate situation. Yeah, it was kind of odd. Bases empty, two out for Pujols. Latroy entering to face him.
-
Motte and somebody were up in the pen. How many pitches has he thrown?
-
Tejada flies out to right for the third out. Still 3-2 StL heading to the 8th.
-
Matsui singles up the middle! Pudge scores, Coste holds at second. 3-2 StL
-
Yeah, it nearly hit his waist. Bourn Ks. Matsui up now with two out.
-
Berkman singles to right! Bases loaded, one out. Bourn up.
-
Pudge doubles and Coste singles. Berkman up to pinch hit with runners on first and second, one out.
-
Ryan sac flies in DeRosa. Cards up 3-1
-
Molina singled in a run even though Carlos Lee's throw was very much in time. Pudge didn't catch the throw to the plate. 2-1 St. Louis
-
Next year's money isn't guaranteed unless he hits 635 PAs this year - he hasn't come close to that once in his career. 2010 is a club option.
-
This isn't a career year, he was better in 2006. In 3 of the past 4 seasons he's been in the .780-.850 OPS range and the one year he wasn't (2008) he was hampered by a shoulder injury that he played through. Even still, in August and September he OPSd .829 and .819. His OBP is reliant on AVG, but his BABIP has always been high (.325 career, only below .300 once in the past 5 seasons). Last season was the one year he was below a .300 BABIP, but it's likely that was because of the shoulder injury and, thus, a decreased LD%. Also, with the exception of his shoulder injury plagued 2008, he's consistently slugged .440-.470 every year since 2005. He's the 4th best second baseman in baseball offensively by OPS this season, 14th best in 2007 and 4th best in 2006. He's had EqAs of .289, .290 and .271 three of the past four years as well. I'm not crazy about the $8 million next season, but it's currently a club option and only becomes guaranteed if he reaches 635 PAs this season (at 365 now). If he does return next season and struggles, we platoon him with Fontenot (career .894 OPS vs lefties).
-
I think the issue with Bradley's contract is not what he's making this year, it's what he's making the next two. So it would be hard to add significant salary this year, knowing that it will be an issue in the future. Although I'm not 100% sure exactly how much we can increase our 2009 payroll (say, if we added someone who's contract was up after this season). Future years are an issue as well, but I'm not sure we can add much payroll this season either. Holliday has an expiring contract, but it's fairly large this season.
-
Depending on what we give up, I really like this news.
-
Sure, if you want to count the seasons where they didn't play every day and got very few at bats. Aramis had one really good year, and one bad year where he was hurt but played through it. McLouth had one pretty good year, and then one pretty good year where he only got 300 or so at bats. I don't see how one of them had been "much" better than the other. But either way, we've sorta gotten off track. My point is that the Cubs could have given Edmonds a chance, and they still would have been able to cover their ass if he turned out to be washed up. Whether it was McLouth or some other outfielder. Or an infielder. I just don't know of many very productive bats that are available now. Sanchez, McLouth and Holliday are the best bats I can think of. If there were highly productive bats out there to trade for, it would seem the Cardinals would be all over them. Plus, with Edmonds getting, say, $1 million and DeRosa's $5 million still on the books, we'd be able to take on less salary than we can now with Bradley's $5 million salary. We'd likely still not be able to afford Holliday's salary.
-
This Team Needs Alfonso Soriano
dew1679666265 replied to CubsnClippers_1's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
I'm not saying good Soriano absolutely should hit leadoff. I don't think he should drop below the top three to four hitters, though. In the Cubs' situation, Lee and Aramis were already entrenched in the 3-4 spots, leaving the top 1-2 spots for Soriano. I was fine with him hitting in either of those spots. As for Pujols, I wouldn't necessarily move him there from the #3 spot in the order, but I wouldn't find it outlandish to lead him off. Skip Shumaker played 110 games in the leadoff spot and had 536 PAs. Pujols played 143 games in the 3rd spot and had 636 PAs. Pujols had 100 more PAs in 30 more games. Had Schumaker played as many games as Pujols at the average number of PAs he was getting per game, Schumaker would have had 50 more PAs than Pujols. Not a huge difference, but imagine Pujols getting 50 more PAs a season. Moving Soriano from 1st in the lineup to 5th last year would have decreased his PAs by nearly 100. That's significant. -
This Team Needs Alfonso Soriano
dew1679666265 replied to CubsnClippers_1's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
I guess my point would be that there are other people on the team I'd rather see getting as many AB's as possible. But if Soriano absolutely needs to have more AB's, hit him 3rd. If there are better players than Soriano who should get more ABs, then I'm all for moving them up in the order. It's not the best of ideas to move Soriano down to fifth or sixth just to get a traditional leadoff hitter at the top of the order. -
OPS in seasons before each was traded: Aramis: .646, .695, .885, .666 McLouth: .755, .678, .810, .853 McLouth has had much better seasons overall than Aramis did for Pittsburgh. The Pirates are not gunning for the division title. They've been rebuilding for decades. The Pirates are not going to contend this season, thus they'd be interested in pawning off Sanchez to us because he likely won't help us much beyond this year. McLouth, however, would have helped us beyond this season and would have made it harder for them to win. Thus, he would likely have cost us more than he did the Braves. Many stupid people. I was jumping for joy when I heard about the trade. I knew we had stolen a stud third baseman. And Bobby Hill always sucked. I never thought he had a chance to be good. Baseball America ranked Hill 8th in the Cubs system in 2001 and 5th in 2002. He was also in the top 50 of all minor leaguers in 2002. And those Cubs systems were rated one of the best in the game. There were plenty of smart people who thought very highly of Bobby Hill. He OPSd .780 and .812 as a 22 and 23 year old in AA and AAA. That's pretty good for a second baseman. Then, if I recall correctly, he was considered to be at least decent defensively.
-
What makes you think that? I would think the Pirates would have asked for a lot to trade a 27-year old CF coming off a breakout season to a division rival. But they'll trade us Ramirez without thinking twice? And we are not a rival of the Pirates. The Pirates don't have rivals. They had a different GM for that trade. And who says they didn't think twice about it? There were most likely other circumstances you about which you have no idea. Also, anyone in your division can be considered a rival when all teams are gunning for the division title. It's just that some teams have a more legitimate shot at it. If you'll recall as well, Bobby Hill at the time was considered a very good, potential all-star second base prospect. Matt Bruback was also fairly highly considered, I believe. Many people thought we gave up way too much at the time for Lofton and an unproven third baseman.
-
What makes you think that? I would think the Pirates would have asked for a lot to trade a 27-year old CF coming off a breakout season to a division rival. But they'll trade us Ramirez without thinking twice? And we are not a rival of the Pirates. The Pirates don't have rivals. I explained it in my post, but the situations are completely different. McLouth is proven, Aramis was not at the time. This is also a different front office in Pittsburgh than what was there in 2003.
-
Well, I would only have considered Edmonds if he was willing to sign an affordable deal. I wouldn't have given him 5 mil or anything like that. Ok. A player like Sanchez who is 31 is not going to be a long term part of our team. He'd help us the rest of this year and maybe next year and then he'd be gone. We would have McLouth for the next 5 years or so very cheaply. The Pirates probably have ideas of contending in that time period. As for the Aramis/Lofton trade, that was a different situation. Aramis was, to them, a somewhat failed prospect that hadn't done much in the majors outside of one season. McLouth is an established, productive 27-year-old outfielder. It's also a completely different (and better) Pirates front office now than 6 years ago. What the past front office did has no bearing on what this one would do.
-
Cubs can make a deal of some sort
dew1679666265 replied to Little Slide Rooter's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
Possible, but not certain. I'm just saying I would try it, if anything, just to eliminate it as a possibility. It's not like it would cause us to lose games that we would have otherwise won. The team we're sending out there right now isn't gonna be doing any winning anytime soon. It might cost us games we otherwise would have won. If they absolutely cannot afford a good bat I might consider the idea. But just because that alignment might work for a week, that doesn't tell us it'll work for the next 2+ months. -
This Team Needs Alfonso Soriano
dew1679666265 replied to CubsnClippers_1's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
I would have to disagree. The difference between Soriano hitting a solo homer or a 3-run home can be the difference between winning and losing a close game. And if your leadoff man gets on base an extra time or two, that can be the difference in a close game, as well. Not to mention, considering our pitching, most of our games are pretty close. so batting 1st in the batting order prevents you from hitting 3 run homers? It strongly decreases the odds of it happening. I think it's impossible to argue otherwise. The bottom of the lineup is going to be on base much less often than the top. The lower in the order Soriano hits, the fewer at bats he gets over the course of a season, though. He played 30 fewer games than Soto last year, yet had just 41 fewer ABs. When Soriano is going good it's ideal to get as many ABs from him as possible and putting him at the top of the order does that. -
I bet Edmonds would have signed for 1-2 mil just to stay with the Cubs. That's just a guess, though. If you're right, that might have been a decent option, but the likelihood is against it. I'm sure we could have snagged Nate McLouth pretty easily and played Kosuke in right. Or, we could have moved DeRosa to the outfield and gone after an infielder (Sanchez or whoever). That's if Edmonds would have signed on cheap enough for DeRosa to remain. Bradley's only making $5 million this year, so Edmonds couldn't be making much at all for DeRosa to stay. As for McLouth, would the Pirates have traded him within the division? And if they would have, I suspect it would have been for much more than what they got from the Braves.
-
Cubs can make a deal of some sort
dew1679666265 replied to Little Slide Rooter's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
I know that it's not going to happen, and I know that Soriano is a horrible second baseman. I guess what I'm saying is that we need offense so bad, I would almost entirely disregard defense. It's possible that the offensive gain would be watered down by the defensive miscues.