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
-
It always seems to come back to the stupidity of trading DeRosa in the first place. DeRosa over the past 28 days: .308/.378/.508/.886 His current season OPS is .777 and rising.
-
Doesn't Milton have a games-played clause this season that guarantees the final year of his contract? I'm guessing he'd be against going on the DL so he can reach that limit. I think he only needs to play in 75 games each year to guarentee the third. He'd likely easily hit that if he did a 14 or 30 day DL stint. They gotta put him on either one until he can get as close back to 100% Bardley-style he can be because right now it looks like he can't do squat and like he's playing in pain. He only needs to play in 75 games this year to vest the option. Next year doesn't matter.
-
Re: Sale of Cubs to Ricketts Complete (p. 15)
dew1679666265 replied to 17 Seconds's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
It would last about 5 minutes. They did pay money to get an exclusive WWE show recently, so they do have bit more original programming than they used to. They got WWE Superstars, which is essentially a recap show covering the "highlights" of RAW and Smackdown. Unless it's changed since I last watched that stuff. Rumor is that they're going to try to get Smackdown when it's contract runs out with the CW. And it's not a highlight show, it's more of an introductory type show to the WWE. -
Seriously. We now have Fontenot, Miles, Scales, and Blanco. What's the damn point of having so many 2b? Seems like a recurring problem for this team. 2006 middle infielders Neifi, Womack, Cedeno, Walker, Theriot, Hairston, Jr., Izturis Four players for two positions aren't really that much, though.
-
He's a career .793 OPS hitter as a lefty. As a righty, he's at an .889 OPS. The last three years he's OPSd .940, .937 and .793 as a lefty.
-
As I've tried to point out, Atkins has negative trade value, so I don't understand why we're increasing the package to get a few months of Street and a sub-.200 hitter with a ridiculous contract. If they don't get anything for Atkins, why would they trade him? If they take on Heilman and Miles, they'll save far less money than they'd like, plus they'll have a bad reserve IF taking some of next year's money.
-
Seriously. We now have Fontenot, Miles, Scales, and Blanco. What's the damn point of having so many 2b? That's four guys for two positions though - 2B and 3B. Two of them are also backup shortstops.
-
Is it just me or does Austin Kirk have a windup similar to Tom Glavine's? Doesn't mean anything, obviously, just something interesting I noticed.
-
Honestly, if the Cubs were to acquire Tejada, I'd be in favor of shifting Theriot to second when Aramis returns. Go with an infield of Aramis, Tejada, Theriot and DLee and the infield is in pretty good shape. Then you let Fontenot bat against some/most (whichever you prefer) of the righties and back up 2B and 3B.
-
Heilman does not equate to a good prospect. If you had brought up Marshall/mid-level prospect for Street, that would equate more to a good and decent prospect. We'd be giving too much up, though. Whatever interest Heilman might garner, it'd be to a contender who thinks he can pitch well for them down the stretch. Not a team building for next year and beyond - unless they dump a multi-year deal on us to get his expiring contract.
-
When I say Bobby Cox is the best active manager, I consider more than simply how many times he's reached the playoffs. It was just brought up and I responded.
-
Blast. I would think he'd want to head back and try to be a first rounder next year.
-
What's the general feeling on Kentrail Davis? He was probably the most talented player at UT this year, but I had no idea how he was viewed nationally. Why do you think he'll be a tough sign? As a draft eligible sophomore, he's got plenty of chances to go back and try to up his stock if he doesn't feel he's getting paid like he should... which he probably wont be, given his performance this season. Yeah, he was hurt some this year and was generally disappointing. Now that the Brewers took him, I especially hope he returns to UT.
-
What's the general feeling on Kentrail Davis? He was probably the most talented player at UT this year, but I had no idea how he was viewed nationally. Why do you think he'll be a tough sign?
-
Creer's a heck of a talent. He could have a future in the NFL. Paige I'm not as sure about. He was highly touted when he came to Tennessee, but didn't do much here, despite our receivers not being all that impressive last year (save for Gerald Jones).
-
Yeah, I'd think they'd want prospects who could help them in the future as opposed to swapping veterans for veterans. I'd think they'd be interested in cutting some costs, and getting prospects, which is is what the original post already noted. They're cutting $3.5 million this year maybe, but instead of having two expiring contracts (Street and Atkins) they would get one expiring contract (Heilman) and one contract that extends through next year (Miles). I haven't heard that the Rockies have to cut payroll this year, so wouldn't it make sense that they wouldn't want a bad veteran who is signed for a year longer than the guys they're trying to get rid of? Maybe Heilman and two prospects for Atkins and Street would work better.
-
Yeah, I'd think they'd want prospects who could help them in the future as opposed to swapping veterans for veterans.
-
Agreed.
-
Why would anyone be surprised that playing the field may impact his at bats? He was a DH last year and hit fine. Fresh legs work wonders. It is not unrealistic to think that a player who never has more than 300 AB a season and who recently became a DH might be impacted by wear and tear. Bradley has had more than 300 ABs 5 times in his 10 year career. Right that was a "mistype". What I meant was he averages 300 AB a year and has only had over 500 AB once in his career. Ah, ok.
-
Did they not win more World Series because of numerous mistakes Cox made or was it because very good players underperformed (or were beat out by better players - i.e. the Yankees)? The former is the manager's fault, the latter is not. LaRussa hasn't had quite the talent Cox has enjoyed, but given philosophy, I think Bobby Cox is the better manager.
-
A QB winning a Super Bowl doesn't necessarily mean anything about his talent level. Agreed...Rex made it to a Super Bowl, and I think we can agree he wasn't a franchise QB. But lets be honest, usually these kinds of lists do factor in those kinds of achievements. It's just unclear exactly what he's using as measurement other than complete subjectivity...that's all I meant by that comment. The fact that his best QB's have only ever been in one system is more of a problem for this list I think. There's definitely a good bit of subjectivity to the list, I completely agree. I like quite a bit how he doesn't factor in SB titles or anything like that, though. I would think factors like arm strength/decision making/accuracy/etc., went into his decision-making as well and he just didn't explain that deeply, but I don't know for sure - and since he didn't say, we can only assume they didn't. I tend to agree with his final conclusion, but his method of getting there does seem a bit odd.
-
A QB winning a Super Bowl doesn't necessarily mean anything about his talent level.
-
Yeah, because he couldn't practice with his team. Doesn't matter, none of these could walk into a huddle and have immediate success. I would think he intended that to mean that the QB isn't defined by his system. Of course if a QB doesn't know the plays, terminology, etc., he won't have success. Any of those QBs could have success in any type of system, as he explained. I know the one sentence you're focusing on from his article and, if he meant it completely literally, then I disagree with him. It's going to take some time for any QB to learn plays and terminology, but there's not a system in the league that Peyton, Brees, etc. couldn't excel in.
-
What a ridiculously arbitrary disctinction. The only reason he doesn't list Cutler as a franchise QB is because he is now on the Bears. If Palmer or Rivers were just traded to Chicago, he'd have to ask the same thing, whether they can produce with the Bears wide receivers. He tries to say it doesn't have anything to do with the team but makes it very clear that he thinks it depends heavily on the team. And the whole notion that any of these guys could step right into any huddle and have immediate success is laughable. Manning stepped right into the huddle of the team he ran for a decade to start last season and sure didn't have success. I like how he says, sure Manning had success with Wayne, but he also had success with Harrison, and somehow that is supposed to explain how Manning can work with any WR. Peyton had a knee injury entering last year. It affected his play early on.
-
Why would anyone be surprised that playing the field may impact his at bats? He was a DH last year and hit fine. Fresh legs work wonders. It is not unrealistic to think that a player who never has more than 300 AB a season and who recently became a DH might be impacted by wear and tear. Bradley has had more than 300 ABs 5 times in his 10 year career.