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
-
Problem is, Ricketts can't give the ok until he's officially the owner. He won't be that until the sale is completed.
-
He has been fantastic this season.
-
Keeping Cotts just boggles my mind. Why did we even get Cotts? Because he was a World Series hero with the White Sox? David Aardsma is closing for Seattle, while Cotts is the worst pitcher in a horrific bullpen, after 2.5 crappy seasons and a long stint in the minors. Another great move by Hendry. When we traded Aardsma to the Sox for Cotts, Aardsma was a young reliever who was struggling with control and was decent but not special. Cotts was a fairly average reliever with a terrific year under his belt. Plus he was a lefty. This is also the first season Aardsma has been anything but average to below average since his season with the Cubs. They're two very similar relievers in many ways.
-
Ok, now I get your point more. The sample size argument was more in regards to the people arguing that this team isn't a good team because they lost 6 games. As for the cold streak, I think it was a mix of both. I don't think they handled the pressure particularly well and that contributed to the poor play. Ultimately, though, if things had started well in the playoffs I think the story would have been much different. As for whether this core can win, I still think they can. I'm less confident now, obviously, than I was, but the talent is still there. Most of the offseason moves didn't help our chances, but if the starting lineup is healthy and performing well heading into the playoffs, this team has as good a chance as any.
-
The playoffs are a crapshoot, you have admitted this. You cannot build a team to specifically win a crapshoot. You build the best team you can (97 wins), you prepare as best you can and then you take your chances. That's true, but it's a copout for this team. Don't act like they were just unlucky the last 2 seasons. They choked. They crapped their pants the second the postseason started. That's not Hendry's fault though. Hendry is the last person I'd blame for the playoffs. I blame the players and Lou. I was going to address this after your previous post, but how would you build a team of "non-chokers"? What players out there are certain not to choke in the playoffs? How can you or anyone tell? Will those players be good enough to win in the regular season? It's not as simple as just saying we'll build a team filled with clutch players who can handle pressure. Those players, as a whole, must be good enough to win in the regular season to make the postseason in the first place. Maybe they did choke the past two postseasons. If so, what would be your solution? Fire sale and start over? It was pretty much a team-wide slump, so it'd be inconsistent to get rid of some "chokers" and not others. What's the solution if that's your stance?
-
#1 is perfectly fine in some cases and unneeded in others. NTCs can be just fine, if they provide a benefit elsewhere. 2) Dempster has nothing to do with Adam Dunn. One is a pitcher and one is an outfielder. I was in favor of Dunn in the offseason, but Bradley was not a bad choice. It hasn't worked out so far, but Demp has nothing to do with it. 3) I won't argue this point. None of those moves in and of themselves are worthy of firing him. Taken in their entirety, and with all the other moves he's made, there may be a case in the offseason if this team continues to underperform this year.
-
The playoffs are a crapshoot, you have admitted this. You cannot build a team to specifically win a crapshoot. You build the best team you can (97 wins), you prepare as best you can and then you take your chances.
-
Give it the season and then evaluate at that point. I've given this group 2 full seasons and 6 postseason games And they've won 182 games in that time. To this point they've done little to prove they're not a talented group. For all we know, they could turn it on, win 85-90 games and win the World Series. Or they could flop and barely reach 70 wins. We don't know how this season will turn out right now. But after 182 wins in two years Hendry deserves more time than 43 games this year.
-
His definition:
-
Give it the season and then evaluate at that point.
-
I see what you're getting at, but it'd be very tough to win 100 games without very good pitching. That'd be one heck of an offense. For instance, the 2001 Mariners had Freddy Garcia (136 ERA+) and Jamie Moyer (121 ERA+) as their top two starters. Aaron Sele also had a 116 ERA+ that year. Not necessarily dominant, but still very good starting pitchers. The pen was also terrific with Kaz Sasaki closing, Arthur Rhodes having a fantastic year and Norm Charlton and Jeff Nelson having great years.
-
If a team wins 90+ games in a season, they've pretty well maximized their output. Unless the team is a literal All-Star team then it's incredibly difficult to get together enough talent that 90+ wins is not maximizing talent. The Cubs pretty much maximized their talent output last year when they won 97 games. They didn't maximize that talent in the postseason, but it's not because there wasn't enough talent or it was poorly put together. If either of those were the case, they would not have nearly reached 100 wins.
-
If we win with the red caps on, do we keep wearing them?
-
The discussion is concerning the most likely way to win a World Series. One group is saying that putting together a team that wins 90+ games in the regular season should be the goal because it gives you the best shot in the postseason. Another group is saying there's a different route and regular season success is meaningless.
-
The playoffs are a crapshoot, anybody can win the World Series. The Mariners clinched in like August so they were resting their players for a month and it probably affected them in a negative way when they lost in October. Of course I'd tell you the Mariners had the better chance to win the World Series though. Ok, so you agree that success in the postseason is never ensured and that your best chance in them is to build a team that is successful in the regular season. Am I right in my understanding of that part of your stance? If I am, then the Cubs winning 181 games the past two regular seasons is an indicator that they are on the right track to playoff success, correct? It's just a matter of continuing to build very talented teams (like the Cubs) and getting the breaks in the postseason, right?
-
I don't know about you but I'd rather be a fan of the 83 win Cardinals team. 116 wins no ring is just depressing. And hey look, Lou was the manager of that team. :shock: You didn't answer the question. I didn't ask which you'd rather be a fan of. The goal in Spring Training isn't to win the most games in the regular season and fizz out in October. It's to win a World Series. So yes 2006 Cardinals>2001 Mariners. If you had no knowledge of the results of the season and I told you that the Ms would win 116 games and the Cards would win 86, who would you think was more likely to win the World Series?
-
His BABIP (Batting Average on Balls hit In Play) is horrifically awful (as are most of the BABIPs for our offensive regulars), so he's hitting into some terrible luck (balls are going right at players far more often than they should). He does need to start hitting the ball a little harder, but even the hard hit balls are right at people right now. I'd think he's likely to break out of this funk. He has a LD rate of 14.1% and a BABIP of .221. While that's a little low on the BABIP, it's not completely out of line. That's why I said he needs to start hitting the ball harder. Right now everything is going right at people, but he's also not getting the kind of contact he normally does. Whether he can start hitting the ball harder or not will determine whether he returns to form or not.
-
Very interesting article by Matt Bowen of the NFP analyzing what a franchise QB is and which QBs currently are franchise guys. The franchise QBs: Manning, Brady, Brees, Palmer and Rivers. For the Bear fans who are interested, he has Jay Cutler on the fence.
-
Lou's brainless managerial moves: Not his fault?
dew1679666265 replied to Cubbie Swagger's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
Most teams below an $80 million payroll aren't that good. Teams with an $80 million or less payroll last year had a winning percentage of .474. Of the teams in a $73-80 million payroll range last year, they had a .469 winning percentage last year. -
1) And it also raises concerns about how well he'll hit for us 2) Incentive for them not to trade him cheaply 3) More incentive not to trade him cheaply 4) Even more incentive not to trade him cheaply 5) Good point 6) I don't put huge stock in a couple hundred ABs a year, but it is nice 7) True 8) Again, true 9) He's never played it before, so I wonder if he could
-
Why? As a backup I can understand, but when his likely ceiling is a mid .700s OPS I don't see him being worth giving up sparse trading chips. There are far better options out there than Kouzmanoff that may just come a bit cheaper. his road OPS was over 800 each of the last 2 years. In 256 and 319 ABs, respectively, and with a bad OBP. He may or may not do that over a full season, but what are the Padres going to demand for him? They're already reluctant to trade him. 256 and 319 road at bats are both essentially full seasons. Full seasons on the road, but they're still small sample sizes overall. If he comes cheaply, I wouldn't be against a trade for him. The Padres have no real reason to trade him, though, and are not actively trying to (they only are considering the idea). He's moderately young and still cheap - what incentive do they have to trade him other than to get good value for him? I'll be surprised if he comes cheap enough to warrant the acquisition.
-
Scales has struggled hitting the ball, but he's still getting on base at a better clip (.357 over the past week) than Miles likely will. If he can continue to OBP in the .350 area, he'll be better than Miles hitting around .280.
-
Why? As a backup I can understand, but when his likely ceiling is a mid .700s OPS I don't see him being worth giving up sparse trading chips. There are far better options out there than Kouzmanoff that may just come a bit cheaper. his road OPS was over 800 each of the last 2 years. In 256 and 319 ABs, respectively, and with a bad OBP. He may or may not do that over a full season, but what are the Padres going to demand for him? They're already reluctant to trade him. This year, in a small sample size obviously, he's OPSing .530 on the road - .200 points worse than at home. If they don't ask for much, I might consider it. With Durham sitting at home and Scales hitting very well, I don't see the need to toss out prospects for a gamble like Kouzmanoff, though. He's also an ok defender, but not stellar so he doesn't add great value there.
-
You don't just make a move to make a move, though, and that's what acquiring Kouzmanoff would be. He'd make a decent enough bench option if he came cheap, but is he going to be worth giving up a few of our already sparse prospects for him? I haven't seen why he would. .218 EqA, .285 OBP and the Padres being reluctant to trade him don't make me think this would be a good trade at all. I might actually prefer Miles to Kouzmanoff at this point. Neither are likely to be very productive, but at least Miles won't cost us prospects for poor production. My preference, by far, would be to play Scales at second and Fontenot at third, sign Durham and let him get into game shape. By the time he's ready to play, it's likely that Scales will be cooled off and then you slot Durham in for him at second. We don't give up prospects and our potential production is far higher than with Miles or Kouzmanoff.
-
Why? As a backup I can understand, but when his likely ceiling is a mid .700s OPS I don't see him being worth giving up sparse trading chips. There are far better options out there than Kouzmanoff that may just come a bit cheaper.