Jump to content
North Side Baseball

dew1679666265

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • 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

  1. dew1679666265
    I'm fine with that too. I like Campana as a 5th OF as well and wouldn't be in any hurry to dump him, but he strikes me as a guy who we could give a few extra PAs to in a season where we're not contending anyway, see if he can get hot, and then see if a team will overvalue him. It was primarily a thought in response to the thought that we shouldn't give Campana consistent playing time because his upside is what he is now - a nice 5th OF. While I don't think we should give him consistent playing, I think more playing time than you'd normally give a 5th OF would be fine.
  2. dew1679666265
    Campana is actually a decent candidate to sell high on sometime in the next year. He's never going to command much in a trade, but given his speed, base stealing ability, and (I'm assuming) general grittiness, he's exactly the type of guy an old school GM would see as having some level of value. We're probably still only talking a C or C- prospect or two if he has a really hot first half, but that wouldn't be bad for a 5th OF.
  3. dew1679666265
    Guys like Suppan and Wolf are exactly the reason I was really concerned about the contract Maholm would get. He's a veteran, left-handed, and can pitch 150-200 innings without being awful. I really thought that would get him a deal of some significance from somebody, not a below market value one year deal.
  4. dew1679666265
    I might have been the most outspoken opponent of Maholm the entire offseason, but this is a really nice deal. Maholm isn't good, but at 1 year/$4.25 million with around a half million in mostly easily attainable incentives, he's a decent innings eater. He'll also have the potential to be a pretty good trade chip at the deadline if he can hold his ERA in that 3 area it's been two of the past three years. I was concerned that given his ERA two of the past three years and the fact that he seems to be considered a "dependable veteran" that the market wouldn't drop enough for us to get a reasonable deal. I fully expected at least 2 years, probably 3, and as much as $8-10 million per year. However, Theo proved me very wrong and I'm very happy he did.
  5. dew1679666265
    Thanks. I'm still holding out hope that if/when Baez moves off SS, he'll be able to stick at second instead of having to move to third (his bat would play better at second). That's why I brought up the Vitters/Castellanos comp, along with both Vitters and Castellanos being rather impatient.
  6. dew1679666265
    Thanks. How does Castellanos compare to Vitters? He looks more patient, but you also mentioned he doesn't have the great hit tool Vitters does. I'd have to think Castellanos profiles as a better defender - and probably much better - which would make him a better prospect by itself, I'd think.
  7. dew1679666265
    While I don't disagree with your overall point, I think dealing Cashner was more giving value for value at a greater position of need (Rizzo). I think along with trading Colvin/DJ for Stewart, letting Flaherty and Marwin go for nothing just to go grab Bianchi illustrates your point better.
  8. dew1679666265
    Turner/Castellanos/Crosby would be a really good haul, it seems. How does Castellanos' patience profile going forward? He's only 19 and has just played one full season in the minors, but he didn't seem to show a lot of patience in that one season (.056 IsoD).
  9. dew1679666265
    One and an option would be a solid deal, as it'd position us to get a decent return at the deadline. And as smart as Theo/Jed are, it would seem to me that'd be the max length deal they'd give a mediocre veteran like Maholm. My primary concern comes in the pitching market, however, as with as early as we're signing him - early considering guys like Jackson, Oswalt, and others are still on the market - I'm afraid his asking price may not have come down enough. I'm hoping you're right, though, and your logic is sound.
  10. dew1679666265
    If that's the deal we sign Maholm to, I don't have much of a problem with it. I'd still probably prefer Chen for the upside, but the difference is probably negligible at that point. My main concern, though, is that we'll give him 3 years with an AAV of $8-10 million in an effort to have a steady veteran in the rotation until we're likely to be competitive again. If that's the case, I'd take Chen hands down.
  11. dew1679666265
    You can do just fine with a barely above average No. 3, but you should shoot much higher. I don't have a problem with Wood and I'm happy to have him in the rotation as long as he's cheap, but I don't want him to be our third best starter beyond the current rebuilding phase. We can do better.
  12. dew1679666265
    There's merit to this point of view, but did Chen really sign for that much less than was expected? I thought the rumors all along were in the $4-6 million per year range (actual AAV is $4 million) over 3 years. That's why I was so interested in him - decent to potentially good production at a cheap price. If Theo/Jed simply didn't see anything in him they liked, then I understand passing on him. But with the information we have now, it seems odd to sign an older, more expensive version of Chen when certainty of production isn't nearly as important for the next year or two.
  13. dew1679666265
    Maholm is a "3 starter if things work out" as well, but he'll probably cost a lot more than Chen and is 4 years older. I can see where there's concern over whether Chen would even work out as a starter, but pitchers on the wrong side of 30 (even just barely on the wrong side) are no sure bet either. Considering there's also the even slim possibility that Chen regains the velocity he lost and becomes a 3 starter at worst, I see very little benefit to taking Maholm over Chen.
  14. dew1679666265
    For a pretty good price it would seem, too. Disappointing. This has the potential to be an excellent signing if Chen can simply stick in the rotation (seems likely). As many good moves as Theo/Hoyer's made so far this offseason, missing on Chen and signing Maholm may be the worst.
  15. dew1679666265
    If this is a 1 year deal, I like it as it gives us an extra veteran to deal at the deadline. If it's 2 years, I guess it's ok but it seems like a waste of money. If it's 3 years, it's as mind-boggling as the Reed signing (except at least Reed's presumably only here for one year). Giving a 3 year deal to a 30 year old, mediocre pitcher when you're making no effort to compete in year one makes absolutely no sense. There are pitchers like Maholm crawling out of the woodwork each year, there's no reason to invest 3 years in him.
  16. dew1679666265
    First off, I didn't even know there WAS a 9 mill buyout. Secondly, it got waived? There isn't a $9 million buyout and never was. WSR has been convinced there was one though, even though it's been pointed out a few times there isn't one. So SSR was making a joke about it.
  17. dew1679666265
    I'm not losing sleep over him being on the team, but I still see no purpose for him being on it. It's just such a completely un-Theo move to waste money and a 40 man roster spot on such a pointless player.
  18. dew1679666265
    Marcum doesn't interest me much. He's a nice pitcher and I like the K/9 and BB/9 numbers quite a bit, but he'll be 31 when he signs a new deal and could very easily get 4-5 years (probably more like 4, but if a few guys don't hit FA I could see 5 fairly easily). There should be better options than him available. If we pursue one of the elite FA pitchers, I'd go after Greinke or Hamels. I think Greinke will hit FA, as the Brewers are likely to be in contention and thus won't trade him, but I doubt Hamels does. After that, I'd go really hard after Anibal Sanchez if he hits FA. He's not been as good as guys like Greinke/Hamels, but his 2011 K/9 was a career high 9.26 and his BB/9 was a career low 2.93. If he can keep that up for another season - along with the really nice 3.35 FIP and 3.25 xFIP - he could be fairly undervalued compared to the rest of the FA class, if he hits the market.
  19. dew1679666265
    I guess my question is, who do they spend those eleventy bajillion dollars on? The FA pitching class next year looks really good right now, but is it smart to give out two 5+ year, huge money deals to 28-29 year old pitchers with lots of mileage? Let's say we sign one of Cain/Hamels/Greinke (if any of them hit FA, which I think only Greinke is likely to do), where else do we spend that money? I think real contention in 2013 at this point hinges on keeping Garza. If we trade him, I think we have to pursue a couple of top FA pitchers next offseason (since Wood would be our best starter) and possibly a big bat as well if Cespedes and Rizzo don't break out quickly. If we keep Garza, I think we're in a similar position in the 2012 offseason as we were at the start of this offseason - get a couple of impact type players and you have a shot at contention if the rest of the division is less than stellar. I still think contention in 2014 and dominance in 2015 is the most likely route, and most realistic by far, at this point. Though with Theo/Jed at the helm, I wouldn't necessarily rule anything out.
  20. dew1679666265
    For that to happen you're going to need a lot of things to go right (Jackson, Stewart, Lahair, Volsted/Wells, etc.). After many years of so much going wrong for the Cubs (mostly injuries), maybe they're due to have some good things happen. I don't think the 2012 team hitting 71 wins is that difficult to do. I could see this team being worse than that, but I could also see it being a little better. That said, the 2011 team was better than 71 wins.
  21. dew1679666265
    Carpenter would fit in as the set-up man nicely. I'd like to see him in that role for an extended period anyway to give him late-game experience in a season where it doesn't matter.
  22. dew1679666265
    that's not what he's being paid in 2012. Insert $1.15 million and the point still stands.
  23. dew1679666265
    The way we've dumped payroll like crazy, I see no reason not to aggressively pursue both and probably sign both - barring a silly contract offer from somebody. We have an immense amount of freed up money and both fit a long term philosophy. I'll be pretty disappointed if either sign a somewhat reasonable contract somewhere other than with the Cubs. Unless Theo/Hoyer just flat don't like one or both.
  24. dew1679666265
    Very good post.
  25. dew1679666265
    I was an absolutely huge fan of Aramis' talent before we acquired him. The numbers weren't there, but I had watched him multiple times in person and really liked him. Adding Lofton in that deal, who was one of my favorite players growing up, just made it that much better. The only piece I didn't like giving up was Bobby Hill, but my overwhelming love of Aramis/Lofton made losing Hill not matter much.
×
×
  • Create New...