Jump to content
North Side Baseball

XZero771679666304

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    14,655

  • 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

2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by XZero771679666304

  1. XZero771679666304
    Sanchez isn't flashy, but he's been a solid producer recently.
  2. XZero771679666304
    Because he's 28 years old and has been worth about 4 WAR each of the past three years. He'd be a pretty good investment, if just a tad overpriced. I'd be happy with it.
  3. XZero771679666304
    I wouldn't mind the Tigers signing Sanchez if it lead to them trading Porcello to us. I'd much rather have Sanchez than Porcello.
  4. XZero771679666304
    Agreed. I'm willing to go to $15 million for 5 on Sanchez for that exact reason. If it will shut people up on here for a while, it will be worth it. And I can't stop just coming to the board even if impatient bastards annoy the hell out of me, because I love this board too much. I think the FO offered Sanchez 5/75 because it would be a move line with their plan (he's relatively young and productive), and it was more than he was being offered elsewhere. If the FO were making moves just to "shut people up", I'd really be worried.
  5. XZero771679666304
    Or, you make damn sure you don't get off the phone without a signed deal. You do enough to get guys to not try and get someone else to match Yes, I'm sure it's just that easy. If this was a negotiating ploy (and I'm not saying it was, just that it looks that way), that wasn't going to happen unless the Cubs bid something stupid.
  6. XZero771679666304
    I can be mad at them for not putting on a team on the field that makes them appealing to free agents for reasons other than "We're the only place you can get a starting job." Yes, because turning the 2011 Cubs into the 2012 Tigers by 2013 would have been a realistic expectation. By your logic, they shouldn't be able to sign anyone ever again.
  7. XZero771679666304
    Would you continue this line if the Cubs aren't allowed to counter Detroit's latest offer? Hey, they already used that excuse for Cespedes, so why not again? It it an excuse if it's actually true? Should they just go around preemptively blowing other offers out of the water just in case? This was a very good offer, more than Detroit had been willing to offer. If the FO gets a chance to counter and doesn't raise, I can see cause for annoyance with them. But if all of this was a ploy to get a fifth year from the Tigers because five years was his threshold and that's where he wants to be (and boy, does this sure reek of that), I can't see how you could rationally get mad at the FO.
  8. XZero771679666304
    Many people here have been saying they expected the FO to add at least 1-2 "long term" pieces this offseason, even going to so far as to say one of Sanchez/Jackson/MCCarthy, so this isn't entirely unexpected. It would be a sensible move, and I fully expect they'll move on to Jackson with a similar offer if this falls through.
  9. XZero771679666304
    Would you continue this line if the Cubs aren't allowed to counter Detroit's latest offer?
  10. XZero771679666304
    fwiw You'll never get a 1 year deal signed in this town again Mato!! That joke works better when the front office hasn't just made their biggest offer to a pitcher since Zambrano. A lot of one trick ponies these days.
  11. XZero771679666304
    Occam's Razor pretty much demands this came from the Cubs. Either directly or indirectly, i.e. they told another player's agent they had a deal with Sanchez and wouldn't be pursuing their client, and that agent leaked to the media. I'll concede the possibility of an accidental, indirect leak but the only party with motive is the agent. Theres absolutely nothing to gain for the Cubs leaking it. And it was reported (iirc) that the Cubs did tell another agent that they were "down the road" with Sanchez and they'd call back if it fell through, but that isn't the same as saying it was a done deal. And again, the Nightengale is has been the loudest voice on this and has been parroting Sanchez's agent at least casts serious doubt on where the leak came from. Nothing "demands" that it came from the Cubs. Not to mention I'm absolutely incredulous of the idea that after all that has happened, the FO would prematurely leak something like this.
  12. XZero771679666304
    Yeah, this is very telling.
  13. XZero771679666304
    Yeah, if the Tigers had been intransigent about adding the fifth year, I can see why the agent would leak that it was all but done.
  14. XZero771679666304
    Not really. He's a moron, but he seems to have reliable connections.
  15. XZero771679666304
    To be fair, MLB network is invariably the last to report something is final.
  16. XZero771679666304
    I really thought something like this was coming, either Sanchez or Jackson. Nice.
  17. XZero771679666304
    And he's already been hurt. He's behind a lot of guys for me. Doesn't an injury just increase a pitcher's value to this organization? Do we really need this in the minor league forums too? Oh heaven's to betsy what would we do if this minor league forum didn't stay pristine? It'd be nice if there was one corner of the board spared from this useless, tired, predictable and unfunny [expletive].
  18. XZero771679666304
    Yep they should have told Torii he is old and too right handed. Of course it's possible they were still budgeting in a potential Greinke deal at that point.
  19. XZero771679666304
    Well, they're down Haren and Grienke from a team that missed the playoff last year, so it's quite possible.
  20. XZero771679666304
    hahahahahaha Wow. All the talk around Hamilton was indicating he'd likely have to settle for a 3 year deal, and now this. If those are the actual terms and if the contract is guaranteed, this is a desperation move after losing out on Greinke, imo. All MLB contracts are guaranteed I mean with no incentive clauses.
  21. XZero771679666304
    hahahahahahahah I don't get the shock. No, that's a perfectly reasonable deal.
  22. XZero771679666304
    hahahahahaha Wow. All the talk around Hamilton was indicating he'd likely have to settle for a 3 year deal, and now this. If those are the actual terms and if the contract is guaranteed, this is a desperation move after losing out on Greinke, imo.
  23. XZero771679666304
    But getting back to the main point, since we don't know if Brown is going to be a sustained MLBer, it's a bit presumptuous to cram him onto that curve. His best season to date came at 22, and there's a very good chance that stays his best season. True. Or at least I'd agree with that.
  24. XZero771679666304
    When you look at the sample of all professional players and not just sustained MLBers, it's more like 20. But that's a huge tangent. Indeed. But among sustained MLBers, it's not as early as you're contending.
  25. XZero771679666304
    If you're talking in those terms, then that's very possible. What we think of as "prime" features a selection bias for guys who have prolonged MLB careers. For the population of all professional players, the plateau age is much earlier. It's not 24-27. A better range to characterize as plateau would be 26-29.
×
×
  • Create New...