SABR Gamer

LOL, he's so bad.

neither can I? I'm Ron Burgundy?

He's like Ryan Theriot without the fans that think he's good. Theriot was way better.

fixed

Jeff has no control right now.

Alright, Jeff, let's not go back to 5 BB/9.

Because it isn't bad.

That man is making many Cubs fans wonder about their sexuality.

But at some point is the difference high enough to keep the 3? If the 3 guys total 11 and Harper peaks at 7, do you want the 3? Take the group if the difference per player is greater than 2 WAR. So 3 guys at 12 = 1 guy at 8. Assuming 2 WAR is the average MLB player. Maybe value the single guy more if you are confident in your front office to fill those other 2 slots with above average players.

Everyone realizes that. What are the expectations though? If Harper becomes a perennial 8-9 win player and Castro becomes a perennial 5-6 win player, giving up Baez (potential 5+ win player), and one of Almora (potential 4+ win player) or Soler (potential 4+ win player) is probably going to end up hurting you more than it helps you. If you do that trade 100 times, there are probably plenty of times the side receiving Harper wins, I just don't think it would be more often than that side loses. I do think it would be pretty close though. (repeating myself a bit from the previous post) Yeah, if Harper is going to be an 8-9 win player and Castro 5-6, then the difference is completely worth two very high ceiling but still A--ball prospects. I think the Harper side wins that trade 85 times out of 100. So you think there is only a 15% chance that at least one of the guys included besides Castro doesn't bust? I would say that is pretty pessimistic. I said I think it's a little less than majority that the Harper side wins, and you could make a case for it being 50/50, but I'd say there is at least a 50% chance that 1-2 of those 3 guys doesn't bust, and that's really all it could take to make it a mediocre trade. Plus you (ETA: that was imb who cherry picked 9 WAR for Harper and 5 for Castro) keep dealing with the most extreme of the situation. The difference in that hypothetical could be as small as 2 wins between Castro and Harper. If even one of Almora, Baez, or Soler become a 4-5 win player, the Harper side would lose that trade.

Everyone SHOULD realize that. What are the expectations though? If Harper becomes a perennial 8-9 win player and Castro becomes a perennial 5-6 win player, giving up Baez (potential 5+ win player), and one of Almora (potential 4+ win player) or Soler (potential 4+ win player) is probably going to end up hurting you more than it helps you. If you do that trade 100 times, there are probably plenty of times the side receiving Harper wins, I just don't think it would be more often than that side loses. I do think it would be pretty close though. (repeating myself a bit from the previous post) No, everyone doesn't realize that. There's people saying they "probably" wouldn't trade Castro for Harper or only trading Starlin straight up for Trout. Fixed

You'd trade Castro and Baez for Harper and add another top prospect? i would be accepting that trade like ron burgundy YES LETS MAKE THE DEAL AND THEN AFTERWARD MAYBE WE CAN HAVE LUNCH! every legitimate prospect we have is so far away that they're all lotto tickets. would you trade 100 bucks and two lotto tickets for 1000 bucks? Castro isnt a lotto ticket. I'd trade any 3 prospects for Harper, no Q. But a young stud SS and two prospects, one of whom could be a power hitting SS? Yikes. COULD is the key word here. Baez is nowhere near a lock, whereas Harper is already a monster. Yeah, and you have to remember that Harper is only a month and a half older than Baez and is actually younger than Soler. He's a complete freak of nature.

Everyone realizes that. What are the expectations though? If Harper becomes a perennial 8-9 win player and Castro becomes a perennial 5-6 win player, giving up Baez (potential 5+ win player), and one of Almora (potential 4+ win player) or Soler (potential 4+ win player) is probably going to end up hurting you more than it helps you. If you do that trade 100 times, there are probably plenty of times the side receiving Harper wins, I just don't think it would be more often than that side loses. I do think it would be pretty close though. (repeating myself a bit from the previous post)

You'd trade Castro and Baez for Harper and add another top prospect? I'd at least think about it, because prospects bust. If you promised Baez + ________ (Soler or Almora) would both come close to their peaks, then no I wouldn't do the trade. However, since they are still in the low minors it isn't out of the question. Harper put up a 5 WAR at 19, he's going to be the best player in baseball or at least one of the two best. I'm higher on peak age Harper than peak age Trout, personally. ETA: Castro+Baez+Almora/Soler for Harper would still be a bad trade for the Cubs, but it's not an immediate no. Why would a bad trade for the Cubs not be an immediate no? Ok, well if you are thinking about it that way, then yes it would still be an "immediate no" in the actual negotiation, but internally it would give you at least a moment's pause. It's not an outrageous idea, it's just a trade with a majority chance you lose. I honestly think if you do that trade 100 times, you might not lose than much more than you win the trade. I just think Harper will be THAT good.

You'd trade Castro and Baez for Harper and add another top prospect? I'd at least think about it, because prospects bust. If you promised Baez + ________ (Soler or Almora) would both come close to their peaks, then no I wouldn't do the trade. However, since they are still in the low minors it isn't out of the question. Harper put up a 5 WAR at 19, he's going to be the best player in baseball or at least one of the two best. I'm higher on peak age Harper than peak age Trout, personally. ETA: Castro+Baez+Almora/Soler for Harper would still be a bad trade for the Cubs, but it's not an immediate no.

In the right package I could see an interest in any of those three. Straight up, I wouldn't give up Starlin for any of them. The only one I'd put any thought into straight up would be Trout. I would easily trade Starlin for Harper. Not even a debate.

Not a bad bet but that 72.5 is scary, I can see them getting there but I also see them trading every asset that isn't nailed down also. There are just so many parts that don't seem to be part of the future, I think anyone except for Castro, Samardzija, Jackson and Rizzo could be dealt at anytime for prospects. It's even possible that someone knocks our socks off for some of them...especially castro. Not happening. Castro and Rizzo aren't going anywhere. Theo is especially attached to Rizzo. I'd be surprised if Shark did either. Jackson (referring to Brett, not Edwin) won't be traded in all likely, but not because he's untouchable, just because his value is at an all time low. Anyone else on the team could be a potential trade piece if they can bring back value.

You named 8 guys in that post and 4 of them were either here from Hendry or were acquired from Hendry pieces. I don't know why just because we've chosen to go down this route, people have to change what they were saying 18 months ago about the status of the franchise. I think only 3 of them were either here or acquired from Hendry pieces (Shark, Wood, Garza). Vizcaino was only Theo pieces. Reed was resigned by Theo, that doesn't count as a Hendry piece since he could have let him walk. Maholm was also Theo.

Kyle's only response is to dodge every time anyone makes an attempt to call him out.

LeBron was whining to the media about the hard fouls....looks like the Bulls need to start doing this to him more often. Anything to get to his insecure head.

Was he talking about the game or the streak? The game I rewound and watched him say it again, he was talking about the streak, not the game. He said this thing (the streak) is the first thing to transcend the regular season since Jordan returned in 1995. Then he said that's why this game was so great because it was the end of the streak, not that this game transcended the regular season. Still doesn't change what I said. He said that the game was great, but the "transcending the regular season" comment was about the streak, not the game. ETA: I am a Bulls fan and I strongly dislike the Heat, as much as nearly any team in pro sports. I'm just being honest about what he said and trying not to be a homer.

Was he talking about the game or the streak? The game I rewound and watched him say it again, he was talking about the streak, not the game. He said this thing (the streak) is the first thing to transcend the regular season since Jordan returned in 1995. Then he said that's why this game was so great because it was the end of the streak. He did not say that this game transcended the regular season.

Easily #1.

Group A: Giancarlo Stanton Group B: Jay Bruce, Prince Fielder Group C: Bryce Harper, Yoenis Cespedes, Matt Kept Group D: Anthony Rizzo, Joey Votto, Ryan Howard, Evan Longoria, Carlos Santana WILD CARD: PM'D TO SOUTHPAW19