Transmogrified Tiger

Even setting aside those who don’t think the Cubs should remotely care about payroll, yes they absolutely should have done that.

Yes, I will gladly take on multiple additional subscription services for live sports that likely add up to far less than the OTT streaming service I subscribe to almost exclusively for sports. With which you have to deal with internet lags causing choppy picture and occasional interruptions, no DVR availability, an occasional inability to rewind/fast forward (not sure if Peacock has this or not). Sounds wonderful. Your mileage may vary. I don't have any more problems with something like MLB.tv in terms of lag or picture quality than I do with YTTV(which is to say none at all), and I have no real interest in FF/RW or DVRing a game to watch fresh later. Maybe it's harder compared to cable to re-watch some portion of a game of interest, but I'd much rather just be able to watch what I want to watch in real time for substantially cheaper than having to pay for 70+ channels that maybe lead to a few more bells and whistles on the periphery of my enjoyment of that content.

AFAIK they just loaded that marathon into a playlist and pressed repeat.' I genuinely hope the sports stuff gets moved to peacock premium, another chink in cable's armor would be a good thing. If it is moved to USA, hopefully that's a temporary measure to satisfy current contracts. You want to have to pay for another subscription service to watch sports plus have to stream it rather than being able to record it? This is terrible. I hate streaming live sports if I don’t have to, especially when it comes to soccer games that frequently air before I wake up. Yes, I will gladly take on multiple additional subscription services for live sports that likely add up to far less than the OTT streaming service I subscribe to almost exclusively for sports.

AFAIK they just loaded that marathon into a playlist and pressed repeat.' I genuinely hope the sports stuff gets moved to peacock premium, another chink in cable's armor would be a good thing. If it is moved to USA, hopefully that's a temporary measure to satisfy current contracts.

They figured if they are gonna go back to 2013 they may as well load up on everyone's 2013 wish list. Bold.

[tweet] [/tweet]

It is really hilarious that they can make such a good front office move(which is replacing what should also have been a great hire in McDonough), and then make the most obvious "oh that's not gonna work at all" hire you can think of. Maybe that's being a little unfair to Neville, but also his coaching bona fides basically don't exist, so what are you gonna do.

He's the soccer version of "Is Cate Blanchett good or is she just tall?"

As a fan of Morris and the USMNT, I like him getting the chance to show what he can do in a format that doesn't risk him getting lost in the shuffle, though in a perfect world it wouldn't be the Championship meat grinder. As a fan of the Sounders for the next 18 months or so until STLSC gets here, that's about the worst case scenario since it leaves you much worse at your least deep position, doesn't give you resources to reinforce, and there isn't a guarantee you get Jordan back in the summer so you have to plan for several contingencies(plus he'll miss time on National team duty).

This wouldn't happen, but if it were up to me I'd expand to 8 and eliminate at larges. Power 5 winners are guaranteed, and a committee owned by the Group of 5 conferences would pick their 3 best champs. Existing selection committee can still do the 1-8 seeding, home sites in mid december for round 1, existing format for the semis and championship. That tips the scales on the super elite teams a little, since they have to win their way through a narrower path. Bama has missed the SEC title game 2 of the last 4 years, Ohio State missed 2 of the last 8 and lost a 3rd. Small schools have a legitmate path now even if they'll always be playing a road game and will rarely win, but that may be enough to tip some recruiting scales with those teams v. bottom of Power 5 teams. And since conference results will be all that matters, you'd probably see more openness in out of conference scheduling(or possibly even more conference games to even out schedules). Alternatively, if you want a similar spirit but more wackiness, take every Power 5 division winner and every Group of 5 conference winner + the best indpendent and follow the same pattern with 16.

Hard to say, there’s a lot of interesting younger strikers and the most clear cut chance for Hoppe(U20 world cup) was cancelled. If he keeps scoring Bundesliga goals that will solve itself, but right now it’s a bizarre blender of guys behind Zardes/Jozy with Sargent, Dike, Akinola, Gioacchini, not to mention guys like Weah, Ebobisse, Vassilev, or Ferreira who could force themselves into consideration. I’m pretty confident *somebody* will take a big enough step forward to differentiate themselves and put themselves in position to unseat the current starters, but handicapping the race is impossible. but then he has more bundesliga goals this season than Sargent, doesn't he? Yeah, Sargent just has the one this year. If Sargent were even in remotely decent form I’d group him with Jozy/Zardes, but he hasn’t had so much time on the national team that he can’t fall off the radar between performance issues and alternatives popping up.

Hard to say, there’s a lot of interesting younger strikers and the most clear cut chance for Hoppe(U20 world cup) was cancelled. If he keeps scoring Bundesliga goals that will solve itself, but right now it’s a bizarre blender of guys behind Zardes/Jozy with Sargent, Dike, Akinola, Gioacchini, not to mention guys like Weah, Ebobisse, Vassilev, or Ferreira who could force themselves into consideration. I’m pretty confident *somebody* will take a big enough step forward to differentiate themselves and put themselves in position to unseat the current starters, but handicapping the race is impossible.

Because we have an aging 1B who is a FA next season and is going to want near 20M a year. Rizzo isn’t getting $20 mil AAV and Smith is borderline unplayable defensively if he isn’t OPS’ing close to 1.000. And I think we extend Rizzo anyways so Smith doesn’t really fit. I’d rather target a different return for KB with the Mets or someone else. I'm not sure I believe this but let me play devil's advocate. You essentially have 3 risks here: - The risk that Smith isn't even functional at 1B/LF plus the risk that the DH doesn't come to the NL. UZR seems to not despise Smith at 1B, for as much as we can trust 1B UZR. - The risk that a different return for Bryant is too far away or too low ceiling thanks to his minimal team control, inconsistent production, and most importantly, 20 million contract in a year where that is a poison pill. - The risk that Bryant does not return to form and/or does not re-sign with the Cubs. I can see a set of circumstances where Hoyer and co believe that 2020 Smith is at least close to the real article and that he could be a longer term Rizzo replacement, and that the current version of Bryant + pandemic finances mean that's by far the most production/upside he's going to get in trade, and that they're pessimistic about Bryant's long term future(productivity, contract, or both). This also assumes that Rizzo is not getting extended, which is maybe me wishfully projecting my hopes onto the situation(unless he's taking very short years and/or a fairly extensive pay cut).

Good player. Strong passer from the back, has some solid leadership qualities(he was the known leader of the US U-20 at the WC even with an injury), had interest from Brugge and Celtic.

Rosenthal says "one of" the three, which doesn't inspire a ton of confidence. Also, while I love a good $/WAR or surplus value convo, I find it hard to make many parallels to the current covid environment, especially since so few moves have happened to give a point of comparison.

Intellectually I understand it, and for a cross-sport comparison I don't find it different than a QB looking at photos/video from previous drives in between series, and I don't have a problem with that. Everyone is throwing 98 mph sinkers and 90 mph sliders, and this year seems to be evidence that going without it doesn't lead to more enjoyable baseball. Something about that being the explanation for big swings in productivity annoys me in a way that I can't quite put into words, though.

I will be happy if/when Javy hits better but for reasons I can't explain I have a visceral 'they should just deal with it' reaction to players needing in-game video to be successful.

The Ricketts have all the money they need to do whatever they want 365 days of the year, every year for the rest of their lives and those of their children and grandchildren. I know this is a bleed post but, the Ricketts family gave millions of dollars to re-elect Trump. I have no time for PTR posts. It's possible to understand that Cubs ownership is not hemorrhaging money and also understand that the front office is working within financial constraints. It's not being a Ricketts apologist to try to discuss the team within the practical limits that are there, regardless of the fairness of those limits.

Wait is Bob really the only person reporting this? So Contreras is getting extended then?

It's been a while since I thought very deeply about the Cubs so someone correct me if I have gaps needing filled in, but here's some scattered thoughts. - Darvish is a 34 year old pitcher with multiple arm injuries who prior to this year hadn't hit 4 fWAR since 2013. I can forgive anyone who believes him to be on the Verlander trajectory, but the odds were severely stacked against him hitting 10 WAR in the last 3 years of the deal, maybe even stacked against 8 WAR. Combine that with him making 20 million(22 million LT) per year and layer on pandemic finances, I am not upset about the value the trade represents. - That goes doubly so if the choice is between Darvish and the alternatives for cutting salary(read: Bryant). If you have an edict from ownership that payroll has to come down, trading Yu and rolling the dice on pitching roulette is a better short term plan than trying to get potential star-level production without Bryant or some other less palatable position player trades. - Getting Vincent Adultman back to eat some rotation innings is fine, the Cubs have a very good track record getting the most out of low velocity at least. - Speaking of Contreras, like someone pointed out, this points pretty strongly at him being the short term catcher. Or maybe said another way, if Contreras isn't the short term catcher then things are going to get 2012 levels of dire, which would be a huge unforced error. - As far as the return goes, I'm okay with going with width over depth, especially in the current low information environment for prospects. I'd rather have 4 players of this caliber than one of the Morejon/pick your preferred name here. - Having said that, getting 4 different prospects and having none of them being (optimistically!) less than 2 years away is unacceptable. I saw the argument on Twitter that they may have gravitated towards players they had been able to scout more recently with the draft and IFA, and while I'm sensitive to that you absolutely cannot punt all the value from the return for 3 years. Especially when you're going wide on the return, the player development revolution means that the previously lower ceiling AA guy represents a potential for above average or even great production that isn't so different from the rookie ball lottery ticket. I get that player development opportunities are easier to spot when you can see a player play, but I don't care, Davies being the only person who can help the MLB team before 2023 or later is a catastrophe. - This is quite possibly the optimist in me, but I think the optics of this trade are going to lead to conclusions about the short term that are more dire than they'll turn out to be. Darvish had an incredible 2020 but had been more frustrating than brilliant for many years prior, and the team's 2021 success being hinged on him repeating that success isn't a great bet. If unloading his salary means they can get creative about reshaping the depth chart without having to spend energy trimming payroll, then that may be the best way forward(RIGBY caveats about ownership implied). Going exclusively long term with the return feels like a big miss in the process, and certainly lends credence to the idea of them stripping the team to the studs until it does or doesn't happen.

FWIW, that 2018 line is the Dominican Summer League, and 2019 is Rookie ball proper in the AZL.

Finally, something decisive.

Increasingly, the difference between MLS and Liga MX at the top end is the power of the two Monterrey teams. [tweet] [/tweet]

Jeffress Wow. Had no idea he was still controlled and that I forgot he was the closer for a lot of the season. He was a FA. The other potential answer is Tepera, who was under control and was non-tendered, but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt on b2b's accuracy considering Tepera pitched in the 9th inning exactly 1 time as a Cub.