Transmogrified Tiger

You are the absolute worst. You really feel good about playing these guys in October? One million percent yes. The Cubs are the best team in the National League, and no others are particularly close. While no playoff series is much better than a 60/40 or 65/35 proposition, there are no terrifying teams to the 2016 Cubs. Most especially not this Mets team.

Portugal has led for 22 of 510 minutes of their tournament and are a win against Wales from the final. Incredible.

I'm not sure about the frequency I'd be able to commit to, but I'd be down for putting some minors posts together.

For as long as Almora plays like he's played so far, he's an MLB asset and should stay, IMO. If/when he shows some sustained struggles, different story. Until then, I think Joe can get him enough looks. I think the problem is that you might be forced to make that decision before you'd ideally like to. You've got Ross, La Stella, Szczur, Coghlan, Contreras, Almora, and Soler for 5 spots, and Sczur and Coghlan can't be sent down. So the moment Fowler(or Soler) is healthy you have to make a call between Almora/Contreras/Szczur/Coghlan where one has to go. If you anticipate Almora struggling more than he has so far, I can see the logic in him being the one to go down so that you can buy some more time Coghlan/Szczur. Especially since there's less playing time available anyway with Fowler back.

I would set the odds of Montero going anywhere before the offseason at negative one billion percent(and honestly, maybe only slightly better than that in the offseason). Contreras has played more innings in 1B/LF than at C for a reason, they aren't going to entrust him as the primary catcher with a backup(Ross) who isn't all that great and can't play every day at his age. Before Contreras's callup though I would've been pretty confident in the worse of he and Almora being sent down. If Joe is okay with Contreras in LF and he continues to hit, then Coghlan could definitely be DFA'd when folks get healthy, which is something I would not have guessed at all when he was added.

Can't argue with those numbers. If only he weren't about to turn 23. It'd be nice to see what he can do in Myrtle Beach. Which leads me to a question. This is not to say that Araujo is that good and would necessarily be high on team's lists, but with Araujo eligible to be selected in the rule 5 draft this off season, would the Cubs (or any team) leave him (or any player in a similar situation) in Low-A so as to not let other teams see what he can do at High-A or higher? It makes sense especially with IFA guys who reach rule 5 eligibility often when they're still quite young and haven't come stateside until they're 20 or so. Despite Araujo's readiness for High-A, if keeping him at South Bend improved his chances of him not being selected, the Cubs would be able to evaluate him at High-A and AA next year (assuming he earns the promotion) and be in a much better position to know whether they want to roster him. Do you think this is a common practice? The Rule 5 thing is a small issue(and definitely small, because the upshot here is already capped at reliever), but I don't particularly care about Araujo's age. He's not a 25 year old beating up on guys in Eugene, nor is he an advanced College guy killing the lower levels either. The Rule 5 question I don't have a good answer to. My guess is that it's not terribly common, I would think that if a team cared enough to hold a player back to keep him, that they'd push him forward instead. That way it'd be easier to justify rostering that player, and at higher levels they're more likely to struggle or have flaws exposed that make them less attractive to drafting teams. Leaving them to dominate the same lower level gives other teams more to dream on.

Pedro Araujo stateside: 2014 Mesa: 16.1 IP, 12 H, 27/8 K/BB, 1 HR 2015 Eugene: 50.1 IP, 43 H, 70/9 K/BB, 1 HR 2016 South Bend: 19 IP, 7 H, 23/4 K/BB, 0 HR

I'll cut him a break, he had to use relievers for 19 innings in this series. Given his bullpen management abilities, that's like asking me to breathe underwater for 9 hours. I was referring to his comments where he was b*itching about Kyle's bunt. Hence the KB beaning. It was a stupid reason to order a beaning Oh I know, I'm just saying that I'd be grouchy and irrational too if I was forced to sleep in a bed made of spiders for 3 days, which is pretty much the same thing as asking Bryan Price to use relievers that much.

I'll cut him a break, he had to use relievers for 19 innings in this series. Given his bullpen management abilities, that's like asking me to breathe underwater for 9 hours.

This goes a bit too far. Schwarber is an above average player with a skill set that should be pretty steady(e.g. he's not building value on a half season of UZR or an insane BABIP) and he's under control for 5 more years. That's worth a lot, and more than most any reliever you can dream up. It is not worth enough to consider him only available in trade for a top 5 player in MLB, especially given Schwarber's very real limitations. The message here is 'Schwarber is an absurd ask for a reliever', not 'Schwarber is an absurd ask for anyone'. It would be different in a vaccuum, but then you consider that the Cubs infield is so loaded that they're having trouble fitting in a 12 UZR/150 Bryant at third. Then they've got Heyward in either right or center. So you could make a crazy trade for a Machado or Arenado but ten you're just throwing away Javy and putting Bryant permanently in the OF. So to me you're pretty much talking about trading or an outfielder or starting pitcher or doing the seeya Javy, move Bryant thing. There aren't many pitchers I'd even consider trading Schwarber's 5 years of control for, and then you'd need a better package player in a corner outfielder r center fielder. If you think Schwarber is a top 10 hitter (I do) that doesn't leave many guys left. If he can no longer play LF that changes things markedly but I'd roll the dice. That is true, the composition of the current Cubs roster makes actually trading Schwarber for something worthwhile harder. He's too good to be sent for a reliever headline, there aren't a lot of SP currently available that match up well, and trading him for another position player is really difficult to justify given the offensive talent all over the field already.

Was looking at the responses and this one made me laugh out loud (spoilered for language) [spoil][tweet]https://twitter.com/Jhale_08/status/748231399828766720[/tweet][/spoil]

I'd add Machado and Kershaw, with maybes for Corey Seager and Francisco Lindor. This goes a bit too far. Schwarber is an above average player with a skill set that should be pretty steady(e.g. he's not building value on a half season of UZR or an insane BABIP) and he's under control for 5 more years. That's worth a lot, and more than most any reliever you can dream up. It is not worth enough to consider him only available in trade for a top 5 player in MLB, especially given Schwarber's very real limitations. The message here is 'Schwarber is an absurd ask for a reliever', not 'Schwarber is an absurd ask for anyone'.

I'd rather trade him for Doolittle.

They probably aren't trading Miller then. Which is fine, if any team didn't need to sell high on a reliever it'd be them. But no one is giving up an obscene package to pay Miller 2.5/23 for his age 31-33 seasons.

If Doolittle is not enough and we're very unlikely to get Miller for him, what would be the right target where Torres is the main piece? A hitter or starting pitcher, or someone like Miller who is tip tippy top of the line for relievers. Torres doesn't have to be the *best* player used in such a trade(although that would be ideal), but the idea is that we capitalize on people thinking he's a Top 25 prospect before the high minors likely proves he has no standout features and is likely to not be a first division starter.

I am 100% on board with selling high on Torres as fast as possible, but I would be disappointed if the reward was Doolittle, who I like a fair bit.

That is one article where it absolutely pays to read the comments.

Peralta K'd Hamilton, time to give him a lifetime contract (3 years)

COUNTERPOINT [tweet]https://twitter.com/kazuto_yamazaki/status/747592823432613888[/tweet]

Is that good? I feel like that's pretty good. If you have a a .241 average alone on hits that happen to be doubles, I think things are gonna be just fine.

Happ is 20 for his last 29 with 7 doubles and 3 home runs

Say less things. So you honestly believe that hypothetically, if a star player who had been accused of PED shut down his accuser in the manner that he did, he would continue to use them? Look, I'm not saying that he did, because I don't think he did, as he always had the strength and the velo. I'm arguing that a guy who was openly accused of usage would be enough to get them to stop. I meant what I said, read more, say less.

makes total sense. he got on PEDs to be awesome at baseball, used them for a couple of years, then just decided to stop using them and become bad at baseball again. I honestly don't believe it in the slightest. But hypothetically, the accusation would absolutely be enough to get somebody to stop. Say less things.

[tweet] [/tweet]

It's 3 AM somewhere