I recently saw some conversation on Chicago sports twitter about ranking all of the teams based on how far away they are from a playoff berth, and people seemed to consistently be placing the Bulls in last. Without even getting into how much easier it is to make the NBA playoffs than the MLB playoffs, I really don't see how you can put the White Sox ahead of the Bulls at this point. (I realize this is damning with faint praise but I still don't really see how it's close) Carter Jr. looks very solid already Markkanen is very good and I am very high on his future LaVine has been great a couple of other guys on the roster that are at least mildly interesting i.e. portis and dunn a bunch of those bulls guys obviously haven't been playing, and it's reflected in their current record, but people act as if the white sox rebuild is just going to automatically materialize just because the cubs and astros had success
I'm not sure I really wanted him unless he was cheap. He does have some mileage and our DE's are pretty solid as is. If anything, I really want a new kicker. it sucks that he missed that kick in Miami but i don't really see how parkey has been a big problem he's 13/16... 5/7 from 40-49 and 1/2 from 50+ (28/28 on xp also)
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teameff Bears #4 overall in DVOA #1 in defense, #10 in offense, #26 in ST Also, they've got them with a 67% chance to win the division, 20% chance at a bye, and 79% overall to make the playoffs
Obviously not comparing what they did to get run out of town, but he did the same thing with Zambrano, then he traded him for Chris Volstad a few weeks later. I highly doubt Russell plays another inning here.
i'd say guys who throw 99 mph and the filthiest breaking balls you've ever seen can qualify as intriguing if he actually could control those pitches then he'd just be actually good, not intriguing
sure, but charting bad decisions/throws (or "should have been" interceptions) would be more predictive than just counting interceptions and reduces variance/luck in the data. in the long run it should even out, but in 8 games, one guy could pretty easily luck his way into significantly fewer (or more) picks than he should have. but you know this.
Two separate transactions reported in the same tweet. I think "in a related move" simply means they're both Cubs moves. Well, it's related in that they traded him to make up for some of the money they're paying Hamels, and the Rangers would've had to pay the $6M buyout if the Cubs didn't exercise the option.