David

if we don't score this inning that will be dumb and terrible

come on seal boy, pleaseeeeeeeeee

which is why he's hitting .333/.450/.667 with RISP, by far his best of any situation (good for a 185 wRC+) also a 24.4% strikeout rate, also his best of any situation And Baez is hitting like .385 with a man on third and less than two out. I don't know why everyone thinks these guys are chokers with RISP baez is .229/.316/.428 (59 wRC+) with RISP this year and .209/.261/.323 for his career (42 wRC+)

which is why he's hitting .333/.450/.667 with RISP, by far his best of any situation (good for a 185 wRC+) also a 24.4% strikeout rate, also his best of any situation

yes!!!

please do something good like an xbh of some sort zobrist

damn it i really thought rizz got that for a second

Also, you're wrong about the "until last week" thing. Not that I think it's a big deal, but dude was quietly bitching about playing time as far back as 2015. And last year he went on the radio the day of the horsefeathering world series parade and publicly bitched about playing time.

What in the world is this implying? Montero was a horrendous defensive catcher with a decent bat who wasn't really shown to be a clubhouse cancer until last week. Reading this reply, I have no idea if TMan's sarcasm went over your head or not

lol at all that too bad there are 2 outs

this all started when i went to take a dump

Sounds about right. The last two times we've played Baltimore (2008 and one of the dark years) it's been at Wrigley. also weird that we've only been to the trop once ever Looks like the Cubs haven't played at Camden in 14 years, since 2003 weird. wouldn't have guessed.

if that was his concern, he wouldn't be in boston either

Len has never been to Camden? this is his 13th year. that seems off, unless he was sick or off for some reason at some point that i don't recall. Have the Cubs really not been to Camden since 2005?

[tweet] [/tweet]

that's so great

[tweet] [/tweet]

[tweet] [/tweet]

What 2 players on the Bulls before the PG trade happened you think would've beaten Oladipo/Sabonis offer in order to land him? i'm not here to argue about what mediocre to bad players are better than which other ones. my point is that if the trend seems to be star players are going for too little, you don't trade your undervalued star player. you start doing GM things and attempting to acquire one of said star players. and you have jimmy butler attempt to recruit to get you somewhere if need be. odds might be slim but i have little doubt that it's a higher percentage play toward contention/being very good than making an awful trade of one of the best 10-15 players in the league wherein you receive poor value in order to tank toward draft picks.

Absolutely correct. Other than Oladipo would have been the 2nd best player on the Bulls. Interesting. He would've ranked as follows on the Bulls' roster last year and then vs. players currently on the roster (even though in this theoretical world, jimmy would've still been on the roster - I'm figuring that second part manually so forgive any errors) PER - 9th (efficiency stat so obviously playing time is a factor here)/5th Win Shares (his 2222 minutes would've been 3rd on the team) - 3rd/2nd WS/48 (win shares adjusted for playing time - per 48 minutes) - 10th/6th VORP - 7th/5th I get if you aren't all about basketball metrics/efficiency stats, but that would seem a long way from the certainty you seem to have about it. Mainly my point isn't so much about the Bulls players as much as it is I have no idea what you see in Oladipo nor what makes you think he beats the crap out of anyone.

Those are two absolute garbage players. They don't beat the horsefeathers out of anything.

How valuable are future picks from a team that you're dealing a superstar for? The Nets trade is obviously the best example of a team that got beyond desperate and forfeited 10 years of viability for 1 year of a potential run. That trade is looked at as the biggest deal of buffoonery ever. Look at the Demarcus Cousins deal. The Kings got a future first round pick in this draft and it ended up being number 10. A good spot to draft a quality player, but not a franchising changing position. Who's the star talent traded at the deadline in the last five years that yielded an amazing return? Again, looking at the Cousins deal, people thought the return was pretty weak. That's the nature of deals in the NBA. Star players aren't going to be bring back what we think they're worth. Again, would I have preferred a package that SSR said he would have done for Butler a couple pages ago? Of course. The Bulls would have too, but if its not there, its not there. And you're seeing what the market will offer you for a top 15 player (George) in their year before FA and its not pretty. Then, if you still want to keep Butler, is he, as a 29 year old, going to be worth a supermax deal? The Bulls clearly didn't love Jimmy enough to offer him that years down the road and look at him as the franchise cornerstone for the next Bulls Championship run. So trade for a star instead of trading one.

His value isn't going to go up from a trade perspective. By bringing back the same group of players, you're staring at a team that is going to be too competitive for any sort of meaningful impact player in the draft next season. Now Jimmy would be 1 year away from free agency and his value is going to be lower. Paul George, a superior player to jimmy, just netted a horsefeathers package that ties up a ton of money to a decent nba starter and no draft picks for any future hope for the pacers. Their trade was bold and while I wish they hadn't included 16, I don't think the trade gets done without it. Trades in which you receive significantly less value than you give up are not good trades. And Jimmy Butler is better than Paul George. George, even prior to his injury, has never had a season as good as the one Butler just had.

[tweet] [/tweet]

If that's the best offer out there for Butler, you do not trade him.