David
-
Posts
32,475 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by David
-
no offense but that sentence hurts to read
-
if by superstar you mean the type of player that causes you to win championships...the type there are only a couple of, literally 2 or 3, well yeah...but getting one of those guys is pie in the sky and nothing but luck. i don't think you should or can set out to get that in the vast majority of circumstances...you just hope it falls into your lap. if that's not what you mean, i think lauri has that level of ability. if you don't want to call it a superstar, then whatever a notch below that is... perennial all star or something. he's going to be really damn good.
-
we'll pick him for the warriors
-
That's definitely part of the problem, but yeah, it shouldn't take much for them to be in playoff contention next year. the problem is, what exactly does playing for the 8 seed with Miami, Detroit, Charlotte, Orlando, etc. really accomplish? you're still nowhere near actually being competitive enough to compete with actual teams, and you're just going to be hurting your chances by picking in the teens instead of potentially a top 5 pick. if they end up getting a non-Zion/Morant/Barrett guy this year, the two tank years would have resulted in Wendell Carter and someone like Cam Reddish. to me, that doesn't exactly paint these last couple of years as a success. are we saying having lauri and lavine aren't also a result of them taking that path (even if you don't want to include porter)? they're going to do better than competing for an 8th seed next year if they're healthy. lauri is horsefeathering good and young. same with lavine.
-
[tweet] [/tweet]
-
I thought that dude was still around, but I guess not. Also: guess you should have listened to him. Yes, I really should have gone to the police with this airtight tip from an internet stranger. pretty sure that's not what he meant
-
Hollandsworth was stealing time from Jason Dubois dammit i just googled him to find out what ever happened to him and i came across the original jon leicester who i used to confuse with jon lester when jon lester first came up.
-
No surprise...Lester starting opening day.
-
it was...and when he was in LA
-
FJM i had wasted all my cringe on the IBM line by the time i got to that point
-
[tweet] [/tweet]
-
he was a decent pitcher for the dodgers in the mid 90s but he kinda sucked by the time the cubs got him...and yeah, blisters.
-
[tweet] [/tweet]
-
-
I don't give a horsefeathers about winning culture, but they are winning because their important players are playing really well.
-
i remember getting into a huge argument with you about soriano batting 1st. i don't even remember what side i was on, but i'm guessing i said him hitting leadoff was fine.
-
They're definitely a playoff team next year with any semblance of health to the core pieces. Lauri, Otto, and Zach are horsefeathering balling. And I'm sure they'll add something decent in free agency. I'm gonna do whatever good luck horsefeathers I can on lottery day
-
Same
-
all i remember is i got a small upset win in one round and then rawaction slaughtered me
-
my favorite was when meph PMed me from one of his burner accounts that we had all figured out basically asking "don't you like me? don't tell them it's me"
-
this is all much easier to make sense of in an expected value sense rather than from a hindsight standpoint. who cares about hindsight? you can't make decisions in hindsight. with every one of these scenarios, there's an expected value at the time the decision is made. that's what should be driving these decisions...i don't really care how the scenario plays out after the fact as far as good, bad, better, worse, whatever range of possible outcomes.
-
if this is worded too awkwardly, here's a gross oversimplification to make it clear what i mean if a player would rather sign a 6 year deal for $200M with an opt out after, say, year 3, than a 6 year deal for $300M with no opt out, then the opt out is good for the team. what that dollar valuation is, i have no horsefeathering idea, but it exists. I think the value is that if you're willing to give one the player will be more willing to sign with you. I don't think you're getting that much of a financial discount to include one. It sure didn't help bring down the Heyward price. but it still has a monetary value, even if that's just a theoretical concept. if another team offers him more money, there's a point at which he should or would say "screw the opt out, i'll take more money" and whatever that number is is the value.
-
opt outs have monetary value and if the value in dollars given up in exchange for them outweighs the risked value involved with the opt out, then it is good for the team if this is worded too awkwardly, here's a gross oversimplification to make it clear what i mean if a player would rather sign a 6 year deal for $200M with an opt out after, say, year 3, than a 6 year deal for $300M with no opt out, then the opt out is good for the team. what that dollar valuation is, i have no horsefeathering idea, but it exists.
-
opt outs have monetary value and if the value in dollars given up in exchange for them outweighs the risked value involved with the opt out, then it is good for the team
-
[tweet] [/tweet]
