Jump to content
North Side Baseball

WrigleyField 22

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    19,040

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

 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 WrigleyField 22

  1. WrigleyField 22
    The entire Bulls roster is on that list I think lol
  2. WrigleyField 22
    In before Kyle doom boners. This would be a good thing (assuming the guarantees aren't crazy)
  3. WrigleyField 22
    I like the authentic, terrible mobile interface feel, of this startup blog.
  4. WrigleyField 22
    I get that, and like I said earlier I hadn't thought that our second second rounder by itself could be traded for a later 2nd rounder AND a 3rd. I'm more commenting on how tight teams would follow that chart, of if they would. I suppose if Baltimore REALLY wanted someone we could draft with#2 2nd rounder, that trade would benefit us. I guess that's a valid argument splendid is making. Realistically, the value chart matters less for the team trading up, they're trading for a specific player they want that they feel is worth outsized value. If Bal had their eye on a guy, they could be calling teams as early as Chicago's 43rd pick. And if teams keep rejecting their offer because they have their own guys they like, it's doubtful that Bal balks too much at a couple dozen points on the chart if that guy is still there at 50 and the deal gets done. Baltimore is actually a great example. They overpaid in 2018 for the 32nd pick of the draft. But they weren't trading for pick 32. They were trading for Lamar Jackson. And as it worked out, it ended up being a steal.
  5. WrigleyField 22
    I hadn't considered trading the 2nd 2nd for a later 2nd and 3rd. clearly, I'd prefer the second option but I question why the ravens would give up their only 3rd w/o gaining more then 10 spots. is that an accurate value/value proposition? eta: no its not. The trade would make more sense between Atlanta and Baltimore according to the link above I mean its a guideline not a catalog. For reference the Bears traded down twice in 2016 from 41 to 49 and then 49 to 56, picking up 4th rounders in each trade. As I recall one of the trades was much richer according to the chart. But it all depends who you're trading up for. The Bears did "well" in those trades eventually selclecting Whitehair and turning those 4ths into Deon Bush and White Nick. But if you wanna use total hindsight Derrick Henry and Michael Thomas were two of the picks used between 41 and 49. :dontknow:
  6. WrigleyField 22
    Ok. I guess thats a move I wouldn’t make. I would rather have both 2nds considering we have no 1st round picks, with the idea that the first 2nd rounder is my 1st (Im likely picking a pos of need for an athlete who fell out of the first who fits that need). Since we have multiple needs, there should be someone who fits that mold. The 2nd 2nd rounder would, in effect, be my 2nd rd talent pick - or if I got lucky another 1st rd level talent who fell. You’re stuck with 4-7’s after that, but they have 6 picks in those rounds. Id go quantity at that point If you stay in the 2nd you have to go BPA, regardless of position. The bulk of the value in the higher picks is the opportunity to take BPA, not guys you think can fill a certain need, like Adam Shaheen. For reference, the trade value chart. Both 2nds gets you close to mid round value. But they won't really have anything that can get them the value of a backend 1st. So if they did both seconds to move up to the end of the first round, they could expect to get something else back too in a 2 for 2 swap. https://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart.asp
  7. WrigleyField 22
    Yea, if there's something getting them back in the first it's both 2nds.
  8. WrigleyField 22
    2, 6, and 7 isn't getting a 1sr rounder, even a late one. If anything I could see Pace trading down with one of the seconds, but of course it will all depend how the board falls. If he trades up this year, its probably done with futur year assets, yet again.
  9. WrigleyField 22
    It appears that the conditional pick from the Howard trade will stay a 6th: https://www.windycitygridiron.com/platform/amp/2020/1/29/21113467/chicago-bears-philadelphia-eagles-specific-details-of-the-jordan-howard-trade-conditions-ryan-pace There's also a Raiders beat writer who reported on Twitter last week that the conditional Mack pick ended up a 7th. So, seems they're looking at: Rd 2 pick 11 (from LV) Rd 2 pick 18 Rd 4 ??? (projected Amos comp) Rd 5 pick 18 Rd 6 pick 17 Rd 6 pick 21 (from PHI) Rd 7 pick 12 (from LV) Rd 7 pick 19
  10. WrigleyField 22
    Call it a 8 year contract, following the year after they're drafted. If a guy is ready to play right away, the team gets 8+ years of service time. Everyone hits FA after 8 years with just different types of FA. Thus much less reason to hold guys down unless you're jockeying for the different teirs of FA. Still have a rule 5 draft for guys who haven't advanced after x years. >6 years service time, full unrestricted FA, no draft comp for lost players 4>6 years, restricted FA (matching rights with minimum qualifying offers required and draft comp). <4 years service time, early restricted FA (not exactly sure how I'd design it, but perhaps a smaller qualifying offer but that's multi year in nature) no open negotiations.
  11. WrigleyField 22
    Yea, if you split offense/defense to "value defense" the offense will become so 3 outcome-y, defense will be devalued.
  12. WrigleyField 22
    I don't think I understand this idea... Let's say you have a guy who hits FA with 6 years and 120 days, where 180 is the cutoff. This guy has 2/3s of an extra year of service, so his club would owe him 2/3s of the AAV of his next contract (e.g. $10M on a $15M AAV contract) Like TT said it's far more complicated of a solution than the problem requires, but it'd be amongst the most fair and equitable. Huh... there seem like lots of potential complications, not the least of which is the situation where a player switches teams once they hit FA. Who's picking up the tab, which lux tax year it affects, etc.
  13. WrigleyField 22
    I don't think I understand this idea...
  14. WrigleyField 22
    Wonder if they will indeed cut Amukamara and just "2019 kicker comp" the 2nd CB spot. Toliver, Roberson, Shelley, Joseph, Simmons, Crawford, Denmark.
  15. WrigleyField 22
    Fire him after ST then.
  16. WrigleyField 22
    I doubt there is much motivation for the AL teams to agree with that change, but perhaps that's what the NL adopts as a compromise, to get the rules closer, but keeping distinct rules. It would leave most of the "strategy" still there, until the NL just adopts full DH. With the extra 26th man, the 3 batter RP rule, and a DH, I wonder how roster composition will begin to change. Seems like a lot more opportunity for really obscure and specialize players like pinch runners.
  17. WrigleyField 22
    Upon reflection Sweetness34 was not a good password.
  18. WrigleyField 22
    1996-97 was basically just a choice on maximizing the only decent CF option there was in McRae, and how bad you wanted your likely worst pitcher to be. The couple good CF years just get totally overshadowed; 2003 Patterson overshadowed by pretty much the entire pitching staff, notably Prior 2008 Edmonds maybe, but he was a mid-season pickup and you had career year Dempster plus solid fillers throughout the entire bating order. 2015- and 2016 Dexter Fowler overshadowed by God-mode Arrieta and MVP Bryant And that's about it. Suddenly you're at 2009 Fukudomes or 2017 Almoras looking viable.
  19. WrigleyField 22
    Pick the youngest guy you can each year and start with your bench and bottom three BP spots, then work your way up from there.
  20. WrigleyField 22
    I took it more in the vein of putting guys in positions they played in a prior year (say Pujols at 3B), even if they had long ago outgrown that position in the year you chose them. Or put a LF in CF because he played half a game in injury relief during some 18 inning marathon game that season. Or don't fill your bench with 5 1B and no MIF. Still you could probably arguably stretch for 9 full time batters at least if you have position versatile guys, guys who covered at least 2 positions with at least 25% of their appearances in that season. The RP/SP piece perhaps a bit more subjective, as your roster could be coherent still with your 6-10 best pitchers as relievers. And it is the same position, just a different role.
  21. WrigleyField 22
    Yes, he will abandon his game plan if they're getting 4+ easy yards on every run. Heh. My point was, you could just as easily say "they want to run the ball 5 yards a play, and switch to balance if it's not working." I don't consider just doing what's presently working a "plan." Okay? Bottom line, they're not going to "try and run the ball 40 times".
  22. WrigleyField 22
    I'm sure Tenn planned to run the ball 40 times too. Doubt SF is going to go in without a balanced attack ready. If they're picking up 10 yards a carry again he won't abandon it, but that's not the game plan. So the game plan is to be balanced, unless just running the ball works, but if it doesn't, don't? Yes, he will abandon his game plan if they're getting 4+ easy yards on every run.
  23. WrigleyField 22
    Lies. He lifted one foot off the scale.
  24. WrigleyField 22
    I saw on TV that he's the 3rd heaviest player in the NBA at 285. Like I can't figure out that he's just that fat or that they're lying on TV cuz there has to be more than 2 guys in the NBA that weighs more. Felicio has to be one. I don't watch enough NBA now to know any others.
  25. WrigleyField 22
    I'll take Chiefs and the over. I think a final score in the 27-20 range is a pretty realistic. SF will try to keep the game low scoring by running the ball 40 times. I'm not sure that will be a winning formula but it will limit KCs chances. I think KC will score but they aren't going to put up 30+ against SF's defense. SF's offense looked good against the Packers but they were a mirage. I don't see them putting 30+ against KC. I like the under. I'm sure Tenn planned to run the ball 40 times too. Doubt SF is going to go in without a balanced attack ready. If they're picking up 10 yards a carry again he won't abandon it, but that's not the game plan.
×
×
  • Create New...