WrigleyField 22
-
Posts
19,041 -
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
-
Jump ball: Touching the ball optional Sent from my Lenovo S5000-F using Tapatalk
-
Makes me pissed we even messed around with Tanaka. Couldn't we have signed a couple OF? -
And before anyone says veterans get narrow roles like that all the time, they're called specialists, of which Shea currently has no proven or usable specialty.
-
Unless of course you think they'll be really strict about his role where he is exclusively a third down rush guy who never has a coverage assignments which is also the type of role usually handed out to rookies, so either way, I'm gonna plan on the Bears D as if Shea was a rookie.
-
This is such circular nonsensical logic. This is not a failed catcher moving to pitcher. This is not a defensive back moving to receiver. He's moving positions but his job will essentially be the same. It is not basically his rookie year, not even close. While he does have the same essential role, there's a whole slew of extra responsibilities he has that he could easily fail at because he will be a first time LB. If he rushes the passer well, but fails at those, it reasons that he may need time like other inexperienced LBs, but that his play has room for progress rather than "this third year LB still can't cover decently". If it was no big deal for a DE to switch from LB, let the NFL evaluators know because there's a whole lot of small college d lineman who are gonna drop.
-
This isn't baseball. He's not developing. He's going to be a 25 year old three year pro this season. He's either going to perform or he is not. Yeah, he needs to contribute immediately. Honestly who cares about his age at this point? And what does it mean he NEEDS to contribute anyways. Has to produce like a 25 year old third year pro "should"? Has to just be a net positive from PFF? He needs to be a net positive while also playing a certain number of snaps? And if he doesn't meet whatever those expectations are what does mean? Does he need to be cut then? Is his career over at 26?
-
They shouldn't but they pretty much do, even from really well run organizations.
-
I want to see the type of production you get out of a good rookie. If you think he should produce like a third year player, I can already know you you're gonna be disappointed. Worse, if you're counting on him to produce like a veteran we're screwed. Now you can say, "of course I wouldn't count on this unproven LB to contribute" which is what we say about rookies. So, yes it's basically his rookie year again. If you felt he had to produce this year, you'd cut him, but Emery is obviously okay restarting his pro development since he kept him and changed his position.
-
You basically have to go in treating this like his rookie season. Uhhhh, no you don't. Expectation wise sure. Not saying his clock completely restarts, but we can't rush his development if we want to maximize his chances of contributing to this team. Just let him show progress. He doesn't need to get the customary two year leeway first round picks get, but we shouldn't expect third year LB play out of him. Or rather can't count on that production. We need to plan on him not being that good because of reality. If he exceed expectations, that's just gravy. Now maybe if you were the GM you wouldn't be willing to develop him, so the move should have been to cut him. Obviously Emery (for whatever reason) did not want to cut him. There's no logic to a position change then carry sink or swim type expectations. If he plays like a good rookie LB, I'd say we would keep him, whereas most third year first round picks, you'd be thinking about cutting them.
-
Great post. With that being the case, it's just as exciting to hear about the hours of LB drills as his new physic (not that you'd expect less, but the two things together are reason for optimism). I still think this year we have to approach with expectations of a part time player, but hopefully he can be impactful in limited snaps.
-
You basically have to go in treating this like his rookie season.
-
I didn't think the front office changed at all post-Sloan.
-
Who is the Cubs #48 prospect?
WrigleyField 22 replied to CaliforniaRaisin's topic in Cubs Minor League Talk
I can't believe we're still talking about Vitters 30 spots after he was ranked. -
So his problem was being too fat, not too small? I'm actually shocked, the first pic is about what I look like, and that height weight about matches (but I can't run a 4.7 or bench 320)
-
Who is the Cubs #48 prospect?
WrigleyField 22 replied to CaliforniaRaisin's topic in Cubs Minor League Talk
I thinks he's done more than lost his luster. Maybe it's wrong, but I'd feel better about his struggles if I thought it was some type if combination of things but it seems like a pretty binary thing where he can't make contact and any other tools are moot because of that. Considering the contact thing was always his biggest weakness it seems to have finally blown up. To briefly compare the two again, I think Jackson is about 3 years from his high point as a prospect (2011) whereas Vitters is about two years from his last high point (his 2012 AAA time). Since then Vitters is obviously a bit of an enigma because he played so little last year, which is certainly a factor I dropping him. But Jackson has played and it hasn't been pretty, generally trending down consistently. So I think that year makes a difference. If Vitters can't stay on the field or falls on his face as a hitter or doesn't make progress at his new position, you'll rightfully see a similar drop. I think people are generally more likely to give a mulligan on a injury shortened season that showed even a little bit of hope than a just plain bad season. And I think that's the big difference, Brett had a confirmation of fears with little light at the end if the tunnel whereas Vitters has a frustrating year and a dim light at the end of the tunnel. -
Who is the Cubs #48 prospect?
WrigleyField 22 replied to CaliforniaRaisin's topic in Cubs Minor League Talk
I won't make this about Vitters because he's been discussed so much. But Brett Jackson has absolutely fallen on his face and sucked. Even in 2012 when he put up somewhat interesting AAA numbers, they were down from his 2011 AAA numbers. He's been trending down, and the switches in his swing make me feel worse about his chances than better. Whether it was the right call or not, he's now changed it twice in two years and he already had contact issues. The defense is good but not good enough to be a defense only role player. And SSS and all but the early returns on his switch back to his old swing don't look promising. That said, I know very little about the other guys at this point in the rankings, so maybe he deserves to be rated here, but he as rightfully fallen from where he once stood. -
Who is the Cubs #48 prospect?
WrigleyField 22 replied to CaliforniaRaisin's topic in Cubs Minor League Talk
I'll be bold and predict that Brett Jackson will have a better major league career than Josh Vitters. Well this isn't too bold just because Jackson currently has a better mlb career. So even though he'll never see a big league roster again, if Vitters doesn't also or fails to improve, it will remain true. -
Well maybe one bolts this year. Will happen sometime within the next three, but the odds put it at later than sooner. Though still plenty of West teams that should be much more gelled than the first year of our potential big three. Saying next year doesn't matter is perhaps a bit harsh in tone, but my entire point was that getting Melo is the number one priority, not keeping an entire roster intact or building a new full roster. Acquiring Melo inherently means creating a thin roster with meaningful gaps- it could mean a really crappy 2M per year PF or SF (with Melo being our PF in the latter) and all junk after that. Or just having a generally crappy or at best inexperienced bench and a Rose who probably will be more like second year Rose.
-
Okay Wades kind of hobbled, but pretty much, yes.
-
Well I expect him to play but he wasn't lighting the world on fire early this season despite him looking pretty good physically. The good thing is you don't need to be the regular season champ - just be your best in the playoffs but after being out of three straight playoffs I'm not holding my breath on Rose being the best version of himself in the playoffs 4 years after his last legit playoff experience. He needs time. He's not gonna be the Rose we knew in 2011, even though I expect him to generally be there physically. He's a young player who's missed a ton of time. Even Jordan needed an offseason to really become himself again after a long basketball hiatus, but he was MUCH more experienced. We should still expect to be very good, but with a year to gel and a still full strength Heat, we should expect to fall short, whereas there's a good chance the few years after that we should have expectations of being legit favorites if we play everything right. Looking at championship teams I can't think of any that really won the first year of their current build (generally speaking), other than Detroit who had a mid season trade for Sheed. If you're going for the Detroit model, then you aren't talking about getting Melo I guess. Just amnestyIng Boozer, signing Mirotic, and getting whatever roughly 7-8M remaining gets you in FA and remain flexible in trades and a top D middling O otherwise.
-
No it's really true guys, Rose isn't gonna be fully ready next year. And even if he does, this isn't the MLB where there's only money in between you and building the roster as there's just tons of stupid rules. There's no way we can add Melo and also reasonably expect to retain/add a full Championship roster. It's the NBA so you build the top first. That being said the current team without Rose and no Melo is still a contender to make it to the ECF, but realistically speaking we'll be on year one of our big three where we gutted the roster, so if 15 is our version of the 89 Bulls, 16-18 should be our 91-93 Bulls. We're not talking about tanking, but the realistic expectation of getting a top 15 player is gonna require some sacrifice, and not worrying about a guy who's never played an NBA game or even someone like Gibson if push comes to shove.
-
The only true untouchables for Melo are Noah and Rose. Butler and Taj you really wanna hold onto as they round out your top 5, but they're available if they are okay taking a lot less overall- but not sure why they would be. Even if we got Melo nest year doesn't really matter as it's another Rose recover year. I'm honestly playing for 16-18 as our peak years so that gives us time to build additional pieces. Cost is nearly meaningless. We're not gonna be in a position to be under the cap so whether Melo makes 16 or 20 were gonna have the same general restrictions from a CBA perspective. Just matters for the owners pocket book. They'll never be a NY or NJ, but we can expect them to be a Lakers type spender with the right roster.
-
NSBB Mock Draft 2014 - Patriots (wekim) on the clock
WrigleyField 22 replied to dew1679666265's topic in Other Sports
Ravens are usually a BPA team and this pick will also be a nice weapon for Flacco as well. Eric Ebron, TE North Carolina (Also considered Dix) -
Nah, Jesse Palmer is the next Luke McNown!
-
The best scenario is a S&T where they accept around Boozer, and have their pick of assets (MDJ, Mirotic, Snell, Smith, 16 pick, 19 pick, 49 pick, Sact pick, Cle Swap, 2 second rounders from Deng trade, and our own first and second for the next 5 years). There's something there to work with. But anyways, if it's a S&T we retain our MLE (about 5M), otherwise, if we're under the cap, we only have the room MLE which is only about 2.7 per for two years.
