Jump to content
North Side Baseball

WrigleyField 22

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    19,007

  • 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 Pick Tracker

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by WrigleyField 22

  1. WrigleyField 22
    Very good player but that has Jay Cutler trade written all over it. Given the quality of QB prospect they can just draft, I say no. If it was a different prospect pool I'd probably be more swayed
  2. WrigleyField 22
    You're an old man struggling with technology, sorry bud.
  3. WrigleyField 22
    You made it BIG
  4. WrigleyField 22
    He's pure filth out there jeebus
  5. WrigleyField 22
    Also, on a new OC, the two major O trees they'd likely hire from are the Shannahan tree (a offshoot of which they were running past two years) or Reid tree (what he ran his rookie year). Unless he went to like the Daboll/NE offense tree, no one coming in is gonna be speaking a foreign language. So it comes more to like comfort with nuance of concepts and timing, but shouldn't be a major mental leap (you hope). Adjusting concepts and refining timing probably happens a lot year to year even with consistent Os since stake Os just get figured out as Ds adapt.
  6. WrigleyField 22
    Also some of his less accurate throws were some of his seemingly quickest. The thumb could be playing a role, but in the connection of mechanics, footwork, timing and processing (plus now thumb) you wonder the follow-on affect of each step and to what extent that can be sped up with consistent good reps. His best dime of the day was on that dart to Mooney and you definitely saw him hold it a tick long there to get set.
  7. WrigleyField 22
    See he'd be the trade deadline target next year. Maybe you add another day 3 rookie who's promising and just have a loaded RB room and some team with an injury needs throws you sixth which you pocket like a de facto comp pick.
  8. WrigleyField 22
    RB committees for life unless they luck into a unicorn
  9. WrigleyField 22
    I mean the big sell with Atlanta is just Smiths comfort and commitment to the run game... And then hoping he schemes up slot of big throws with easy reads when he does pass. Maybe selling Fields potential short,but also not requiring much or any further passer developmemt either.
  10. WrigleyField 22
    While the cap space is definitely not a deterrent, it's still also a question of what you think puts you in the best position to compete while developing that QB. There's good reason to believe Fields will leave you in a better position to compete than those FAs (thus also put less pressure on rushing the rookie), still be a tradeable asset after year where the others won't (potentially more, potentially less) and save 8-10(?) million. Of course it's not without risk, whether it's questioning Fields ability to stay healthy, risk of regression, and lockerroom concerns, but none of those should also be non starters, IMO. Though history tells us the lockerroom part tends to be treated as a non-starter. So realistically I don't expect it at all. But I think it's interesting internet forum filler to chat about lol
  11. WrigleyField 22
    Even if you thought he's a depreciating asset you can pretty easily measure that expected depreciation against what seat-holding vet would bring. What's the pick depreciation value of say, $10M in cash? You can actually quantify it pretty well. And then you put some upside/downside risk around it and should be able to come up with a pretty reasonable estimate for how to treat a QB as a depreciating asset, but certainly shouldn't be a binary decision.
  12. WrigleyField 22
    If you're saying just that, I agree. Specifically to the trade him at deadline idea I can't wrap my head around a scenario where that isn't a dumb thing.
  13. WrigleyField 22
    No other team would ever say a #1 pick is NECESSARY for a QB they believed building around. Or the trade haul from it. Would it be nice if you were already going down that route? Sure, but it'd be like a bonus. If you're using that haul around Fields, I want to know when the extension is coming, and if you aren't ready for that I don't see how you can pass on using the #1/2 on the next QB. Letting him possibly bridge (as I've pushed) it is a whole separate thing. Is 3rd OC in 4 years ideal? No. But arguably Jay Curler's two best years (at least 2 of top 3) came with his respective 4th and 5th OCs in the first year of those coordinators which were also years 5 and 7 total. If you hire the right guy, those concerns get smoothed over a ton. Not saying continuity doesn't help, but if you want a bridge QB for a rookie who knows how good any of the FA are, if they have any system/coach familiarity anyways and how much they'll cost.
  14. WrigleyField 22
    Depending on the angle it sounds pretty dumb. Are they saying bridge Fields for half a season and then trade him? They'll never do that if he's starting and they're winning and if they're losing bad enough to be trade deadline dealers it is dumb (and his value will definitely suck) and also it's dumb because then you must have a ****** environment (somehow) for the rookie. If it's carry him as a backup and then trade him it's dumb because he's not going to increase his value siting on the bench. Struggling to think of the not dumb scenario for that.
  15. WrigleyField 22
    It's possible some ownership groups didn't want to go as extreme? While the net present value is what it is, maybe they felt the 70M annual was still too precedent setting ?
  16. WrigleyField 22
    I admittedly don't know the ins and outs legally speaking, but I doubt this makes him a secured debt holder as a backdoor ownership route. The CBA already has provisions to require funding of the present value of the contract. So most of his deferred comp will sit in cash/equivalent assets. And I'm sure the prescence of CBA will stop any backdoor ownership trickery as that's the type of thing a CBA is there to do (among many others) Edit - or as a few of the comments point out he's unsecured anyways.
  17. WrigleyField 22
    100% the case. There may be some marginal interest rate arbitrage happening, but it could benefit Ohtani as easily as the Dodgers.
  18. WrigleyField 22
    Yes.
  19. WrigleyField 22
    Only 2 epic collapses from being a fluky 7-6 team due for a reversion to the mean in 2024!
  20. WrigleyField 22
    Yes a positive reversal from last year's tank track
  21. WrigleyField 22
    Top 10 in Epa - I think 9th, I think. Plus top 10 in some other EPA+derivative type stats (if we do the bad eliminate the bad sample thing)
  22. WrigleyField 22
    You say this like it's some obscure take. Sacks and fumbles are two well documented issues with passer rating that are well documented as two of Fields biggest issues too. Issue with eliminating bad samples aside, there's other advanced metrics that show his run over that time has been a pretty solid one. Your takes on him remain laughably over the top IMO.
  23. WrigleyField 22
    I kind of hate game by game passer rating evals like that. It's got enough issues as a rating, I'd rather just see it stacked up cumulatively (and then evaluate the parts it's missing too) But also, you can't evaluate Fields and ignore the early season struggles. Every game of this year was important to evaluating his future.
  24. WrigleyField 22
    Either way this one has some serious poetic meaning potential.
  25. WrigleyField 22
    I mean it's a totally reasonable Idea that NFL teams are way too fearful of despite the failure rate on such an arrangement lacking any evidence (1/1 success rate in past ~40 years, by my lazy count)
×
×
  • Create New...