Jump to content
Our first free agents ranking has launched, click here to see the top 40+ names in free agency! ×
North Side Baseball

WrigleyField 22

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    19,067

  • 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
    No it can also be payroll projections ie- cost savings. In some unique instances like the Cubs stand, cost savings could also be outside savings (needing to save less for the stadium) and reallocation of current funds (better record equals less amateur spending). Without a doubt, IMO, the Zell era Cubs backloaded to the point of only short term value knowing it would be sold off for someone else to deal with. That whole time value of money thing that jives with backloading only works with proper planning, is basically my point.
  2. WrigleyField 22
    For the record I'm no fan of blind backloading. Any contract has to be viewed in its entirety and on a yearly basis. Back loading is advantageous when it lines up with projected revenue gains or as a timing mechanism. Hendry era Cubs backloaded to try and inject short term value (both in wins and sale value) and it was definitely irresponsible spending that was bound to burst. The Cubs of 2013 are not at that point and revenue gains and cost savings should definitely hit the team 3-4 years down the line, not to mention cost certainty with what should be core pieces.
  3. WrigleyField 22
    Wouldn't it make sense to front load the deal given the projected payroll for the next couple of years is relatively low? Why would that make sense? They don't have much space the next couple years, but do have theoretical space in 3-5 years. 17.5 is quite a bit of money for Choo when he's 34 years old and 35 years old. What difference does it make if it's the same overall dollars committed? Paying it later is better, and it would be even if the Cubs weren't supposed to have much more money at that point. Yea I mainly threw out that structure because it seemed in line with the cubs payroll potential growth. If you aren't gonna spend the saved money you can go ahead and make it a flat 15, but after the sell off this deadline they do have holes to fill and could easily spend $20mil on a starting pitcher and a couple bullpen pieces and platoon guys. I even considered suggesting both Choo and Ellsbury, but I think that leaves too little to round out the pitching staff.
  4. WrigleyField 22
    I do 4/60 and structure it like this 10, 15, 17.5, 17.5. Gives us plenty of flexibility for rounding out the rotation and BP. INF probably pretty much set. Sign Sweeney for a few million. Schierholtz probably gets a little bump and find another RH platoon partner. LF -Choo, CF- Sweeney/Lake, RF- Schierholtz/TBD.
  5. WrigleyField 22
    Even if we're just maintaining payroll we should have a pretty healthy FA budget this summer.
  6. WrigleyField 22
    He can probably out produce Cody Ransom next year and might be about equivalent to Logan Watkins, with less patience, but a tick better power. So as utility infielders go, he could be an option as the 6th IF.
  7. WrigleyField 22
    LOL
  8. WrigleyField 22
    I don't know that Theo and Jed foresaw Nate being as good as he has been, but signing him to that deal and protecting him in a platoon has looked like a pretty [expletive] prescient move. It'd look a lot better if they had found a better other half of the platoon. Hey, no shame in taking a shot at someone like Hairston. If that had worked out the production would have been epic. No, I absolutely agree with the thought behind it, but you can't heap on too much praise, hindsight and all.
  9. WrigleyField 22
    I don't know that Theo and Jed foresaw Nate being as good as he has been, but signing him to that deal and protecting him in a platoon has looked like a pretty [expletive] prescient move. It'd look a lot better if they had found a better other half of the platoon.
  10. WrigleyField 22
    I don't know, I find it pretty unlikely they make this move unless they felt like they weren't picking up his option already. Right or wrong, they're probably moving on, hopefully they have a legitimate replacement next spring. Just to clarify, there was one tweet that the savings was $2.5m and then one of our own posters said that about covered the international penalty. Some posters are now running with that correlation. And apparently that 2.5m is 1m in salary and 1.5m in buyout, so to reach a 2.5M figure you're saying he was not being brought back, so it's more about saving yourself the 1.5m expense of cutting a player than anything.
  11. WrigleyField 22
    It'd all be okay when Giancarlo Stanton is patrolling LF.
  12. WrigleyField 22
    You can also be an inconsistent QB and put together a good 4 game stretch (ie- the last two SN winning QBs).
  13. WrigleyField 22
    Hells yeah. and please don't take into account the theory of addressing the organizational catching depth in the decision making process. Agreed. If you need organizational depth at a position you have plenty of crapshoot rounds which to address it. Especially with a position like catcher, you can probably accept you'll just fill in with whatever FA defensive minded catcher who's the least offensive 8 hitter you can find.
  14. WrigleyField 22
    Does he stay at catcher though? Or do you Harper him to OF to get him to the bigs sooner/extend his career? I realize he isn't the prospect Harper was, but it's possible (for whichever team picks him)
  15. WrigleyField 22
    Gotta say, as things stand now the top three teams are all good candidates to want to under slot. We could have an opportunity at a player who is much better than our draft slot.
  16. WrigleyField 22
    Will Vizcaino be out of options because I'd rather he just pick up innings at AAA. Dude hasn't pitched in so long.
  17. WrigleyField 22
    This I can actually somewhat agree with. So handedness would mostly be a concern for a guy switching sides with little to no experience on the other side. A guy who's already established on one side? It would be worse to move him even if his handedness says he would have an easier time on the other side. It's all about reps and teaching your body. Anyone who's been board enough to try writing with your opposite hand or throwing a ball knows you can make some pretty significant ambidextrous gains with pretty minimal effort. And a kick step takes way less precision than writing or throwing. So if you had a training camp and 4 preseason games to teach your body, that should allow you to switch sides so long as you have the athleticism and skill set required. Long is basically already a fresh slate who has to learn everything new, with the athleticism to pick up things more quickly.
  18. WrigleyField 22
    I'm not sure people even dislike Sandberg that much anyways just Sandberg fan-boys. Excluding of course those who hate him for having the name Ryne.
  19. WrigleyField 22
    CSN is 2019. Probably our best hope for 2014 is making WGN pay more for what they currently get on a 5 year agreement so that in 2019 we have all our games on the table to negotiate a new deal.
  20. WrigleyField 22
    I guess I should stop discussing it then.
  21. WrigleyField 22
    But seriously OL handedness reminds me of QB height and DE 40 times but even more superficial. Like sure there are the extremes like a 5'5" QB or an OL without hands, but are they worth considering?
  22. WrigleyField 22
    Well since you asked nicely, sure
  23. WrigleyField 22
    all things being equal then, you're going to want a lefty at LT. I wouldn't say it's dumb at all. Hub talking about it like Long's playing out of position because he and SLauson aren't flip-flopped is dumb. Completely ignoring this whole handedness thing, the Bears (Kromer, mostly) believe in having a strong interior above all other things. So you're going to want to keep a barbarian like Long (Khal Long anyone?) where he can do the most damage. In the north, you have some pretty talented and monstrous DTs. All things being equal, I really don't see how it matters. But even if all things were equal (which they aren't) I struggle to care about things that have zero impact on player evaluations.
  24. WrigleyField 22
    What position does he think Long should be playing? He thinks he's on the wrong side because he's left handed and on the right side. I kind of agree, but handedness is less important for a guard. And he's not playing LT while Bushrod (by cracky) is here. Handedness does not matter for any lineman. That's truly absurd. As a lineman on either side you have be balanced and your down hand does little in the way of weight distribution. i don't know, the prevailing wisdom is that being a lefty gives you an advantage on the left edge. I mean there probably is some advantage, but it's so minimal. I think as a LT having your strong arm on the outside helps a little with funneling guys inside so that they can't get outside your shoulder as easily. But in the grand scheme of things your feet, legs, and brain are doing like 98% of the work and from a strength perspective your non-dominant hand shouldn't be that much weaker that you can't get become pretty ambidextrous blocking-wise with repetition. I have no idea on where that prevailing wisdom comes from but it sounds awfully dumb.
  25. WrigleyField 22
    What position does he think Long should be playing? He thinks he's on the wrong side because he's left handed and on the right side. I kind of agree, but handedness is less important for a guard. And he's not playing LT while Bushrod (by cracky) is here. Handedness does not matter for any lineman. That's truly absurd. As a lineman on either side you have be balanced and your down hand does little in the way of weight distribution.
×
×
  • Create New...