squally1313

Over/under on home runs in that contract would be like 110.

Darnold isn't good, but the defense consistently getting off the field feels very novel for a Bears defense. They've seemingly alternated between Bad and Turnover Specialists for like 20 years.

Yeah I'm generally fine with the outfield being Happ/Shaw in left, PCA in center, Conforto/Alcantara in right, presuming that arrangement comes with a much improved rotation. Don't throw money at the bullpen, they just don't pitch enough, if Zombro and Hottovy can't develop more arms, that's on them. Generally very open to the idea of swapping Shaw and/or Ramirez for someone with similar value/contract but not a middle infielder. But as long as they don't fall into a 400+ PA starter job next year, it's fine.

Well it's obviously not a binary, don't trade any prospects v empty the farm system decision. I'm just saying it goes both ways. We are in a window where we are very much trying to win games and compete in the playoffs, and there's a pretty low likelihood that consistent PAs are available at least 4 positions (CF, 3B, SS, 2B), probably 5 unless Busch takes another step back. Yes, we'll eventually need to fill those positions, but 2027 wins are more important than 2030 wins, and the nature of the draft and IFA and everything else means that the prospect pool will get constant reinforcements. Pretty much every prospect we're talking about right now, from recent draft picks like Sorrel and Bailey to higher level guys like Ramirez, Ayers, Hartshorn....was anyone really talking about them a year ago? Which isn't an indictment on their value, it's more a statement that guys will pop up every year. I'm fine with the arguments that there are plenty of ABs to go around. But the point of trading v free agency is that trading lowers the cost because you're giving up a thing that has value. You shouldn't be trading valuable prospects for 30+ pitchers with one year left besides in a doomsday deadline situation we just had. If those are your options, then yes, go to free agency. But is there not a pitching equivalent to Pedro Ramirez out there? We suck at pitching as an organization, there has to be teams that suck at developing offense.

These are all technically arguments to trade prospects while they still have value, no?

On the one hand, trading for 'the next Detmers' and paying for a non-elite starter or two sounds a lot like 'trading for Edward Cabrera and signing Shota Imanaga to a QO'. Definition of insanity, etc etc On the other hand, this organization has essentially failed in any sort of approach to building a pitching staff (developing and maintaining internally, signing midrange starters, targeting tweakable guys) with the exception of actually paying for a big name, which admittedly doesn't seem likely here....so I don't really have a better answer.

Eh. I get your point. I wouldn't say he was 'blaming' FIP, I think he was pointing to the concept of people using FIP (or fWAR, largely based on FIP or at least, to my knowledge, not based on runner holding ability) as a proxy for 'pitchers with better FIPs/fWARs are better pitchers'. If I'm going to compare pitchers, I'm going to start with those metrics. But I think his general point was offensive fWAR theoretically tries to include every aspect of an offensive player's contributions to a game, and he's pointing out a part of a pitcher's skill set that seemingly isn't picked up anywhere. The original comment was 'xFIP (and other metrics) undervalue the vast majority of LHP'. You could certainly argue on the magnitude/importance/evidence of LHPs being better at holding runners than RHP, which I think you did down lower in your first response. I'd say his first statement was definitely oversimplifying. But I also think all he was saying was that FIP =/= 'value', and then claiming that a certain intrinsic factor not included in FIP tended to favor LHPs over RHPs. Debatable on the merits, but I was fine with the concept of pointing out parts of a skill set that aren't included in the metrics generally used to approximate 'value'

This is semantics at this point, but I think you're not thinking about this right. Stratos is, I believe, saying that people generally use FIP or fWAR or whatever as a rough metric of the quality of a pitcher in terms of their ability to help their teams win, and the fact that those metrics don't consider something like the ability to hold runners would mean that the metric is an incomplete way to value a pitcher. Like, if you and I were pitchers and struck out the same amount of hitters, walked the same amount, gave up the same quality of contact, all the things that go into FIP, but then my stretch throwing motion was a second slower to the plate, the metric would have us as the same pitcher, but you would be better at helping your team win games. At least, that's how I'm reading it.

sure sure sure

On a very hypothetical basis, given that the next time the Cubs successfully rehabilitate a pitcher coming off a serious injury in a timely manner will be the first time I can remember.....what kind of value does Horton have? Like, I'm aware this would be 'selling low'. but this is also an offense built to win in 2027, and there are at least a few teams out there that aren't.

lol good call idiot

factually incorrect opinion but let taylor get a muff or give it to them on the 8 over santos missing the kick and them getting it on the 40

again, don't leave this to santos

Arizona Phil with a report today saying the Angels actually turned down a Detmers trade (for Wiggins and likely Rojas) because they didn't like Wiggins medicals. So basically would have have Wiggins, Rojas, Ballesteros, McGwire for Detmers and Zeferjahn. And then the Diamondbacks were going to trade their top prospect for Holmes but that fell apart because the Mets didn't like the medicals on the prospect (Crisantes). So then the Mets and Cubs pivoted to Holmes/Rojas.

lol. david hamilton. why not