squally1313

I think it's an interesting test case in the debate between running your team as a business and running your team under the goal of winning a World Series. Maybe the Mets aren't the best example, though I honestly don't see the harm in giving him 100 ABs in September over a Jay Bruce or something when they're 20 games out. But let's say he was a member of the Marlins or something. You've just traded away your entire outfield, you're going to be 20 games out by the ASB, and you're already near the bottom in attendance. Sure, I wouldn't want him taking ABs away from Lewis Brinson or Monte Harrison if they prove that they're ready by then. But JB Shuck or Scott Van Slyke? I can see an argument that the bump in attendance/attention/revenue would be worth it, especially with the built in incentive to lose anyways.

I'd say DeBrincat but the shelf life of young talent in Chicago tends to be short. That's not one of the cheap ones. Kane, Toews, Keith, or Crawford all showing NHL.com shop discounts, particularly on home uniforms. Toews is obviously the safe pick. Current skill level aside, he's accomplished enough that I expect to see his jersey at the UC for the rest of my life. As a Kane jersey guy...don't do it. For me it'd definitely be Crawford...given the way this season has gone, if he's healthy going into next year it's probably fair to say he's our best player. And that's before his two Cups.

First timers, presumably of drinking age? Have to go with bleacher seats. You should be fine on the normal sale, although the Cardinal games are the ones that are most likely going to go first. Looking over the schedule, June 7/8/9 (Phillies, Pirates x2) or August 23/24/25 (Cincy x3) would probably lead to more reasonably priced tickets, either in the regular sale or through Stubhub. Obviously the Cardinals would be the best atmosphere, but assuming the Cubs play like they're supposed to, any summer weekend game will be packed.

It's gonna be real stressful, fighting for HFA While I respect the 8 game cushion, L-O-horsefeathering-L at the Brewers outscoring our offense this year.

[tweet] [/tweet] I know this is more of a fluff thread, but I'm bored so I'm going to see if I can do this without cheating. Contreras, Jimenez Rizzo, Zobrist, Russell, Bryant, Baez, LaStella Schwarber, Almora, Happ, Heyward Q, Yu, Hendricks, Lester, Chatwood Monty, Edwards, Strop, Morrow, Cishek, Duensing, Grimm, Wilson Had to cheat for Wilson, but that's it. Seems like there are usually a few battles every year, but not this year.

i could see sending out assets to salary dump heyward and/or zobrist (assuming no big bouncebacks from either) A year away, but given what it would take to dump Heyward (paying most of his salary, prospects, etc.), I wonder if they'd consider trading Schwarber for cheap production/pitching, keep Heyward in right, and move Bryce to left.

[attachment=0]Screenshot 2018-02-15 at 8.36.04 AM.png[/attachment]

To be fair, he said it right in front of Darvish. Not a whole lot of alternatives there. "Well, no, of course we didn't think he was worth what he was asking at the beginning of the offseason. I mean, did you see the World Series? But once he lowered himself to basically John Lackey money...yeah sure, then we decided to start thinking about him."

This is the roughest math possible, but with those details, the Cubs have the following lined up for 2019: Locked in ($130m): 10 players Heyward, Lester, Darvish, Zobrist, Chatwood, Morrow, Rizzo, Cishek, Duensing, Smyly Options picked up: 2 players, $19m Quintana $10.5 Strop $6.3 Arbitration (guess): 9 players, $45m Bryant $16 Hendricks $8 Russell $7 Grimm $3 LaStella $1 Baez $3 Montgomery $2 Schwarber $3 Edwards $2 That's $194m for 21 spots, 3 minimums plus...$40m a year puts us around $235. Obviously Zobrist, Heyward, Smyly, etc are candidates to at least try to dump. But even with that, i don't think that number is too outrageous.

In the last four games, they've outshot opponents 157-94, are 0-4, and have gotten outscored 16-5. Obviously shot totals aren't an end all be all, but it seems clear to me that the rest of the team has realized just how bad the goaltending is, and that no amount of offense is going to be enough to claw back into the playoffs (0.9% chance at this point). There was obviously no chance I was watching last night, but go back and watch the third and fourth goal against. Just terrible goals, and the Hawks didn't do much of anything past that, other than falling apart even more.

I think the thought, besides flipping Santana for pitching, is to let Braun start at first base against every lefty and maybe even some righties. Thames was brutal against lefties last year, and really a sub-800 OPS in the second half for a first baseman isn't going to cut it either. Braun at first base would be a disaster, but it's just first base, and maybe they're hoping for increased offense with less defensive responsibility.

Let's get Monty to buy into his role at least to start the season. Give him some selective starts against teams he can do well against, and hope he puts up similar numbers to what he has before. In a few months, I could see some team needing a starter and seeing all the team control Monty has and giving up a pretty decent package for him, which is what Monty is looking for anyways. This is assuming the rotation stays relatively healthy, and Tseng/Alzolay/Smyly show they're ready to step in as the rotation depth going forward.

But the biggest hole they have is at center. I agree that Frogger (Kruger) has taken a beating and those are hard miles. But he took so much defensive pressure off of Toews' line that it has really affected scoring. No doubt, though I think Hossa's decline and then disappearance, coupled with Saad not being future-Hossa, hasn't helped Toews. On the surface, Toews actually has pretty good metrics, his shooting percentage just plummeted a few years back and has never really recovered. I get what you're saying though...during the peak, defenses had to pick between sending their best defensive line/pairing out against Toews/Hossa or Kane. Now it's a lot easier. Between Saad, DeBBrincat, and Schmaltz, you hope that going into next year you can figure out a dangerous top line and assume/hope Kane will keep being able to produce with whoever gets thrown out there. You'll need to have a reliable checking line to make that work, but I think there are cheaper ways to do that than with a $3+m 'fourth' line center.

Yuuuuuuuuuuuuu, yu got what I need! (Get it?)

This is a rough comparison, but I've always linked Kruger and Hjalmarsson, and I was a really big fan of the Hammer/Murphy trade because Hammer spent his time in Chicago taking up the hardest shifts, doing the most punishing work, blocking shots, etc. I think it's fair to say both of them have more miles than what you'd guess from just looking at their career stats. Kruger was an incredible piece for what he did at the price he was getting paid. But even at just $3.1m next year, he's too expensive given our other holes. Kampf can hopefully be 90% of Kruger at 25% of the cost.

Haha, guessing you read the same Faxes From Uncle Dale that I did. Was going to post it, but it's behind a soft paywall. The cap staying relatively flat the last few years hurt a lot. They just weren't anticipating the Kane/Toews deals to be taking up such a large percentage. Seabrook deal, I get it. He was a hero in 2015, and I don't know what the market was back then, but I'm guessing it was around what we signed him for. Bickell deal was obviously terrible, but as good as he is, Teuvo isn't bringing this team to the top of the standings. Same thing with giving up Johns with Sharp. Danault would be a nice piece, but you can't fault them too much for making a deadline trade in 2016 after how well it worked in 2015 (though i guess you could blame the disconnect between Q and Stan on who they were acquiring, as neither player contributed much of anything). At the end of the day what you're seeing is a dynasty ten years in. The current team is nowhere near a top team, but with Crawford I'd say they would have comfortably been a playoff team (Crawford: 16-9-2, Others: 8-12-6). Over an 82 game grind, it's tough to rely on Keith/Seabrook/Toews. In the playoffs, I wouldn't have counted them out. At this point, it's not worth rushing Crawford back for a, best case scenario, sprint to a 7 or 8 seed. Hope the kids keep developing...DeBrincat/Toews/Duclair has looked good, Saad/Schmaltz/Kane can be really good, figure out a Kruger-esque line around Kampf, and then find more scoring to fill out that last line. Hopefully whatever Crawford is dealing with, it clears up by the start of next season, and give it one more good run. Got to Love the timing of taking FFUD behind a paywall just as interest in the team is about to hit a 10 year low. I saw today that Kruger was put on waivers by Carolina. I wonder if they'll put in a claim. Yeah don't get me wrong, I credit the Committed Indian newsletters for a lot of what has made me such a big fan over the last ten years. But the last few years he's taken on a weird business approach of pretty much openly hating the team that he relies on for his income, not to mention as you said trying to monetize his site about three years too late. I think they're punting on this year. Any other year claiming Kruger would totally fit their standard approach of getting the gang back together, but the last 25 games or whatever is all about bringing the kids along.

Crosby>>Toews Malkin>=Kane Keith>Letang>Seabrook (Keith/Seabrook>>>>Letang). I get the argument, especially at this point, but ultimately both teams have 3 Cups over their run. As bad as our season has been this year, we're all of 7 points behind the Penguins, and that's with Crawford being hurt and us playing in a much tougher division. We'll see if either team can add one more Cup, but I don't think the Hawks are as far away as you think for the next year or two.

Haha, guessing you read the same Faxes From Uncle Dale that I did. Was going to post it, but it's behind a soft paywall. The cap staying relatively flat the last few years hurt a lot. They just weren't anticipating the Kane/Toews deals to be taking up such a large percentage. Seabrook deal, I get it. He was a hero in 2015, and I don't know what the market was back then, but I'm guessing it was around what we signed him for. Bickell deal was obviously terrible, but as good as he is, Teuvo isn't bringing this team to the top of the standings. Same thing with giving up Johns with Sharp. Danault would be a nice piece, but you can't fault them too much for making a deadline trade in 2016 after how well it worked in 2015 (though i guess you could blame the disconnect between Q and Stan on who they were acquiring, as neither player contributed much of anything). At the end of the day what you're seeing is a dynasty ten years in. The current team is nowhere near a top team, but with Crawford I'd say they would have comfortably been a playoff team (Crawford: 16-9-2, Others: 8-12-6). Over an 82 game grind, it's tough to rely on Keith/Seabrook/Toews. In the playoffs, I wouldn't have counted them out. At this point, it's not worth rushing Crawford back for a, best case scenario, sprint to a 7 or 8 seed. Hope the kids keep developing...DeBrincat/Toews/Duclair has looked good, Saad/Schmaltz/Kane can be really good, figure out a Kruger-esque line around Kampf, and then find more scoring to fill out that last line. Hopefully whatever Crawford is dealing with, it clears up by the start of next season, and give it one more good run.

I think they have one more cup in them. They kinda ate where the Penguins were 3 or 4 years ago They'll need the cap to go up a decent amount. It feels like our cap situation seriously limited what we could do this year, and we really aren't dropping much money off the team going into next year. I know it's supposed to, but I really think next year, maybe the year after is all you could really hope for. Seabrook is pretty much unplayable now, much less the next six years of his contract. Toews has shown signs of decline for a couple years now While Keith and Kane are still playing at a very high level, who knows how long that will last (Keith will be 35 this summer).

what site are you still looking up stats on that doesn't have them and why aren't you using fangraphs for that I didn’t use anything to determine he had a good season in 2016. I always go to fangraphs for stats So you brought up 2016 (incorrectly) being the best year of his career, justify it by saying you didn't feel like looking up his peripherals, and then reference his 2017 xFIP being better than his ERA. Got it.

Plus he won the World Series, so by definition it's at least tied for the best season of his career, along with his other WS wins. Just like it was Heyward's best season.

I don’t get why people keep saying that. 34 for a starting pitcher is not exactly his peak but he seems like he fits the mold of a player who can still pitch very effectively well into his 30s. He is only 1 season removed from arguably the best year in his career. Last year was a down year but he also battled injuries for much of the year and he seemed to be stronger and more effective when he came back from his DL stint in Sept/October. In addition, his xFIP suggests he was better than his mainstream numbers suggest. He’s had seasons worse than last year and bounced back. I get it he’s in his mid-30s, is coming off a down year, and has a lot of miles on his arm. But I wouldn’t quite shut the door on Lester as a TOR pitcher just yet. His fWAR the last four years are 5.6, 5.0, 4.4, and 2.7. I don't mean to get into that common argument about the definition of a TOR pitcher...3.5 WAR would have been good for 18th in baseball last year, so by definition at least a dozen teams would have considered that performance at an ace level. But obviously the Cubs have their sights set higher than most other teams. Obviously we can't expect anyone to repeat a 2015 Arrieta season, but in 2015 the Cubs got a combined 12.3 from Jake/Lester. In 2016, it was 8.2, with what is likely a career year from Hendricks. 2017 was 5.1. This is a long way of saying that in 2015 and 2016 we had at least one, arguably two pitchers that pitched like top 10 pitchers in baseball. While I expect Lester and Hendricks to remain top 25ish pitchers, I think it'd be overly pessimistic to expect top 10 production from them. Quintana has the talent, track level, and appropriate age to get there, so I'm happy to see Zips expects that level of performance.

Cobb is projected for 2.5, which probably gives you another 1-1.5 over Montgomery when you move him to the bullpen. Given that most of these projections appear pessimistic, the one that stood out in a good way was Quintana's. 4.9 is better than he's put up in the last three years. I'd love if he took the mostly fictional role of 'staff ace' this year, especially because I just can't see Lester pitching at a high level throughout the year at this point in his career.

With aging curves the way that they are, players are incredibly underpaid at the beginning of their career, starting in the minor leagues. The MLBPA never really had an issue with it back when everyone was getting hundreds of millions of dollars to play through their late 30s, but now they aren't getting that 'catch up' money on the back end because it makes no sense from a team building perspective. Either bump up the pay scale for the young stars, or shorten the length of team control you agree to when you sign as an amateur. But good luck getting all the veteran players who have all the say at the MLBPA to agree to that.

Assume that just means like, top 3 protected right? Very slim chance they even fall out of the playoffs in the first place. Edit: Top 5, and apparently we threw in a second round pick. Whatever.