squally1313

Extend the netting yesterday. The best seats in the house have had to look through netting since forever, and the people behind the dugouts complained for about a week before they realized you can't see anything. For Wrigley, bring it down to where the wall meets the foul line, or just go all the way if you're worried about screwing up sight lines with the rope at the end. As an added bonus, will make players tossing balls into the stands much more interesting, as opposed to the first two or three rows just past the dugout that basically get two balls a person every game.

crazier than all of these combined, for me, is that steve trachsel was briefly on the 2007 team. Steve Trachsel is by far the pitching name I remember most (pre Kerry Wood) from my childhood, and the best year of his career, fWAR wise, he put up a 5.66 ERA.

Yeah I get that there'd be a serious mental factor to it that pitchers would need to overcome. I guess just in a hypothetical that eliminates that concern (like in a video game world)...is it even legal?

There's probably an obvious answer I'm not thinking about....but with no one on base, no need to frame/receive the ball, and no umpire to protect, is there a rule that requires someone to catch/attempt to catch the pitch? Or can they go be a ninth fielder? I remember something about number of players starting in fair territory, but even like 40 feet back to catch foul tips/foul pop ups seems more 'effective' defensively.

Yeah I realized like fifteen minutes ago I had spent an hour debating an idea you just tossed out as a half joke. But...I was really bored.

Here's a super weird question. In the future where strikes and balls are called electronically, and there's no need for the umpire to stand over and call the pitches....are teams still going to be required to employ a catcher in that position?

Yeah I guess just given the roster, I still prefer Baez, Rizzo, Contreras, and Bryant locked into the line up, and then having everyone else basically be able to play multiple positions and use the matchups (while still leaving all of them around to see if one or two of them can develop into someone worthy of being an every day player). With the current situation, you've got 5 spots for Heyward, Schwarber, Russell, Bote, Happ, Almora, and while I have definitely lost some hope for their development, I still think there either is hope for a solid regular (Schwarber, Happ, ughhh Russell) or that they have their uses in the right situations (Almora against lefties, as an example). Bringing that number down to 4 just to slide in Francisco Cervelli doesn't really excite me right now.

If Contreras finishes with a career year like he's on pace to, and then in the offseason you go sign the catcher that was like, one of two or three people to be move valuable than him (and is four years older), and tell Contreras, undisputed starter at catcher for the last 3 years, to go join the revolving cast of outfielders, it's pretty close to kicking him out. Why wouldn't he be a regular starter in the OF? No platoon player he. He'd get more playing time, and arguably end up being even more valuable...this doesn't seem like it would be a very hard sell. In the hypothetical world where Grandal is available, wants to sign, and the front office is cool with it and won't use it as justification to not do anything else, sure. I'm in. In the other scenario, where we're plucking some version of Francisco Cervelli off the FA pile (still at around $10m/year)...I think we're making some marginal upgrade at the expense of a possibility of something more. We're stuck with Heyward on the roster regardless, and I assume you aren't bouncing Contreras around the outfield. Locking him into a spot makes the chance of a Schwarber, Happ, or Almora as above average regular Cubs very remote. And yes, for that group, maybe it's time for them to horsefeathers or get off the pot. Maybe it's past time. But doing it to bring in some revolving door of David Ross 2.0s doesn't seem like the solution. And this is all without mentioning that we're less than a year removed from Contreras falling off a cliff in the second half last year.

I am far from an expert on catcher defensive stats, and really don't even know how much of it goes into the catcher WAR on FG. But this site (hopefully reputable) makes it seem like the difference between Contreras and Grandal for framing has been 5 runs so far, with Contreras being pretty much exactly average. He had that weird thing with catcher's interference early on, which seems like it's gone away, and he's got a really strong arm. I think this is more eye test than reality. http://www.statcorner.com/CatcherReport.php

Catchers who put up 2.5 WAR or more last year: Grandal, Realmuto, Alfaro, Stassi, Cervelli, Flowers, Gomes. All seven of them. Six more if you want to move down to 2 WAR. 47 outfielders over 2.5 WAR, as a comparison. I would love signing good players, regardless of the cost. We've spent the last 8 months cursing out Tom, Theo, etc for not signing good players. It's become clear to me that we might need to be a little picky on where we decide to spend big money, and kicking out our catcher on pace for 4.3 WAR making essentially the league minimum doesn't really seem realistic. One question: Do you think the Cubs get more long-term WAR on Willson's contract by keeping him at C and signing a 2 WAR OF, or playing him in the OF (with a dash of C) and signing a 2 WAR C (who admittedly would cost slightly more than the 2 WAR OF)? So essentially your question is does Contreras have more value as a starting catcher (125ish games) or some sort of outfielder/third catcher (140ish games). In that hypothetical, it'd be close, but I still think he has more value at catcher. But given your admission that a 2 WAR catcher is more expensively than a 2 WAR outfielder (and I didn't even check to see which of those catchers is even hitting the market), why not take your 2 WAR catcher money and go get a 3 WAR outfielder, since there are a lot more of those out there? Or spend it on a Hamels replacement? For me, the time to move Contreras to the outfield (or to another team) is if/when Amaya starts looking like the real deal, which is hopefully in about 12 months. Right now he's getting BABIPed in A+, but he improved his walk rate, K rate, and ISO, and from what I've read he's solid behind the plate. If he keeps developing, the timing works out with Contreras getting more expensive and the grind of every day catching taking its toll.

If Contreras finishes with a career year like he's on pace to, and then in the offseason you go sign the catcher that was like, one of two or three people to be move valuable than him (and is four years older), and tell Contreras, undisputed starter at catcher for the last 3 years, to go join the revolving cast of outfielders, it's pretty close to kicking him out.

Fair...combining the two options. A (very hypothetically) defensively passable Contreras in CF and Grandal behind the plate is obviously an improvement over the current plan. But for all that to take place, the following would have to be true: 1. Grandal accepts our offer, which will be higher than the $16m someone tossed out considering he's making $18m this year and is on pace for his best offensive year (though, oddly, his defensive fWAR looks like it will decline for the fourth straight year). 2. The argument that catchers decline earlier doesn't apply to Grandal, since after this year he'll have 6 straight years of at least 115 games, and will be 31 years old. 3. The same front office who sees a pitching staff with 4 guys over 30 and zero viable backup plans, and a bullpen that is basically just a picture of a garbage fire, and also sees Dallas Keuchel and Craig Kimbrel wanting to play for contenders, and has yet to connect the very obvious dots, is cool moving their super cost controlled catcher to a brand new position to replace their cost controlled outfielder and add a $20m/year catcher in his 30s to an infield that is going to get expensive very soon. ...so you're saying you don't want to sign good players because they are expensive? It obviously doesn't have to be Grandal to work. Get some other 2.5 WAR catching bum on a two year contract and trade Almora for cost-controlled pitchers who don't resemble dumpsters lit on fire. Catchers who put up 2.5 WAR or more last year: Grandal, Realmuto, Alfaro, Stassi, Cervelli, Flowers, Gomes. All seven of them. Six more if you want to move down to 2 WAR. 47 outfielders over 2.5 WAR, as a comparison. I would love signing good players, regardless of the cost. We've spent the last 8 months cursing out Tom, Theo, etc for not signing good players. It's become clear to me that we might need to be a little picky on where we decide to spend big money, and kicking out our catcher on pace for 4.3 WAR making essentially the league minimum doesn't really seem realistic.

Yes, because catcher is a far more important position defensively, and because I think Willson in a corner OF spot is essentially an automatic upgrade over either the hapless bums currently taking up space. And I don't agree that finding a serviceable defensive-first catcher is some kind of dire financial burden the Cubs couldn't handle. Yeah, the 'pay more money' was referring to Grandal, which I covered above. I think it's a little naive to just assume 'replace Almora with Grandal' is some definitely viable option. Which leaves you with 'serviceable defensive-first catchers', which goes back to original point of 'like who?' Yes, catcher is more important defensively, but Contreras is much better offensively than the average catcher, which still matters.

are you talking about grandal? Fair...combining the two options. A (very hypothetically) defensively passable Contreras in CF and Grandal behind the plate is obviously an improvement over the current plan. But for all that to take place, the following would have to be true: 1. Grandal accepts our offer, which will be higher than the $16m someone tossed out considering he's making $18m this year and is on pace for his best offensive year (though, oddly, his defensive fWAR looks like it will decline for the fourth straight year). 2. The argument that catchers decline earlier doesn't apply to Grandal, since after this year he'll have 6 straight years of at least 115 games, and will be 31 years old. 3. The same front office who sees a pitching staff with 4 guys over 30 and zero viable backup plans, and a bullpen that is basically just a picture of a garbage fire, and also sees Dallas Keuchel and Craig Kimbrel wanting to play for contenders, and has yet to connect the very obvious dots, is cool moving their super cost controlled catcher to a brand new position to replace their cost controlled outfielder and add a $20m/year catcher in his 30s to an infield that is going to get expensive very soon.

You, me, and like half this board spend most of our time in the game threads complaining about our centerfielder who can't hit but grades out pretty well defensively and occasionally lucks into home runs. So your grand idea is to...move that problem to catcher, dramatically shrink the number of viable options, and pay more money to do it?

This is one of those 'here's a good idea' things that has no real answer to 'Ok, done, then what do you do next?'

Happ and Strop please and thank you.

So our best player is injured and two of our other top three hitters, who have been top 30 in baseball in offensive fWAR for the season, go through a tough stretch...and THIS is the 'team we actually have'? I thought the team we have counts on Bryant playing 150 games and Baez and Contreras putting up 4-5 WAR?

And of course 'protecting the plate' and 'putting the ball in play' would obviously still mean you would never do something like swing at ball four, which has a (checks notes) 100% success rate of getting on base.

Trading for Jesse Chavez, getting greatness from him, then being smart and not bringing him back on a two-year deal? The trade for Hamels worked out better than most people expected. Picking up the option could end up being a much different story.

Good call. They’re playing horrible baseball right now. It won’t be forever, but it certainly doesn’t inspire confidence if we have to play these guys in October. Counterpoint: This season will be an overwhelming success if we have to play these guys in October.

While I'd prefer to never play the Astros, this whole DH thing is nice right now given the state of disrepair seemingly half our roster is in. Let's hope the Baez/KB/Bote/etc. issues clear up soon.

Lot of weird blame going around for a terribly played defensive game that we lost by against one of the best pitchers in baseball.

This is far from a fully formed thought, but it seems like with Montgomery essentially piggybacking with Darvish for now, Chatwood is by default the long man, and needs to be saved for those situations where the starter doesn't go deep. With the way Lester, Hendricks, Q, even Hamels (besides last night) have been pitching, there hasn't been a lot of need for him. It's possible Chatwood isn't ready for/used to things like pitching back to back, as he's never had to do that in his career, so if you bring him in for an inning, he might be unavailable the next day, and trying to piece together 6 or 7 innings without Chatwood and Monty is pretty daunting right now. If he continues to pitch like this, he'll get more opportunities. And I think if Darvish shows he can pitch into at least the 5th or 6th consistently, that will free up Monty and give Joe more flexibility to use both of them.

Starting to look a little better