squally1313
-
Posts
10,343 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
23
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
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by squally1313
-
lol. my first mental draft was Bart writing on the chalkboard 'I will not care about lineup ordering'. Got lazy and decided to go with 'this is fine'.
-
This works for me, even if it's basically 2025 with a couple downgrades (one because Suzuki is hurt, one because Kyle Tucker is a really, really good hitter). By far the Nats two biggest threats offensively are Wood and then Abrams and Lile, and they're all LH hitters, so pretty soft landing spot for Boyd. Keep the ball in the park and we should be fine on that side. Scratch some runs across and start it off right.
-
Earliest since last season at least
-
The Cubs have a game off every week through April, inevitable weather related cancelations (22 of the first 25 games are played outdoor above the Mason Dixon line), and a lineup full of players who should be starting every day with the exception of maybe Busch against LHP, which is probably covered by one of the catchers. I've been burned by this before, but Kingery and the worse of Carlson/Conforto should buy a really warm and comfy hoody and get to the bench early to call dibs on a good spot. Eventually you can find a lefty masher, but not going to worry about it in March.
-
Yeah a couple times today I've had the thought that it's weird that we haven't even really seen rumored contract deals. But then, inevitably a few seconds later, I realize I just don't care. It's good enough to him to sign it, it's going to be under market, is 2026 me really going to worry about if it's $20m or $25m or if it goes till 2035 or 2038? Those aren't even real years.
-
Thing happens in 2006. Thing happens again in 2007. "once every 20 or so years" I know, it's besides the point of what you're saying, but if you're going to, for the umpteenth time, criticize statistical models as being flawed/wrong/useless, you should probably make sure that your counter argument is factually correct. It's a heavily regressed model based on conservative projections that has proven to come closer to reality in the aggregate than most other projections. If I had 30 quarters and I said that I was going to flip them all 162 times and my prediction was that each one would be heads 81 times, I would certainly be wrong compared to the results, but the process for my prediction wouldn't be flawed. As it is, it's a tool to compare how different teams project relative to each other in the hypothetical 'if every team played the season 10,000 times' way, because it's March 23rd and we don't have better 2026 data to use. If you want to come up with your predicted standings and we can compare the two and see who was closer in total, I'm happy to come back to that in October. Getting mad at otherwise highly respected stats sites for not having mastered the ability to predict a 162 game season is tiring.
-
Because it's a data point backed by a bunch of advanced statistics and we're all (mostly) baseball nerds desperate for baseball stuff? Are there better projections out there? I've generally found the FG stuff to be the best in terms of the underlying data, and throwing it out because they miss on perfectly projecting the records in a 162 game season rather than just using it as a way to see how the Cubs measure up against the other teams seems silly.
-
That's certainly a consideration, but we've also got a 7 month head start (and hopefully some goodwill built up). They're not going to sign Bregman and run a $150m payroll next year. There's a little depth behind Skubal from what I can tell looking very quickly on the pitching front. I'd probably like them to lock in either Happ or Hoerner to an extension, and there's like 12 variables on which one I'd prefer. I don't know if you want to lock in 33 year old Suzuki, but also not sure anyone else does either, so might be more reasonable than you'd think.
-
On the hand, I really like this core (especially those three guys), and from a fan perspective it will be tough to see them leave. On the other hand, in the case of a mass exodus we have roughly $150m ($244m for luxury tax purposes right now for 2026, $87m committed to next year) to replace those three, probably 2 slots in the rotation, and the bullpen, so plenty of bullets.
-
My meatball-y take is that it's a good regular season approach/staff (league average pitching with this offense and defense will win you plenty of games, and they've put in enough failsafes to avoid having to use below average pitching) but I would hate having to put together an order for a 3 or 5 game playoff. There's plenty of time for someone or someones to turn into top level pitchers between now and September, but right now there's not an ace by sense.
-
We have a lot of average to good pitchers. But here are the ZIPs FIP projections for potential Cubs starters (league average last year for starters was 4.21). Steele 3.57 Brown 3.69 Boyd 3.88 Cabrera 3.96 Wicks 4.02 Horton 4.06 Shota 4.36 Taillon 4.45 You can quibble with individual projections. I'm setting aside defense for the moment because that helps any pitcher. The good is that we have 6 pitchers projected to be above average. The bad is that in our opening day rotation, Matt Boyd is our best pitcher, and is the 66th best projected starter in baseball. Ultimately, I get the optimism. But the difference between the Cubs offense looking really good in those projections and the Cubs pitching (likely) not looking as well is because the offense is filled with players who have put up sustainable performances, and then at the staff level we have 3 guys older than anyone in our lineup and 3 guys who haven't actually done it at the MLB level yet.
-
yes. Can't imagine Ballesteros ranking too high at DH either, though obviously all positions are not created equally. Maybe? Like, I see the point. But also, we have a 35, a 34, and a 32 year old in the rotation right now. Things could go well, sure. Steele, Wiggins, etc. But also think when we're inevitably ranked like, 21st or whatever, I'll largely agree that there are a lot of other teams with better pitchers.
-
Fangraphs Positional Power Rankings so far for the Cubs: Catcher: 16th 1st: 7th 2nd: 2nd SS: 13th 3rd: 6th LF: 5th CF: 2nd RF: 8th Assume we're going to not fare as well the rest of the way, but pretty elite thus far.
-
My read on Taillon is that he's done more than enough in his career and with the Cubs to justify a spot in the starting rotation on opening day. But he's also probably shortened his rope a good amount with what's been going on, which has clearly gone beyond just the normal 'results don't matter in ST' outlook. The one year, $16m he has left is a sunk cost at this point. If he turns it around, he's too valuable to try and trade. If he doesn't, you say thank you and show him the door and let him try to catch on elsewhere. But we're probably a couple months away from that conversation at the earliest.
-
Guide to the World Baseball Classic
squally1313 replied to Brock Beauchamp's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
Would have been a little wet from all the snow that melted in the 34 degree sun today. Of course this problem is solved by doing group play in spring training and then making the ASB the whole week and doing the actual knockout tournament in July. -
I'm happy someone else said it. I have too much self respect to start running spring training numbers on a league wide basis, but there have been a lot of crooked numbers on the scoreboard. I had put it somewhat on the climate conditions and somewhat on the current pitching ramp up procedures being even more about processes than results than normal....a new ball would add to that. It certainly hasn't helped my overall concerns about the pitching staff, but coming up to Chicago in a couple weeks (snowed today) is basically a different sport. Edit: Just out of curiosity/boredom, looked at the early schedule from a location standpoint. 6 at Wrigley 3 in Cleveland (outdoors) 3 in Tampa (outdoors? but Florida) 3 at Wrigley 3 in Philly (outdoors) 7 at Wrigley There's a chance that only 3 out of our first 25 games are in good weather. West coast trip after that to get us into May.
-
x2 Captain America
-
-
Why wouldn't you challenge every call that went against you in that scenario? Conceptually you want every call correct and I would love a situation where the automated call is transmitted instantaneously to the umpire. But I think having the current challenge system coming into play 40-50 times a game would lead to a really stilted product.
-
-
I took it as a message from Brock that we needed to seriously step our game up.
-
Got it, good to know. I thought you were referencing tennis to support your argument that teams should get unlimited challenges, which I think would be a bad idea because then you'd have one every pitch. Don't disagree with this eventually needing to be fully automated.
-
https://www.shopdoubletake.com/blogs/well-played/challenge-rules-for-professional-tennis?srsltid=AfmBOopJFH0aSW7PJYhmDRoBW6vIhjpEMnlVpYmei073SHp719lSFvKK
-
I was with you and then thought about it more and maybe he's talking about not wanting to risk them being wrong and using up their challenges so that the catcher (who has a much higher success rate) can't challenge the rest of the game?
-
The scuffling Tigers, 40-44 after injuries to Framber Valdez and Casey Mize, trade free agent-to-be Tarik Skubal to the Chicago Cubs for hyped prospect Jefferson Rojas, Cubs sign Skubal to 10 year, $400m deal. Justin Verlander, seeking one last playoff run, retires, agrees to join Cubs coaching staff and relocate wife to Chicago for the rest of the season.
