squally1313

:good:

Oh come on guys....this thread has gotten me through 80% of the day. I know you guys have a couple more hours in you. THEO EFFING EPSTEIN.

No. he pretty much is This is gonna take some real numbers gymnastics to prove to me that Soriano is somehow an above average LFer when he is OPSing a SLG heavy .759...I'm not sure all his OF assists are still negating his lack of overall ability as an outfielder, but maybe they are. he was a 1.3 war player this year. a tick above average. Is "Above Replacement" equivalent to "Above average"? I always kinda pictured an "average" team winning 81 games, while I thought I remembered somewhere that a team full of replacement players would win like 45.

No. he pretty much is For now. He's nowhere near good enough to be making the money he is, but nowhere near bad enough to eat the rest of the contract and railroad him out of town for nothing. We'll see how he ages the rest of the way. Skill level has absolutely nothing to do with contract.

OK, awful is exaggerating it, but we have substantial money tied up in mediocre to OK players and have a good amount of guys who are overpaid and don't have bright prospects of getting better.

We lost 91 games last year. Adding Fielder and 1 pitcher is not going to result in a 18-20 game swing, particularly when you account for the fact that Ramirez is likely gone, Soriano will continue to decline, etc. Do you realize how many games were started by absolute garbage starting pitchers for us this year? Well...... since you asked........... Team record by starting pitcher CUBS are 18-16 when Dempster starts CUBS are 13-11 when Zambrano starts CUBS are 16-15 when Garza starts CUBS are 11-12 when Wells starts CUBS are 1-0 when Cashner starts CUBS are 4-13 when Coleman starts CUBS are 0-5 when Russell starts CUBS are 1-8 when Davis starts CUBS are 7-9 when Lopez starts CUBS are 0-2 when Ortiz starts Roughly .500 when a top 4 pitcher throws (58-54), 13-37 the rest of the time. Since it's not realistic to expect a fifth start to win much more than 50% of his games (and usually less), plus factoring in a relatively healthy year for the offense, we were probably a 76-80 win team, talent wise. Signing a middle of a rotation guy (or Wilson, best case scenario) bumps us up a few wins, replacing Pena with a premium first baseman gives us a few more. So, conservatively, 85 or so wins next year? Probably won't win the division, but keeps us in contention. Some financial flexibility (Soriano), a good GM, and young players emerging keeps that number going up, and we'll be in great shape in a couple years.

Garza and Castro give me hope. Fielder or Pujols would give me a lot more.

*At work, didn't see the game* *Googles* wait....HE'S FREAKING WHITE?!?!?!

According to what was said on WGN during the rain delay a couple of days ago, they do not want to start the clock on Jackson. Which is a little bit of bs. They wouldn't start the clock on him by rostering him now. He wouldn't burn an option as he wouldn't be sent to Iowa this season and players don't accrue service time for september call ups. However, it would have a few negative impacts: 1) it unnecessarily takes away one 40 man roster spot during the offseason 2) They would have to burn an option year on him come spring if he gets sent back to Iowa 3) it puts more pressure on them to give him a job out of camp if he does well The last point could be questioned and the second is only a problem if he doesn't make the team in the spring. But the first one is definitely an issue. Point number 1....I haven't spent much time looking at the logistics of the 40 man roster for the offseason, but isn't he someone we might want to protect anyways? I would think if David Patton (sorry to bring that name up) could get drafted, there would be teams willing to give their 5th starter/long relief spot to Jackson. Apologies...I was thinking Brett, not Jay when I wrote my post. All that applies to the logic of "starting the clock" when it comes to Jay, as well, but with the difference being that he's one of the guys that does need to be protected this winter. I think he'll get rostered this offseason, but if the Cubs don't see the significant issues he's had over the past 12+ months as fixable, then they may leave him off. Thanks...I agree, it is a little disappointing how he hasn't really been good for a good amount of time now. I kept thinking last year was the year he showed all that promise, but it was 2009. Then again, I thought he was older than he actually is (just turns 24 in October). Like I said, I'm seeing that we might have 40 man roster issues, but I haven't actually looked into it. If it's really a crunch, then maybe he gets left off and you hope you get lucky. But I'd love to see him battle for that 4th and 5th spot going into next year, especially with Zambrano's status up in the air and Cashner coming off a lost season. Wells hasn't really been good since 2009 either (although admittedly 99 ERA+ last year is better than what Jackson was doing), and at the very least it would give him experience and hopefully give us more depth so we're not left with the Casey Colemans and Rodrigo Lopezs of the world.

According to what was said on WGN during the rain delay a couple of days ago, they do not want to start the clock on Jackson. Which is a little bit of bs. They wouldn't start the clock on him by rostering him now. He wouldn't burn an option as he wouldn't be sent to Iowa this season and players don't accrue service time for september call ups. However, it would have a few negative impacts: 1) it unnecessarily takes away one 40 man roster spot during the offseason 2) They would have to burn an option year on him come spring if he gets sent back to Iowa 3) it puts more pressure on them to give him a job out of camp if he does well The last point could be questioned and the second is only a problem if he doesn't make the team in the spring. But the first one is definitely an issue. Point number 1....I haven't spent much time looking at the logistics of the 40 man roster for the offseason, but isn't he someone we might want to protect anyways? I would think if David Patton (sorry to bring that name up) could get drafted, there would be teams willing to give their 5th starter/long relief spot to Jackson.

Can someone explain the thought process on keeping JJax in AAA while giving Rodrigo Lopez starts for the Cubs? I know he hasn't had the best year, but what's the worst that could happen?

Man....with those splits, he'd make a pretty damn good lead off man. I kid, I kid...

I know I'm missing something....but how is going to play in any games when he's not signed to a contract?

Don't know if you're from Chicago, but he's actually a De La Salle kid. Played against him in high school.

Got them both! Most excited I've been in a while, baseball wise. Minor league forums been my favorite for a while, and it's going to get a lot more interesting.

Just give me something about Baez.

Grabows 3-0 record shows us how important the W/L stat is for a relief pitcher. Just as Garza's record shows us how important the stat is for starting pitchers.

John Grabow picks up a well deserved win. Garza goes home and kicks another puppy.

It will be interesting to see what happens if BJax keeps knocking on the door, especially once rosters expand. Now would be a really convenient time for one of those Soriano hamstring pulls or something. As for second base, though he hasn't been bad, I don't really want to see much more of Baker this year. Between Barney (barely), Flaherty, and DJ, we've got enough kids who deserve/need a second look.

I love Starlin. That is all.

Yeah I just looked at the BR MVP page for that year (http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/awards_1998.shtml#NLmvp). Some good names in there, and shows how different the voting was done then. I think what's really funny is how good the "replacement player" was back then (if I understand WAR correctly). McGwire hits 70 home runs and puts up a 1.222 OPS, and it's only good for a 7.2 WAR. Bautista's got a 1.102 OPS currently, and he's already at 6.8.

So you don't think any team would want him to be their closer if he continues his current production through next season?

He's making $3.1 million next year, in the second year of a two year contract that avoided arbitration. If he does the same thing he's been doing for the next year and a half, and then goes on the open market, you don't think there will be a single team out there who would think that he might be an upgrade over their current closer? Thornton just got 2 years/$12 million for 2012-2013. Isn't that as close of a comp as you can get?

The fact that Marshall is a non-closer reliever will diminish any return, as well as the money he'll get. I don't see him getting "a lot" more expensive, nor do I see a compelling reason to deal him. I think he's regarded very highly around the league, and a lot of playoff teams would think he would help a lot in October as a lefty specialist (even though he's more than that). In terms of salary, I can't really see him getting less than $5 or $6 million. If one of Gaub, Beliveau, etc from that list posted earlier can give you 75% of Marshall's production at 10% of the cost, isn't that preferrable?

I love Marshall as much as the next guy, but he's a reliever, and he's about to get a lot more expensive. The best way to handle the bullpen is to keep a group of young, team-controlled guys in the upper minor leagues, and plug the best 6 or 7 in for the year. Maybe pay one guy bigger money that can be your closer/high leverage guy, but we already have that in Marmol. As already mentioned, we have a bunch of lefties that are ready/near ready. They probably won't be as good as Marshall, but the money saved and the return we could get for Marshall more than make up for it. I'm assuming this won't end up being the final trade (if there is one), but if the Sox land Rasmus for Thornton and a midlevel prospect or something, I'm going to be furious. Not that I think the Cardinals would ever trade Rasmus to us, but the idea of Rasmus and Jackson (and Kemp?) in the outfield for the next 10 years makes me happy in the pants area.