squally1313

Two pretty convincing wins against two of the top teams in our conference without 3 of our top 6 centers. But you know, season's still over and everything. Let's start rebuilding.

Have we heard any updates on Angel Guzman? He was pretty nasty in 09, and if he can come back healthy, our bullpen could get pretty crowded in a hurry. That would give us Marmol, Marshall, Wood, Grabow, and Guzman as 5 (hopefully) reliable bullpen arms. I don't think even the Cubs management is dumb enough to use Cash or one of our other pitching prospects in a mop up role, especially when we already have Silva for that.

This is Morin's 9th game tonight, and with Kane trying to be back for Friday, I'd say this could realistically be the last time we see Morin for the rest of the year. Enjoy him....really like watching him play.

But the salary cap implications and future health of the franchise means you do. And maybe that is the most ridiculous thing I've heard. The salary cap is real and matters. You can't keep an 8 man core all making multi millions longterm. The team is playing like crap anyway so it is a perfectly good excuse to improve your chances going forward instead of tryng to make magic happen next summer. Trading Sharp and Seabrook has to be on the table. If it is not then the team is doing itself a disservice. I think maybe you quoted the wrong thing the second time given your response. Or you just disregarded it and went back to the salary cap discussion. Either way, a couple things. 1. Again, how are we playing like crap? We're missing our second and third best forwards, the two best creators on the team. And we've still played really well in the last 8 or 9 games. I completely agree that we played like crap earlier in the year (the Edmonton games, the Devil game, etc) but I think our play and our record shows that we've picked it up since then. 2. I'm hesitant to continue talking about the salary cap issues because I really don't know all that much about it. I read SCH pretty much daily, and I remember in the offseason them saying Sharp wasn't really necessary, and then more recently saying that given what other defensemen have gotten, locking down Seabrook for just a moderate raise shouldn't be too difficult, and shouldn't cripple our cap situation. I think my whole point to the argument is that if you believe this team has a reasonable chance to compete for the Cup, as I do, you don't trade Sharp and Seabrook for draft picks and guys making the minimum. If you think we suck this year, as it looks like you do, then sure, go for it. But I disagree.

You are making a very large mistake by pretending I am only taking into account last night or even just this season's games. Trading Seabrook has to have been on the table for a long time. You can keep the core, but the core can't be that big for that long if you want to have a full team. And Sharp has been the best trade piece on the team since before they started selling, giving his production, reputation and cost certainty. The fact that they played so many games last year isn't going to change as the season goes on. They aren't going to get a break that other people don't experience to get caught up on rest. They've been mediocre, at best, all year long for a veriety of reasons. One of them is Seabrook and Keith have both been disappointing, but Seabrook is the only one of the two who is a realistic trade bait. Sharp has been the best trade piece on team since before they started selling because he is the best player out of all the options to get traded. Just because they are tradeable doesn't mean that you have to trade them. I've read articles from people who know a hell of a lot more about this than I do, and they seem to think we should be fine looking up Seabrook. Despite what we've seen from Morin and Stalberg, I still don't think, at the time, we got fair value in our offseason trades. And I think that was because teams knew we were desperate. If we do the same thing now, I think the same thing happens, and I don't think we get as lucky as we got with Stalberg, turning a third string guy on Edmonton to a first string guy on our team. And my point with the games played wasn't really about the rest. I probably shouldn't even have thrown in the point about having the shortest offseason. My point was that I think a lot of them were kinda gassed by the playoffs, and they struggled against teams that frankly they shouldn't have struggled against, given their regular season performance. And they saw a lot of teams make it into the playoffs that maybe didn't belong to be there, and even do well (Montreal, hell, even the Fliers). Maybe they subconsciously came to the conclusion that as good as they were last year, they can go 80% during the regular season (a la the Red Wings last year), and save their energy for the important time of the year. Yeah, they might have miscalculated on how good they believe they are, but I think they realized you don't have to have a regular season like they did last year to get to the Cup.

Maybe it is, but by the deadline you have to make the decision on at least Seabrook. If you resign him you are more or less committing yourself to coming back next year with the same roster. And soon enough, the cheap young talent filling spots at the back of the roster are going to get their own raises. Guys like Pisani, Skille, Stalberg and Brouwer are either UFA or RFA, as well as Crawford. If you keep Seabrook and Sharp you have to more or less start over in the process of restocking the rest of the roster. If you trade Seabrook and Sharp you get payroll relief immediately and over the next two years, plus you should get a massive infusion of talent to help fill those roles. I would much rather strengthen this team's chances in 2011/2012 and beyond than try and hold on too long to what is left from 2009/2010. As good as he was in the early going, Sharp has 1 goal in December when the team has needed the secondary scoring with the other losses. And for what it is worth, despite leading the team in points he is somehow a -8, the 3rd worst on the team. Campbell has been the most steady defensive player on the team. Seabrook has been a disappointment and the team has to be questioning the idea of signing him longterm, unless they can get him cheaply. It is December now. You can wait until the deadline, but so far this team hasn't looked anything like a playoff team, let alone a contender. Hockey teams need a kick in the pants from time to time and I think while a trade of those two may hurt them in the short-term, it is the best decision long-term. And it may be the only realistic thing they can do to wake them up. If they sneak into the playoffs with this roster and even win a series, it's a disappointment and they won't be any better off next year. If they make the move they could conceivably still sneak into the playoffs this year, and they will be better off going forward. Again, there is nothing wrong with the way we've played in the last 7 or 8 games. You can overreact to Seabrook's game last night all you want, and forget when he carried Keith the first month or so of the year, when he was the only real defenseman we had. You can look at Sharp's -8 over, again, 32 games, or his 1 goal in the last 5 games if you really want to use that. Throw the last two seasons out the window. Or maybe just consider the fact that this team played 104 games last year, without even including the Olympic games, and had the shortest time off of any team in hockey. One year ago today the Fliers were 15-15-1. The Hawks were 20-8-3. They ended up in the same spot. The hockey playoffs are pretty much as much of a crapshoot as baseball playoffs, maybe even more so. If you honestly don't think we can make the playoffs, then sure, blow the team up. But I really don't think you can say that about a team with the talent that we have.

Just a reminder....we played without Hossa, Kane, and Bolland tonight. We played with 10 forwards (no, Scott and Hendry do not count as forwards). Our third best forward after Toews and Sharp was....I don't even know, Brouwer? Who's spent half the games on the fourth line until the last couple weeks? I think we all need to calm down. The Av's were the second highest scoring team in the league before tonight, and probably are the leading team now. We knew it was going to be a high scoring game, and we had them until 2 minutes left. And anyone who was watching knows the Keith/Seabrook were almost completely to blame for the 5th and 6th goals. Maybe it's just me, but I'm not really worried about them. Seabrook was -4 tonight....going back through his game logs, I believe that's his worst plus/minus of his entire career. As soon as Q figures out that Hammer/Soupy are just as reliable as 7/2 and stops running Keith/Seabrook into the ground, they'll be just fine. I guess I don't get it....why "quit the team" now? Maybe earlier, when we were getting beat by the Oilers at home more than once with a better lineup on the ice, but now? With arguably 3 of our top 4 forwards out? Going 5-1-1 coming into this game, or even 5-2-1 after the game? That's 11 points in the last 8 games, with is a pretty good pace to be on. 10 of the next 13 games are at home. Most importantly, there are 50 freaking games left. How you guys can say that we don't care after watching a game that we came back in four freaking times really confuses me. Go watch Crawford in net....find that Jumbotron footage of Toews screaming "finish them ****ing off" from the bench....go back to those two games when Toews and Sharp willed themselves to the net by themselves and drew a penalty in the last two minutes to ice the game....just watch Seab's reaction after that 6th goal tonight....and tell me they don't care. It amazes me to go to the transaction thread, where the most common argument is sample size this and sample size that (which, for the record, I agree with), and then I come here and see you guys giving up on a team largely because of the play of the players that won us a Cup last year, as well as some seriously unfortunate injuries. Stalberg, Bickell, Skille, Morin, Crawford, Dowell....those guys aren't the problem. So you want to count us out because of 32 games of bad play from our top guys, because Hossa, Campbell, Kane, and Bolland are all missing games....go for it. Yeah, we won't march through the regular season like last year, and I admit, even getting home ice is going to be a very tough task. But I challenge anyone to name 8 teams in our conference better than we are. And you know how little home ice means in the NHL....just look at the Eastern Conference playoffs last year. We know how well Toews/Kane/Hossa/Sharp/72/Campbell/etc can play. We're seeing how good the new guys can be. We'll be fine.

It's begining to be a problem (having that bad quarter). Obviously you can't expect a team to win every quarter, but 37-12 last night in the 3rd quarter, 30-14 to Houston 2 nights ago in the 3rd, 27-18 in the 3rd to Denver a few games ago, 30-15 to Boston in the 2nd quarter, 36-22 to the Knicks in the 2nd quarter, 39-23 to Detroit in the 2nd quarter, 24-13 to OKC in the 4th. In 7 their 10 games they've had a lopsided (at least -19 points) quarter. I'm sure that's probably a typo, but only one of those games you mentioned (the Spurs game) fits the category of a "-19" quarter. I'm assuming you mean -9. And honestly, if you're going to bring it down to that kind of number, I'd be surprised if a lot of teams don't meet that statistic.

I'm with everyone else on keeping the Cubs at Wrigley, in Lakeview, long term. Like it or not, the Cubs rely on tourists money to have the payroll they do, and while some of the tourists are just Cubs fans from the days when WGN had every game, a lot of them come for the unique experience Wrigley, and Wrigleyville offers. We move the Cubs, we lose that, and suddenly we become the second most accessible baseball team to see in Chicago. That said, it's becoming increasingly clear that the stadium needs major renovations to remain safe and profitable. Just the fact that the Ricketts' asked for this bill should be a good sign of this. Thinking outside the box a little bit, is there anywhere the Cubs could play for a year or two that could give some sort of novelty factor and draw fans, while allowing Wrigley to undergo the major renovations it needs? Maybe it's just with the game coming up on Saturday, but I started thinking about a football stadium, somewhere with the crowd capacity to hold all the fans that Cubs games typically bring out. Now, I haven't been to a Bears or Northwestern football game in over 10 years, but is there any way at all one of those could be modified to accommodate the Cubs for a couple years? I mean, odds are I'm completely off base and sound like an idiot, but I think you need to find somewhere to put them for a couple years that is still accessible to Cubs fans to give the organization time to "modernize" Wrigley. Finding somewhere that draws the intrigue of both die hard and casual Cubs fans would only be a bonus.

While I agree that having those out of the game is never really a good thing, and I only saw parts of the game tonight, the +/-'s are kinda interesting... The three best players on the team for that stat were Korver (+23), Brewer (+16), and Asik (+16). Watson was even, and Rose was the only other player on the team with a positive number (+6). Obviously, I know the danger's of looking too much into a stat like that, but it doesn't seem like the bench play was really that bad tonight, especially considering the bench typically gets a lot of minutes in the second quarter where we outscored them 30-15. Just a by the way, Noah was a team worst at (-18).

Dear Lou, or Alan, or whoever the hell is in charge these days, Third basemen are allowed to bat somewhere in the lineup other than 4th or 5th. This especially applies when said third baseman has a .733 OPS on the season. Sincerely, Logical baseball fans PS Die Koyie Hill

SS/2B is comletely different from C/1B. 1B have to hit better than anybody on the field. 2B is still a position of need where a quality bat can go a long way to giving a team a huge advantage. If they can get average SS production out of somebody and really good 2B production out of Castro, I see absolutely no reason to trade the guy. Point taken on the difference between SS/2B and C/1B. Knew it was a stretch when I wrote it, and stats definitely back me up. I guess my point is that hypothetically, HJ Lee and Castro both develop enough to have a production of X, where X is considered really good production for middle infielders. What you're saying is that they can each play in the infield and we get that production from both of them. What I'm saying is that if another team has a second baseman with the same offensive production of X, but can't play shortstop, Castro and Lee would both be considered much more valuable, because of their ability to play a more premium position. So that other team would be willing to give up that second baseman with identical output and more to get one of those guys. Again, there's not much point in talking about it now, with Castro on fire 80 games in and Lee still in the lower levels. It all depends on his development. But should that very nice scenario occur....I'll just say it'd be a good problem to have.

I think it all depends on what HJ Lee can do offensively in addition to his defensive skills. If he can come up and be the .300 hitter with speed and good defense that was Castro's most likely projection before the year started, then yes, I would consider trading one of them. It would be like if Soto's injury kept him out the rest of the year and Castillo or Chirinos proved he could be an .800 OPS hitter with average pop and good patience. Sure, you could put one at first next year, but I'm sure there would be plenty of teams willing to give up an .800 OPS first baseman AND MORE to get an .800 OPS catcher. Same thing for Castro/Lee. If it turns out we have two potentially great shortstops (which would be unbelievable), yeah you could hold onto them both, or you could recognize how valuable that is and upgrade another position significantly.

I completely agree. If anything, I'd try to talk some team into thinking Silva's season this year, pre-heart problems, can be repeated, and have them take him off our hands without us having to pay all of his salary. Maybe wishful thinking, but his numbers were pretty good and you have to believe he can give a team 180 innings. If you can do that, and pencil Demp/Z/Wells/Gorz into the top 4 spots (assuming we don't get anyone else), then let Jackson/Shark/Diamond battle it out for the fifth spot. But yes, Cash should be in AAA to start the year, hopefully joined quickly by Archer, Carpenter, Rhee, etc

Like it or not, odds are we're going to have Zambrano on the team last year, and mental issues/salary aside, he's clearly got the talent to be one of our 5 starting pitchers. I agree that it would be nice to add a top arm for next year, but unfortunately outside of Lee I don't see much, and the predictions I've heard for what he's going to get (7 years, 150 million) seem like a lot for someone who will be 32 at the end of this month. Just going over the free agent list, the one I see who could be a top of the line pitcher is De La Rosa, but I haven't heard his name mentioned much so I'm assuming that he might not be on the market. I'd take a flier on Webb, and see if anything comes up through trades. On the subject of Cashner, everyone here agrees that his future is in the rotation, and hopefully at the top of it. However, with the way he's been treated this year, does anyone else think it might be best for him to start in the minors next season, and get him readjusted to starting? I'm not talking longterm, just a month or two, but it seems foolish to rush him without making sure his arm can handle it. Odds are, his inning total for the year is going to end up at around 120 (88 right now), which isn't much, but would still be a career high for him. The decision to put him in the bullpen was a bad one, and seems even worse now that we are completely out of the race and all he really needs are innings, but it is what it is. He's only 23, and there's no need to rush him. If we end up not getting a starter in the offseason, I'd be fine going Demp/Z/Wells/Gorz/Silva to start the year, as long as we don't throw one of our young starters in the bullpen. Yes, it would be a rotation that is average at best, but it would also mean that AAA's rotation would be something like Jackson/Cashner/Diamond/Shark/Atkins, with Archer/Carpenter/Rhee/etc right behind them. If one of those guys forces the Cubs to call them up, then Silva's expendable, Demp could have a trade market, or the young pitchers could be packaged in a deal. Ideally though, we pick up that top of the rotation starter that we need and our pitching is a strength next year.

His FIP this year is 3.56, just ahead of names like Sabathia and Cain, and just behind names like Greinke, Santana, and Price. I get that FIP measures all sorts of things that ERA doesn't reflect, but it's still weird to me to say that Wells has been "great." It's mostly semantics, I understand. I'd be fine with saying his peripherals are good, but the results have been mediocre. His WHIP is 1.40. That's not great. Yeah, it sounds weird, but the way I see it is that if he were to continue to pitch exactly the way he's been pitching in the future, we should expect the actual results (ERA, WHIP, etc) to be much better. His BABIP against is .336 right now, 42 points higher than last season, and way above the average pitching BABIP of .290-.300. Yes, his line drive rate is up (from 18.8 to 22.6), but so is his strikeout rate per 9 (5.66 to 7.08), while his walk rate his stayed consistent. Calculating FIP only takes into account walks, strikeouts, and homeruns (http://www.ehow.com/how_2288361_calculate-fip-statistic.html), so I assume it normalizes everything else like line drive rate, strand rate, etc. With Wells' LD% just a bit above league average, you'd expect his ERA to be a little higher than his FIP in terms out he could control (that is, eliminating strand rate and others), but not .81 higher.

So far in Tennessee.... 46.1 IP, 44/25 K/BB, 27 H, 3 ER, 1.13 WHIP, 0.59 ERA Got to love only 2 walks too.

WARNING: Really long, somewhat rambling post ahead. Didn't have a whole lot going on while I was waiting to watch Lincecum. Read at your own risk... Another thing you have to think about when considering blowing up the team is the division that we play in. Outside of the Cardinals, we're competing against 4 small budget teams. The Reds could be an offensive force for a while, but let's wait to see what Dusty does to their arms during this pennant race before penciling them in as a contender for the next few years. Brewers/Pirates/Astros don't concern me, and you have to wonder how much money the Cardinals can afford to spend. The fact that all these new contracts have so much deferred money might show how tight cash is already, and they're still looking at having to sign one of the biggest contracts of all time for Pujols, especially after Ryan Howard's contract (hometown discount or not, can you really see Albert taking less than $25 a year?). I know we've been playing awful lately, but I do really believe we've already improved the future of this team throughout the year, especially up the middle. Castro is obviously an upgrade, and could potentially provide cheap, above-average production at a premium position for a long time. DeWitt's projected .340 wOBA for the rest of the year is a massive improvement over the .287 wOBA we've put up from that position so far this year. To stay in the infield, hopefully with Lou gone next season we can bring up a backup catcher from the couple we have raking in the minors to replace Koyie Hill's stellar .477 OPS. The Cub's center field production (.360 wOBA) has been good for 4th best in baseball this year, with Byrd posting a .369 wOBA. Looking at his peripherals, his .346 BABIP is 20 points above his career average, and doesn't really line up with his 18% LD percentage and increased groundball rate. So you can expect some regression there, but at $5.5 next year and $6.5 in 2012, he's either relatively cheap above average production or attractive trade bait. If you think it's at all possible to go after Crawford, trade Byrd and hope either Crawford or Colvin can play an adequate center field. As for Colvin, assuming he doesn't hit a wall the rest of the year, I don't see how you can't give him a starting job next season. Finally, you can talk all you want about Soriano, but he's not going anywhere. With Ramirez not looking like he's going to opt out, you just have to hope he continues to bounce back, while planning for the likely chance he will miss a good portion of the season. Admittedly, it took me a long time to find someone that could fit the bill, but I'd go after Uribe in the offseason for a backup infield job. He can play third, short, and second (though he's probably eaten his way out of short) and his numbers this year .253/.319/.446, essentially league average, look legit when you look at his peripherals. At first, go after Dunn, but if it doesn't work out create a platoon of Hoff/Nady/etc, or give someone like Berkman a one year deal and wait till the next year. Really, our number one focus has to be starting pitching this offseason, particularly a top of the rotation type guy. While we've been above average in that area, losing Lilly hurts. Dempster isn't getting any younger, and the starters we have in the majors right now don't project as much more than middle of the rotation inning eaters, which honestly I don't mind while we wait for Cashner/Jackson/Carpenter/Archer/etc. Cliff Lee should be the number one priority, but I wouldn't overlook guys like Jorge De La Rosa if Lee gets really pricy, which he probably will. Our pen has been a disaster, but most research has shown that's it's pretty much a crapshoot, and I'm not all that concerned about it. Guzman comes back healthy next year, and a Gooz/Marshall/Marmol back of the pen should be more than enough to cover anyone else. It's just a matter of Hendry not using our funds on a reliever. Sorry for the short novel....really bored. But honestly, Ramirez comes back at full strength, or at least 90% of what he used to be, and we're not in bad shape offensively. DeWitt/Castro should only improve, Soto should get more at bats under a new manager, and first base hopefully won't be a black hole. Starting pitching....ideally you start out the year with Lee/Demp/Gorz/Cash/Wells(or Diamond), but we should have young arms coming up soon that can fill spots if it doesn't work out that way. I'm not expecting a team that would be able to contend in the AL East next year, but I don't see it being that hard to win our division, and try and get hot in the playoffs.

Thank god for Castro. And really, at this point I'm saying that for so many more reasons than just breaking up the no hitter.

I wonder why. Can't wait for Lou to just throw Baker in the 3 hole to take Lee's spot. God forbid he'd have to write up a whole new lineup card or anything....

With the way B Jackson's been hitting, he could probably make a decent bat off the bench if one of our outfielders goes down, or at least for September call ups.... Therefore, I think it's best that we bench him, and use him only for pinch hitting appearances in the minors. Get him used to coming off the bench cold late in games.

Hopefully Gorzo will only have to miss a start or two. He's been great so far this year. I still don't get this team though. We take, arguably, our second best starting pitching product and put him in the AAA bullpen....then bring up Stevens over him when Caridad goes down, and then signs Bob effing Howry for god knows what reason. So now if Gorzo is missing a start, who takes his spot? Thankfully, we have an offday on Monday, so we can skip his spot until May 29th, but still. Wouldn't it have been nice to have Jackson ready in case something like this happens, just so we don't have to rush Cashner or bring up someone else who would probably suck? Then there's always Z, who's "transition" to a long relief role apparently means 1 and 2 out outings. Which just makes it harder for him to get transitioned back into being a starter. I don't really know why I'm complaining at this point....should be used to it....

I'm just not sure what cap space does to help a LeBron-less Cleveland. Yeah they might get someone in a trade but they don't necessarily need cap space to make the trade. Either way, if LeBron left Cleveland, the pressure is on to do something with that team immediately. My theory is, even without LeBron the Cavs can still be relevant for 1-2 years just because of how in the spotlight they were during the LeBron years. If they can't make something of that team in that time frame the Cavs will quickly become Cleveland, wasteland of the NBA again (providing they don't strike it rich in the lottery). Grim assessment but that's what the Cavs would be looking at without LeBron IMO. That said despite everything that's been said and everything that's happened, I still think theres a good chance he stays after some reflection. His postgame quotes talked about discussing his situation with his teammates to help him make the right choice. I could be wrong about this, but I thought when he was talking about his "team," he was referring to his group of advisers, his agents/friends/family/etc. Maybe that's just the Bulls fan in me talking, but that's the impression I got....

God it would have sucked to have Soto there in the 7 spot.

Fortunately, you don't have to worry about sample size for that particular statistic. Over his career.... vs. LHP .288/.350/.555 (281 AB) vs. RHP .255/.308/.400 (525 AB)