Lefty

Isn't that what most lefties with big loopy curveballs (like Kershaw) do? Most pitchers, even lefties with looping curveballs, don't purposefully elevate their curveballs like Hill does. And I wouldn't call Hill's curveball loopy since he spins it on multiple axis and has at least a couple variations. What makes him different is he uses the high fastball to setup high curveballs and that's what fascinates me. I've never seen a pitcher do it. Ted Lilly worked like that.

Had a dream Saturday night that the Cubs had a big lead in this game, started to give it up, brought in Doubront, but his name was Froman.

If this is true, one would have to imagine another financial crisis around the corner.

How about we just settle for the lofty standards of people who don't act like (or are fans of) complete bags of [expletive]? But who judges who's a complete bag of [expletive] and who's only a partial bag of [expletive]? We elect leaders who decide because they have much more information about these things than the common people have.

Started this very thread two months ago and had it unceremoniously locked. Because this one already existed. Thanks. I feel better now. Heyward needs to shorten his setup so his front foot is flat; my $.02.

Started this very thread two months ago and had it unceremoniously locked.

What's the point of that? Do they get to trade him now?

Matusz now with Atlanta.

Crawford didn't/doesn't control the strike zone as well, but relatively young FA, athletic with a multi-faceted game.

I doubt he was really 18.

I am a heavy drinker of the Theo Kool-Aid. If he's serious, great, I think Soler can be a terrific hitter. If Theo is engaging in puffery, that's also great.

Despite all the smoke out there about trading for Ross, Carrasco or Salazar, I wonder if we are underrating the Warren acquisition. Given the haul for Shelby Miller, doesn't it make sense that the FO would be looking for some seemingly unconventional way to add a starting pitcher? Given the Warren Fangraphs posted here, Castro for Warren and a savings of $8 million beats the heck out of the rumored deals.

Drafting team gets to keep him. Cost is peanuts, like $1K or something insignificant. And unlike the major-league version, I don't think the drafting team needs to even keep the draftee on it's AAA roster. Basically it's a free transfer of roster-fill players. Most major-league Rule 5's don't stay with drafting team; AAA draftees never get returned to original team. Heesch and Chen have been productive minor-leaguers. Best wishes to them. Thanks.

What are the consequences of someone taken in the AAA phase?

Does Hammel have an NTC? It seems Warren could slot in to Hammel's spot for $9 million less or Wood's for $6 million less. Of course all I see is freed up money for Heyward.

Seems like a lot to me in a 7/210 world for David Price. Maybe I am too low on Price?

Does the Zimmerman contract blow up our assumptions on what Shark would sign for?

Before I noticed that it was Arrieta, I thought that was a pretty nice house for an NSBB member.

Well now that Johnson is gone that factor goes away.

1) Cub fans are afraid we have an early 2000s Oakland A's problem in that we built a team for the regular season, but not one that will work in the playoffs. Way too premature to worry about that. At the 2014 trade deadline we traded Shark and the conventional wisdom was that "the plan" was reset. Just a year later we didn't "go for it" at the deadline, with the Cubs basically tied with the Giants, because we didn't want to compromise said plan. Barely two months later we lose in the NLCS after winning 97 regular season games. It will be very hard to get back to the NLCS. It is not the starting point for any discussions. 2) If you take out the four crappy starts of Beeler and Roach (that is what Replacement looks like) Cub fifth starters had the following stats: 30 GS 150.33 IP 147 H 9 W 5 L 130 K 38 BB 26 HR 4.13 ERA Not too different from Hammel and Hendricks except for innings per start. Assuming Wood stays in the pen, what or who are we looking for? I don't think one of the big three is in the cards. This front office needed a splash last year, but they now have credibility. What percentage moves can they make? Would they offer Shark a one-year plus team option deal? Would he take it to try to boost his value? His road stats weren't terrible and he collapsed after the trade deadline. Get him interested and let him face a couple of pitchers a game. James Shields is now 4/60, something the Cubs probably would have given him last year. He is a year older and did not have a great year. He might save the bullpen some serious innings and maybe the Padres will "Montero" him. There are probably some guys who are FAs after 2016. They are probably candidates as well.

Compared to 2014 on the MLB level he has cut his K% from 41% to 28%, and his BABIP has risen from .248 to .412. Of course his ISO is down from .159 to .115, maybe not as bad as I thought on that one. What does the board think? Is he still part of the plan?

...but I've given up on Vitters.

We need to find out what the heck happened at the Pan Am games.

If they can sign one of the TOR pitchers in the offseason and Baez hits, "the plan" will be hitting on all cylinders. The team remains competitive and we have a free option on Castro. And if neither happens, we need a 2B, CF, and solid SP and hope that Coghlan/Denorfia continue their decent seasons next year. Couldn't Castro be the second baseman? Oh, that also doesn't work out? Yeah, sometimes the worst possible scenario plays out. I guess that leaves us near the .500 mark.

If they can sign one of the TOR pitchers in the offseason and Baez hits, "the plan" will be hitting on all cylinders. The team remains competitive and we have a free option on Castro.