neely crenshaw
-
Posts
1,898 -
Joined
-
Last visited
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
2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by neely crenshaw
-
This is seriously the worst analogy ever. Tanaka is nothing like a 25 yr old at AAA. He's a guy who has consistently gotten out hitters at a level much higher than AAA (see LaHair, Brian). It may not be ML equivalent, but it's a hell of a lot more indicative of future performance than AAA and with a much longer track record of doing it than anyone at AAA has. Nevermind the fact that if a pitcher has #2 starter upside and he's still being kept in AAA at the age of 25, the front office should be eradicated. Where were Wood and Samardzija at when they were 25?.....spending time in AAA. Blow up this front office!
-
Also if Rizzo drops another .220/.740 ops season and Castro goes .240/.620 or god forbid they go backwards, do you think the FO is looking for plan B? We are all hoping but at some point performance will have to outweigh potential.
-
It's as if you have no clue what you are talking about! Ok, please tell which team would trade their first baseman headup for Rizzo, My guess you would be few teams that is trying or hoping to win next year would do it, you might make a case for a team hoping for the future. Like it or not he has been outperformed offensively by such notables as Brandon Belt, Adam Lind, Adam LaRoche, James Loney,Chris Carter, Mitch Moreland, Justin Smoak and even Juan Francisco. Right now in baseball he is ranked 29th of all 1B, and 23rd out of 25 for those with qualified at bats. We love him, but I'm not sure the rest of baseball thinks as highly of him currently. We need him to be closer to Votto but what we got this year is Adam Laroche.
-
Are you sure he's long term? After the play of our top prospects this season (Rizzo, Samardzija and Castro) I would say that no one is a lock to be here long term. Their saving grace may be that they have played bad enough that we could not get anything close to value we hope they achieve. It seems that the only guys that seem to be locks to here in over the next 3-4 years are Baez and Soler. So Bryant is a goner? It's was just kind of a for instance, perhaps an exaggeration. With the current play of our stars, I am not sure that anyone on the MLB roster is a sure thing. With Bryant's play this summer, he does seem to be on the fast track. It sure seems like most of the positive chatter is about guys not yet on the roster.
-
nice deals but those were both salary dumps from teams that did not want to pay what the players were going to be worth soon(or already being paid). In both cases the players(ours) were worth much more a year or two earlier but had proven to be busts. Pittsburgh and Florida were just happy to get something for them. They were great deals for us but don't pretend that Hendry traded them even up for them(talent-wise) because it was all about those teams not paying them. We probably could have sent over 3 fungos and a dozen gameballs for these deal...
-
It's important to have a great farm system but it comes down to how you use them and how they develop. Hendry had a top loaded system at times but struggled to develop anyone and everyone was untouchable until they proved they couldn't play and had no value. It's exciting to see the possibilities but we also need as many to actually work out- which is a crap shoot.
-
The point isn't "get" Garza. Again I mentioned him as a known name who is set to be a free agent. It's just a for instance. Many of you are set to spend upwards of a 100 mil all told on a guy who is far from a sure thing. This isn't Yu Darvish. The scouts seem to be saying that he tops out as a #2 guy....that's a lot of cake for a guy who COULD be someone's number 2 pitcher. I could understand this a bit more if they were talking about his potential to be a big time #1 like Darvish was. I said this when we signed Fujikawa to fix our bullpen, they had success but you do not know how that translates into this league. There are more failures(or at least underperforming players) coming from asian leagues than huge successes. When you have to pay huge bids just to sign them, it's tough to see where the cost/benefit falls in your favor. Some seem to read about a guy and decide we have to have them and it'll be the fix for everything. I'm pretty sure if we had an american 25 year old in AAA, who threw low 90's and was considered a possible #2 as his high end- no one would be clamoring to spend 100 mil to get him. I know it's easy to spend other people's money but I think I take a realistic approach to it. On a team that can not afford any misses on big signings it's seems like a serious crap shot.
-
Kyle Lohse got 33mil in a terrible year for FA starting pitchers and he was one of the top names but had issues. Garza is the top name and has issues. The point isn't what Garza will get, the point is the bid certainly could be as much as what Garza gets AND then you have to pay him. He is guy that you have no idea exactly what you will get, so you are going to pay an amount that is like a top flight number guy, and you may end up with someone not even as good as Garza. On a team that can't really afford to miss on many signings, I don't see how that makes good sense. If money is no option(which sure doesn't seem to be the case) a team with huge holes on offense and good pitching doesn't seem to need to gamble all of their signing money on a pitcher who scouts COULD be a #2. He might work out great, it just seems like a huge gamble on a team that has some serious needs all over
-
The Cubs had 3 starters this year who were better than Garza, 4 if you count Feldman. Let's not pretend that Garza's performance is any more certain, especially given his injury troubles. Garza 6-1 3.17 era 1.14 whip .229 baa the cubs have no one other than Wood better than Garza. His stats with the cubs were better than anyone else this year. His stats with the rangers (despite pitching in the AL) are still better than Samardzija, and Jackson for the season. I would guess you aren't implying that we should feel Rusin is a better pitcher than Garza. Even with Wood's year, it's still difficult to say that Garza isn't the better pitcher. As for 50 mil, maybe not but I don't see anyone other than a crazy yankee team dropping 5 years and 100 mil on him. He might get 4 years, and maybe 15 mil because of lack of pitchers out there. I certainly wouldn't want to spend 100 mil on him for the Cubs. I mentioned him because he is the top FA potentially. So I just ask do you spend that much on a younger unproven guy, who may be at that level or do you probably spend less and get a guy (Garza or others) you have a pretty good idea of what you are going to get. A better, slightly younger, more healthy Sanchez got 5/80...So I can't see Garza out earning that contract, and I can't see him getting more years either. A 4 year deal at that rate would be 64 mil, so is under 60 not very possible
-
Do you truly understand how posting works? One, you only pay the fee IF you sign the player. Two, the players actual contract is generally less BECAUSE of the posting fee. The posting fee on Darvish was around the same money as his contract. On top of this, they are currently in talks to redo the system anyway, giving the player a larger cut. As for choosing between Garza and Tanaka, who both likely will get total outlays between 80-100 mill? Garza will be 30 with quite a few red flags arm-wise. Tanaka will be 25. You want the older pitcher at the same money? Me neither. I know how posting works. But if we want the player we have to pay the team and then sign him. So we could drop 50 -70 mil to talk to him, and then spend whatever it takes to get him. For a guy who "might" be a #2 that's a lot of dough. We could get Garza (just a for instance) for less than what the bid will probably be. Darvish's bid was 51.7 mil. Not sure Garza can command a deal for that amount simply because I don't think he can get the years because of health.
-
Only because they seem untouchable during the development process. The are certainly our brightest spots in the organization. Right now do you think you could get more for Rizzo or Baez? There aren't many teams out there who don't feel they have a better option at first base right now How about Castro?
-
Are you sure he's long term? After the play of our top prospects this season (Rizzo, Samardzija and Castro) I would say that no one is a lock to be here long term. Their saving grace may be that they have played bad enough that we could not get anything close to value we hope they achieve. It seems that the only guys that seem to be locks to here in over the next 3-4 years are Baez and Soler.
-
There is a chance the bid will be more than what the rangers paid to talk to Darvish simply because there are few top arms on the market. Any team(like the yankees) will have to look at this option. Reports seem to be that he is potentially very good but not a can't miss guy. He is more of 2 or 3, and his game sounds a lot like Garza (actually a healthy Garza sounds better)...so why pay 50 -70 mil to talk to him, instead of just paying Garza.
-
We seem to be set on back of the rotation guys but I do see Johnson as the type that they may take a flyer on, and the bats do also. I would think Baker comes back- he certainly owes the organization, and may not have many suitors yet. We have Villanueva, Arrieta, Russin, and Jackson. We need someone out in front of Wood and Samardzija. Tanaka may be the best, but he has questions marks, and most scouts put him as a possible number 2 but he isn't a can't miss thing like Darvish. Adding in the potential cost of even winning the bid(since there isn't much depth out there) we may have to pay more to just negotiate with him than texas did for darvish.
-
really...that's legal? It doesn't change the point. He could have value as part of a group of players that go in for a bigger name. But exactly how much more value will he add by hitting at this rate as opposed to dropping off a bit? To me he has more value in turning out to be a .280 hitter, with close to an .800 ops because exactly how many prospects would we need to bundle to get a guy that will post those numbers
-
Wouldn't we be better off re-signing Garza, and not having to over-bid and pay his posting team to just negotiate with a guy who "MIGHT" be a number 2 pitcher. We could save the bid money and sign Choo.
-
At top trade value what would you hope to get in return? A proven major leaguer? not likely unless there is a major cash dump Low minor prospect that might never even reach the level that Lake is at right now? the only possibly scenario is someone trading a similar prospect at a different position(pitching?) That's they only move that might make sense, and even then it's a crap shoot that they work out. Not to mention the FO has shown the ability to grab arms giving up far less than Lake. I personally think it would be a waste to trade him for another big arm that has to be developed. We need to find some bats and position players No one is giving us a top level prospect for a prospect themselves. Even with 1/2 a season of serious success, it's highly unlikely anyone gives up any of their top level prospects for him. So to deal him for what we need(position players) would quite possibly move us backwards.
-
Yeah, if you aren't making high school baseball teams, you aren't any good at baseball. yes. but there is truth to the stories..it just may may not be the case with every kid. If you can play..as was said earlier, of course you'll play. They won't cut the best kid to make a point BUT if there is a doubt, they are going to go with the kid that took the route that they suggested. If for no other reason than to make sure the next group of kids follows that lead. So if you(or your kid) are irreplaceable than do whatever you want, but most kids fall into the category that has to worry about it. It also depends on depth of talent. A coach at a huge school, certainly can dictate more than a coach at a class 2a school with 300 kids total.
-
Rizzo=Leon Durham(on field only) or at least he could... .277 .356 .475 .831 averaged low to mid -20's in home runs with the Cubs
-
You can't equate what was around when we were kids with today's costs. Baseball has gone to travel teams at early ages. Yes, there is little league but it is nothing like it was. Most places it is a "park and rec" program for players who aren't good enough or able to afford travel. If you look at the LLWS almost every kid is also on a high end travel club. There are teams that it costs 1500 to try out...with no refund. I met a 9 year old travel coach from Florida that was paid 65,000 a year to coach the 9 year old team. It's not little league at the neighborhood park anymore. Little leaguers might play 25 games a season, travel ball teams (even in the north) can play around 100. We played a team from Apocka (by Orlando). He had 11 players that only played baseball(this was at 14) We were playing at disney in january. He said it was their last tourney of the year, and then they would get 2 weeks off and start the new season. That's hard to compete against playing only little league.
-
Why does more talent on the field mean better or more entertaining product? The talent between pros and college is vast (always love the argument that a great college team could beat the worst pro team) but many times the actual game is better and more entertaining. You can watch some excellent, mistake free football on saturdays from guys who will never even go to a camp and it's good football. You can also watch some horrendous mistake filled NFL games from much more talented guys, and it's awful football.
-
numbers mean little other than opening day. The idea is that if you are going to be a good team, you have to have 3 or 4 pitchers on your staff that are better than a guy with a 4.50 era. It doesn't matter what number you label anyone with because #5's face #1's all the time, it's more a matter of if edwin jackson is one of your top 2 pitchers, your staff isn't very good. Really the truth is we need to add a top end guy to push everyone down a spot because right now it's hard to think of a contending having Wood as their best, and Samardzijia is not there yet either.
-
I wonder if his Japanese team feels he is a "generational" first baseman in that league?
-
Why does being in someone's rotation make you a consistent major league starter? was Volstad? There are a handful of guys pushing 20 starts that roll out a 6.00 era...I wouldn't call them consistent major league starters, heck I wouldn't really call them starters. They just happen to be on a team where they have to start. He has a 5.00 era, about half a run over his career average. On a good team he's around a .500 pitcher. He was no better than the 4 at Washington, probably a 5 with St louis and the Sox. I don't see why it's a stretch to say he should be no better than our 4. Heck hasn't he really been our 4 or 5 this year? I'm certainly hoping our young pitchers improve and we sign one more top end guy. So it sure seems like he better be 4 or 5.
-
sounds down right "Rizzo-ish"