ToolDRT

I think Shaw probably gets us more back in a trade though. It’s not a politics thing, his leg kick spooked me a bit this year and I want a controlled young pitcher to pair with Horton.

Sorry, I meant I’d also look to extend Hoerner in that scenario where Shaw is traded for pitching.

I think I’d rather just move Shaw for pitching.

Hopefully the game next week is as good as the last packers-bears game!

Really enjoyed the game today. Wanted to see them just come out and dominate from beginning to end and they did that. Really liked Caleb’s throws today, as well.

Jed is garbage at his job, but he doesn’t set the budget. The “rich, greedy” dude is Ricketts, in this scenario.

I don’t feel the need to post much anymore, you type exactly what I’m gonna say. Our mentality is borderline foolish at this point. Glad others see it.

That’s fair, and I think you’re framing the debate correctly in terms of process over outcome. When I mention bat-missing, I’m less concerned with raw strikeout totals and more with how those strikeouts are generated — specifically whether the velocity and pitch shape combination produces sustainable whiff profiles rather than situational spikes. On the contact side, I agree that metrics like IFFB can be misleading if they aren’t contextualized with velocity bands and vertical approach angle. Fly-ball suppression alone doesn’t really solve the bullpen volatility issue if hitters aren’t being consistently put into defensive counts. That’s where velo becomes more than just an aesthetic upgrade — it compresses decision time and raises the margin for error. Injury risk is probably the unavoidable tradeoff here. High-velo arms with splitter-heavy usage almost always carry fragility flags, but that’s where I think the Cubs’ risk tolerance comes into play. If they’re treating this as a variance-management move rather than a durability bet, the calculus shifts. You accept elevated injury probability in exchange for short-term stabilization and matchup leverage. The Carter comparison is interesting too. Extremes can work, but they tend to amplify downside if the underlying command wobbles. Someone sitting in that middle ground — not purely reactive, not purely speculative — might actually fit the Cubs’ current window better than people expect. As for your last question, my background’s more economics-adjacent than baseball-specific, but I’ve always gravitated toward roster construction questions because they sit right at the intersection of risk modeling and constrained resources. Econ/PolSci is a solid combo if you’re interested in that space.

I mostly agree with the direction you’re going, but I think the real inflection point here is usage context, not just pitch diversity. The Cubs’ recent acquisitions suggest they’re prioritizing shape separation and tunneling efficiency more than raw unpredictability for its own sake. A high-velo 4-seam paired with a true splitter does create vertical separation, but only if the release consistency holds up under leverage. The question for me is whether his splitter actually plays as a bat-misser at the MLB level or if it’s more contact-management driven. If it’s the latter, I’m not sure it meaningfully moves the needle compared to what they already have. That said, the WHIP profile is hard to ignore, especially if it’s supported by weak-contact metrics rather than BABIP luck. I also wouldn’t underestimate age curve here. If the Cubs see him as a short-term volatility stabilizer rather than a long-term bullpen anchor, the fit makes more sense. Giants feel like the obvious fallback, but Chicago has been quietly willing to bet on pitch-mix upside lately, even if the surface numbers don’t jump off the page. So yeah — not a lock, but if they’re optimizing for diversity + cost efficiency, I can see the logic.

Yeah, I guess for age it’s contextual. I’m not worried about where we were as far as average team age last year comparatively. We did have some older bullpen guys that may have skewed it a little, as well as Justin Turner. But we have plenty of younger guys as well. We weren’t made up of dinosaurs by any stretch of the imagination. If your core is all out of their prime, not producing and you have no farm system then that’s one thing. But we’re not even close to that. If you’re talking about per player as in peak? Obviously you’d always like to buy guys slightly before they hit their prime or during it. But it’s important to look at the player as a whole as well. Guys age differently. Depends on many different factors. If you’re strictly paying for speed that will age differently than their power profile. For the cubs specifically, I think they need to be less concerned about value and more concerned with using the advantages they have. We’re not a small market team. We have to use our top asset which is our financial upside. Kyle Tucker should be a good example of that. You give him a 10 year deal and the odds are you’re gonna be hating that deal in year 9 or 10. But when you have the financial resources we have it shouldn’t matter. We can have a contract age poorly and still spend on other players. Thats the maddening thing about the combination of Ricketts and Hoyer. Ricketts is a cheap liar. And Hoyer is obsessed with getting value out of every dollar spent. As to win a World Series? It’s a crapshoot once you get in. We could fall into a win next year. Having said that, I think you should try and field the best regular season team every year and hope the law of averages hit during the playoffs. I don’t think any teams goal should be to field an 88 win wild card team and see what happens come postseason time. I think every team should be aiming to win the division. Control what you can control and roll the dice after that. Welcome to the forum!

Genuine. I still think you might be trolling, but either way I’m enjoying reading your posts. But I watch Frasier every night before bed and am pretentious myself so…

…I love him. This is the most fun I’ve had on a message board in years. Please stay!

To me, this seems like an obvious troll attempt. Reading only one post and quickly glancing at his profile seems to back that up. I think we should all just laugh and move on.

This is very inaccurate, and by that I mean totally accurate!

I think he’s trolling…?

Winter meetings just not as exciting as they used to be. Can’t really blame the cubs for that one. Personally, I hope one day more draft picks become tradeable. I think that would spice things up.

I’m riding this train as well.

Saw that the Red Sox are making Bregman a “priority”. Curious where Bichette winds up if the jays sign Tucker and the Sox sign Bregman.

Seems like Imai might be their top target and they’re gonna wait on that before making any other big moves. Hopefully it won’t drag too long If Tucker gets 250mil and the cubs weren’t involved I’m done with this team. That’s insane.

I saw some people mention Marte, did he have clubhouse issues or am I thinking of someone else?

This might do it

Remember, we have to save about 30 mil for in season trades that Jed will later claim were too steep in price to finalize.

Definitely agree with you on the first part.

I mean, I think it’s better when a team that’s willing to spend wins. Big market teams have their own advantages. Can’t blame them for using it.