Jump to content
North Side Baseball

Rcal10

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    7,015

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

 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 Rcal10

  1. Rcal10
    They shouldn’t care but we know they do. And why be over by something like $2M. Why get dinged for a year over because you couldn’t get the accounting straight. I get them going close to the inner and the at the deadline if they weee in it go over. But they are not really in it. So if they are going to go half way in and out, as they did, then they should have known to be under the LT. Honestly, even if they don’t care it makes sense to not start the clock this year. Had they been all in at the deadline and went over I wouldn’t have an issue with it. Seems that was their plan. But if that was the plan the default plan should have been if they aren’t going all in at least eat under.
  2. Rcal10
    FO mismanagement is the only thing that would cause this issue. It is ridiculous that the Cubs are in this situation.
  3. Rcal10
    Well Hawkins confirmed the Cubs are over the LT. And most likely will end up over. So maybe FG is wrong or maybe it is a little more complicated than what FG is showing it to be.
  4. Rcal10
    For league minimum, prorated, I am sure someone will. I wasn’t sure if someone would before he cleared waivers. I guess not.
  5. Rcal10
    Double post.
  6. Rcal10
    Ok, so he has already been passed up by all teams. That is what I was asking. I know once he is passed up the team who does take him will only have to pay the protested of the league min salary. I didn’t know everyone already said they weren’t interested.
  7. Rcal10
    Does releasing Neris give the Cubs a chance at being under the LT? Would a team pick him up now and pay the prorated portion of his contract the rest of the year? That would be over $2M, right? If he passes through unclaimed the savings is less. Someone might do it so that someone lower in the standings doesn’t get him once he clears. Maybe???? I can hope! 🤷
  8. Rcal10
    Well that is a big reason. I agree.
  9. Rcal10
    Well it won’t be Soto either. I agree they won’t get Burnes. But no Burnes and no Soto means NO 9 figure contracts, IMO. I wouldn’t give Alonso 9 figures and I don’t think another pitcher will get 9 figures. So basically it is almost a guarantee the Cubs will not sign a 9 figure contract.
  10. Rcal10
    I doubt he even does that much, TBH.
  11. Rcal10
    Fair enough. Shouldn’t have said ”you” would say that. Should have said if he swung at what should have been ball 4 many people would complain he should have walked. Point is, if the pitch is not in the zone, and in some cases, not even close but gets called a strike, it is not something he should be blamed for. It is a bad call by the home plate umpire. Period. Why not eliminate bad calls if they can?
  12. Rcal10
    Are players really against it or just a select few catchers? I would think most players would want a consistent strike zone. And, tbh, I am not sure if it matters if the players don’t like it or not. But I would be very surprised if more were against it than for it.
  13. Rcal10
    But back then they didn’t have any other option. Now they do. So why not use it and get the calls correct. I don’t understand why anyone would want an inferior product being used when there is a better option. Hell, back in 1950’s a black and white tv was awesome. So people lived with them. Before that people lived listening to games on the radio. Now we have high def and 80 inch screens. I don’t imagine if given the choice people would choose the radio to follow a game or a black and white tv. They did before. But because now there is a better option they go with that option. No different than choosing to play with better officiating that they can now have.
  14. Rcal10
    How is the batter at fault for letting a pitch go that is 2 inches outside? And if he swung at it and missed you would be saying it was his fault because he should be in base with ball 4. That is just ridiculous to suggest a batter getting called out on a 3-2 pitch that misses the plate is at all his fault. Baseball can fix this issue. They need to fix it.
  15. Rcal10
    We might even see Assad for a few innings today. Counsil seemed to suggest that because of the low pitch count by Steele he might bring him back in the Tigers series. If he did that they could skip Assad. So he might be able to give a few innings if needed. It also seems Counsil doesn’t trust Roberts. I wouldn’t be shocked if he was sent down with either Palencia or Neely brought up(unless they pitched yesterday).
  16. Rcal10
    Yep, I can see the cubs similar to last year. Last team out. Maybe 84 wins. Lost too many bad games early.
  17. Rcal10
    Paredes will be the 3rd baseman next year. The entire year.
  18. Rcal10
    The rain delay has brought up yet another exception to the 6 inning rule. I doubt they make a guy come back after a long rain delay. When you have to have so many exceptions to a rule, there shouldn’t be a rule.
  19. Rcal10
    He has not said anything. But I don’t think we can assume Neris is the undisputed closer. I doubt Counsil would announce he wasn’t, however. Just have to wait and see. I would be shocked if Neris got to 60 appearances so I expect there will be a time he is not used. But with this team and their mismanagement of the roster, who knows.🤷
  20. Rcal10
    In the scenerio you are proposing where a pitcher is doing so poorly that the manager might try faking he is injured to get him out, wouldn’t it be probable he has given up 4 runs? So couldn’t that be why they take him out? I just don’t see fake injuries as something teams would do. But you do bring up a good point in blisters. They don’t happen too often, but when they do, I don’t feel a pitcher has to go on the IL if taken out for that reason. Which, again, is another exception. Which is why I think this is just a bad idea.
  21. Rcal10
    This is the point. When there are so many exceptions why is there even a rule? They are talking about fixing something that most people don’t even consider a problem. I don’t get it. Not that fans matter, but if you polled the fans and asked if they wanted this rule with numerous exceptions or you wanted balls and strikes called electronically I would guess 95% would choose the automatic strike zone. Let’s fix that and let managers determine how long a pitcher should pitch.
  22. Rcal10
    Well Hendricks was at 82 pitches after 5 yesterday and got pulled. And I think most people knew he would be pulled at that point. I know I was thinking he was done. So that’s at least 1😀
  23. Rcal10
    What are you talking about. The exceptions to going 6 innings has if the pitcher gets to 100 pitches or gives up 4 runs. So if a pitcher gets blown up in the 3 rd inning and gives up 4 runs he can be taken out. If a pitcher labors through 4 innings and then in the 5th gets to 100 pitches he can be taken out. A guy doesn’t have to throw 120 pitches to get through 6 innings. A starter who gives up 5 in the 1st doesn’t have to stay in the game to get 6 innings. I agree they should just leave it alone. I really don’t think they are solving a problem with this idea, because I don’t feel there is a problem to solve. But your scenarios have been accounted for if they did change the rule. Honestly all I want is a proper strike zone called automatically.
  24. Rcal10
    No, there couldn’t be an opener. But another problem with this idea is when a guy comes back from injury. Often a first start for someone is hoping to get 75 pitches or 5 innings, something like that. Now it has to be 6 or 100. Honestly, to me mlb is trying to fix a problem that doesn’t exist. Just get the automatic balls and strikes taken care of and I will be happy.
  25. Rcal10
    I think they are actually trying to lessen the amount of pitching injuries. If a pitcher knows he has to go 6 or throw 100 pitches maybe he doesn’t go max effort on every pitch. Maybe coming out and throwing as hard as he can for as long as he can is the reason for so many pitchers getting injured. By mlb saying someone has to go 6 innings that may alter a pitchers plan. I honestly don’t know, but I thought I read somewhere they were trying to limit pitchers injuries with this move. I guess it would also mean less innings for the pen. Which could help the pen guys too. Again, don’t know. To me they are trying to fix a problem most of us don’t really think mlb has. And instead of fixing the strike zone they are doing this.
×
×
  • Create New...