Hairyducked Idiot
-
Posts
39,504 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
46
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
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by Hairyducked Idiot
-
What if Bruce is busy trying to confirm these sources? This is the 24-hour news cycle and new journalism. "Confirming" sources is an anachronism. :)
-
If that's what it takes to insert Marquis in a trade for someone instead of Marshall, it's a sacrifice I'm gladly willing to make. I'd much rather indirectly pay Marshall 4 million than Marquis 9 million. fair point, though i'm dubious that one year of marquis at $5-6M has much value to anybody. The man is a league-average starting pitcher.0
-
Hitting .288 with 31 HRs and 159 RBIs for a combined $7.5 mil over two seasons while providing solid and consistent defense at 5 positions and being a fan favorite goes a long way towards whitewashing initial overreactions. NSBB is definitive. Reality is often inaccurate.
-
#$%#*!#%@%! I had a nice, long sabermetricy post outlining the benefits in 2009 of Peavy + Fontenot/platoonbuddy in terms of runs, and came to the conclusion that Hendry would be justified in not taking a Peavy deal from a 2009-only perspective if all of the following were true: 1) He didn't think Fukudome will bounce back offensively in 2009 2) Peavy's contract would really prevent him from acquiring another RFer and a second, unnamed upgrade of about 1 win at another position that he already has in mind. But I'm not going to type all that garbage out again, and it got eaten by the login timeout monster.
-
Committing, say, $30 million of the 2011 payroll doesn't cause you to blink the slightest eye?
-
For 2009 only? Or should we have any thought at all to how that might effect 2010, 2011, 2012?
-
It's Peavy's contract that concerns me more than anything. That is not nothing. It's a lot like Soriano's, though blessedly a little shorter. There will always be a Peavy in the offseason, the guy you could probably have if you could just find the payroll for him. I can easily see this team needing one more guy in a few seasons and just running out of room. I know you don't value Peavy as much as most here, but Soriano signed an 8 year deal at age 30. Peavy has 5 years left on a deal and is 27. I wouldn't expect much regression from Peavy over the next 5 years, or at least not nearly as much as Soriano at age 38. Soriano isn't a pitcher. Didn't the whole industry agree that four-year deals for pitchers were suicide or something?
-
All those things going wrong at the same time aren't very likely. If half those things happen, they still win 90 games and make the playoffs. Bradley is a pretty good insurance policy in case things get really, really unlucky. I'm not completely certain I want to pay $35 million right now for 2011 and 2012 Peavy just to get 2009 and 2010 Peavy. [pulling numbers out of thin air to make a point]Peavy's the difference between a 90% chance of making the playoffs and a 92% chance of making them plus the difference of starting him instead of Ted Lilly in those playoffs. I'm not sure that's worth the commitment in money and prospects. It probably is, but I'm not whole-hog excited about the prospect.[/pulling numbers out of thin air to make a point]
-
It's Peavy's contract that concerns me more than anything. That is not nothing. It's a lot like Soriano's, though blessedly a little shorter. There will always be a Peavy in the offseason, the guy you could probably have if you could just find the payroll for him. I can easily see this team needing one more guy in a few seasons and just running out of room.
-
Leads me to believe the newspapers are buying Towers' desperate spin.
-
The idea is to not get swept in the postseason. The more good talent you add, the more likely it is to win - though that's certainly not the only factor. I'm mostly tongue-in-cheek on the "too much" thing, but the odds of any individual player being the difference in a five-game playoff series is almost nil.
-
You're complaining that they're trying to improve the team too much? I mean, you have a point, but as a fan, I'd have no problem with trying to field a team with all stars at every position. Sure, the playoffs are a crapshoot, but I'd rather be betting on the 6 or 8 than the 10.... I'm complaining about the team going a little too far in "win right now and screw the future" mode. If you can get Bradley, you are a playoff team in the NL to as certain of a degree as you can make it. Save Vitters and keep your payroll flexibility.
-
Bradley and Peavy? Isn't there a point when it's just wasteful and inefficient? Do you really need to try to win 110 games in the regular season?
-
You let me know when IMB! breaks your heart. to be honest, every time he is mean to me and doesn't show me the respect of capital letters, a little piece of me dies inside. but then i think about how we both like shawshank redemption and its all good Peavy's 2006 is weird, I wonder what was happening there.
-
Same five pitchers, cherrypicking the worst of their previous three seasons as starting pitchers: 46 innings,, 104 ERA+ 202 innings, 99 ERA+ 189 innings, 114 ERA+ 115 innings, 63 ERA+ 182 innings, 106 ERA+ I love you Kyle i love you too, but we can't be moviebuddies, that slot is taken
-
Same five pitchers, cherrypicking the worst of their previous three seasons as starting pitchers: 46 innings,, 104 ERA+ 202 innings, 99 ERA+ 189 innings, 114 ERA+ 115 innings, 63 ERA+ 182 innings, 106 ERA+
-
Towers has said that it's all up to Jim now from his quotes yesterday and today, What's keeping him from pulling the trigger and being hesitant? Towers seems to want to get this done asap. Usually Hendry is real quick when it comes to getting a caliber player such as Peavy. Peavy has possible elbow problems and a ginormous contract at a time when teams seem to be scaling back on payroll. And San Diego wants a fortune for him despite him all but saying he will only go to the Cubs. Hendry has a few reasons to be cautious.
-
Dammit Jim. It was kind of obvious when Towers went to the media talking about how close it was. He's putting pressure on Hendry because Hendry is reluctant.
-
08-09' Blackhawks (46-24-12) 104 PTS - 4th Seed In The West!
Hairyducked Idiot replied to Cynosure's topic in Other Sports
I pledge you the middle name of my first-born son. -
08-09' Blackhawks (46-24-12) 104 PTS - 4th Seed In The West!
Hairyducked Idiot replied to Cynosure's topic in Other Sports
SOLs screw with the winning % system, since it's technically a loss for one team and a win for the other, and yet an extra point is awarded. what I'm asking is why not ditch SOL's, make it a straight up W-L record and go with win %? They feel that ties are the end of regulation are boring, and that any system that doesn't give something to the loser will lead to boring, defensive endgames. -
08-09' Blackhawks (46-24-12) 104 PTS - 4th Seed In The West!
Hairyducked Idiot replied to Cynosure's topic in Other Sports
Wonderful stuff. Thank you. The next step would be to see how each team is translating goal differential into points. I suspect the Hawks are getting the hockey equivalent of a pythagorean screwjob. If only they'd go ahead and do Hockey Prospectus like I keep hoping. -
Towers is acting like a guy trying to finish off a sale that he's not sure he's going to make.
-
The question I'm raising is whether he'll *be* a pitcher of current Peavy caliber in 2011 and 2012. Pitchers are tough to count on.
-
Wait until you see what Peavy's contract does to us toward the end. Yea except we'll be paying for Jake Freaking Peavy. Well, if that's his name, then surely you can project how good he'll be in four seasons with strong confidence. Really? His last 5 seasons: Year ERA ERA+ 2004 2.27 171 2005 2.88 134 2006 4.09 99 2007 2.54 159 2008 2.85 134 He had one season that was clearly a fluke, are we really going to argue his worth? No. We're arguing how far you can project pitchers into the future. We're in win-right-now-immediately mode, so I'm not poopooing the deal, but rest assured there is a strong chance we won't like the last year or two of his contract.
-
Wait until you see what Peavy's contract does to us toward the end. Yea except we'll be paying for Jake Freaking Peavy. Well, if that's his name, then surely you can project how good he'll be in four seasons with strong confidence.