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
-
Feldman's pretty obviously pretty high on the outcome scale for pitchers with his performance through that age. I don't agree with the second part at all. If he follows the standard pitcher aging curve, we're already in the second half of his peak and the downward decline begins in a year or two.
-
That is kinda interesting, but what would happen if we compared them to all the other pitchers with similar performances through age 27.
-
xFIP Feldman 2010-2012: 4.25 Arrieta 4.45 That's not an insigificant difference given the way that xFIP squeezes the outliers toward the middle, and I still say xFIP/FIP overrates high BB guys.
-
Feldman had consistently good peripherals for a long time. There's a difference between finding value in guys who have been good but superficial numbers make them look bad, vs. finding guys who have been actually bad that you think you can turn into good. Feldman and Arrieta have identical career xFIPs. Not that xFIP is the be all end all, but he also has a nice K/9 (much nicer than anything Feldman had put up). He's not devoid of nice looking peripherals. Why would you use career numbers for Feldman?
-
He's a total slimey weirdo, but there's a difference between saying "I have a source that says X trade might happen" and directly quoting a player's agent. He directly attributed specific words to Clevenger's agent. Either he's lying or he's not about it, and I'm surprised no one has addressed it.
-
Feldman had consistently good peripherals for a long time. There's a difference between finding value in guys who have been good but superficial numbers make them look bad, vs. finding guys who have been actually bad that you think you can turn into good.
-
Maybe he's Volstad.
-
I wouldn't go that far, but I also had soured on the guy quite a bit. Doubt he'd make even make my top 20. It's funny seeing people say he's too much for IFA money when there's no concept of what the actual market is like (on our end, at least). I don't need to know what the market is to know what the approximate value of the 4th or 5th best IFA in our yearly signing period haul is.
-
But that team option is huge. I'd rather have the return from the Campana trade than what we got for Feldman.
-
Maybe we're so strapped for cash and poor now that we had to save money in the deal in order to actually pay for all these IFAs we are signing. Ricketts=McCourt basically? With the forethought to at least have a competent FO. No way. The money is getting dumped back into other areas of the franchise and just isn't available for player payroll right now. I'd be dumbfounded if that turned out to be the case. I was actually joking. But the fact that it seems plausible to some people says a lot about how badly things have gone lately on the financial front :(
-
Pundits are stupid. Except when they agree with you. Obviously, I meant the good ones. Correct. Blind squirrels, nuts, etc.
-
Pundits are stupid.
-
Maybe we're so strapped for cash and poor now that we had to save money in the deal in order to actually pay for all these IFAs we are signing.
-
And they took back a guy owed a little under $2m. So we got a few hundred thousand in salary relief *and* sent the Dodgers a few hundred K in IFA pool money. That doesn't sound good to me.
-
I saw somewhere in the madness that is my Twitter stream right now that we're sending some money with Marmol, like $2m or something.
-
There were a variety of ways we could have gotten him without these trades.
-
Yeah, that's *way* too much. Torreyes is the prospect you hope your 2nd or 3rd best IFA guy turns into. It really feels like we overpromised and misread the IFA pool trade market and are now getting bent over (relatively speaking, I mean it's still just Torreyes).
-
Wait, you didn't know this the first time you posted in this thread? No. Why is that weird? I posted an instant reaction to the fact that there was a trade, then spent five minutes forming an opinion on it through stat scouting. That's how this woks.
-
I wanted to say "of course that's not true, he's terrible." But he's terrible and it might be true :(
-
I'm not angry about it(especially if this is the last resort to get IFA money), but those two would be easier to handle as a return if it were a lot later in the month. As it stands though, I am glad they got immediate contributors. Guess we have to hope they can fix something to bring down the walks for both of them. If this was the last resort to get pool money, then we *completely* misread the market on IFA money and shouldn't have promised so much.
-
MLBTR says we got their third and fourth slots. This really looks kind of awful on a superficial glance.
-
That's basically how I feel as well. Isn't there a cap on how much they can obtain from another team's pool though? Yes, 50% of our current pool. Clevenger alone should have been enough to get all the IFA space we needed, so this is basically Feldman for two Volstads.
-
Strop was actually pretty decent last year in 66 IP. 3.69 FIP and 4.00 xFIP. BB and K rates weren't great though. I really think the xFIP/FIP formulas are borked for guys who have extreme BB or K rates in either direction.
-
Eww. Instead of prospects for Feldman, we got crappy older pitchers?
-
Aww, snap, we have a domino and it has fallen.