Jump to content
North Side Baseball

Hairyducked Idiot

Old-Timey Member
  • 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

  1. I don't think Ian Stewart hits 25 home runs in his remaining MLB career.
  2. Yeah, but we probably don't want to give up Baez *and* Vizcaino. One or the other, sure.
  3. Marlin's a guy with at least one very good source inside the Cubs. ABTY has more general industry contacts and basically gives us the insider rumor mill about what the other teams hear the Cubs are up to.
  4. Then lets become the Dodgers! Wouldn't be that bad of an idea. Perennial Production/$ leaders are the worst teams in the league.
  5. Production/playing time >>>>>>>> Production/$
  6. I'm just filling in the gaps. If you have an alternative explanation for how you got 4 and decline from a guy who has consistently been better than that, I'll listen.
  7. Like I said, I'd take Morgan over Bourn based on what they would likely receive. You're overthinking this. Morgan is bad at baseball and Bourn is good at it. We have money, and we should use it to try to get players who are good at baseball.
  8. Exceedingly? No, not at all. Yes, yes it is. It's "I don't like the idea of signing the player, so what's a number that is as pessimistic as possible without being completely asburd."
  9. The market is that we need outfielders and he's the only one available on it.
  10. Bourn has been at at least 4.7 3 of the last 4 years by both B-R and Fangraphs. Starting him at 4 next year and declining from there is exceedingly pessimistic.
  11. A guy ZIPS projects to strike out 9.4 per 9 in the major this year is just barely hanging on to his lead for No. 20 in our system.
  12. Yeah, that all looks super reasonable. Keep in mind that I like to use a higher replacement level, so when I say "0" for Stewart, that's like a 1.0 on Fangraphs' replacement scale. A commenter said that it's based on 45-win replacement, so if you plug that into real playing time you get something like: Soriano (1.8)/DeJesus(1.1)/Platoon(1.3) Backups (0.6) Stewart (0.6)/Castro (4.0)/Barney (2.3)/Rizzo (4.0) Backups (1.0*) Castillo/Navarro (2.3) Samardzija/Garza/Jackson/Feldman/Villanueva = 11.0 in 113 starts according to ZIPs. So if you give the remaining 49 starts to Baker, Wood and Vizcaino in some reasonable mixture, you get roughly 13 wins total out of the rotation. Bullpen total: roughly 3.0. Total WAR: 35 Projected total: 80-82 *-ZIPS is crazy in love with Valbuena, Vitters, Clevenger, even Logan Watkins, at least to me it seems so.
  13. I think being super technical, you have 20 days after the contracts are signed to file them with the league office.
  14. Anonymity is weak. How can you make everything about you if people don't know who you are?
  15. Favre to Rodgers. Pujols to Stanton. I hate sports.
  16. We can stop with the stupidity of calling Stanton Pujols. Never! Age 22 wOBA Stanton .405 Pujols .404 Sure, Stanton has to pick up another 60 points next year to keep up, but who's to say he can't? That's what fixing swings is for.
  17. Besides, as good as he is now, imagine what he'll look like when we fix his swing and add another 100 points of OPS. Because that's what we do.
  18. But he's got a lot more power than either at the same age.
  19. 2002 Guys, we can't trade Kerry Wood, Hee Seop Choi, Corey Patterson and Juan Cruz. That Pujols kid is a great hitter, but let's not go nuts. /2002
  20. I'd rather have Stanton, especially considering ages and the relative reliability of hitters over pitchers. But I doubt we'll have nearly completed trades on the table for both simultaneously and just have to choose. If you can get one done, you do it without waiting to see on the other one.
  21. I mean, sure, you approach them about a non-Rizzo/Castro package first. But as soon as they say "We have to have one of them" you say "Yes, sir!" Heck, I'd bite my tongue really hard and probably say yes if they insisted on both.
  22. The question to "who are the Cubs offering" should be pretty close to "whoever the eff the Marlins want."
  23. DeJesus definitely doesn't belong in there. Neither do the RFers. Heck, neither do the catchers. None of the starting/backup combinations at those positions were even within spitting distance of replacement level last season (even the higher B-R replacement, which is the one I prefer). But even if you have four spots that you think might be replacement level, then the projected *average* of those four spots should be at least replacement level. You should never have playing time that projects to be below replacement level, even if it's likely that some of the player will be below (and some of them should be above). We're a long way from that. I'd say right now, the roster as constructed, if kept intact and holding to average luck, should be on pace for 78-80 wins, and they can boost that up a tiny bit by fixing the backup infield situation. But if they start dumping guys in the spring (Soriano, Marmol, Garza) and hold a few of our best guys down at AAA like they did last year, we could easily be on pace for more like 72-74.
  24. I'm kind of curious to see if we get one breakout season between our pile of good but not great AAA guys. Next year, Iowa's position player should include Vitters, Jackson and Lake, and to a lesser degree Watkins and Clevenger. It'll be interesting to see how many of them look like major leaguers heading into 2014.
×
×
  • Create New...