Jump to content
North Side Baseball

Hairyducked Idiot

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • 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. Hairyducked Idiot
    Well, yes, that's what variance means. But in this case, it's not some far flung remote possibility like a ball quantum tunneling through Starlin Castro's glove. It was a very realistic possibility of a series of events that would cause the team's performance to vary from the projection. Variance. When you put out a team that projects to mid-70s wins, you are implicitly accepting the possibility that you will dismantle them at the trade deadline and lose 100 games.
  2. Hairyducked Idiot
    OK. So because something different might have happened, what did happen wasn't within the range of possibilities? Your stance on this is very odd.
  3. Hairyducked Idiot
    No. The team as constructed has a range within which they can reasonably be expected to perform. If they substantially alter what the team is, that's not variance. That's changing the composition of the team and changing the expectation for it. It's reasonable to expect teams to change around the trade deadline. I'd go as far as to say it's unreasonable to not expect it. But it's semantic quibbling at this point. Who cares whether it counts as "variance" or not? It happened and it might happen again.
  4. Hairyducked Idiot
    I was using it more as an indictment on Cubs fans.
  5. Hairyducked Idiot
    The chance to do deadline deals and shoot to an extreme is most definitely part of the variance between projections and reality. It's the same as knowing that it's OK to be an 81-win team because if variance gets you close, you can add at the deadline.
  6. Hairyducked Idiot
    That's variance. And they've more or less promised to do it again at some point, which probably means this coming season. That's ridiculous. I guess 140 losses is within the range of variance next year because they might trade the entire major league roster and bring up the I-Cubs. If they continue their current pattern of roster decisions, I'm not sure that wouldn't be an improvement.
  7. Hairyducked Idiot
    That's variance. And they've more or less promised to do it again at some point, which probably means this coming season.
  8. Hairyducked Idiot
    Shhhh. They're going to tell you that the 2012 team looked like a 100 loss team from the start. Of course it didn't. I'm not even sure the Astros were a 100-loss team on paper in spring training. But 100 losses would never have been within the variance range if not for the front office's bad decisions.
  9. Hairyducked Idiot
    Some people think we should do absolutely nothing. I think we should do a lot. Cameron's article laid out very well why, at the bare minimum, you should never do nothing. That doesn't mean I have to be happy with the bare minimum. And we haven't even gotten to that bare minimum yet. As you said, we need an OF, a 3b and (as I'm adding) a bullpen. And another starter wouldn't hurt.
  10. Hairyducked Idiot
    He was. But he also chose Volstad over Wood, Mather over anyone, Stewart over Colvin, Clevenger over Castillo, and he was in charge of putting together a cheap bullpen and did as bad of a job as could possibly be imagined.
  11. Hairyducked Idiot
    I'm beginning to wonder if Jed Hoyer is a little incompetent. I know they share duties, but technically everything that went wrong last offseason was on his desk.
  12. Hairyducked Idiot
    Well, yes. Maybe we're not all talking about the same thing? I meant "parallel fronts" as "MLB" and "the farm system." Not "International prospects" and "Domestic prospects" or something.
  13. Hairyducked Idiot
    I do. They trotted out Ian Stewart, which is just as bad. The Cameron article was a great rebuttal to what people think the Cubs should do. What they are actually doing is somewhat in line with that thinking, and Feldman certainly fits in with that line of thinking. But it's doing the bare minimum on that front and setting yourself up for failure when there's no reason they couldn't or shouldn't be more ambitious.
  14. Hairyducked Idiot
    Precisely. That's not operating on parallel fronts. That's operating on one front, and not the most important one.
  15. Hairyducked Idiot
    You're right, all plans must start succeeding and show immediate results from day one with no time to allowed for adjustments and a foundation to be built all while changing an entires organizations paradigm from the top down. Well, yes. It's a results-oriented business. If they didn't think they could operate on parallel fronts, then someone else should have been hired.
  16. Hairyducked Idiot
    The durability point is well taken, but he's been pretty good when he's been on the mound. fWAR/200 IP 2009: 3.7 2010: 1.8 2011: injured after 32 IP 2012: 3.7 fWAR is based on FIP, right? I feel like there's some weird scaling going on if a 4.31 FIP translates into 3.7 WAR.
  17. Hairyducked Idiot
    He signed for five offseasons and we're halfway through the second. Clock's ticking to not be the Pirates.
  18. Hairyducked Idiot
    At this point, I'm not convinced Travis Wood is in the 2013 rotation.
  19. Hairyducked Idiot
    He's entering his age-30 season and his career best to this point is either 125 innings of barely above averageness or 190 innings of slightly below averageness. I'm willing to call this an acceptable 5th-starter move, but any higher praise than that is just a product of severely adjusted expectations.
  20. Hairyducked Idiot
    So right now our rotation is Samardzija/Garza/Baker/Feldman/Wood with depth/swing men/Iowa guys being Vizcaino/Bowden/Cabrera/Rusin/Struck (unless he gets Rule V'd) and maybe Lout. Am I missing anyone?
  21. Hairyducked Idiot
    Finishing off the rotation, I suspect. If you squint really hard, there's kind of something there. He's going from AL to NL, which is always nice, and the peripherals are solid. SIERA slobbers all over him. A Rangers fan on another board said he can hit a little bit, though it's hard to tell with 22 career PAs.
  22. Hairyducked Idiot
    I need a CC percentage.
  23. Hairyducked Idiot
    If it meant we got Stanton, I would volunteer to let you do it.
  24. Hairyducked Idiot
    1) It's not happening 2) If it were, proverbial blank freaking check, unless you are really worried about his knees.
  25. Hairyducked Idiot
    I might in the right circumstances. If I were trying to win in the present, had a large-market payroll and had another option handy for 1b.
×
×
  • Create New...