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
-
I'd be at least vaguely curious about Porcello if we didn't already have two fifth starters in the rotation.
-
Nope. And yes, I know that's a tiny amount to quibble over. But I hate paying anything above the bare minimum for such completely fungible players. I'd rather overpay for an average player by $3 million than a replacement-level player by $1 million.
-
And I think you have to be looking for reasons not to complain to say there's nothing wrong with paying that much for a completely, utterly fungible, replacement-level player.
-
2012 MLB Awards Thread...
Hairyducked Idiot replied to Clem Fandango's topic in General Baseball Talk
Padilla. -
I am fairly convinced. Clevenger was [expletive] last year. Sub-Koyie Hill type [expletive]. True. But he's probably not *that* bad if given another chance, and Navarro's put up some stinker seasons himself.
-
I'm not mad, but I'm not convinced it's an upgrade over Clevenger either.
-
As you imply, the whole WAR/$ thing has gotten out of control. Just because the FA market averages $6 million per win doesn't mean every half-WAR player should cost you over a million. It's not linear.
-
Which I still hate.
-
This is the kind of thing that got Hendry the nickname "Retail." *sigh*
-
And we have an early favorite for the 2013 Joe Mather Award for worst WAR among Cubs position players.
-
2013 Draft Discussion
Hairyducked Idiot replied to seattlecub's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
In a word: Yes. -
The Marlins should say no to Profar alone.
-
All our outfielders are bad, old or on expiring contracts.
-
Don't need the soft-tossing lefty. If you guys had been paying attenchun, Li-riano could be better and cheaper.
-
This is all moot because he's not being traded. But if he were, yes you trade Castro if you have to, and no Rizzo to Stanton is not in any way a lateral move. Baez's ceiling is to be almost as valuable of a hitter as Stanton already is. If you think the injuries will be an issue, I get that. But to set them aside for a moment: Age 22 season, fWAR normalized to 162 games played: Stanton: 7.2 Pujols: 6.2 Bonds: 6.0 A-Rod: 5.3 He's an MVP quality hitter, and he's still younger than three of our top 10 prospects (using the FG list). We don't have anything in our system that compares with him.
-
I didn't say here. This was one of those "lol Cubs fans outside of NSBB are so stupid" posts. PSD or BN comments? All of the above and some Facebook, too.
-
He's just what we're looking for. You can't buy low if the player doesn't have some suck in him.
-
I didn't say here. This was one of those "lol Cubs fans outside of NSBB are so stupid" posts.
-
It's all completely hypothetical and pointless, but the next Cubs fan who tells me they wouldn't want to trade too many top prospects for Stanton because we're rebuilding is getting dick-punched.
-
They're getting to reap the benefits of the awesome 2011 draft (which looks a lot more awesome than it did last year at this time, I have to admit) and having the No. 6 overall pick.
-
But they're getting to reap the benefits of the drafting that went with those years, so they don't get to ignore them either. *looks at 2010 draft* yeah, um, no The three years of bad were 2010, 2011 and 2012. Why would you look at the 2010 draft, which was the result of the not-that-bad 2009 season?
-
But they're getting to reap the benefits of the drafting that went with those years, so they don't get to ignore them either.
-
That's what I like. We talked and talked about controlling the strike zone, but a lot of these cheap pitching options we're going after seemed to walk the world.
-
If there had been the expectation that he needed to try to serve both at the same time, I don't think he would have taken the job. That's confirmation bias talking.
-
That's a little premature. I mean, it's probably true, but Baker's signing doesn't make that any more or less likely.