Hairyducked Idiot

i can't click names Use a different template. Yeah, don't really do that.

The best pick they are getting is going to be something like No. 40 overall. From 1965 to 2005, exactly four of those picks have turned into something useful, the best of which was Kevin Tapani. In the same period, the No. 41 pick had two useful players (Dan Plesac and Fred Lynn). Each other team in our division will maybe get an extra average MLB player once a decade or so. If it helps put off the salary cap era for another decade, I can totally live with it. What I find really odd is that if a team forfeits picks by breaking its pool, that pick doesn't disappear. It goes into a lottery where all teams who didn't break their pool (including the 5% overage for tax purposes) get a chance at it. That'd be interesting if it ever happened.

I'm sure that Sweeney and Garza talks have nothing to do with each other, but I would be interested in Sweeney as a LF placeholder for a year or two, assuming we're shipping out Soriano. I mean, if he's basically free. Dave Sappelt hasn't lived up to his obvious potential.

Would you want to trade positions with any of them? We get an extra 2nd or 3rd round pick, they get our big-market resources at the MLB level? Do we get the Cardinals WS trophies and best fans in baseball? Yes, but you have to live in either St. Louis, Missouri or southern Illinois.

Would you want to trade positions with any of them? We get an extra 2nd or 3rd round pick, they get our big-market resources at the MLB level?

I kind of get the feeling we're going to be saying that a lot (with "last year" being replaced by however many years ago it is appropriate to refer to the 2011 draft). Right idea, wrong people in charge.

All-Star position players and buy pitching = 1 title Historic pitching staff and commitment to developing pitchers = 1 title Taking really mediocre teams into the playoffs = 2 titles I want to copy the Cardinals way. Which way to the pixie dust mines?

Those numbers suggest to me that small-market teams need to try to take the riskier approach of developing pitching, but big-market teams can afford to develop hitting and buy the pitchers who have already panned out for other teams.

That's absolutely amazing. I love the chart that shows how extreme the dropoff is in the top 10-20 prospects.

Because if Reed Johnson could sustain a 26% line drive percentage, he'd be a superstar on a $25 million/year contract. .390 BABIPs don't get sustained no matter what the LD% is. So he's been really good, albeit at an unsustainable level, for a couple months? That's not the same as "look at BABIP and immediately say he's been lucky" which has become all the rage. Meh. I'm not really interested in the philosophical discussion of which kinds of positive variance are "lucky" and which ones aren't. Going forward, Reed Johnson doesn't project to be a 2 WAR, .390 BABIP or 26 LD% player, and that's the part that I care about.

Because if Reed Johnson could sustain a 26% line drive percentage, he'd be a superstar on a $25 million/year contract. .390 BABIPs don't get sustained no matter what the LD% is.

From Pro Sports Daily forums

Yep, that guy. If you think Reed Johnson's that good of a hitter long-term, more power to you. I'm not buying it.

That's reasonable. But even from that point of view, if I'm trading a prospect the quality of Profar, I'd have to think I could do better than Matt Garza. Grienke, Hamels, Hernandez? Garza is in the Darvish "nice but not elite" mold.

Over his last five seasons (ages 31-35), he's a 2 WAR player per 600 plate appearances. And he'll keep being one for as long as his .390 BABIP holds out.

You guys may have mocked my plan to quit my job and become a professional roulette player, but I've made a profit *two* days in a row. Once could have been a fluke, but twice? Who's laughing now?

Maybe I'm just looking at this completely backwards, but Garza doesn't seem like remotely enough for Profar. Yeah, prospects fail. But elite, top-3 prospects with a case to be No. 1 overall? Their failure rate isn't *that* high. The excess value of six cost-controlled years of Profar, discounted by the failure rate, dwarfs Garza's.

You're absolutely right. I lazily oversimplified (I'm as shocked as you are). They were solid but unlucky from 1909-1930ish, mediocre in the 1940s, awful in the 1950s, good but not good enough in the 1960s, etc.

2003 was worse. Because of the 1908 thing, 1984 wasn't exactly just happy to be there, but it was the first Cubs playoff action in 39 years. 2003 had all the weight and ramifications that 1984 did, on top of the hope that it could make up for 1984. Plus, 2003 was a better team and had a better position than 1984 did, given who was starting the final two games. The amount of negative variance the Cubs have experienced is just truly, truly staggering when you stop and think about it. From 1909 to 1983, they were an awful franchise, but they also lost seven consecutive playoff series. Stuff like 1969 and 2004 happen to all franchises once in awhile. But the Cubs playoff performance? Since 1909: 1-13 in playoff series Since leading 2-0 in the 1984 NLCS: 8-23 in playoff games 0-6 in pennant-clinching games Since leading 3-2 in 2003 NLCS 8 consecutive playoff losses, all by at least two runs, for a total run differential of -33. There's just no good reason why teams good enough to make the playoffs should have a collective pants-pooping like that. The Cubs were already the worst franchise, but in the last three decades they've become the unluckiest as well.

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/danny-knobler/19535517/tigers-have-some-interest-in-garza-and-more-notes-from-all-star-futures-sunday

I'm trying to put my proposed plan together, and I keep running out of starters. I think Garza's as good as gone, and I'm not sure we're going to get someone who can be comfortably slotted in as a big-league starter in 2013 in return. I think we may focus on getting a higher-upside AA or A+ arm who will be ready by 2014. I'd also like to see Samardzija moved back to the bullpen. I'm just not convinced he can stick as a starter and I'm not interested in seeing attrition destroy his arm while he tries. He could be a devastating high-leverage BP guy, and we desperately need one or two of those as badly as we do starters. So that leaves pretty much just Travis Wood, and maybe I'm willing to play another round of 5th starter shuffle with the various internal options again. So that means three spots have to be filled externally just to fill out a rotation. (Can we get a do-over on Darvish? I really wanted Darvish just for this reason). Given the state of the organization, I think you just absolutely have to be in on the ace-quality free agents this season. That means you bite the bullet and go to whatever it takes for a Grienke or Hamels. Given the new period of inflation we're seeing, I don't think $25 million a year is out of order. That's not even half of what we have available to spend this offseason. So with Ace FA/???/????/Wood/InternalGarbage in place, you have to try and find two more mid-rotation guys, and ideally you want medium-price, medium-length contracts. It seems like a good offseason to find those guys.

ITT: Try to build the Cubs rotation for 2013 and beyond. Trying to put together a credible rotation is going to be one of the biggest challenges for transitioning this team from the tank-tastic mess we have now to the Theo-led dynasty we all want. I'd like to see people's plans. Here is what we have under control right now for 2013: Garza - Disappointing a little after what looked like it might be a breakout year in 2011, but still a 3-4 win pitcher once the HR/FB rates start to normalize. Seems very likely to be traded. Samardzija - Promising and with fantastic stuff, but has to prove he can handle a starter's workload. Travis Wood - ERA is pretty, but peripherals seem to be settling into the BOR guy that the industry sees him as Volstad - big bag of awful who seems like he should have better stuff somewhere in there Wells - a big bag of awful with mediocre stuff Some assorted mediocre prospects that I guess someone could slot in there if they wanted. Here's what's available Cot's Baseball's list of FA starting pitchers after this season, asterisk means the player has at least some kind of 2013 option in their contract. It really depends on the payroll plans for next year, but it seems like we should have anywhere from $20 to $60 million available this offseason. So ... post your plans.

Fangraphs credits the Mets with five line drives for a 23% LD rate. I guess not completely crushing, but it wasn't a good outing.

That's about as win/win as it gets! Don't worry though, he'll get plenty of starts once Demps traded. =D> Him or Casey Coleman. Or both, once Garza is shipped off too. The reports that the Cubs haven't had real extension talks with him in months is pretty telling. Wood/Samardzija (until he hits his innings limit)/Maholm/Volstad/Coleman and Rodrigo Lopez next in line.

All the usual caveats (he's got some industry connections but isn't a fully accurate Cubs insider), ABTY over at PSD says Almora's deal is done, pending a physical, but the physical won't get done in time to formally announce it before the ASB moratorium