Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 5 of 121 FirstFirst ... 345671555105 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 1810
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    797
    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post
    He's not hitting 95 consistently according to everyone. Cubs Den had a really great series of prospects reviews, and this comes from Michael Ernst:

    http://www.chicagonow.com/cubs-den/2...dakota-mekkes/

    His velocity is better, but he's not a consistent mid-90's guy. He's a low-90's guy who can hit mid-90's when he's needed to. That could steadily increase, but I don't think he's at that "95mph consistently" thing. He's also not entirely dominant, as he has had fits with walks at all levels. He's dominant when throwing strikes. But we've seen that sometimes, simply being dominant when you're throwing strikes isn't a great strategy against MLB hitting.

    I like Mekkes. I think he's more mid-inning reliever, or a possible Steve Cisek type down the road than he is a true "back end stopper". But it's not incorrect if someone says he's not at Hicks level of stuff, either. He just isn't. He could end up being better than Hicks, but nothing in his arsenal has ever been good enough for him to just jump straight the MLB over a handful of levels. I think his development arc is right on his pace.
    I'm combing through a double or possibly a triple negative here, so I'm not sure if this is what you're saying... but just to clarify, nobody on here (and especially not me) said Mekkes' stuff is at the same level as Hicks.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    797
    Quote Originally Posted by rcal10 View Post
    So what do you do? Release him? I just do not see that happening with $26M or $27M left on his contract. If he has a solid spring and someone wants to take a chance on him and is willing to pay maybe $3M to $4M a year on his deal, I wouldn't have a problem with them moving him. And if they had that chance, I think they would. But if he has a decent spring and the Cubs decide to break camp with him as a long relief pitcher, I wouldn't have an issue with that as well. The FO liked him as recent as last off season. I doubt, highly, they will release him prior to the start of the season. Again, it is not like these young arms are knocking at the door to take his place. You have mentioned Maples, who is 27 and has control problems of his own. I have doubts they cut Chatwood to find a spot for Maples. At least not in April or even before April. Like I said before, the best case scenario is Chatwood does go back to is usual 4 walks per 9 innings and pitches decent out of the pen as a long man. The young minor league arms will get there chance. They filtered a lot of them in last year. And I expect they will do the same this year. And if one does well, IMO, he will stick. One way or another, if a guy in the minors deserves to be here, I have confidence the Cubs will find a way to make that happen.
    If we have better pitching options than Chatwood, yes. Weren't you guys the ones saying we are in win now mode and can't afford to experiment with erratic relievers who don't have any control?

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    13,623
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluegrass View Post
    If we have better pitching options than Chatwood, yes. Weren't you guys the ones saying we are in win now mode and can't afford to experiment with erratic relievers who don't have any control?
    Well, to be fair, my premise was he had a solid spring. And if he does, I doubt the Cubs release him to give a spot to Maples or Mekkes. I think they will keep him as a long man, and pitch him first in low leverage situations. If he does well they will give him more opportunity. However, if he fails time and again, I agree with you that they should release him. I am just not seeing these "better pitching options" you are speaking of. That is, of course, if Chatwood shows some control this spring.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    797
    Quote Originally Posted by rcal10 View Post
    Well, to be fair, my premise was he had a solid spring. And if he does, I doubt the Cubs release him to give a spot to Maples or Mekkes. I think they will keep him as a long man, and pitch him first in low leverage situations. If he does well they will give him more opportunity. However, if he fails time and again, I agree with you that they should release him. I am just not seeing these "better pitching options" you are speaking of. That is, of course, if Chatwood shows some control this spring.
    Fair point, and agreed. I also think they'll go with the ole "we fixed a mechanical flaw in his delivery... give him time to get used to it" argument until it's clear he just can't find the zone anymore. Not that I'm rooting for him to fail, but I think he will and I would love to be wrong here.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    797
    Quote Originally Posted by rcal10 View Post
    Well, to be fair, my premise was he had a solid spring. And if he does, I doubt the Cubs release him to give a spot to Maples or Mekkes. I think they will keep him as a long man, and pitch him first in low leverage situations. If he does well they will give him more opportunity. However, if he fails time and again, I agree with you that they should release him. I am just not seeing these "better pitching options" you are speaking of. That is, of course, if Chatwood shows some control this spring.
    Somewhat different topic-- not saying you're vying for Duensing here-- But I like Cedeno better than Duensing and can see him making the team over Duensing. I was surprised Cedeno only got a minor league deal.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    25,992
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluegrass View Post
    Somewhat different topic-- not saying you're vying for Duensing here-- But I like Cedeno better than Duensing and can see him making the team over Duensing. I was surprised Cedeno only got a minor league deal.
    The overall sentiment that Cedeno > Duensing is ideal/agreeable.

    It's been documented in several articles/reports since the Cubs signed Cedeno that the reason he got a minor league deal is due to concerns with his health. If he proves himself healthy, he will certainly make the team over Duensing. I think that's the only question.
    Last edited by La_bibbers; 03-06-2019 at 02:09 PM.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    797
    Quote Originally Posted by La_bibbers View Post
    The overall sentiment that Cedeno > Duensing is ideal/agreeable.

    It's been documented in several articles/reports since the Cubs signed Cedeno that the reason he got a minor league deal is due to concerns with his health. If he proves himself healthy, he will certainly make the team over Duensing. I think that's the only question.
    Ok, great. Well at least he isn't injured and not expected to make opening day. Oh wait, crap...
    http://www.chicagonow.com/cubs-den/2...-and-notes-36/

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    8,286
    Quote Originally Posted by Cubs420 View Post
    What level do you guys see Davis, Roederer and Hoerner starting at this year?
    Well, since non of them are top prospects, and they are not going to be on the fast track like the core of this team was, I'm looking at.

    Hoerner A
    Davis Rookie
    Roederer Rookie

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    8,286
    Quote Originally Posted by rcal10 View Post
    Well, let's start with the fact that IMO if all are healthy, Duensing isn't on the team. I would think the pen would be Morrow, Strop, Kintzler, Brach, Edwards, Chatwood, Cedeno and Montgomery. And that doesn't count guys like Kontos, Barnette and maybe a few others who have deals (Wick, Webster, Scahill etc????) that would allow them to refuse going to the minors. But, to your question, I feel the Cubs will give Chatwood a longer rope. I mean if he comes in middle relief and can't find the strike zone time after time they will have to do something. But IMO they will give him every opportunity to succeed. Again, it is not like there is this sure fire guy they are holding down in the minors. I think just with injuries there will be opportunity for lottery ticket guys(as you have called them) to pitch. And if they perform well, again, if the Cubs have to cut Kintzler or Duensing, I think they will. I honestly am not sure what they do with Chatwood if he fails. I do think they will not make a quick decision on him, however. Honestly, as a Cubs fan, I hope they do not have to make a decision on Chatwood. I hope he is put on the roster and does the job as a long reliever. And, IMO, that is not out of the question.
    Looking at this pen as it stands right now, if even one is faltering, there is no reason at all to not go to Alzolay immediately. He is who he is after so much time in the minors. It's time for him right now.

    Now, if they are all pitching well, then there's no reason to bring him up for the sake of bringing him up. That said, I can't imagine every single guy pitching well. I fully expect to see Alzolay up sooner than later.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    797
    Quote Originally Posted by thawv View Post
    Looking at this pen as it stands right now, if even one is faltering, there is no reason at all to not go to Alzolay immediately. He is who he is after so much time in the minors. It's time for him right now.

    Now, if they are all pitching well, then there's no reason to bring him up for the sake of bringing him up. That said, I can't imagine every single guy pitching well. I fully expect to see Alzolay up sooner than later.
    You think they'll bring him up as a reliever? He's had a handful of relief appearances in the minors but has typically been a starter. Not saying he can't be a bullpen guy, or that he isn't better served there, but he hasn't tackled that role much in his career.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,838
    Quote Originally Posted by thawv View Post
    Looking at this pen as it stands right now, if even one is faltering, there is no reason at all to not go to Alzolay immediately. He is who he is after so much time in the minors. It's time for him right now.

    Now, if they are all pitching well, then there's no reason to bring him up for the sake of bringing him up. That said, I can't imagine every single guy pitching well. I fully expect to see Alzolay up sooner than later.
    Hes injured, right? So he wont be ready out of the gate. I think once hes healthy and has some innings hes in that mix for a promotion when there are needs.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    13,623
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluegrass View Post
    Somewhat different topic-- not saying you're vying for Duensing here-- But I like Cedeno better than Duensing and can see him making the team over Duensing. I was surprised Cedeno only got a minor league deal.
    I like Cedeno better as well. And I also said IMO, if all pitchers were healthy Duensing could be cut.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,838
    Quote Originally Posted by thawv View Post
    Well, since non of them are top prospects, and they are not going to be on the fast track like the core of this team was, I'm looking at.

    Hoerner A
    Davis Rookie
    Roederer Rookie
    Id like to see Hoerner open in AA. I think those another 2 are right. Rookie, then Eugene, maybe a taste of Souty Bend late in the season.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    13,623
    Quote Originally Posted by thawv View Post
    Looking at this pen as it stands right now, if even one is faltering, there is no reason at all to not go to Alzolay immediately. He is who he is after so much time in the minors. It's time for him right now.

    Now, if they are all pitching well, then there's no reason to bring him up for the sake of bringing him up. That said, I can't imagine every single guy pitching well. I fully expect to see Alzolay up sooner than later.
    How do you even make this statement without Alzolay throwing a pitch yet this spring? This is what I do not understand with some posters? Not you specifically. Just answering your post now. Everyone always likes what they do not have or see, even. Suggesting Alzolay should be on the roster to start the year is the same as the argument for the back up quarterback. No one knows if the guy is any good, but he has to be better than what is there now. And, I do not think that is the case. Especially with Alzolay.
    The one caveat to your statement should be "if Alzolay is pitching well" he will be up sooner rather than later. He is not a sure thing either.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    13,623
    Quote Originally Posted by CP_414 View Post
    Id like to see Hoerner open in AA. I think those another 2 are right. Rookie, then Eugene, maybe a taste of Souty Bend late in the season.
    I agree with Davis and Roederer. I originally said A ball for Davis and Roederer, but did mention Eugene. I think they both start at Eugene and if all goes well, get moved up later in the season.
    But I think Hoerner starts in high A, and if he does well gets kicked up to AA.

Page 5 of 121 FirstFirst ... 345671555105 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •