Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 281 of 448 FirstFirst ... 181231271279280281282283291331381 ... LastLast
Results 4,201 to 4,215 of 6717
  1. #4201
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    350
    The article on cubs.com regarding Cubs using ST to mold a group of rough clay into an effective bullpen, while at the same time getting rid of KB sounds a lot like the old addage about rearranging the deck furniture on the Titanic after they've hit the ice berg.

  2. #4202
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    456
    They projected the Cubs to have the same record as the Pirates and Reds LOL. Great projection formula.

  3. #4203
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    456
    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post
    Then use it correctly. You tried to show Maddon was a bad manager because they were -6 pythag. Which is not how pythag works. At all.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
    Pythag can be used to show when a team is under-performing or over-performing. Is that Maddon's fault? Pythag doesn't definitively say that, but it can be used as evidence to suggest it could be the case.

  4. #4204
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    456
    Quote Originally Posted by Cubboy View Post
    Hammer the under. 84 wins last year. Likely to dump best player. Meh bullpen lost its few reliable arms.
    That's the worst for me. As bad as our bullpen was last year, we lost the 2 guys that were the best for us all year.

    Wick was good for half a year, i'm big on him. Ryan pitched well but if he regressed a bit i wouldn't be surprised at all. If they save money on trading KB they better find a way to get some good proven reliable set up guys. How the hell do you go into 2020 with a pen of Kimbrel backed up by some young guys + castaways. I can't see that happening.

  5. #4205
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    456
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevemil505 View Post
    The article on cubs.com regarding Cubs using ST to mold a group of rough clay into an effective bullpen, while at the same time getting rid of KB sounds a lot like the old addage about rearranging the deck furniture on the Titanic after they've hit the ice berg.
    Trying to forget how depressing this pen is, this is actually an interesting strategy. We've seen how volatile relievers are, we've watched Strop, Edwards, Brach, Kimbrel etc quickly implode in front of our eyes while guys like Wick and Ryan come out of nowhere to impress.

    Maybe signing a bunch of relievers to millions on multi-year deals isn't the best way to spend money. Brach was VERY consistently good his entire career and then just stank in 2019 for us...and then went on to pitch well for the Mets. Giving millions to pen arms on multi-year deals limits what a team can do when those pen arms go bust. if you grab a cheap project with potential, if they do well then great, if they do poorly they can be easily dumped or shipped to AAA and someone else found for cheap.

    Hottovy and co. have shown how they can turn around a pitcher with potential, so it's interesting. However, I have bad memories of them taking the same risks on guys like Cedeno and Tony Barnette in Spring of 2019. Though they have signed more this time so they should be able to find 1 or 2 good arms i hope.

  6. #4206
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    456
    The Cubs are basically playing Statcast Moneyball with relievers this year. Except they have a 208 million payroll lol. Sigh...

  7. #4207
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    55,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Stratos View Post
    Pythag can be used to show when a team is under-performing or over-performing. Is that Maddon's fault? Pythag doesn't definitively say that, but it can be used as evidence to suggest it could be the case.
    That's not what pythag shows you. You are misunderstanding what the statistic shows, and how it is applied. What you've somehow managed to do is take a statistic that is evidence in favor of Joe Maddon, and, somehow, misunderstand is so badly you're using it against him.

    Pythag shows a teams' run scoring product and then attempts to take that number and suggest if a team was lucky (winning more games than they should) or unlucky (winning less game than they should) based on how many runs they scored and how many they saved. A -6 suggests that the Cubs scored enough runs to have won 6 more games than they did because they scored enough runs/saved enough. Joe Maddon wasn't deciding where a run would go, or where a run would be saved. If anything, it suggests through the course of a season, he put his team in place to be a 90 win team and the runs fell oddly, and the Cubs got unlucky. If the Cubs were +6 you could argue that the Cubs weren't a 90 win team and the true talent was an 84 win team which would suggest that, maybe, your manager is smoke and mirrors and just got lucky. All a manager goes is put players in place to succeed to not succeed. A manager isn't worth, for example, 6 games in any direction over the course of a year unless it's a dog.

    None of this is to suggest that I don't understand some issues and complaints with Maddon at times and that I think it wasn't time to maybe move on. By seasons end, he relied too much on players like Almora, who suck. And probably got a little too hard-set on guys like Strop and Cisek in the bullpen. But that also isn't being reflected within the pythag. If it were, the Cubs would have scored less runs than they did over the course of a season. Given up more. And the -6 would not have been as drastic.

    So, yeah, the original point stands. That's not how pythag works. That's not how any of this works.
    Last edited by 1908_Cubs; 01-24-2020 at 07:00 AM.

  8. #4208
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    14,875
    Quote Originally Posted by CubsRule08 View Post
    Top prospects as well as unloading Wil Myers for 1 year of Mookie.

    Doubtful the Red Sox even contemplate that idea either
    BN also says the pads were consisting Bryant. So if the Cubs took Myers salary and gave them Bryant and Descalso to get under the LT, what would they get back? I would think something like Lamet and a couple top end prospects, right? Is it worth it to get 3 potentially high end players for Bryant to take on Myers? He does hit lefties.

  9. #4209
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    11,105

    2019-20 Offseason Thread 2.0: Winter Meetings Edition

    Quote Originally Posted by rcal10 View Post
    BN also says the pads were consisting Bryant. So if the Cubs took Myers salary and gave them Bryant and Descalso to get under the LT, what would they get back? I would think something like Lamet and a couple top end prospects, right? Is it worth it to get 3 potentially high end players for Bryant to take on Myers? He does hit lefties.
    It would need to be outrageous. I’m sure it’s completely unrealistic. Hypothetically, let’s say it was KB and Q instead of Descalso because that money is about equal to Betts for Myers and prospects. They wouldn’t be sending Lamet back since they’d clearly be in win now mode.

    Bryant is in that 40-50 mil surplus value range. Q is probably 10-15. The most I think any team would pick up on Myers deal is 5-6 per year, so he’s 40-45 mil in the hole. You’d basically need $100 million in surplus value from prospects. Assuming Gore is off limits, that leaves something like Luis Patino, CJ Abrams, Morejon or Munoz, and some additional filler. And that’s with me valuing Abrams like a 60 FV guy. FG has him at 50 today, but he’s going to climb.

    If you are going to trade Kris Bryant, taking on money to double the return while also getting under the tax is exactly the kind of thing the Cubs should be open to, but the prospect cost would be too steep for SD to actually do it.
    Last edited by CP_414; 01-24-2020 at 10:22 AM.

  10. #4210
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    14,875
    Quote Originally Posted by CP_414 View Post
    It would need to be outrageous. I’m sure it’s completely unrealistic. Hypothetically, let’s say it was KB and Q instead of Descalso because that money is about equal to Betts for Myers and prospects. They wouldn’t be sending Lamet back since they’d clearly be in win now mode.

    Bryant is in that 40-50 mil surplus value range. Q is probably 10-15. The most I think any team would pick up on Myers deal is 5-6 per year, so he’s 40-45 mil in the hole. You’d basically need $100 million in surplus value from prospects. Something like Luis Patino, CJ Abrams, Adrian Morejon, and Some additional filler. And that’s with me valuing Abrams like a 60 FV guy. FG has him at 50 today, but he’s going to climb.

    If you are going to trade Kris Bryant, taking on money to double the return while also getting under the tax is exactly the kind of thing the Cubs should be open to, but the prospect cost would be too steep for SD to actually do it.
    True about Lamet. So it sounds like you would be for something like this from the Cubs side. As bad as Myers is and as big a negative value he has, he does hit lefties for some power. At least he would play so they can sit Heyward. And with the new 3 batters faced rule he could probably get more AB in the pinch against lefties. If the Cubs are going to trade Bryant I feel their best bet is to do whatever they can to get the most value. Even if it means eating some salary. Just have to stay under the LT.
    As for Q, unless the Padres add something the Cubs want for Q, he really doesn’t have to be in the deal. I read that Myers for Bryant would put the Cubs under. I am not sure of exact numbers however. Just saying what I read. I am also not sure how Q has a SV of 10-15.

  11. #4211
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    4,656
    I can't help but think how trading Bryant to either Braves ,Padres, Dodgers,Nats will only strengthen a very good team even more and make them much more better then the Cubs for a couple years or more if he resigns with them..

    It just feels like unless next offseason they spend money and add big pieces to build a contending team, these next 2 years at least will just be ho hum baseball on the north side just playing out the season

  12. #4212
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    11,105

    2019-20 Offseason Thread 2.0: Winter Meetings Edition

    Quote Originally Posted by rcal10 View Post
    True about Lamet. So it sounds like you would be for something like this from the Cubs side. As bad as Myers is and as big a negative value he has, he does hit lefties for some power. At least he would play so they can sit Heyward. And with the new 3 batters faced rule he could probably get more AB in the pinch against lefties. If the Cubs are going to trade Bryant I feel their best bet is to do whatever they can to get the most value. Even if it means eating some salary. Just have to stay under the LT.
    As for Q, unless the Padres add something the Cubs want for Q, he really doesn’t have to be in the deal. I read that Myers for Bryant would put the Cubs under. I am not sure of exact numbers however. Just saying what I read. I am also not sure how Q has a SV of 10-15.
    By WAR, if you value him as a 2.5 win players that’s 22-23 mil, his salary is about 11. Even if you want to use an open market comp, I think Q and Hamels could be expected to give similar production in 2020. Hamels got $18 mil. So there should at least be roughly $7 mil in surplus value on Q.

    Q’s value was accounted for in there.

    This kind of thing wouldn’t happen. They’d be giving up one of the best pitching prospects in baseball who is getting close to mlb ready, one of the highest upside prospects in all of baseball, a 3rd piece who would be #5 in the Cubs system today and more and the Cubs would lose Bryant and eat a crappy contract. It would be a pretty wild trade, but it’s so high risk on both sides.
    Last edited by CP_414; 01-24-2020 at 10:38 AM.

  13. #4213
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Bloomington, IL
    Posts
    4,886
    I think the Cubs are really going to get hurt by lack of leverage. They've made it pretty obvious they want to trade Bryant and have to get under the luxury tax. I'm not sure they can really hold out and claim they don't need to trade him, pony up what we want. I think it's more likely to be "give us your best offers" and we'll take the best one at this point. Which is what happens when you decide to be cheap bastards.

    And I do realize they can shed salary in different ways and should be looking at that. But the lack of doing anything else this offseason also puts them in a weird spot if they don't trade him now.

  14. #4214
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    4,656
    Cubs have had 1 pitching prospect in 10 years make this list [emoji3061]

    We're talking them ranking 10 pitchers from left side and 10 from right side each year , I guess at least that pitcher is someone now in Marquez

    https://twitter.com/MLBPipeline/stat...518240770?s=19

  15. #4215
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    9,363
    Quote Originally Posted by chibears55 View Post
    I can't help but think how trading Bryant to either Braves ,Padres, Dodgers,Nats will only strengthen a very good team even more and make them much more better then the Cubs for a couple years or more if he resigns with them..

    It just feels like unless next offseason they spend money and add big pieces to build a contending team, these next 2 years at least will just be ho hum baseball on the north side just playing out the season
    Personally, I don't think the Cubs care if they make a team better. Right now, they only care about getting under the 208 million. Once they achieve that goal, they will worry about the actual team.

Posting Permissions

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