Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 109 of 156 FirstFirst ... 95999107108109110111119 ... LastLast
Results 1,621 to 1,635 of 2332
  1. #1621
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    1,435
    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post
    Development doesnt have to start with the Cubs for the Cubs to develop an arm. Does Jake Arrieta count? I think he does. He was awful pre-Cub, and they turned him into a machine. Kyle Hendricks pitched in the Cubs MiLB for a while, so while not drafted, he developed here. They're not the only ones the Cubs helped, but are the most prominant. Does Brailyn Marquez count? He was a nothing IFA and the Cubs turned him into a top-100 prospect. Sure, he seems failed (due to non-developmental issues like Covid) but it isn't like he didn't develop here? What are we considering "developed"? I'm fine if he doesn't count, but we also shouldn't ignore moving him from what he was to what he became pre-Covid heart issues.
    Arrieta and Hendricks, yep.

    Brailyn Marquez, nope. Minor leagues means virtually nothing to me. That's why I'm not afraid to trade any and every prospect, outside of someone that is rated so highly like Vlad Jr. You can't give credit in developing a pitcher that only had a brief moment in MLB and it was a complete disaster.

  2. #1622
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    61,364
    Quote Originally Posted by cuzi View Post
    Arrieta and Hendricks, yep.

    Brailyn Marquez, nope. Minor leagues means virtually nothing to me. That's why I'm not afraid to trade any and every prospect, outside of someone that is rated so highly like Vlad Jr. You can't give credit in developing a pitcher that only had a brief moment in MLB and it was a complete disaster.
    Perfectly fine. As I said, I don't care if he doesn't count, but there comes a point where this game we have to play constantly of "The Cubs didn't develop anyone ever for 10 years" is so ****ing old. They did. They didn't draft-develop-keep someone like a Kershaw (that's a bummer) but they did develop players. If we want the line to be "successful MLB players" then cool, it should just be consistent. Too many fans move the goalposts of what counts as the Cubs developing a player and other teams developing players. It can both be that the Cubs didn't develop pitching well enough for a while, but also developed some rather that statements like "did the Cubs develop a single pitcher under Epstein?".

    I'm also not afraid to trade any prospect. Prospects fail. You can't trade them ALL away, but there's no one in the Cubs system they should be fearful to deal in the right trade. Especially right now as the Cubs are seemingly developing pitching at a pretty solid pace on top of seemingly drafting well. They should be able to replace the lower levels with interesting prospects.

    Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk
    Last edited by 1908_Cubs; 11-24-2022 at 10:18 AM.

  3. #1623
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    16,803
    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post
    Perfectly fine. As I said, I don't care if he doesn't count, but there comes a point where this game we have to play constantly of "The Cubs didn't develop anyone ever for 10 years" is so ****ing old. They did. They didn't draft-develop-keep someone like a Kershaw (that's a bummer) but they did develop players. If we want the line to be "successful MLB players" then cool, it should just be consistent. Too many fans move the goalposts of what counts as the Cubs developing a player and other teams developing players. It can both be that the Cubs didn't develop pitching well enough for a while, but also developed some rather that statements like "did the Cubs develop a single pitcher under Epstein?".

    I'm also not afraid to trade any prospect. Prospects fail. You can't trade them ALL away, but there's no one in the Cubs system they should be fearful to deal in the right trade. Especially right now as the Cubs are seemingly developing pitching at a pretty solid pace on top of seemingly drafting well. They should be able to replace the lower levels with interesting prospects.

    Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk
    I also have no problem trading prospects for proven talent. However, if you are making a trade for proven talent so your team can go from a low 70ís win team to a mid to upper 70ís win team, I would rather keep the prospects. If the Cub are aggressive this off season with FA signings, I would have no issues with moving some young talent for proven players to go along with the FAís they being in. A trade of some minor league talent for a proven major leaguer on top of aggressive FA signings can get this team into a contender. I would be all for that. Without high end FA signings they might as well hold into the prospects. I couldnít care less if they won 78 games or 72.

  4. #1624
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    61,364
    Quote Originally Posted by rcal10 View Post
    I also have no problem trading prospects for proven talent. However, if you are making a trade for proven talent so your team can go from a low 70ís win team to a mid to upper 70ís win team, I would rather keep the prospects. If the Cub are aggressive this off season with FA signings, I would have no issues with moving some young talent for proven players to go along with the FAís they being in. A trade of some minor league talent for a proven major leaguer on top of aggressive FA signings can get this team into a contender. I would be all for that. Without high end FA signings they might as well hold into the prospects. I couldnít care less if they won 78 games or 72.
    Well...thats where the "right trade" part comes in. The right trade would factor in what they were giving up, what they were receiving and how it impacted their full offseason and outlook.

    Totally agree with your post. But yeah, I'm fine with any Cub prospect going in the right kinds of trades. There's no prospect so good he can't miss. Even someone as fun to dream on as PCA has warts he needs to overcome and there's a wide variety of outcomes for him.

    Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk
    Last edited by 1908_Cubs; 11-24-2022 at 11:16 AM.

  5. #1625
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malaga, Spain
    Posts
    2,386
    Even if we somehow only sign Senga & Bogaerts that to me is a productive off season given each will get multiple offers.
    That is considering they may not be the top ranked FA in their respective positions.

  6. #1626
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    61,364
    Quote Originally Posted by chicagofan08 View Post
    Even if we somehow only sign Senga & Bogaerts that to me is a productive off season given each will get multiple offers.
    That is considering they may not be the top ranked FA in their respective positions.
    It depends on what you mean. If the Cubs sign Bogaerts and Senga but that's literally it, the Cubs have had a poor offseason. They enter with no DH, no CF, no split with Gomes, questions in the INF, no impact SP and no real added SP depth and no added BP depth. The Cubs are likely a bad, but not awful team using the first year of two-soon-to-be-30-year-olds on a not very good team. That would be their, in theory, best year left. That would lack vision.

    If the Cubs sign Bogaerts and Senga, but also address these other positions in less impactful, but still somewhat meaningful ways (Keirmaier, Vazquez, Britton, a DH...) then sure, it's not a bad offseason. That might be a team that can float along until July and address via trade. Maybe have prospects come up. I don't think it's "great", but you can squint and see a team. They need to address a lot of things and maybe it won't be impactful as a Correa/Senga/Abreu start plus the rest but it's not bad.

    What the Cubs cannot do is miss completely on Judge/Correa/Turner/Bogaerts...it's an utter failure without one. But they have a lot needed to make this a successful offseason, too.

    Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk
    Last edited by 1908_Cubs; 11-24-2022 at 11:47 AM.

  7. #1627
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    A city in the United States.
    Posts
    7,281
    Quote Originally Posted by Dfan25 View Post
    Looks like the Twins may have a 10 year offer on the table for Correa :



    During a recent appearance on the Talk North podcast, LaVelle E. Neal III of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune suggested the Twins have put forth contract offers of varying lengths to Correa. Neal indicates Minnesotaís proposals range from six to ten years with differing average salaries in each. The shorter-term offers would surely feature higher annual payouts, with the comparatively lesser length reducing the teamís longer-term risk.
    I'm sorry I just can't see him going back to Minnesota. Now if the Cubs decide to pass on Correa, AGAIN, then sure, but atp I think Minnesota is a fallback plan for Correa.
    Screw sabermetics.

  8. #1628
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Bloomington, IL
    Posts
    6,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluefire View Post
    I'm sorry I just can't see him going back to Minnesota. Now if the Cubs decide to pass on Correa, AGAIN, then sure, but atp I think Minnesota is a fallback plan for Correa.
    If the Twins are offering 10 and the Cubs are sticking to 7-8 years(which seems likely) he's going to be a Twin. Then they can talk all about how they were interested but it doesn't mean anything if they aren't willing to outbid other teams. Unfortunately I think the Cubs try and wait out the SS market a little. Hopefully that still lands them Bogaerts and not Swanson.

  9. #1629
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    10,295
    Twins are getting creative to bring Correa back


    https://www.si.com/fannation/bringme...lengths-values

    Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

  10. #1630
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    16,803
    Quote Originally Posted by Sofnr View Post
    If the Twins are offering 10 and the Cubs are sticking to 7-8 years(which seems likely) he's going to be a Twin. Then they can talk all about how they were interested but it doesn't mean anything if they aren't willing to outbid other teams. Unfortunately I think the Cubs try and wait out the SS market a little. Hopefully that still lands them Bogaerts and not Swanson.
    It is also possible a 7 year offer is better than a 10 year offer. Maybe 7 with an option for more depending on if Correa makes certain goals. If the Cubs want a shorter deal they will have to go bigger annually. Is 7/$252 more appealing to a player than 10/$310? And if 7 came with an option that automatically is renewed if he makes certain goals, that becomes 8/$288. This is just an example of how a player might be interested in a shorter deal. $36M annual is more appealing to me than $31M.
    Bottom line is no one knows what is on a players mind. Maybe Correa doesnít want to play to 39. Maybe he is fine calling it a career at 36. If he gets enough money early that could be more appealing.
    We, as fans, love to suggest what a player will do based on what we would do. Everyone is different. All situations are different.

  11. #1631
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    A city in the United States.
    Posts
    7,281
    Quote Originally Posted by Sofnr View Post
    If the Twins are offering 10 and the Cubs are sticking to 7-8 years(which seems likely) he's going to be a Twin. Then they can talk all about how they were interested but it doesn't mean anything if they aren't willing to outbid other teams. Unfortunately I think the Cubs try and wait out the SS market a little. Hopefully that still lands them Bogaerts and not Swanson.
    That is the only way he stays in Minnesota. Morosi mentioned a couple of days ago that Correa wants to play for an "iconic" franchise. Regardless if that is a legit reason or Morosi talking out of his butts, remains to be seen, but if Morosi is right, one of those teams is a iconic franchise and the other is the Twins.

    I do see scenario in which Correa goes back to Minnesota but they all are built around the Cubs being passive.
    Screw sabermetics.

  12. #1632
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    10,295
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluefire View Post
    That is the only way he stays in Minnesota. Morosi mentioned a couple of days ago that Correa wants to play for an "iconic" franchise. Regardless if that is a legit reason or Morosi talking out of his butts, remains to be seen, but if Morosi is right, one of those teams is a iconic franchise and the other is the Twins.

    I do see scenario in which Correa goes back to Minnesota but they all are built around the Cubs being passive.
    Iconic? So the Yankees or Dodgers then [emoji849][emoji1787]

    Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

  13. #1633
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    16,803
    Quote Originally Posted by chibears55 View Post
    Iconic? So the Yankees or Dodgers then [emoji849][emoji1787]

    Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk
    Sure they are. But the topic is the Twins getting him.

  14. #1634
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    4,179
    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post
    It depends on what we mean by "develop". If all we mean is "draft, keep in the system the entire time, and then make the MLB with the Cubs the entire time" I think that's an incredibly narrow line. Sure, you won't find a player drafted, developed only by the Cubs, then brought up by the Cubs, who had a huge amount of success only with the Cubs under Epstein. But that's only one way to develop, IMO. So I'll give you a very long answer to a seemingly simple question, but I don't think there is a simple answer.
    I agree there's different levels off development. I was talking more "draft, develop in minors, then continue to develop in the MLB for the Cubs and has success for the team". In which case, I can't find a single example, not even in the pen, though I may be missing someone, which is remarkably bad.

    In other cases where we drafted and developed partially in the minors, and then traded and continued to develop with other teams and had MLB success, like Cease, the Cubs get the credit for the part they were responsible for, so partial credit for Cease overall. Same with Arrieta, they get credit for helping develop him when he came over. Similar with Hendricks and Strop etc.

    I suppose a bit of credit is due on Marquez, but he didn't pitch a single effective inning for the Cubs and had arm injury issues leading to his release, so the credit and accomplishments are minimal there. The Theo regime gets some credit for Steele and Thompson etc too.

    And yeah sure this is "old" but there's no news to talk about lol.

  15. #1635
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    10,295
    Quote Originally Posted by rcal10 View Post
    Sure they are. But the topic is the Twins getting him.
    My response was to Bluefire and what supposedly Correa mentioned about playing for an iconic team

    Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

Posting Permissions

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