Any moron would know that the best way to improve the Cubs is to sign Prince Fielder. (Any moron would have known that Albert Pujols was an even more obvious choice.)
Any moron can see that Sean Marshall is the best pitcher in the Cubs bullpen. Some morons would even argue he’s the best pitcher on the whole staff. Even the dumbest of morons knows you don’t trade your best reliever when your next best options are shakier than a sobered up Mickey Rourke.
A zit on the dumbest fan’s ass has enough common sense to know this team needs to improve in every phase of the game to have a shot at contending, so the idea of trading Sean Marshall, a beacon of consistency in a dark sea of suck, is obviously moronic.
And any idiot could tell you that the free agent pickings become slim after this year. The morons know enough to tell you the recent Cubs drafts won’t improve this team for years. And Todd Ricketts can tell you the Cubs are too big-market to stage a full-on fire sale.
Other things any idiot knows: David DeJesus and Ian Stewart are not the final pieces of anyone’s championship puzzle. The Cubs still suck. The only acquisitions that have gotten any Cubs fans excited this offseason have been guys who cannot play baseball. So . . .why should we be optimistic about this front office if they can’t make moves any moron knows are the right ones?
Well, I’m hoping it’s because they aren’t idiots. I don’t really know why Jed Hoyer and Theo Epstein are making the moves they’re making or why they aren’t making the ones that are obvious to idiots. But I’d like to think they’re doing exactly what they’re being paid to do: think a little bit smarter than those of us who are paying them.
It reminds me of the movie Hoosiers, when Gene Hackman comes into the town barber shop to be greeted by everyone in town who knows exactly what he has to do to win. He walks out fairly quickly because he’s in charge and those people were idiots. So why should the Cubbie Brain Trust respond any differently to us?
That’s not to say it’s dumb to argue. It’s not. The Superfriends aren’t infallible, and I won’t go around telling everyone to shut up and swallow whatever lines Theo and company feed us. But at the same time, the things that appear obvious are the moves any GM or front office executive would make. If we expect the Cubs to compete, not just as a team in 2012 but as a franchise moving forward, we should expect the approach to surprise us every now and then.
That said, 2012 might be another awful year to watch Cubs baseball. I’d be thrilled to be surprisingly wrong. Anytime you want to do something genius, boys, be my guest.
They’re reviving the Boston “Idiots” movement. It just might work.
Bubs has gotten more on board with Wood.
[quote name=bubblesdachimp]Bub bubbles would give up Marshall for Rizzo so he would 100% give up Wood for Rizzo[/quote]That doesn’t make sense. I’d trade Sean Marshall for Tim Lincecum, but I sure as hell wouldn’t trade Lincecum for Rizzo. If the Reds are going to give a shitload more for Marshall than he’s worth, take the package and be happy. Don’t destroy it by trading that extra surplus value. Trade another veteran if you want Rizzo.
He might have surplus value but he might just not be very good. I think rizzo to be good.
I’m OK with what the Cubs have done so far. It makes sense if you’re rebuilding, which is what they are doing. Theo told us it was going to take a lot longer than most people thought. That being said, it’s sure going to suck watching this team over the next 3 to 5 years.
I’d trade Garza to a third team so they can help the Cubs get Rizzo and extra prospects.
[quote name=bubblesdachimp]He might have surplus value but he might just not be very good. I think rizzo to be good.[/quote]Rizzo might have surplus value, but he just might not be very good.
The bottom line is that you don’t trade a veteran for young talent and then trade that young cost-controlled talent for young cost-controlled talent. You might if you’re trying to contend now, but they aren’t. FWIW, Rizzo’s projections pale in comparison to Wood’s. Not even remotely close. The projections see Rizzo as slightly better than replacement. They see Wood as slightly better than average. I’m sure as fuck not trading slightly above average for slightly above replacement.
[quote name=Rice Cube]I’d trade Garza to a third team so they can help the Cubs get Rizzo and extra prospects.[/quote]Yes. This is what you do. Trading Wood for Rizzo is the equivalent of trading Brett Jackson for Rizzo. I don’t think anybody would be suggesting the Cubs trade Brett Jackson for Rizzo. I hope not anyway.
They need to sign Fielder if for no other reason than to give me a reason to watch
[quote name=mb21]Yes. This is what you do. Trading Wood for Rizzo is the equivalent of trading Brett Jackson for Rizzo. I don’t think anybody would be suggesting the Cubs trade Brett Jackson for Rizzo. I hope not anyway.[/quote]
Travis has just regressed though.. quite a bit..
i am jumping off the bridge a lot less than yesterday. But i am still shocked we cant get more
[quote name=mb21]I’m OK with what the Cubs have done so far. It makes sense if you’re rebuilding, which is what they are doing. Theo told us it was going to take a lot longer than most people thought. That being said, it’s sure going to suck watching this team over the next 3 to 5 years.[/quote]I’m becoming more and more resigned to the fact that this turnaround will be slow and more than a little depressing.
[quote name=bubblesdachimp]Bubs has gotten morning Wood.[/quote].
[quote name=mb21]Yes. This is what you do. Trading Wood for Rizzo is the equivalent of trading Brett Jackson for Rizzo. I don’t think anybody would be suggesting the Cubs trade Brett Jackson for Rizzo. I hope not anyway.[/quote]
My friend did until I convinced him it wasn’t a good idea (dying laughing)
[quote name=AndCounting]I’m becoming more and more resigned to the fact that this turnaround will be slow and more than a little depressing.[/quote]Yeah, we all wanted a GM who would come in and do a rebuild because that is what we needed, but now that we have it, it will be tough to watch (dying laughing)
[quote name=bubblesdachimp]Travis has just regressed though.. quite a bit..
i am jumping off the bridge a lot less than yesterday. But i am still shocked we cant get more[/quote]Dude, Marshall has a surplus trade value of $6.5 million. Any guess what Wood’s is? Based on the Oliver projections it’s $40 fucking million. Even if you shave 25% off, it’s still $20 million. If you’d have told me yesterday morning the Cubs could get Wood for Marshall I’d have laughed my ass off. It’s why I’m certain there’s more going to Cincy in this deal. It just makes no sense for the Reds to acquire Marshall and give up Wood.
[quote name=AndCounting]I’m becoming more and more resigned to the fact that this turnaround will be slow and more than a little depressing.[/quote]That’s certainly true based on the unreasonable expectations that even reasonable people had when they were hired. I think we all knew it would be slow, but we also thought there was maybe a chance they’d turn it around quickly. That’s not happening.
So what your saying is if we get Wood AND two prospects we wing big time?
Shave 25% off I mean get rid of 25% of his projected WAr.
[quote name=bubblesdachimp]So what your saying is if we get Wood AND two prospects we wing big time?[/quote]Yes. It would be a huge win. It’s the equivalent of the Marlins getting what they did for (dying laughing).
Alright if you say so. Bubbles still doesnt have to be happy about it. I want Brett lawrie
[quote name=bubblesdachimp]Alright if you say so. Bubbles still doesnt have to be happy about it. I want Brett lawrie[/quote]I want lots of things, but when you’re trading a reliever who throws 70 out of 1450 innings you can’t expect much in return. As berselius said in the last thread, it’s a very wise bet to take the under on Marshall’s projected 2 WAR.
I feel this in my soul now.
Wonder what we can get from Blue Jays for Garza?
[quote name=mb21]I want lots of things, but when you’re trading a reliever who throws 70 out of 1450 innings you can’t expect much in return. As berselius said in the last thread, it’s a very wise bet to take the under on Marshall’s projected 2 WAR.[/quote]Well, but clearly the Reds are valuing short-term success much more than long-term value. They think they have a window and they want to go for it, so a few wins next year is worth more than whatever $20M would buy in 2013-16 or whatever. That’s the opposite of what the Cubs want and that’s why it could be a good trade for both.
Not saying that the Reds aren’t still overvaluing Marshall’s short-term value, but it does make sense for the Cubs to charge a premium for that.
[quote name=mb21]Dude, Marshall has a surplus trade value of $6.5 million. Any guess what Wood’s is? Based on the Oliver projections it’s $40 fucking million. Even if you shave 25% off, it’s still $20 million. If you’d have told me yesterday morning the Cubs could get Wood for Marshall I’d have laughed my ass off. It’s why I’m certain there’s more going to Cincy in this deal. It just makes no sense for the Reds to acquire Marshall and give up Wood.[/quote]
Maybe the Superfriends have the power of supernegotiation.
Sorry I was thinking about Cats again
http://cats4gold.com/
Cats4Gold were so quick to process my gold and send a top quality kitten.
over at the reds SB blog they are hearing Wood & Billy Hamilton is the package
Hamilton was the guy who stole over 100 bases last year
Hak Ju LEe and Chris archer=====>>> Prospects 2 and 3 in Rays farm system
[quote name=bubblesdachimp]Hak Ju LEe and Chris archer=====>>> Prospects 2 and 3 in Rays farm system[/quote]Not a fantastic sign, especially for Archer after his poor 2011 (though he did come on much stronger in the last two months). But given the graduations, it was bound to come down. And I wasn’t a huge fan of their draft overall; anyways, those players are still a bit aways.
[quote name=dylanj]over at the reds SB blog they are hearing Wood & Billy Hamilton is the package[/quote]
Wow that would be fucking insane!!!
[quote name=dylanj]over at the reds SB blog they are hearing Wood & Billy Hamilton is the package[/quote]http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker&utm_campaign=Linker&id=hamilt002bil
[quote name=mb21]http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker&utm_campaign=Linker&id=hamilt002bil[/quote]Solid OBP and tons of speed. I like.
Hamilton reached base 203 times last year (not including ROE) and stole 103 bases. Wow.
not sure his bat will ever play but 100 sb’s at one level is impressive. He and Campana can just race between each inning for entertainment
Prior to the season he was rated as the #50 prospect. That’s higher than Alonso and Rizzo. If the Cubs can get that kind of deal for Marshall, just wow. Unbelievable.
[quote name=dylanj]not sure his bat will ever play but 100 sb’s at one level is impressive. He and Campana can just race between each inning for entertainment[/quote]Yeah, his OBP will go down at each level because he has no power at all, but if he can post a league average OBP he’d be super valuable.
Yea the kid is fast..
He is their second ranked prospect. I can post scouting report if people like. Ranked above Yonder.. This cant be the trade
[quote name=dylanj]not sure his bat will ever play but 100 sb’s at one level is impressive. He and Campana can just race between each inning for entertainment[/quote]
Cubs new 7th inning stretch – scrappy white guy race. (I’m pretty sure Hamilton is black, though).
From last year:
.
2012 Top prospects Baseball America:
.
Billy Hamilton is not white…
Shocked I am
[quote name=bubblesdachimp]Yea the kid is fast..
He is their second ranked prospect. I can post scouting report if people like. Ranked above Yonder.. This cant be the trade[/quote]Methinks it’s Garza and Marshall for Wood, Hamilton and maybe someone else. Still a great trade.
[quote name=mb21]Methinks it’s Garza and Marshall for Wood, Hamilton and maybe someone else. Still a great trade.[/quote]
I think Garza is not part of it and neither is Hamilton.
Or Theo and co are really good at their jobs and they NL Central taxed their ass
I definitely under-estimated Wood’s value and have come around to liking this trade. I also thought Marshall had 2 years of service remaining.
So Phil Rogers says to watch for a potential Byrd to the Rangers for Matt Harrison. That would be insanely awesome.
I have decided if Garza is part of it I want Devin Marresco as well
http://lakeforest.patch.com/articles/lake-bluff-resident-shoots-documentary-on-ballhawking-at-wrigley-field
[quote name=mb21]Methinks it’s Garza and Marshall for Wood, Hamilton and maybe someone else. Still a great trade.[/quote]
With the price of pitchers going through the roof there is no way they have Garza in a trade with Marshall. I honestly think Garza
[quote name=Mish]http://lakeforest.patch.com/articles/lake-bluff-resident-shoots-documentary-on-ballhawking-at-wrigley-field[/quote]I have that movie. It’s okay.
Probably a dumb thing to post
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/facebook-girl-bound-135977343.html?dr
Is Cubs payroll going to flat-line this year? With what appears to be selling off various pieces for top-end prospects/cheap major leaguers I am trying to figure out who the hell Thoyer is going to spend money on. Perhaps they are more in on Cespedes and Soler than the public view is aware.
[quote name=bubblesdachimp]Probably a dumb thing to post
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/facebook-girl-bound-135977343.html?dr/quoteDon't be so hard on yourself bubbles, it was an interesting story.
[quote name=mb21]Prior to the season he was rated as the #50 prospect. That’s higher than Alonso and Rizzo. If the Cubs can get that kind of deal for Marshall, just wow. Unbelievable.[/quote]
I would be a hell of a lot more excited about this deal if that is true. That’s what I was hoping for from a trade of Marshall, somebody with upside. Wood is fine and cost-controlled and yada yada yada, but he isn’t anything I can get myself excited about especially considering the Cubs would be removing one of the few guys on their team who is actually good at their job (and better at it than most guys in the league).
But you throw those two together (or even anything close to that) and I’m excited. I would have been more content for Hamilton by himself for Marshall, and Wood is icing on the cake.
[quote name=JMan]Is Cubs payroll going to flat-line this year? With what appears to be selling off various pieces for top-end prospects/cheap major leaguers I am trying to figure out who the hell Thoyer is going to spend money on. Perhaps they are more in on Cespedes and Soler than the public view is aware.[/quote]
I don’t know if that money is going to get spent. I think they go hard after Soler, but I’m beginning to agree with MB that they have little to no real interest in Cespedes.
Rosenthal says the Cubs signed Reed Johnson to a 1-year deal.
[quote name=GBTS]Don’t be so hard on yourself bubbles, it was an interesting story.[/quote](dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
[quote name=JMan]Rosenthal says the Cubs signed Reed Johnson to a 1-year deal.[/quote]I like it he was very valuable last year
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/12/21/dan-bernstein-shreds-the-penn-state-letter-to-joe-paterno/
[quote name=bubblesdachimp]I like it he was very valuable last year[/quote]It seems inconsequential. But with Campana and LaHair on the roster I have to wonder which OF(s) is out the door.
[quote name=JMan]So Phil Rogers says to watch for a potential Byrd to the Rangers for Matt Harrison. That would be insanely awesome.[/quote]
http://pirates.mlb-greeting.com/
McCutcheon is in the small blue box in the middle. His message is awesome.
Yes – I have been of this mind for a long time. Wins this year versus wins next year or 3 years from now mean different things to different teams. As a result, $WAR is also different for different teams. Teams in win now mode are willing to pay more for incremental improvements because they think that increment has a chance of getting them over the top. This is especially true of teams that are in the hunt around the trade deadline.
It makes sense. If an additional win or two can get you to the playoffs and sell a bunch of extra tickets in September and October, then OF COURSE teams will be willing to pay more for that win than a team would otherwise be.
[quote name=bubblesdachimp]I like it he was very valuable last year[/quote]…and lucky. I’m OK with having Reed back, though.He’s a reasonable right-handed option who can spell DeJesus against southpaws.
[quote name=JMan]It seems inconsequential. But with Campana and LaHair on the roster I have to wonder which OF(s) is out the door.[/quote]If Fielder doesn’t cave in to the Cubs’ terms I guess LaHair is at 1B next season.
Otherwise I wonder if they’d let Campana make the team just because he’s really really fast.
[quote name=JMan]
So Phil Rogers says to watch for a potential Byrd to the Rangers for Matt Harrison. That would be insanely awesome.[/quote]
I’d think the Cubs would have to throw something in to get Harrison. Also, it remains to be seen how real his 2011 breakthrough is.
FWIW: https://twitter.com/#!/EyeOnBaseball/status/149524628648361984
Mike Fast’s hit-and-run research: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=15713
Haven’t read it yet; look forward to it.
[quote name=ACT]Mike Fast’s hit-and-run research: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=15713
Haven’t read it yet; look forward to it.[/quote]I skipped all the math that hurt my head to get to the punchline, but will look back at it later:
Nice work.
Cubs are in negotiations with Jeff Francis. His FIP for the past couple years has been much better than his ERA, so he might be a reasonable buy-low option.
Ah hell, Francis’ velocity fell to 84.7 mph last year. I’d say avoid him like he’s radioactive unless he can demonstrate that he regain it.
We speculated whether the Cubs bought the McDonald’s across the street to lure Prince Fielder. This article would lend credence to that notion, notwithstanding that he’s since become a vegetarian:
http://www.onionsportsnetwork.com/articles/prince-fielder-explains-complexities-of-salary-arb,18897/
Scott Boras is “Mr. Chocolate Shake” (dying laughing)
[quote name=ACT]Ah hell, Francis’ velocity fell to 84.7 mph last year. I’d say avoid him like he’s radioactive unless he can demonstrate that he regain it.[/quote]I think they’d probably just sign him to a minor league deal with a spring training invite rather than a MLB deal right off the bat.
[quote name=ACT]Mike Fast’s hit-and-run research: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=15713
Haven’t read it yet; look forward to it.[/quote]
Why is this? I would think that if the batter swung and missed, the catcher would have some sort of interference as opposed to the catcher cleanly catching the ball. Is this because in a hit and run the runner does not get as good of a jump compared to a straight steal?
[quote name=WaLi]Why is this? I would think that if the batter swung and missed, the catcher would have some sort of interference as opposed to the catcher cleanly catching the ball. Is this because in a hit and run the runner does not get as good of a jump compared to a straight steal?[/quote]It’s because in a straight steal, the runner has to make sure that his chances of being safe are higher than break-even. In a hit-and-run, the runner would have a greater chance of being caught, but is counting on the batter to protect him.
As a somewhat exaggerated analogy, think of the suicide squeeze. If the batter misses, the runner is dead to rights.
…though not always: http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=9926487&c_id=mlb
[quote name=ACT]It’s because in a straight steal, the runner has to make sure that his chances of being safe are higher than break-even. In a hit-and-run, the runner would have a greater chance of being caught, but is counting on the batter to protect him.[/quote]Gotcha. So you are probably doing a hit-and-run with a person on base who normally wouldn’t steal a base.
new shit: http://www.obstructedview.net/chicago-cubs/articles/cubs-close-to-trading-sean-marshall-for-travis-wood.html
[quote name=WaLi]Why is this? I would think that if the batter swung and missed, the catcher would have some sort of interference as opposed to the catcher cleanly catching the ball. Is this because in a hit and run the runner does not get as good of a jump compared to a straight steal?[/quote]
I believe this is also because the runner is coached to glance back at the plate while running to see where the ball is going. This would likely slow down the runner.
Maybe it’s because sometimes you’re more likely to use a slow runner in a hit and run situation in order to increase their chances of reaching 3rd on a single whereas you wouldn’t bother with that concern with, say, Tony Campana.