The Untouchables (h/t @thecubreporter) head to Pittsburgh to lose in beautiful PNC Park. Pittsburgh improved itself at the deadline by adding former foes Derrek Lee and Ryan Ludwick to the squad. The Pirates picked up Lee for an unranked by BA A-ball first baseman, and Ludwick was acquired for a PBTNL.
The Cubs largely failed to improve their farm system, moving Fukudome for a relief pitcher and yet another toolsy impatient raw position player. I’m annoyed with the Cubs for declaring certain players untouchable (mainly Marshall and Marmol), but for all the complaining about the Cubs lack of movement at the deadline, most of the guys that the interwebs were begging the Cubs to move have next to no value. Yes, if Hendry shopped guys like Byrd, Pena, Baker, Johnson, or even Ramirez he probably would have found someone. But what would be the point? None up those guys have much more value than Lee or Ludwick, and the Pirates basically gave up nothing for them. Even if the Cubs sent money along with those guys they couldn’t expect much more than a C prospect or two at best. Dempster’s traditional numbers this year would make him impossible to trade for good value even if he was willing to waive his NTC, which seemed the most unlikely of any of the Cubs vets. No one seemed particularly interested in salary relief either.
I would feel a lot better if Hendry was more visibly trying to move these guys to see if someone would overpay, but in the end I think we got the same result.
Team Overviews
As usual, team stats and NL ranks are listed.
| Cubs | Pirates | |
| wOBA | .312 (9th) | .297 (14th) |
| UBR | -11.6 (16th) | -4.6 (14th) |
| UZR | -17.7 (13th) | 8.7 (3rd) |
| SP FIP | 4.10 (11th) | 4.18 (13th) |
| RP FIP | 4.06 (15th) | 3.70 (6th) |
The Pirates have had a great year and I’m glad to see excited fans at their awesome park. But those numbers do not look like the numbers of a winning ballclub. Looking at their record and stats, it makes me relieved that the Cubs record reflects how terrible the team actually is. As much as we’re gnashing our teeth now, I could imagine that we’d be gnashing them even more if this team was somehow hanging on to a .500 record and convincing themselves that they have a good squad.
Taking a closer look at the Pirates numbers, Andrew McCutchen (.388) is the only regular with a significant wOBA. Their second best regular is catcher Chris Snyder, who is on the DL following back surgery. In the rotation, they’ve received solid pitching from most of their starters, and Jeff Karstens has a monster ERA-FIP split of nearly two runs.
Pitching Probables
Monday: Carlos Zambrano, RHP (4.59, 4.09, 4.24, 3.87) vs Paul Maholm, LHP (3.16, 3.78, 3.95, 3.89), 6:05 PM CT
Checking back in with Z: his strikeout rate still sucks, his walk rate looks surprisingly decent, and his ground ball rate is slowly climbing up to what it was in the past two seasons (though still not nearly as good as his prime).
Maholm is having another quietly decent year. He’s never been a guy to blow batters away (career 5.59 K/9) but he gets teh ground balls. Like Z, his rates have been slipping alarmingly in the past 2-3 seasons.
Tuesday: Randy Wells, RHP (6.16, 5.27, 4.37, 4.22) vs Kevin Correia, RHP (4.24, 4.28, 4.19, 4.25), 6:05 PM CT
The Pirates signed Correia to a 2/8 deal in the offseason to be their nominal ace. He was a decent reliever/swing man early in his career with the Giants, then put up unsurprisingly better numbers as a starter in Petco Caverns in 09-10. He’s seen a big drop in his strikeout rate since joining the Pirates.
Wednesday: Matt Garza, RHP (3.99, 3.09, 3.12, 3.83) vs Charlie Morton, RHP (4.04, 3.86, 3.97, 4.16), 6:05 PM CT
Morton is a groundball machine that saw some tough luck in his first few stints in the majors. He struggled to find the plate in his first season in the bigs with Atlanta, but since being moved to the Pirates his control has greatly improved. He put up a 7+ ERA in 2010, largely a product of a .353 BABIP and a 18.1% HR/FB rate (his xFIP was 4.11). His numbers this season are much more in line with what was expected of him, and to top it off he’s posted a GB rate of nearly 60%.
Garza was knocked around in his last start, but 4+ months into the season I still can’t believe his GB rate (laughing). He managed to induce 12 groundballs against the Cardinals offense.
Thursday: Rodrigo Lopez, RHP (4.40, 4.83, 4.52, 5.00) vs James McDonald, RHP (4.17, 4.49, 4.25, 4.08), 6:05 PM CT
The less said about Lopez, the better.
McDonald came to the Pirates from the Dodgers in the Octavio Dotel trade. He was largely used as a reliever with the big league club, but the Pirates moved him into their rotation as soon as they acquired him. He’s a flyball pitcher that often has time finding the plate.
Prediction
Cubs lose three out of four
[quote name=The Wreckard]Yeah, I agree with this. The standing pat was probably a combination of a number of things:
1) Rickets didn’t tell Hendry they needed to clear payroll
2) Most of the pieces had little value (Marshall, Marmol), relative to their replacement cost
3) The pieces that have value (Soto, Castro, Garza) have too high of a replacement cost or would impede our ability to compete next season
The one thing I would have done if I were Hendry though is to trade Byrd, in order to open up CF for Jackson next year, and line up a new right fielder. But – while Byrd’s value is higher now, it’s still relatively high if they trade him in the off season, after Jackson’s had another 2 months to prove himself.
I still think they could make some moves in August, given their pieces. But it’s clear they think they can compete next year, and if they really believe that then I bet that means that Ricketts is prepared to spend.
Either that or Ricketts really believes that trotting an expensive mediocre team out there will fill more seats than a young rebuilding team.[/quote](1) is what I think is going one, and it concerns me the most, because I think it evinces your final statement. I think what we’re witnessing is the rebirth of 1990′s-era Cubs.
The only thing that gives me pause in this regard are the Dominican facilities and this year’s draft. But almost all other signs point to intentional and sustained mediocrity.
“The Untouchables”
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing), one of the things we heard after the Fukudome trade was that Colvin would get more playing time, and then Reed Johnson starts the next two games in RF
(h/t @sahadevsharma)
[quote name=Berselius](dying laughing), one of the things we heard after the Fukudome trade was that Colvin would get more playing time, and then Reed Johnson starts the next two games in RF
(h/t @sahadevsharma)[/quote]Was saying the same thing yesterday. Hendry and Quade are determined to do whatever they can to win 67 games instead of 65. So. Fucking. Dumb.
I’m guessing Baker was untouchable because he’s the starting 3b next year once Rodrigo is gone. Apparently the Cubs org doesn’t think much of Marquez Smith either.
[quote name=Berselius](dying laughing), one of the things we heard after the Fukudome trade was that Colvin would get more playing time, and then Reed Johnson starts the next two games in RF
(h/t @sahadevsharma)[/quote]
[quote name=Berselius]I’m guessing Baker was untouchable because he’s the starting 3b next year once Rodrigo is gone. Apparently the Cubs org doesn’t think.[/quote]
.
Did you see the forecast, b?
Are Garza and Z the only starters who have seen an uptick in their GB rates, or this consistent across the staff?
[quote name=Dr. Aneus Taint]Did you see the forecast, b?
(dying laughing), pretty much. Though given that it’s been over 100 for almost a month now a few more degrees don’t seem like as big of a deal.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Are Garza and Z the only starters who have seen an uptick in their GB rates, or this consistent across the staff?[/quote]
Z’s are down from his past seasons. It’s only an uptick relative to his first few months this year.
[quote name=mb22]it’s obvious that the Cubs plan to contend next year. Not sure they can, but that’s why they made the decisions they did.[/quote]
They can because they have to.
[quote name=Berselius](dying laughing), pretty much. Though given that it’s been over 100 for almost a month now a few more degrees don’t seem like as big of a deal.[/quote]
Plus, at least my marbling is starting to render.
[quote name=Berselius]Z’s are down from his past seasons. It’s only an uptick relative to his first few months this year.[/quote]Ah. It really sucks to see Z hit the downslope of his career.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Ah. It really sucks to see Z hit the Gatorade machine repeatedly.[/quote]
/Sullivan’d
Versus ———-> NBC Sports network
Randy Moss ————–> retirement (at least until Daniel Snyder throws a dumb contract at him)
[quote name=Berselius](dying laughing), one of the things we heard after the Fukudome trade was that Colvin would get more playing time, and then Reed Johnson starts the next two games in RF
(h/t @sahadevsharma)[/quote]
Today makes sense because Maholm is left-handed. Yesterday didn’t make sense, but then Reed broke up the no-hitter and shut us right up.
[quote name=Berselius]Versus ———-> NBC Sports network[/quote]Hockey ————> Will still be less watched than Soccer
Seriously, though. If NBC can televise hockey, why can’t they televise footy? Why do I have to pirate a fucking sat feed from Univision Panama to watch MY NATIONAL FUCKING TEAM play a match?
/rant over
//spare me the “soccer is boring” “soccer is gay” etc comments
[quote name=Berselius]Randy Moss ————–> retirement (at least until Daniel Snyder throws a dumb contract at him)[/quote]Randy Moss retiring is like Dom Deluise deciding to let himself go.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Hockey ————> Will still be less watched than Soccer
Seriously, though. If NBC can televise hockey, why can’t they televise footy? Why do I have to pirate a fucking sat feed from Univision Panama to watch MY NATIONAL FUCKING TEAM play a match?
/rant over
//spare me the “soccer is boring” “soccer is gay” etc comments[/quote]
I blame Bob Bradley
Maybe I’m just crazy and angry and possibly a faget, but I would have prefered for the Cubs to trade away whoever even if the return wasn’t all that great. I don’t see any of these fucks being cromulent players on the next contending team (whether they try for 2012 or 2027), so I’d at least prefer to take a flier on someone’s C level prospect. Plus it might allow us to make one last run at the #1 pick.
[quote name=Mish]Maybe I’m just crazy and angry and possibly a faget, but I would have prefered for the Cubs to trade away whoever even if the return wasn’t all that great. I don’t see any of these fucks being cromulent players on the next contending team (whether they try for 2012 or 2027), so I’d at least prefer to take a flier on someone’s C level prospect. Plus it might allow us to make one last run at the #1 pick.[/quote]
Houston has that pretty sewn up (dying laughing).
If you’re going to trade everyone, you trade Starlin Castro. There’s no point keeping him if you’re just going to trade everyone and rebuild. By the time the Cubs contend he’ll not be cheap.
Anyone want to trade Starlin Castro?
[quote name=Berselius]Houston has that pretty sewn up (dying laughing).[/quote]Agreed. Other than actually throwing games, there’s no way the Cubs are getting the number 1 pick.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Hockey ————> Will still be less watched than Soccer
Seriously, though. If NBC can televise hockey, why can’t they televise footy? Why do I have to pirate a fucking sat feed from Univision Panama to watch MY NATIONAL FUCKING TEAM play a match?
/rant over
//spare me the “soccer is boring” “soccer is gay” etc comments[/quote]
I like soccer/real football. I think both soccer and hockey have TV issues though as I haven’t seen a hockey game except for during the Cup Finals because the NHL is retarded.
[quote name=mb22]If you’re going to trade everyone, you trade Starlin Castro. There’s no point keeping him if you’re just going to trade everyone and rebuild. By the time the Cubs contend he’ll not be cheap.
Anyone want to trade Starlin Castro?[/quote]
I sort of want this to happen just to see how many heads explode from exasperation.
This photo made me (dying laughing)
[quote name=mb22]If you’re going to trade everyone, you trade Starlin Castro. There’s no point keeping him if you’re just going to trade everyone and rebuild. By the time the Cubs contend he’ll not be cheap.
Anyone want to trade Starlin Castro?[/quote]
I’ve actually posted that I’d be fine with this. I think there are enough questions about his ceiling where it’d at least be worth seeing what teams would offer. Have you done a Castro trade value post, just for the lulz?
[quote name=mb22]If you’re going to trade everyone, you trade Starlin Castro. There’s no point keeping him if you’re just going to trade everyone and rebuild. By the time the Cubs contend he’ll not be cheap.
Anyone want to trade Starlin Castro?[/quote]At this point, I think it’s a minimum of 3-5 years before this org is unfucked, and that’s if you get rid of everyone at the top and begin again. So, despite the fact that I rate Castro highly, I’d consider moving him for the right offer.
The Cubs are bleeding money, need a huge cash infusion to repair a crumbling stadium AND sign good FA, and have an aging, expensive roster. They need to stockpile as much cheap talent as possible. So, yes, I’d move Castro for the right deal. I’d move anyone at this point. Not only is the team bad, but the org looks equally bad.
[quote name=Rice Cube]
This photo made me (dying laughing)[/quote](dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
Serves that portly fuckturd right.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Hockey ————> Will still be less watched than Soccer
Seriously, though. If NBC can televise hockey, why can’t they televise footy? [/quote]Because there’s no time outs and they can’t deal with that?
[quote name=Suburban kid]Because there’s no time outs and they can’t deal with that?[/quote]If that’s what they claim, it’s purely fictive argument. Networks put digital ads on the screen now all the time, and the sideboards around any pitch are riddled with ads. You don’t need timeouts to earn ad revenue, and arguably, advertisers in your average footy match catch way more screen time that someone who get 1 or 2 45-second spots during a baseball game. Not to mention that if it’s a club match, you’ve got ads plastered right on the front of the kits.
[quote name=mb22]If you’re going to trade everyone, you trade Starlin Castro. There’s no point keeping him if you’re just going to trade everyone and rebuild. By the time the Cubs contend he’ll not be cheap.
Anyone want to trade Starlin Castro?[/quote]I think you keep Castro. If he’s the most expensive player on the team in 3 years, but he’s producing behind it, then you have a good player getting paid to play well. What’s wrong with that? You build the rest of the team around him.
If he utterly dries up as a hitter, you don’t offer him arb and move on. I think his potential is worth hanging onto. That move more than any I see as getting not much in return, since he already has youth and potential going for him. The only reason I see trading a guy like Castro is to get a really good veteran for a winning team.
[quote name=Suburban kid]Because there’s no time outs and they can’t deal with that?[/quote]
When ESPN broadcast some of the World Cup games they just sold chunks of time to certain advertisers and said “this portion is brought to you by blah-blah-blah” but I doubt that makes as much money as an actual commercial.
[quote name=Rice Cube]When ESPN broadcast some of the World Cup games they just sold chunks of time to certain advertisers and said “this portion is brought to you by blah-blah-blah” but I doubt that makes as much money as an actual commercial.[/quote]Look, it’s stupid to fault the game because American sports honchos are too stupid to know how to market it. And I find it hard to believe that the scintillating NCAAFB matchups ESPN runs on early Sat morning (Portland State vs. MIddle Tennessee, anyone?) are more profitable than a footy match.
I just think it’s ridiculous that American soccer fans cannot even watch their national team play a match on American network TV, but the NCAA Track and Field Championships get 3 solid days of coverage.
And don’t even get me started on the money pit that is the Winter Olympics.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]If that’s what they claim, it’s purely fictive argument. Networks put digital ads on the screen now all the time, and the sideboards around any pitch are riddled with ads. You don’t need timeouts to earn ad revenue, and arguably, advertisers in your average footy match catch way more screen time that someone who get 1 or 2 45-second spots during a baseball game. Not to mention that if it’s a club match, you’ve got ads plastered right on the front of the kits.[/quote]NBC don’t like your faget stats. Real ads come every eight minutes.
I don’t think anyone is faulting the sport, other than the networks who don’t want to broadcast it for whatever reason.
MO, you’re never ever going to believe this, but David Haugh wrote something stupid about the Bears: http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/ct-spt-0801-haugh-bears-chicago–20110801,0,3476614.column
(dying laughing) Yeah, that’ll be a completely new phenomenon for Cutler in Chicago.
[quote name=Rice Cube]Today makes sense because Maholm is left-handed. Yesterday didn’t make sense, but then Reed broke up the no-hitter and shut us right up.[/quote]
With the Cubs record, there won’t be a better time to see how he does against major league LHP than now, well, and probably two months into next two seasons.
Kreutz should start a sports bar in Chicago with Mark DeRosa. No one would ever leave.
[quote name=Suburban kid]I don’t think anyone is faulting the sport, other than the networks who don’t want to broadcast it for whatever reason.[/quote]No, not here, but I’ve heard that offered elsewhere as rationale for not broadcasting it. It’s largely frustration on my part. I should be able, at a minimum, to watch my national team play on network TV, especially since I can watch thousands of people just TRY to make the USA track team.
As far as club soccer is concerned, the truth is, US networks probably can’t afford the broadcast rights. FOX is certainly on the forefront here, though, considering they managed to run the CL Final on their network outlet.
[quote name=GBTS]MO, you’re never ever going to believe this, but David Haugh wrote something stupid about the Bears: http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/ct-spt-0801-haugh-bears-chicago–20110801,0,3476614.column
(dying laughing) Yeah, that’ll be a completely new phenomenon for Cutler in Chicago.[/quote]You couldn’t fill a shoe with the number of coherent sentences Haugh has written.
[quote name=AB]With the Cubs record, there won’t be a better time to see how he does against major league LHP than now, well, and probably two months into next two seasons.[/quote]Yeah playing Reed out there, regardless of matchup, just belies the rationale of the Fukudome trade. It was a salary dump, pure and simple, and Hendry doesn’t have the sack to come out and say it. I honestly think they’ve given up on Colvin, and that’s not a horrible decision, seeing as his ceiling is probably as a 4th OF. But it sure does make the manager and the GM look fucking stupid when they say a move was made to clear space for Colvin and then act in a diametrically opposite manner.
[quote name=GBTS]Kreutz should start a sports bar in Chicago with Mark DeRosa. No one would ever leave.[/quote]Special guest bartenders Dustin Byfuglien and Ryan Theriot.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Yeah playing Reed out there, regardless of matchup, just belies the rationale of the Fukudome trade. It was a salary dump, pure and simple, and Hendry doesn’t have the sack to come out and say it. I honestly think they’ve given up on Colvin, and that’s not a horrible decision, seeing as his ceiling is probably as a 4th OF. But it sure does make the manager and the GM look fucking stupid when they say a move was made to clear space for Colvin and then act in a diametrically opposite manner.[/quote]Why the hell not trade him, then? Why make it obvious to everyone? This team’s logic is impenetrable.
[quote name=josh]Why the hell not trade him, then? Why make it obvious to everyone? This team’s logic is impenetrable.[/quote]Yeah, when you start to try and think through what’s going on here, it all becomes very opaque.
If the plan at 1B is Peña, though…ouch
If you mean trade Colvin, to be honest, you’re not going to get a warm six-pack of shitty domestic lager in return, let alone a bag of balls. His value is nil.
[quote name=Mish]I’ve actually posted that I’d be fine with this. I think there are enough questions about his ceiling where it’d at least be worth seeing what teams would offer. Have you done a Castro trade value post, just for the lulz?[/quote]I wouldn’t throw a fit either, but name one other organization that’s going to trade a talented 21 year old shortstop who already has had success at the big league level.
[quote name=AB]With the Cubs record, there won’t be a better time to see how he does against major league LHP than now, well, and probably two months into next two seasons.[/quote]
I agree, they should just throw Colvin out there for the rest of the year. But Reed’s a gamer and Cubs fans still think they should be winning games, so whatcha gonna do?
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Yeah, when you start to try and think through what’s going on here, it all becomes very opaque.
If the plan at 1B is Peña, though…ouch
If you mean trade Colvin, to be honest, you’re not going to get a warm six-pack of shitty domestic lager in return, let alone a bag of balls. His value is nil.[/quote]Probably right. But hey, he’s a good athlete. And he’ll make it into some kind of hall of fame as the only guy to ever get stabbed in the chest during a game.
I have a hard time believing the Pirates will make a strong showing over the next couple of months, but then again, I never believed the Reds had it in them.
[quote name=mb22]I wouldn’t throw a fit either, but name one other organization that’s going to trade a talented 21 year old shortstop who already has had success at the big league level.[/quote]I don’t think there’s a single team that would. But I also think the Cubs are in a uniquely bad position and are going to have to consider unique solutions.
[quote name=Rice Cube]I agree, they should just throw Colvin out there for the rest of the year. But Reed’s a gamer and Cubs fans still think they should be winning games, so whatcha gonna do?[/quote]If nothing else, try to rebuild Colvin’s trade value and get something for him in the off-season.
[quote name=josh]Probably right. But hey, he’s a good athlete. And he’ll make it into some kind of hall of fame as the only guy to ever get stabbed in the chest during a game.
I have a hard time believing the Pirates will make a strong showing over the next couple of months, but then again, I never believed the Reds had it in them.[/quote]Colvin’s so far below the Mendoza Line, he’s in danger of establishing the Colvin Line. Couple that with the fact that his defense at the ML level has been spotty, at best, and I can’t imagine any team wanting him, for the simple fact that every team has about 5 Tyler Colvin’s at the AA/AAA level. No need to add another.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]
And don’t even get me started on the money pit that is the
WinterOlympics.[/quote]To be fair
colvin sucks
[quote name=josh]If nothing else, try to rebuild Colvin’s trade value and get something for him in the off-season.[/quote]If Colvin starts hitting again, the Cubs will probably have to keep him and start him in RF/LF next year, or at least platoon him in LF with Soriano.
[quote name=mb22]I wouldn’t throw a fit either, but name one other organization that’s going to trade a talented 21 year old shortstop who already has had success at the big league level.[/quote]
The Marlins traded Cabrera fairly close to his 21st bday (I think), though he was a 3b rapidly eating his way to 1b at the time.
[quote name=Berselius]To be fair[/quote]Oh, for sure. Logic at NBC:
Two hours of curling or Equestrian at 2 a.m.: We will bid eleventy billion dollars
90 minutes of a world-popular sport played in a timeslot that competes with no major American sport: Nah, we’ll pass.
[quote name=Berselius]The Marlins traded Cabrera fairly close to his 21st bday (I think), though he was a 3b rapidly eating his way to 1b at the time.[/quote]There were also serious clubhouse issues and a drinking problem with Cabrera that necessitated a move.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Oh, for sure. Logic at NBC:
Two hours of curling or Equestrian at 2 a.m.: We will bid eleventy billion dollars
90 minutes of a world-popular sport played in a timeslot that competes with no major American sport: Nah, we’ll pass.[/quote]
Hey, you can’t cut into the Today Show, or Important Political Talk show (depending on what morning we’re talking about). How would their viewers ever get informed? (dying laughing)
Imagine this: FOX gets EPL rights. What they get is a 2.5 hour lead in every fucking Sunday into their NFL broadcast. On a doubleheader Sunday, that’s potentially a 10 hour solid block of viewers.
[quote name=Berselius]Hey, you can’t cut into the Today Show, or Important Political Talk show (depending on what morning we’re talking about). How would their viewers ever get informed? (dying laughing)[/quote]Indeed. No one will ever learn the eminently popular “a pox on both their houses” line of argument.
the only value anyone is ever going to get out of colvin is if they pretend to be him in order to buy a dodge ram on credit.
[quote name=GW]colvin sucks[/quote]out loud
[quote name=GW]the only value anyone is ever going to get out of colvin is if they pretend to be him in order to buy a dodge ram on credit.[/quote](dying laughing)
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Imagine this: FOX gets EPL rights. What they get is a 2.5 hour lead in every fucking Sunday into their NFL broadcast. On a doubleheader Sunday, that’s potentially a 10 hour solid block of viewers.[/quote]
But everybody loves their studio show so much, MO. Why cut into that??! FOX would reject the deal and extend NFL Today or whatever the fuck they call it now to 3 hours, and put 17 people in front of the desk.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Look, it’s stupid to fault the game because American sports honchos are too stupid to know how to market it. And I find it hard to believe that the scintillating NCAAFB matchups ESPN runs on early Sat morning (Portland State vs. MIddle Tennessee, anyone?) are more profitable than a footy match.
I just think it’s ridiculous that American soccer fans cannot even watch their national team play a match on American network TV, but the NCAA Track and Field Championships get 3 solid days of coverage.
And don’t even get me started on the money pit that is the Winter Olympics.[/quote]In order for a place like ESPN to show a soccer match they have to create a free slot in which to show it. This means cutting other broadcasts down. Forget about cutting down on MLB, NBA or NFL. Forget about college football. Forget about men’s college basketball (and women’s). What do you have left at that point? In order to justify cutting whatever is left soccer would have to generate more revenue than what they currently air. Would soccer generate as much as the occasional college baseball game? If ESPN said no more college baseball, how much money do they lose because they now cannot show the Super Regionals or College World Series?
My guess is that a soccer match would generate about the same amount of revenue as college baseball. Perhaps less. Since baseball is an American game, they’ll go with that.
I think the reality is that soccer just wouldn’t generate enough revenue for a place like ESPN to reach a contract with whatever organization they’d have. How much would ESPN have to pay FIFA (or whatever else there is)? Most importantly, how much would it hurt their brand?
The average person doesn’t want to tune into ESPN and see a soccer or hockey game on. They’d rather there be some stupid talk show, which is something else we haven’t talked about with regards to replacing. Those shows usually do quite well because they’re relatively cheap.
My guess is the biggest reason is the cost it would require to televise these events.
Berselius, we found your van. The good news is, the thief couldn’t peel your ad off the window:
[quote name=mb22]In order for a place like ESPN to show a soccer match they have to create a free slot in which to show it. This means cutting other broadcasts down. Forget about cutting down on MLB, NBA or NFL. Forget about college football. Forget about men’s college basketball (and women’s). What do you have left at that point? In order to justify cutting whatever is left soccer would have to generate more revenue than what they currently air. Would soccer generate as much as the occasional college baseball game? If ESPN said no more college baseball, how much money do they lose because they now cannot show the Super Regionals or College World Series?
My guess is that a soccer match would generate about the same amount of revenue as college baseball. Perhaps less. Since baseball is an American game, they’ll go with that.
I think the reality is that soccer just wouldn’t generate enough revenue for a place like ESPN to reach a contract with whatever organization they’d have. How much would ESPN have to pay FIFA (or whatever else there is)? Most importantly, how much would it hurt their brand?
The average person doesn’t want to tune into ESPN and see a soccer or hockey game on. They’d rather there be some stupid talk show, which is something else we haven’t talked about with regards to replacing. Those shows usually do quite well because they’re relatively cheap.
My guess is the biggest reason is the cost it would require to televise these events.[/quote]
ESPN has some EPL matches now though. I get the vibe that they’re not doing the televising, just adding commentary. The relatively new programming boss over there is a big soccer fan, and that was a big reason why they went so hard after the World Cup last year.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Berselius, we found your van. The good news is, the thief couldn’t peel your ad off the window:
I’m still inside the Jo-Ann, trying to pick between half a thousand ugly fleece prints to make DeRosa knows what. So many decisions.
[quote name=josh]Why the hell not trade him, then? Why make it obvious to everyone? This team’s logic is impenetrable.[/quote]They traded Fukudome because they had an option in RF who could play and they had no interest in retaining him. Saying that Colvin is going to play is nothing more than a confidence builder for him and it makes it sound like the Cubs weren’t just eager to get rid of Fukudome.
Tyler Colvin blows. Reed Johnson is better. Reed Johnson has a brighter future and will be more valuable over the next 5 years than Colvin will be. The guy had a .275 OBP in AAA, struck out 25.9% of the time and walked just 2.1% of his PA. The oddest thing was that he even got called up. He was more deserving of playing every day in AA than he is at the big league level.
[quote name=mb22] He was more deserving of playing every day in AA than he is at the big league level.[/quote]
Leave him in AAA. AA needs space for the real prospects (dying laughing)
[quote name=Berselius]ESPN has some EPL matches now though. I get the vibe that they’re not doing the televising, just adding commentary. The relatively new programming boss over there is a big soccer fan, and that was a big reason why they went so hard after the World Cup last year.[/quote]That success or failure to draw viewers and generate revenue will determine how much programming space ESPN gives soccer.
[quote name=Berselius]Leave him in AAA. AA needs space for the real prospects (dying laughing)[/quote]It’s strange, b. the complain with Colvin being on the MLB roster isn’t that he isn’t playing, in my opinion, it’s that he’s even on it.
[quote name=mb22]In order for a place like ESPN to show a soccer match they have to create a free slot in which to show it. This means cutting other broadcasts down. Forget about cutting down on MLB, NBA or NFL. Forget about college football. Forget about men’s college basketball (and women’s). What do you have left at that point? In order to justify cutting whatever is left soccer would have to generate more revenue than what they currently air. Would soccer generate as much as the occasional college baseball game? If ESPN said no more college baseball, how much money do they lose because they now cannot show the Super Regionals or College World Series?
My guess is that a soccer match would generate about the same amount of revenue as college baseball. Perhaps less. Since baseball is an American game, they’ll go with that.
I think the reality is that soccer just wouldn’t generate enough revenue for a place like ESPN to reach a contract with whatever organization they’d have. How much would ESPN have to pay FIFA (or whatever else there is)? Most importantly, how much would it hurt their brand?
The average person doesn’t want to tune into ESPN and see a soccer or hockey game on. They’d rather there be some stupid talk show, which is something else we haven’t talked about with regards to replacing. Those shows usually do quite well because they’re relatively cheap.
My guess is the biggest reason is the cost it would require to televise these events.[/quote]Soccer doesn’t compete with the time slots for any of those sports.
It cuts out a studio show, and you’re right that those are cheap, and the sheeple that still follow ESPN would prefer to have some half-assed analysis spoon-fed to them than to watch an actually exciting sport.
And soccer would draw for more revenue that NCAABB. The CL Final on FOX, IIRC, outdrew the Stanley Cup Finals in viewers in it’s first year on network TV. People here want to watch footy. If American networks would follow FOX’s lead and begin to show it mroe often, I think they would be pleasantly surprised. But they have to show real footy, like EPL and international matches. Not even MLS fans (myself included) want to watch an MLS match. (dying laughing)
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder] But they have to show real footy, like EPL and international matches. Not even MLS fans (myself included) want to watch an MLS match. (dying laughing)[/quote]
1000x THIS (dying laughing)
Let’s agree that we can acknowledge that Colvin is bad and still not use the words “bright future” in conjunction with the name of a 35 YO OF with a career 96 OPS+.
[quote name=Berselius]1000x THIS (dying laughing)[/quote]I only watch the Fire matches that I can to support more soccer on TV. But damn is that some shit football.
[quote name=mb22]That success or failure to draw viewers and generate revenue will determine how much programming space ESPN gives soccer.[/quote]
The thing with whoever picks up soccer rights in the US is that it’s also developmental. ESPN’s airing of NASCAR and the NHL in the 80s/90s built those sports into the financial behemoths they are now in the US, when they used to be relatively fringe sports.
I don’t think televising MLS games is going to help that much either. If people are watching soccer, they either want to watch the best in the world (Euro leagues) or their national teams.
I wonder what kind of insane ratings Univision/Telemundo gets for Mexican National Team games.
[quote name=Berselius]The thing with whoever picks up soccer rights in the US is that it’s also developmental. ESPN’s airing of NASCAR and the NHL in the 80s/90s built those sports into the financial behemoths they are now in the US, when they used to be relatively fringe sports.[/quote]Yeah, and it is encouraging that ESPN is trying to make inroads here. To be fair to them, they immediately exploited the collapse of Setanta to grab the EPL rights they have.
But I’d really like to see more on networl tv, especially where the USMNT is concerned.
As a fan of Derrek Lee, this is a really weird sight.
[quote name=Berselius]I don’t think televising MLS games is going to help that much either. If people are watching soccer, they either want to watch the best in the world (Euro leagues) or their national teams.
I wonder what kind of insane ratings Univision/Telemundo gets for Mexican National Team games.[/quote]Univision actually even televises the Mexican domestic league.
Yeah, MLS won’t help until the game improves, but if people don’t watch the MLS games that are offered, they lessen the chances that any other soccer will be picked up, because most TV sports execs don’t appreciate the difference in quality. To them, and I’m not indicting them for this but just stating it as an assumption, when soccer broadcast X gets a shitty market share, it’s a disincentive to air more soccer. And it’s hard to blame them for that. At least some this rests on the snobbery of the average footy fan who can’t appreciate markets.
Also FWIW I know a lot more people who suddenly give a shit about soccer in general and the national teams in particular after the recent World Cups (men’s and women’s). It could just be a recent-ness thing, but the women’s team definitely seemed much more marketable than the men’s team too.
[quote name=Berselius] It could just be a recent-ness thing, but the women’s team definitely seemed much more
marketableattractive than the men’s team too.[/quote]Yup.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Let’s agree that we can acknowledge that Colvin is bad and still not use the words “bright future” in conjunction with the name of a 35 YO OF with a career 96 OPS+.[/quote]I said brighter future than Colvin, which is absolutely 100% true.
[quote name=Berselius]Also FWIW I know a lot more people who suddenly give a shit about soccer in general and the national teams in particular after the recent World Cups (men’s and women’s). It could just be a recent-ness thing, but the women’s team definitely seemed much more marketable than the men’s team too.[/quote]Yeah, the time to strike while the iron is hot is now. If ESPN and FSC want to slow the encroachment of local sports cable networks on their turf, this might be a good way to do so.
[quote name=Rice Cube]Yup.[/quote]As much as I like to admire USWNT for their ahem, physical prowess, I try not to indulge in it, because the truth is, they are fucking damn good at football, and should be appreciated for that first and foremost.
[quote name=Rice Cube]
As a fan of Derrek Lee, this is a really weird sight.[/quote]
That does look quite weird
[quote name=mb22]I said brighter future than Colvin, which is absolutely 100% true.[/quote]I don’t think either has a bright future, so the degree of radiance is irrelevant. Basically, the Cubs can play a guy who represents Colvin’s ceiling, or they can play Tyler Colvin. It doesn’t make a difference which way they go. What bothers me is that the Cubs think there is.
[quote name=mb22] The guy had a .275 OBP in AAA, [/quote]And the entire league has a .360 OBP. Pitchers included. That’s really impressive.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Univision actually even televises the Mexican domestic league.
Yeah, MLS won’t help until the game improves, but if people don’t watch the MLS games that are offered, they lessen the chances that any other soccer will be picked up, because most TV sports execs don’t appreciate the difference in quality. To them, and I’m not indicting them for this but just stating it as an assumption, when soccer broadcast X gets a shitty market share, it’s a disincentive to air more soccer. And it’s hard to blame them for that. At least some this rests on the snobbery of the average footy fan who can’t appreciate markets.[/quote]Unfortunately, I don’t see how MLS is going to improve absent some massive change in the structure of the league. For all of the flak Gulati has taken over the years, Anschutz has done more to damage American soccer than anyone.
[quote name=ACT]And the entire league has a .360 OBP. Pitchers included. That’s really impressive.[/quote]Jesus H. Cermak, Colvin is terrible.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]As much as I like to admire USWNT for their ahem, physical prowess, I try not to indulge in it, because the truth is, they are fucking damn good at football, and should be appreciated for that first and foremost.[/quote]
Oh yeah. The eye candy is a bonus.
Reed Johnson is 34?
[quote name=uncle dave]Unfortunately, I don’t see how MLS is going to improve absent some massive change in the structure of the league. For all of the flak Gulati has taken over the years, Anschutz has done more to damage American soccer than anyone.[/quote]
$$ and developing more talented US players. A rising tide would lift all boats as far as US Soccer is concerned
[quote name=uncle dave]Unfortunately, I don’t see how MLS is going to improve absent some massive change in the structure of the league. For all of the flak Gulati has taken over the years, Anschutz has done more to damage American soccer than anyone.[/quote]Completely agree. The salary structure needs to change, and youth academies need to be set up…but the NCAA will fight the latter tooth and nail.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]I don’t think either has a bright future, so the degree of radiance is irrelevant. Basically, the Cubs can play a guy who represents Colvin’s ceiling, or they can play Tyler Colvin. It doesn’t make a difference which way they go. What bothers me is that the Cubs think there is.[/quote]
I’ve got someone arguing with me on twitter that they need to play Reed to showcase him for a trade, to show teams that he’s healthy (dying laughing).
[quote name=uncle dave]Reed Johnson is 34?[/quote]Born 12/8/76.
[quote name=mb22]I wouldn’t throw a fit either, but name one other organization that’s going to trade the most talented 20 something shortstop who already is the most exciting player at the big league level.[/quote]The Brewers.
/KG’d
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/08/01/witness-in-bryan-stow-case-dies-suddenly
At least they have video evidence, apparently
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Born 12/8/76.[/quote]I can see how he’s considered a cornerstone for this club’s future.
[quote name=Berselius]I’ve got someone arguing with me on twitter that they need to play Reed to showcase him for a trade, to show teams that he’s healthy (dying laughing).[/quote]Ye gods.
Owner (to GM): What do we need?
GM: A 35 YO OF with a career OPS+ of 96.
Owner: shoots GM in the throat, pisses on the corpse
[quote name=uncle dave]I can see how he’s considered a cornerstone for this club’s future.[/quote]You, me, MB, and SK are next in line.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Jesus H. Cermak, Colvin is terrible.[/quote]Colvin couldn’t even get on base if home plate was the size of his ability to get on base.
[quote name=GBTS]The Brewers.
/KG’d[/quote]That’s an outlier. Escobar’s excitingness and playability could not be contained by the city of Milwaukee.
[quote name=GBTS]Colvin couldn’t even get on base if home plate was the size of his ability to get on base.[/quote](dying laughing)
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Ye gods.
Owner (to GM): What do we need?
GM: A 35 YO OF with a career OPS+ of 96.
Owner: shoots GM in the throat, pisses on the corpse[/quote]
He had a back injury last week, but he’s playing now so if we get him we won’t have to worry about injuries.
[quote name=Berselius]$$ and developing more talented US players. A rising tide would lift all boats as far as US Soccer is concerned[/quote]Which is exactly where the fanatical devotion MLS has to underpaying players and ensuring that the next iteration of the Cosmos will never happen becomes an obstacle. I absolutely adore the charade of screwing labor for the cause of ‘competitive balance’ that we seem to see so much…
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]That’s an outlier. Escobar’s excitingness and playability could not be contained by the city of Milwaukee.[/quote]I have a friend who is a Royals fan, and his head exploded watching Escobar in the on deck circle on opening day. Swear to god.
[quote name=uncle dave]Which is exactly where the fanatical devotion MLS has to underpaying players and ensuring that the next iteration of the Cosmos will never happen becomes an obstacle. I absolutely adore the charade of screwing labor for the cause of ‘competitive balance’ that we seem to see so much…[/quote]Sunil’s fingerprints are all over this. I cannot describe how pleased I am that Reyna and Klinsy have gotten their feet in the door.
[quote name=GBTS]I have a friend who is a Royals fan, and his head exploded watching Escobar in the on deck circle on opening day. Swear to god.[/quote]His swing looks like Ted Lilly’s. Sadly, I am also a Royals fan.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Sunil’s fingerprints are all over this. I cannot describe how pleased I am that Reyna and Klinsy have gotten their feet in the door.[/quote]Let’s just hope the guy doesn’t freak out and run screaming for the hills once he sees how much of a hot mess he’s stepped into.
Cashner’s around:
http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/6825065/andrew-cashner-re-joins-chicago-cubs-begin-rehab
[quote name=uncle dave]Let’s just hope the guy doesn’t freak out and run screaming for the hills once he sees how much of a hot mess he’s stepped into.[/quote]Kilnsmann’s been a long time observer of USMNT, and he’s had a long courtship with USSF. He knows exactly what he’s getting into.
The two guys I expected to take walks have walked.
[quote name=Rice Cube]Cashner’s around:
http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/6825065/andrew-cashner-re-joins-chicago-cubs-begin-rehab/quoteGood news. I’m really interested to see where his velocity is at.
Man, Byrd and Soriano back to back is just asking for trouble.
Maholm is wild so far.
Nice inning by Z.
Cards @ Brewers is the free game on MLB.tv tonight.
[quote name=Rice Cube]Cards @ Brewers is the free game on MLB.tv tonight.[/quote]Sweet! I get to watch the best baseball player we’ve ever seen. And no, I don’t mean Theriot.
Nice game so far for Castro.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Sweet! I get to watch the best baseball player we’ve ever seen. And no, I don’t mean Theriot.[/quote]
Ari Kaplan is also watching to see which 1B to sign this offseason based on small samples and splits.
And I ask you: where would we be without REED JOHNSON and JEFF BAKER?
[quote name=uncle dave]And I ask you: where would we be without REED JOHNSON and JEFF BAKER?[/quote]About 23 games under .500.
Way too many pitches for Z through 3 IP.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]I don’t think either has a bright future, so the degree of radiance is irrelevant. Basically, the Cubs can play a guy who represents Colvin’s ceiling, or they can play Tyler Colvin. It doesn’t make a difference which way they go. What bothers me is that the Cubs think there is.[/quote]Saying Jonson’s future is brighter than Colvin’s doesn’t imply his future is bright.
The Cubs are just so damn aggressive at the plate. Maholm has been wild as hell tonight, and the Cubs just can’t stop swinging
I haven’t read through all the faget remarks in this thread so maybe someone has already made the same point. When you say that Byrd, Pena, Johnson, Baker and even Aramis would probably only bring back a C prospect or two, it dismisses the fact that sometimes C prospects turn out to be contributing MLB talent. Not every big leaguer was the top prospects in their org. There are also prospects that teams will deal just because they don’t like something about the guy’s personality. I don’t think Hendry should trade all of those guys necessarily but let’s not act as if there isn’t any way he could get a player that might have value down the line. He prides himself on his scouting department and they should be able to uncover some hidden gems in other orgs.
[quote name=mb22]Saying Jonson’s future is brighter than Colvin’s doesn’t imply his future is bright.[/quote]So then don’t say that. Say Johnson is a better player, which is true. Reed’s hitting well, and his D is always good. But at 35 YO, he has no future, and if not for his wildly flukey success this season, he would probably be out of baseball. Colvin’s future is brighter because he at least has the possibility of being Reed. Reed has ben unquestionably better this season, but Reed’s career is probably over after this season. And the bottom line is that neither of them are very good as an everyday player.
It doesn’t dismiss it at all. It’s just that’s what they’d bring in return.
And when the Cubs got that toolsy outfielder that can’t get on base people would complain they added yet another toolsy player who can’t get on base. Kinda like they did after the Cubs traded Fukudome. There were remarks here that the Cubs should have just held onto him. So obviously the value of such prospects is so little that they don’t matter, but also so great that they matter tremendously when they aren’t acquired. I don’t get it.
Derrek Lee!
Oh wait…
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]So then don’t say that. Say Johnson is a better player, which is true. Reed’s hitting well, and his D is always good. But at 35 YO, he has no future, and if not for his wildly flukey success this season, he would probably be out of baseball. Colvin’s future is brighter because he at least has the possibility of being Reed. Reed has ben unquestionably better this season, but Reed’s career is probably over after this season. And the bottom line is that neither of them are very good as an everyday player.[/quote]I didn’t. Go read what I wrote. It’s comment 73. It’s not my fault you read it wrong.
By the way, MO, I’ll say what I want. I was very clear in what I said. Couldn’t have been more clear. That you read it wrong is an indication of your feelings about the issue and not your objectiveness.
[quote name=mb22]It doesn’t dismiss it at all. It’s just that’s what they’d bring in return.
And when the Cubs got that toolsy outfielder that can’t get on base people would complain they added yet another toolsy player who can’t get on base. Kinda like they did after the Cubs traded Fukudome. There were remarks here that the Cubs should have just held onto him. So obviously the value of such prospects is so little that they don’t matter, but also so great that they matter tremendously when they aren’t acquired. I don’t get it.[/quote]I just think the Cubs need to stockpile prospects to whatever degree they can, because they’re cash-strapped. You won’t get anyone interested in Colvin and his ilk, but Byrd, Marmol, Marshall, Garza, Soto, etc could bring some return. And for a team that faces money problems, cost-controlled talent is of the utmost importance.
[quote name=mb22]It doesn’t dismiss it at all. It’s just that’s what they’d bring in return.
.[/quote]
To me this is implying there is no point in trading any of these players. I think there can be a point because a C prospect or two could end up being decent. As for those who complained about moving Fukudome, I don’t happen to be in that camp.
[quote name=melissa]To me this is implying there is no point in trading any of these players. I think there can be a point because a C prospect or two could end up being decent. As for those who complained about moving Fukudome, I don’t happen to be in that camp.[/quote]
Melissa, my point is that while I’d rather have the prospects than 2 more months of Fukudome (or whoever), the difference between having an unranked prospect acquisition and not is too small to get upset about.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]I just think the Cubs need to stockpile prospects to whatever degree they can, because they’re cash-strapped. You won’t get anyone interested in Colvin and his ilk, but Byrd, Marmol, Marshall, Garza, Soto, etc could bring some return. And for a team that faces money problems, cost-controlled talent is of the utmost importance.[/quote]That’s fine and it’s reasonable, but you would have a different plan than the Cubs do. We can argue all day whether or not the Cubs should have a different plan for the future, but knowing their plan, there’s very little to argue about with regards to the decisions they made at the deadline.
But I couldn’t care less what’s right or wrong anymore. I root for the Cubs so it’s plainly obvious I don’t. If I actually care about that, I’d root for another team that did shit right more often than this club does. I care whether or not the decisions made are defensible given the stated plan that the Cubs have. Others care more about what they think the Cubs should do.
[quote name=mb22]By the way, MO, I’ll say what I want. I was very clear in what I said. Couldn’t have been more clear. That you read it wrong is an indication of your feelings about the issue and not your objectiveness.[/quote]Oh, piss off.
You said:
.
Reed Johnson is probably out of baseball next year, and Colvin is probably laboring in AAA in Iowa or somewhere else. Reed’s future is no brighter than Colvin’s, and that’s exactly what you said, word for word. They’re both bums, but one bum has been better than other this year.
I don’t care that Reed is playing over Colvin. It makes no difference to the club. They both suck ass. But I do care that this org continues to lie their ass off. And you can say, until your fingers turn black, that ever org does it, but I honestly don;t give a fat friar’s fuck. The Cubs quite apparently lied. And that bothers me. Past that, I could really care less is Reed plays. This team will get beaten just as soundly with him as without him.
[quote name=melissa]To me this is implying there is no point in trading any of these players. I think there can be a point because a C prospect or two could end up being decent. As for those who complained about moving Fukudome, I don’t happen to be in that camp.[/quote]I honestly cannot believe how long we’ve been arguing about whether or not the Cubs should acquire some shitty fucking prospects. It’s mindboggling.
The funny thing to me is that you know you’d be complaining about the guys they acquired.
Exactly. What part of that is not true? Tyler Colvin sucks ass. Reed Johnson has nearly a .400 wOBA this season. Some team is going to sign him. Even if they don’t, Johnson is going to be more valuable the next 2 months than Colvin will be.
[quote name=mb22]That’s fine and it’s reasonable, but you would have a different plan than the Cubs do. We can argue all day whether or not the Cubs should have a different plan for the future, but knowing their plan, there’s very little to argue about with regards to the decisions they made at the deadline.
But I couldn’t care less what’s right or wrong anymore. I root for the Cubs so it’s plainly obvious I don’t. If I actually care about that, I’d root for another team that did shit right more often than this club does. I care whether or not the decisions made are defensible given the stated plan that the Cubs have. Others care more about what they think the Cubs should do.[/quote]I ask this with all honesty:
What is their plan?
Because it’s inscrutable to me, and if I’ve missed something, I’d like to know.
[quote name=mb22]Exactly. What part of that is not true? Tyler Colvin sucks ass. Reed Johnson has nearly a .400 wOBA this season. Some team is going to sign him. Even if they don’t, Johnson is going to be more valuable the next 2 months than Colvin will be.[/quote]That Reed has a future. He’s 35 and has a bad back. There is NO FUCKING FUTURE there. None. Zero. I like to think most MLB teams are too smart to sign Reed fucking Johnson on such a small sample, and with his recurrent back problems, but as for the second aprt, I have no doubt that it is true. Colvin’s terrible, and Reed, when healthy, has been quite good this year.
[quote name=mb22]
The funny thing to me is that you know you’d be complaining about the guys they acquired.[/quote]
Like I did in regard to Fukudome? Wait, I never. I think this is patently unfair statement from you. I would also add that I was commenting in regard to what Berselius had written in the preview, I wasn’t trying to attack him. If you’re tired of discussing this topic fine, as I said, I hadn’t yet had time to read the whole thread and was just throwing in my 2 cents.
(dying laughing), it’s Everyone Be Defensive night at OV apparently
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]I ask this with all honesty:
What is their plan?
Because it’s inscrutable to me, and if I’ve missed something, I’d like to know.[/quote]They plan to contend. Every year. They will not ever rebuild. Ever. As much as you or I may have wanted them to do just that, it’s not happening.
If I plan to lose 20 pounds and eat cheesecakes for lunch and dinner, I made a stupid decision. If, instead, I want to gain weight and eat cheesecake then I will have accomplished what I wanted. There are better ways to do it (working out, eating larger meals, but more balanced and so on), but eating cheesecake is one of the ways to accomplish it. It would make no sense whatsoever for me to get upset at myself at eating fatty food because Bob thinks I should lose weight. I don’t give a fuck what Bob thinks. Bob thinks I need to lose weight. I think I need to gain weight and my decisions are based on that.
If the Cubs planned to rebuild and didn’t trade these guys I’d be pissed, but they don’t plan to do that. Ever. I don’t necessarily think that’s a good idea, but it’s what they’re doing so I have to evaluate the decisions they make within that context. I cannot do anything else.
[quote name=Berselius](dying laughing), it’s Everyone Be Defensive night at OV apparently[/quote]
OVblog UZR —-> increased
[quote name=Berselius]Melissa, my point is that while I’d rather have the prospects than 2 more months of Fukudome (or whoever), the difference between having an unranked prospect acquisition and not is too small to get upset about.[/quote]
I’m not saying you should be upset and I’m not really fired up about it. I just think there can be value in young guys that aren’t considered top prospects. If Fukudome is the only move they make, I think that’s a mistake. I would like to see them move at least 2 and maybe 3 more guys and stockpile some younger players.
[quote name=melissa]Like I did in regard to Fukudome? Wait, I never. I think this is patently unfair statement from you. I would also add that I was commenting in regard to what Berselius had written in the preview, I wasn’t trying to attack him. If you’re tired of discussing this topic fine, as I said, I hadn’t yet had time to read the whole thread and was just throwing in my 2 cents.[/quote]
The point is that there were several comments on here about how stupid the Cubs are for acquiring shitty players in return for a player who had no value. I’m 100% certain there would be as much complaining about the guys the Cubs acquired when they traded these no-value players as there has been they haven’t. I don’t know if you’re one of them or not and don’t care, but the point is that it would happen and I’d be sitting here arguing with them just as I have been on this issue.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]I ask this with all honesty:
What is their plan?
[/quote]
to turn every cubs blogger against each other, obviously.
BJax has a strikeout and an RBI single just now.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]That Reed has a future. He’s 35 and has a bad back. There is NO FUCKING FUTURE there. None. Zero. I like to think most MLB teams are too smart to sign Reed fucking Johnson on such a small sample, and with his recurrent back problems, but as for the second aprt, I have no doubt that it is true. Colvin’s terrible, and Reed, when healthy, has been quite good this year.[/quote]Ok, Reed has no future and if Colvin ever does he’ll provide below replacement level value. Whatever.
[quote name=Berselius](dying laughing), it’s Everyone Be Defensive night at OV apparently[/quote]
It’s certainly not Friday, Friday, that’s for sure. (dying laughing)
[quote name=mb22]They plan to contend. Every year. They will not ever rebuild. Ever. As much as you or I may have wanted them to do just that, it’s not happening.
If I plan to lose 20 pounds and eat cheesecakes for lunch and dinner, I made a stupid decision. If, instead, I want to gain weight and eat cheesecake then I will have accomplished what I wanted. There are better ways to do it (working out, eating larger meals, but more balanced and so on), but eating cheesecake is one of the ways to accomplish it. It would make no sense whatsoever for me to get upset at myself at eating fatty food because Bob thinks I should lose weight. I don’t give a fuck what Bob thinks. Bob thinks I need to lose weight. I think I need to gain weight and my decisions are based on that.
If the Cubs planned to rebuild and didn’t trade these guys I’d be pissed, but they don’t plan to do that. Ever. I don’t necessarily think that’s a good idea, but it’s what they’re doing so I have to evaluate the decisions they make within that context. I cannot do anything else.[/quote]Sure. You can point out why that strategy won’t work/ isn’t working.
I understand what the Cubs think they’re doing, but I consider it a recipe for disaster. And simply because it is actual, does not entail that it is rational. You seem determined to defend these moves simply because they are base on a rationale , of which the premises are flawed.
Look, I know the Cubs aren’t going to rebuild. Jim Hendry told me that, and Tom Ricketts told me that. But I expect more from you that the tripe that spews from the festering gobs of Cruller Jim and Tommy Boy.
[quote name=mb22]Ok, Reed has no future and if Colvin ever does he’ll provide below replacement level value. Whatever.[/quote]That’s pretty much it. And that’s how shitty this roster is. And that’s why I’m pissed that there’s no rebuild in effect. The Cubs lack the financial wherewithal to buy their way out and the foresight to see the need to build their way out. So we get to sit here and debate the relative merits of Reed Johnson and Tyler Colvin. Be pissed at the Cubs, not me. Or be pissed at me. What the fuck do I care?
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Be pissed at the Cubs, not me. Or be pissed at me. [/quote]
It could go either way.
[quote name=GW]It could go either way.[/quote]It should probably go just towards me.
I see both points from B and Melissa, but I like the way Jonah Keri put it today – it’s better to get $0.20 on the dollar than $0.00 on the dollar.
It’s not the end of the world, but it’s worth a shot at a C guy. Even if it ends up being a 24 year old AA arm, and he throws 100, why not? But, that guy probably has a 2/10 chance of being a productive player.
Wait, he’d be in the Cubs org, so 0/10. Point is moot. (dying laughing)
[quote name=GW]It could go either way.[/quote]
I’m taking a wait and see approach.
We don’t know if the premises are flawed. All we know right now is that they plan to contend. The Cubs may find themselves with an 80 win team next year, but if they do, that’s a team that could easily contend in 2013 with all the money coming off the books. Unlike you, I don’t look at this like a contend in 2012 or failure. If they get better and are in a better position to contend in the future they will have succeeded.
If they re-sign John Grabow, sign a bunch of 35 year old players to 3-year deals, they failed.
And trading all these guys for C grade prospects doesn’t mean they succeeded at rebuilding either. It just means they traded players. That is all it means. Maybe in 5 years it means something else, but right now, it means the Chicago Cubs made some transactions.
[quote name=Serbianking33]I see both points from B and Melissa, but I like the way Jonah Keri put it today – it’s better to get $0.20 on the dollar than $0.00 on the dollar.
It’s not the end of the world, but it’s worth a shot at a C guy. Even if it ends up being a 24 year old AA arm, and he throws 100, why not? But, that guy probably has a 2/10 chance of being a productive player.
Wait, he’d be in the Cubs org, so 0/10. Point is moot. (dying laughing)[/quote]Yeah, not dealing most of these guys isn’t a huge loss. What’s more troubling is the Hendry is saying on one hand that hen wants to contend, and on the other hand is hinting that Peña and his ilk are an option for next season. Those two things seem incommensurable.
I’m not pissed at you, MO. I’m not pissed at the Cubs. I don’t fucking care what the Cubs do. I’d like them to make good decisions, but if they don’t, so what. It’s the Ricketts family business. I invest no money whatsoever in the organization. They may irritate me, but they don’t piss me off these days.
[quote name=mb22]We don’t know if the premises are flawed. All we know right now is that they plan to contend. The Cubs may find themselves with an 80 win team next year, but if they do, that’s a team that could easily contend in 2013 with all the money coming off the books. Unlike you, I don’t look at this like a contend in 2012 or failure. If they get better and are in a better position to contend in the future they will have succeeded.
If they re-sign John Grabow, sign a bunch of 35 year old players to 3-year deals, they failed.
And trading all these guys for C grade prospects doesn’t mean they succeeded at rebuilding either. It just means they traded players. That is all it means. Maybe in 5 years it means something else, but right now, it means the Chicago Cubs made some transactions.[/quote]Yeah, I think that’s right. But when I hear Hendry talking about Peña and others being options for nest year, it sounds like this roster isn’t going to look a lot different nest year. And if he thinks this team can contend with this roster plus a few bit players, then his premises are most definitely flawed. Again, this is just going off what Hendry has actually said.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Yeah, not dealing most of these guys isn’t a huge loss. What’s more troubling is the Hendry is saying on one hand that hen wants to contend, and on the other hand is hinting that Peña and his ilk are an option for next season. Those two things seem incommensurable.[/quote]You can’t put any stock in what a GM says at this point. He can’t piss off Pena and make Pena feel as though he’s gone no matter what. The Cubs may find themselves in a situation where they have to sign him and if he’s pissed, good luck with that. He can’t say we’re going after Fielder or Pujols because that’s against the rules.
If they don’t improve this offseason (for now and the near future) they will have failed at what they did, but I have no idea what they’re going to do with free agency this offseason. They have a lot of money to spend.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Yeah, I think that’s right. But when I hear Hendry talking about Peña and others being options for nest year, it sounds like this roster isn’t going to look a lot different nest year. And if he thinks this team can contend with this roster plus a few bit players, then his premises are most definitely flawed. Again, this is just going off what Hendry has actually said.[/quote]If it doesn’t look any different then they failed. If they exercise the club option on Ramirez it’s a troubling decision.
[quote name=mb22]I’m not pissed at you, MO. I’m not pissed at the Cubs. I don’t fucking care what the Cubs do. I’d like them to make good decisions, but if they don’t, so what. It’s the Ricketts family business. I invest no money whatsoever in the organization. They may irritate me, but they don’t piss me off these days.[/quote]I get pissed at them because I think the Ricketts are taking this team and its fanbase for a giant train ride. I think they have interest in winning anything so long as the bottom line doesn’t require it. I think they luxuriate in all the things that I hate about the Cubs, i.e. the valorization of drunken and casually racist fanbase and the glorifying of the crumbling, urine-soaked relic at Clark and Addison. And for whatever reason, that bothers me. It bothers me even more when it’s sold to me, as a member of the fanbase, as a viable system for building a winner. I’m not pissed because they didn’t trade Peña for PIT’s version of LaHair. I’m not pissed because of Mike Quade’s strange lineups. I’m pissed because 1.) I’m being lied to and I know it, and 2.) because the Cubs seem to think there’s a huge difference between winning 65 games and winning 67 games.
[quote name=mb22]If it doesn’t look any different then they failed. If they exercise the club option on Ramirez it’s a troubling decision.[/quote]I think they extend Ramirez and Peña and try to add a LH bat in the OF if/when Colvin shows he can’t hack. Maybe sign a bullpen arm or two. But I get the sense from Hendry’s latest comments (grain of salt, I know) that there’s not going to be a lot of roster turnover. But we’ll see how the waiver season goes. Hendry also sounded like he wanted to work the wire.
Hey, Cedeño, you’re allowed to overrun first base. Really. No need to slide.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]I get pissed at them because I think the Ricketts are taking this team and its fanbase for a giant train ride. I think they have interest in winning anything so long as the bottom line doesn’t require it. I think they luxuriate in all the things that I hate about the Cubs, i.e. the valorization of drunken and casually racist fanbase and the glorifying of the crumbling, urine-soaked relic at Clark and Addison. And for whatever reason, that bothers me. It bothers me even more when it’s sold to me, as a member of the fanbase, as a viable system for building a winner. I’m not pissed because they didn’t trade Peña for PIT’s version of LaHair. I’m not pissed because of Mike Quade’s strange lineups. I’m pissed because 1.) I’m being lied to and I know it, and 2.) because the Cubs seem to think there’s a huge difference between winning 65 games and winning 67 games.[/quote]That shit used to bother me, but I don’t care enough about the actual team these days to get upset. I’m interested in them becoming good at baseball again, but it’s not going to bother me if they don’t.
As for the roster turnover, I honestly don’t know. They have a lot of money to spend, or rather they free up a lot of payroll so there’s money available unlike past seasons. It’s the first offseason in a few years in which the Cubs will have money to spend.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]I think they extend Ramirez and Peña and try to add a LH bat in the OF if/when Colvin shows he can’t hack. Maybe sign a bullpen arm or two. But I get the sense from Hendry’s latest comments (grain of salt, I know) that there’s not going to be a lot of roster turnover. But we’ll see how the waiver season goes. Hendry also sounded like he wanted to work the wire.[/quote]I think Pena has little chance of returning. He’s added some decent power to the lineup and his defense is supposedly pretty good, but he hits for such a low average that his OBP is just barely better than average. Pena has hit just about the same as Lee last year and the Cubs had no interest in retaining him. I don’t think it will be any different.
[quote name=mb22]I think Pena has little chance of returning. He’s added some decent power to the lineup and his defense is supposedly pretty good, but he hits for such a low average that his OBP is just barely better than average. Pena has hit just about the same as Lee last year and the Cubs had no interest in retaining him. I don’t think it will be any different.[/quote]I think it’s important that Hendry made a point of saying he didn’t deal Peña because there is no one in line to replace him next year.
[quote name=Serbianking33]I see both points from B and Melissa, but I like the way Jonah Keri put it today – it’s better to get $0.20 on the dollar than $0.00 on the dollar.
It’s not the end of the world, but it’s worth a shot at a C guy. Even if it ends up being a 24 year old AA arm, and he throws 100, why not? But, that guy probably has a 2/10 chance of being a productive player.
Wait, he’d be in the Cubs org, so 0/10. Point is moot. (dying laughing)[/quote]
It’s more like selling a guy for pennies on the dime where the Cubs are concerned (dying laughing)
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]I think it’s important that Hendry made a point of saying he didn’t deal Peña because there is no one in line to replace him next year.[/quote]
Pena is a fine fallback if they don’t land Fielder or Pujols, because if they don’t they’re even more boned next year anyway (dying laughing)
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]I think it’s important that Hendry made a point of saying he didn’t deal Peña because there is no one in line to replace him next year.[/quote]I think Hendry was more stressing there was nobody to replace him this year and that he could be back, maybe not.
Ah, Colvin gets to play now.
[quote name=mb21]I think Hendry was more stressing there was nobody to replace him this year and that he could be back, maybe not.[/quote]
I think it’s hard to tell what Hendry means from a couple soundbytes that might be out of context. But it’s ambiguous enough that it could go either ways.
Kerry Wood sucks.
Derrek Lee!!!!!
Oh right, he’s not a Cub anymore…
[quote name=Berselius]Pena is a fine fallback if they don’t land Fielder or Pujols, because if they don’t they’re even more boned next year anyway (dying laughing)[/quote]Yeah, there’s no doubt they’ll be in on both Fielder and Pujols. If they can’t get one of them, then I could see them re-signing Pena. My guess is that they do sign Fielder because they’ll be reluctant to shell out the kind of money that Pujols is going to get. I tend to agree with that. Pujols is better, but he’s going to require more years and a lot more money. Too risky in my opinion.
I’m happy for D-Lee, though.
[quote name=ACT]Kerry Wood sucks.[/quote]He’s basically slightly better than replacement at this point, but not much.
Corey Hart will never surrender…Cards and Brewers tied, Carpenter in a world of hurt.
The Cubs suck at bunting.
[quote name=mb21]Yeah, there’s no doubt they’ll be in on both Fielder and Pujols. If they can’t get one of them, then I could see them re-signing Pena. My guess is that they do sign Fielder because they’ll be reluctant to shell out the kind of money that Pujols is going to get. I tend to agree with that. Pujols is better, but he’s going to require more years and a lot more money. Too risky in my opinion.[/quote]I wonder if some Hendry’s comments about Peña are meant not to piss off Boras, who represents both Fielder and Peña.
Thanks, Marmol!
Cubs —> #3 pick by percentage points
One of these days I’ve been wanting to look at whether it matters (historically) which of the top 3 pics you get. I’m not quite bored enough to put in that effort, though.
Cubs don’t lose.
[quote name=ACT]One of these days I’ve been wanting to look at whether it matters (historically) which of the top 3 pics you get. I’m not quite bored enough to put in that effort, though.[/quote]You’ll have to find a way to weight for the Cubs using the spot to draft a player ranked out of the top 200. (dying laughing)
[quote name=ACT]One of these days I’ve been wanting to look at whether it matters (historically) which of the top 3 pics you get. I’m not quite bored enough to put in that effort, though.[/quote]
There are some WAR charts out there based on draft position. The first few picks in the first round accrue a lot more WAR than the rest of the draft for obvious reasons…then you see a blip in the 13th round where Pujols is (dying laughing)
Decent outing for Z. Shitton of pitches.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]I wonder if some Hendry’s comments about Peña are meant not to piss off Boras, who represents both Fielder and Peña.[/quote]That could be part of it, but I’m sure part of it is not burning bridges with Pena. No reason to say, “after this season we’re moving on and Pena will find a new team.” No GM is going to say that about current players on the team for what it’s worth for a very good reason. They may have to have them come back or need them in the future. I’m guessing Pena is plan D. Fielder/Pujols, Berkman and then Pena.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]You’ll have to find a way to weight for the Cubs using the spot to draft a player ranked out of the top 200. (dying laughing)[/quote](dying laughing)
[quote name=ACT]One of these days I’ve been wanting to look at whether it matters (historically) which of the top 3 pics you get. I’m not quite bored enough to put in that effort, though.[/quote]Baseball Prospectus did some research into that. I’ll see if I can find it. I also think Baseball Analysts looked into it as well. The 1st pick, on average, has a higher career WAR than the 2nd pick and so on. I think the top 5 picks were pretty close to one another though and since there’s no clear cut top pick next year it doesn’t much matter.
I think Ryno said that as long as the Cubs make sure they stay in the top 5 in next year’s draft it’ll be okay.
It’s a little depressing how poorly (on average) top draft picks turn out. For every Joe Mauer or Alex Rodriguez it seems that there are 3 or 4 Shawon Dunstons.
I lament the booth seat cover from the Latin jazz club that died so Dunston could own that shirt.
[quote name=ACT]It’s a little depressing how poorly (on average) top draft picks turn out. For every Joe Mauer or Alex Rodriguez it seems that there are 3 or 4 Shawon Dunstons.[/quote]projecting how the players will age, grow and develop is pretty difficult to do. It’s a lot easier in football because NCAA is about like AAA in baseball.
If Dunston, Jr. makes it to Wrigley, what are the odds we’ll see a million Shawon-o-meters? I’d put the odds at 1 to 1.
[quote name=mb21]If Dunston, Jr. makes it to Wrigley, what are the odds we’ll see a million Shawon-o-meters? I’d put the odds at 1 to 1.[/quote]Ricketts will be selling them himself outside Gate K.
[quote name=mb21]projecting how the players will age, grow and develop is pretty difficult to do. It’s a lot easier in football because NCAA is about like AAA in baseball.[/quote]Yeah, then there is the rare pitcher who is already MLB-ready (Prior or Strasburg) who ends up injuring his arm.
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Ricketts will be selling them himself outside Gate K.[/quote]while cooking hot dogs and wearing a toga.
[quote name=ACT]Yeah, then there is the rare pitcher who is already MLB-ready (Prior or Strasburg) who ends up injuring his arm.[/quote]Baseball is a lot less kind to young talent than any other sport.
[quote name=mb21]while cooking hot dogs and wearing a toga.[/quote]With his Harry Caray glasses and a Budweiser (seeing as that bastard has exiled Old Style).
[quote name=ACT]Yeah, then there is the rare pitcher who is already MLB-ready (Prior or Strasburg) who ends up injuring his arm.[/quote]FIRE DUSTY
/taking it back to 2006
[quote name=Berselius](dying laughing), it’s Everyone Be Defensive night at OV apparently[/quote]Hey, is that a shot at me? Fuck you!
[quote name=GBTS]Hey, is that a shot at me? Fuck you![/quote]Oh yeah?!?! Well, I slept with your wife!
I didn’t meant to start a Colvin argument. I was operating under the assumption (hope) he was just having a shit year, based on how much the media guys hyped him last year.
[quote name=josh]I didn’t meant to start a Colvin argument. I was operating under the assumption (hope) he was just having a shit year, based on how much the media guys hyped him last year.[/quote]Nah, he’s just not an everyday player. Almost no on-base skills, and his defense has not been as advertised. Got some pop in his bat, though.
Brewers —> 3.5 game lead
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Nah, he’s just not an everyday player. Almost no on-base skills, and his defense has not been as advertised. Got some pop in his bat, though.[/quote]God damn it this team sucks.
[quote name=Rice Cube]Brewers —> 3.5 game lead[/quote]I’m more concerned about the Astros game. They need to start winning some.
[quote name=josh]I’m more concerned about the Astros game. They need to start winning some.[/quote]
Doesn’t really matter much anymore…I doubt the Cubs can suck as hard as the Astros. Plus they have to deal with Baltimore’s suckiness too. I’d be okay with a top 5 pick.
Goddammit Scott Maine sucks (dying laughing)
One of Z’s “variant” outs:
http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=17539543
[quote name=Rice Cube]Doesn’t really matter much anymore…I doubt the Cubs can suck as hard as the Astros. Plus they have to deal with Baltimore’s suckiness too. I’d be okay with a top 5 pick.[/quote]C’mon man, have some hope! This is the year! Think how epic it will be when the Cubs waste their #1 draft pick on an athletic white kid from an ivy league school.
/bitter sarcasm
[quote name=josh]C’mon man, have some hope! This is the year! Think how epic it will be when the Cubs waste their #1 draft pick on an athletic white kid from an ivy league school.
/bitter sarcasm[/quote]
They cloned Mark DeRosa?!
Astros win! Go Astros-midget!
[quote name=Rice Cube]They cloned Mark DeRosa?!
Astros win! Go Astros-midget![/quote]Didn’t Colvin go to an ivy league school, or did I just make that up?
[quote name=josh]Didn’t Colvin go to an ivy league school, or did I just make that up?[/quote]
South Carolina, methinks.
Derrek Lee’s night:
http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=17551621
Awesome.
[quote name=josh]Didn’t Colvin go to an ivy league school, or did I just make that up?[/quote]
clemson. only ivy league if you are looking at it from bubbles’ point of view.
[quote name=GW]clemson. only ivy league if you are looking at it from bubbles’ point of view.[/quote]
Oooh, my bad…Clemson is, however, in South Carolina, so I was technically correct.
[quote name=GW]clemson. only ivy league if you are looking at it from bubbles’ point of view.[/quote]That’s close enough for me, then.
Random stat of the day: every team in the AL central has allowed more runs than they have scored.
[quote name=GW]clemson. only ivy league if you are looking at it from bubbles’ point of view.[/quote]
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
[quote name=ACT]Random stat of the day: every team in the AL central has allowed more runs than they have scored.[/quote]The middle of the country is baseball wasteland.
New stuff:
http://bit.ly/oSrolJ