The news of the Winter Meetings revolved around the Chris Sale. Once he was out of the way, though, nearly all the chatter surrounding the Meetings was Wade Davis and his 2017 team. While the Cubs were always the team most whispered, it was by no means a sure thing until today. In a straight one-for-one swap, the Cubs acquired him for Jorge Soler.
Let's first talk about what they've lost. Jorge Soler has about as wide a band of plausible outcomes as is possible for a player that has been in the league for parts of 3 seasons. The good: his first real time in the majors he had a .903 OPS (146 OPS+). He hit .571/.769/1.571 against the Cardinals in the NLDS. There are definitely ways that Soler ends up with a .280/.360/.520 line with 25 HR (and I hope he does!) He has a killer arm and he's under team control for the next 4 years. The only problem in my eyes is that he's so injury-prone that I wouldn't trust him for any amount of time in the field, and the most likely outcome offensively is slightly above league-average while being limited to DH or 4th OF. Still, Soler is a valuable trade chip.
The thing about valuable trade chips is that you need them to acquire valuable players. Wade Davis is among the best relievers in all of baseball. In 2014, his ERA was 1.00. Over 72 innings. In 2015, his ERA was LOWER THAN THAT. 0.97 in 67.1. It's true that he had an injury last year (limiting him to 42.1 innings and an abysmal (for him) 1.87 ERA), but he was as invincible as he ever was after he came back from that injury. The fact of the matter is that Wade Davis costs $10 million for the rest of his contract, and any reliever the Cubs signed was going to cost anywhere from 5 times that to an order of magnitude more. While I don't care about money, I realize it's an actual factor that teams have to consider in some way. The Cubs traded Soler not only for Wade Davis, but the flexibility to do other things too.
The short scouting report on Davis is that he strikes out a lot of people, doesn't walk a lot of people, and never, ever allows home runs. Some of that is probably due to where he played half his games, and that might change in Wrigley. That said, he's still one of the 5 best relievers in the game and he allows the Cubs flexibility for basically 2 of their 4 top relievers to fail (Strop, Rondon, Edwards Jr, and Davis himself) and still be a playoff-ready bullpen.
I don't think the Cubs are done getting players, though they might be done trading. The 25-man is roughly as follows:
LF: Schwarber
CF: Almora Jr.
RF: Heyward
3B: Bryant
SS: Russell
2B: Zobrist
1B: Rizzo
C: Contreras
JY: Baez
OF: Jay
OF: Szczur
C: Montero
IF: La Stella
#1: Lester
#2: Hendricks
#3: Arrieta
#4: Lackey
#5: Montgomery
CL: Davis
SU: Strop
FM: Rondon
LG: Duensing
[EDIT]: L2: Uehara
SR: Edwards Jr.
MU: Grimm
MU: Pena
The bolded areas are certainly spots where the Cubs could improve this offseason (and if you improve at the #5 starter, the other guy could easily figure as the longman). The Cubs have some solid depth behind them everywhere (because they are a strong organization in general), so losing Grimm isn't going to appreciably destroy the team. That said, the trade chips are becoming slightly more bare: Ian Happ is the only prospect capable of headlining a huge deal, unless some team is just head over heels for Eloy Jimenez (who I like, but don't love). The Cubs will have to start using money to better this team in the future.
If it was up to me, I'd be signing Dexter Fowler if the terms are reasonable. I like Almora Jr., but he seems like the type of guy that is just going to struggle to hit for even an average major-leaguer. The elite defense is nice, but somewhat mitigated by Jason Heyward. Almora is also the type of player that could be traded for another, Davis-lite sort of return. If I could turn Almora into Addison Reed or something, I might think about that. You could even gamble on someone like Foltynewicz, who has had ugly numbers in the majors but could easily be converted into a high-leverage reliever (huge fastball and nothing else).
The Cubs will also probably try to get 2-4 NRI longmen in the mold of Cahill or Richard. The Cubs have had so much success on that front that I sort of blindly assume they'll figure out the longman situation for free.
In closing, the 2017 Cubs just got a lot better, and I'm not sure the 2018 Cubs and onward got any worse. That has to be a celebration in my eyes.
Comments
I disagree for two reasons.
First, the Cubs have a lot of bites at the apple as far as a closer is concerned. Rondon, Edwards Jr, even Felix Pena have reasonable paths that end with them being at least passable there. Hell, Rondon WAS there in 2015.
Second, it’s possible that the Cubs just sign a closer this year or next. Jansen is still available (so is Chapman but I get the feeling he’s not coming back). Davis will also be a FA.
Oh, third, we could just flip someone for Ricky Nolasco and convert him.
mylesQuote Reply
Foltynewicz sounds like you sneezed through your keyboard, and just decided to pretend that that sneeze was actually a major league baseball player.
EdwinQuote Reply
I’d be willing to bet most prospect rankings have Jimenez higher than Happ. Heck, I’d bet Jimenez is a top 20 prospect in baseball.
I’m kind of done trading prospects for a while, at least until the deadline. A team’s weaknesses are more apparent after you start playing games. Maybe Montgomery becomes a world beater and we aren’t looking for a starter anymore. Instead Almora and Heyward are struggling offensively and you need to deal a prospect for an OF.
Basically, any more moves this winter I hope revolve around signings, not trades.
Plus, our farm is getting pretty depleted. They’ll have their first rounder and likely a supplemental for Fowler, so hopefully we can replenish the farm this year.
JonKneeVQuote Reply
You’re probably right on the former. I’d be shocked at the latter.
mylesQuote Reply
I like the deal. I’m hoping they can bring in an arm or two to compete for the 5th starter spot. I like Montgomery, but looking good in 36 IP as a starter isn’t that big a track record.
EdwinQuote Reply
myles,
MLB.com has Happ at 21 and Jimenez at 23 http://m.mlb.com/prospects/2016
JonKneeVQuote Reply
I can see Rondon, but the others are quite a stretch in my opinion. They are two of the best the Cubs have in terms of team control for the bullpen in that they can actually strike guys out, but I don’t have a lot of faith in either of them even being average. If they were above average in the bullpen I’d consider it a huge win for the Cubs.
dmick89Quote Reply
I like Happ better because he’s played at a higher level and takes a good number of walks. Both he and Jimenez are good prospects and I’d like to keep both.
dmick89Quote Reply
this is like that time that dmick tried to convince us that adbert alzolay was a real minor leaguer.
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
JY is the Javy position, right?
*porno funk music starts playing*
ceruleanQuote Reply
Exactly.
Myles HandleyQuote Reply
Yeah, I must be crazy.
Myles HandleyQuote Reply
Small sample size and all, but Montgomery allowed 6 home runs in 35.2 innings as a starter. He did manage to strike out more batters as a starter and walked a little bit more too, but his K-BB% was better as a starter. Still, the home runs are concerning.
dmick89Quote Reply
The Cubs are also going to have a lot of interesting arms that have a decent chance of be ML-ready before or during 2018. So a one-year deal for an elite closer makes sense that way.
ceruleanQuote Reply
I think Montgomery has a decent chance of sticking at #5, but we should get two more potential starters anyway. We were very lucky with injuries last year and that isn’t likely to happen again.
mylesQuote Reply
OTOH, Both Strop and Davis are gone after this year, as are both Arrieta and Lackey. Hmm.
ceruleanQuote Reply
There will be a lot to replace next year, for sure. This is why I want to turn Arrieta into Giolito 🙂
mylesQuote Reply
Giolito is going to CWS for Adam Eaton.
PerkinsQuote Reply
That suvks.
Myles HandleyQuote Reply
Myles Handley,
Giolito, Reynaldo Lopez, and Dane Dunning. The Sox are getting their fire sale off to a rousing start.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Baseball is funny.
mylesQuote Reply
Happ, Jimenez, Clifton, Rosario for Quintana. Would you do it? Would the Sox take it?
ceruleanQuote Reply
Neither team says yes.
Myles HandleyQuote Reply
Myles Handley,
Sounds about right.
ceruleanQuote Reply
why
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Rizzo the Rat,
Joe Maddon loves too many bullpen arms and too many catchers.
dmick89Quote Reply
All the more reason for the FO to go after Jansen, to counteract this.
berseliusQuote Reply
berselius,
Exactly. Joe loves multi-position players.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Javy Baez should pitch and catch. Problem solved!
ceruleanQuote Reply
I must say, the Nats are really sure Harper isn’t going to stick around.
ceruleanQuote Reply
cerulean,
They’re going to need to Baez to be the primary backup at all the positions except catcher where he’ll serve as the backup to the 3rd catcher.
dmick89Quote Reply
Chapman ———————> Evil Empire
Maybe he can teach the Yankees all the winning ways he learned as a Cub.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Poor Dellin Betances
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Seriously, I find it a little weird how the Yankees–one of the worst offensive teams in the league–are splurging on a closer when they already have one of the best relievers in baseball.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
On the plus side, the Cubs are unlikely to face Chapman in the postseason. If Jansen signs with the Marlins, so much the better.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Also, Chapman’s contract apparently includes an opt-out after 3 years (which are also covered by a full no-trade clause). He also can’t be traded to a team in California.
I can certainly appreciate his apparent distaste for California. Makes me like him a little more.
PerkinsQuote Reply
I’m thinking the only reason Cashman was allowed to deal Chapman in the first place was because he promised whatever Steinbrenner is still in charge that he would re-sign him in the offseason.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Rizzo the Rat,
They have such a glut of major league ready OFers, a rookie-ish 1b, and a good catcher. Maybe not ready in 17 but perhaps soon after
mcalis2Quote Reply
berseliusQuote Reply
My son thinks Tyson Ross would be a good addition at this point. I’m sure this convo already happened here and I missed it. He also had a vague feeling of Jon Jay being kinda dickish, but admits it might just be because he was a Cardinal.
I am happy about Davis, think it’s a great trade for both teams. I don’t care about 2018-19 right now, but I do know that the FA classes will be better stocked than they are this year.
SKQuote Reply
berselius,
Nice snark.
RynoQuote Reply
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
It’s on the pile of stuff I’ve been considering for a Scrap Heap/Sequiannual facepalm, though at this rate between travel, illness, and suppressing the desire to murder my in-laws said post probably won’t happen until April 2018.
berseliusQuote Reply
Rizzo the Rat,
Cubs lose Armando Rivero.
JonKneeVQuote Reply
This new Caleb Smith guy does not fit the mold of a Cubs pitcher. He strikes out 12.7 per 9. If he keeps that up, he’s not going to be eating dinner very often.
JonKneeVQuote Reply
Apparently there are two Caleb Smiths. We got the older one (Yankees) that is more advanced, but doesn’t strike out 12.7 per 9.
The Cubs Caleb Smith struck out 9.9 per 9 and walked 2.8 per 9 in 63 innings last year.
JonKneeVQuote Reply
Rizzo the Rat,
Nice K%
RynoQuote Reply
MLB Trade Rumors links to the wrong b-ref page. Here he is: http://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.cgi?id=smith-005cal
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Rizzo the Rat,
Nice K/BB%
RynoQuote Reply
Since the Cubs want to go with as many relievers as possible in the future, what about Neftali Feliz or Greg Holland?
dmick89Quote Reply
http://www.double-birds.com/2016/12/06/the-matheny-fowler-rumors-are-seriously-alarming/
SKQuote Reply
SK,
That is not unexpected.
ceruleanQuote Reply
hehe.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Koji Uehara ——————–> World Champs
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
SKQuote Reply
ROOGYBOITGIL
MylesQuote Reply
Righty One Out GuY But Only If That Guy Is Lefthanded
MylesQuote Reply
Not sure I get the Uehara signing. They already have plenty of right-handed relief pitching, no?
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Uehara has better raw numbers against lefties, but his strikeout rate and walk rate are better against righties, so I doubt he has a true reverse split.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
This reminds me of the Joel Peralta thing, though, of course Uehara is better.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Koji seems like a good bet for really cheap. I understand the desire for an eight-man bullpen—pitchers break—but I am not a fan of the crazy roster crunch it creates. I can’t help but think Szczur might be on the move.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Not so alarming.
dmick89Quote Reply
“I’m surprised the Cardinals might have trouble attracting black free agents.” -nobody outside St. Louis, ever
Also damn, sounds like he’s actually going to the Cardinals. Lame.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Perkins,
Sounds like the Cardinals had to really overpay.
Thanks for the memories and the draft pick, Dex.
Rice in limboQuote Reply
I won’t believe Dex is a Cardinal until he shows up to spring training in uniform.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Apparently the Cubs and Arrieta will talk about an extension in January. I’d still guess it’s unlikely, but maybe last season will tamp down his $180MM-plus expectations.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Man. Sadder than I thought I would be about Dex leaving. But 5/80 is too much, and I’m glad the Cubs didn’t pay it.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Rumor is the Cards might be looking to add Edwin Encarnacion as well.
Keep adding these 30+ year-old players on long-term deals, St. Louis. Your quest to turn into the 2011 Chicago Cubs will be complete sooner than you think.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
I loved Fowler, but I don’t get as emotionally attached to individual players now that the Cubs have a whole bunch of good ones. Won’t like seeing him in a Cardinals uniform, but I don’t like seeing anyone in that uniform.
SKQuote Reply
Those rumors about Fowler/Matheney were either bullshit or Matheny reached out to him to ease concerns. The only other reason they might have existed was as a negotiating tactic by Fowler, but that would be utterly sick level conniving and I can’t believe he would do that.
SKQuote Reply
The 2016 Cub I would have expected the Cardinals to sign is Jason Hammel (or Travis Wood). Isn’t it pitching that they need much more than offense at the moment?
SKQuote Reply
SK,
Yeah, I feel the same way. It might be different if he’d been a member of the Cubs for 5 years or more, but he wasn’t around all that long. I’ll miss him though.
dmick89Quote Reply
Perkins,
I’d rather the Cubs not sign him to an extension unless it’s a team friendly deal and that’s not likely seeing as his agent is Boras. If I was the Cubs, I’d see if I could turn him into a top pitching prospect in a trade. Another reason they should have kept Hammel.
dmick89Quote Reply
SK,
They have quite a bit of starting pitching., but they did lose Holliday and dealt with ineffectiveness all season in the outfield.
ceruleanQuote Reply
cerulean,
I thought I remembered them leading the league in runs scored, but that might have been 2015.
Quick glance at old school team stats shows them 3rd in NL in RS and OPS, but 7th and 9th in ERA and BAA.
*drops mouse*
SKQuote Reply
SFG played 31 more innings than COL last season. Seems extreme, but for all I know it’s an average spread. Not sure if total extra innings or wins on the road (and losses at home) affect it more.
SKQuote Reply
SK,
LAAoLAA played 47 fewer innings than HOU. I guess they were extra good at losing on the road and getting decisively beat.
SKQuote Reply
The Cubs won the 2016 World Series.
MylesQuote Reply
SK,
Yep. Let me rephrase: They believe they have enough starting pitching. (Remember that they shelled out for a stud named Leake.)
ceruleanQuote Reply
And are still in strong shape to win the 2017 WS too.
Tho I’d sure like to see a trade to bring back Chris Archer. Maybe we can get the Brewers involved.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Trade for Matt Garza and flip him for Chris Archer.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Myles,
Has that been fact checked yet?
EdwinQuote Reply
Every waking hour.
mylesQuote Reply
Still waiting on Dodgers in 5 to confirm.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Apparently it was a slightly somber affair at the Fowler presser in BFIB-land this a.m. (though my source for this other Cubs fans who may be seeing what they wanted to see).
I feel bad for Dexter if he really didn’t want to go to St. Louis.
A shame. Only thing he did wrong with the Cubs was to have too many birthdays.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Then flip Chris Archer for Mark DeRosa.
JonKneeVQuote Reply
Big if true
berseliusQuote Reply
Sour grapes and all that, but I’m glad the Cubs aren’t on the hook for that contract.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
I don’t think that’s sour grapes. Cubs did the wise thing in passing. Cardinals continue to add long-term risk for only modest short-term gains. Here’s hoping both orgs keep it up.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
I would have been fine if the Cubs signed Dex at that price. The window is wide open and I have a feeling FA prices are going to go up even higher in the new CBA. What the hell else are teams going to spend money on?
berseliusQuote Reply
It’s not the money, it’s the mileage, and the guaranteed PT. Sure, it’s great for 2017 and probably still pretty good for ’18 too, but year after that we’re probably none too pleased with our CF who can’t really play CF anymore and with nowhere else to play him. And Cubs would be on the hook another three years.
And didn’t your mother teach you not to spend just to spend?
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
berselius,
Maybe, but it’s hard to predict what effect the de facto salary cap will have on FA contracts.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
The Cubs are rolling in cash, I’d rather they spend it on players than pumped into the Ricketts superPACs. What’s $/win at these days anyway? 8-10 WAR over five years doesn’t sound so unreasonable for Fowler.
berseliusQuote Reply
berselius,
I’m not trying to say it would be a steal or anything, just that I would be okay with it. If the money is finite enough that it goes to Kershaw or someone instead, that’s fine too.
berseliusQuote Reply
berselius,
Yeah, he’s worth the contract he signed. I don’t have much doubt that he’ll be worth what they paid him and probably more than, but I’m ok with the Cubs passing in him at 5 years. I wonder if the Cubs couldn’t have gotten him for four years though.
dmick89Quote Reply
To be worth what Fowler is paid he probably only has to be worth about 8 WAR. Somewhere between 8 and 9. There’s a good chance he’s worth 8 WAR in the first three years of the deal.
dmick89Quote Reply
An exhaustive worldwide search for somebody who can toss hot dog buns into the trash, now that Toddd is part of Trump’s administration.
Wenningtons Gorilla CockQuote Reply
Based on articles I’ve seen today, they’re too busy trying to make hit lists of scientists who don’t toe the party line. Should be a fun time working for DOE the next few years 😐
berseliusQuote Reply
Being worth a deal is not everything. A team can be appropriately priced, “worth” every deal they sign, and still only win 85 games. which is what the Cardinals seem hell-bent on accomplishing.
If Fowler turned into Mike Trout for one year followed by turning into a replacement level player years 2-5, yeah, he’d be worth his deal, but you’d be pretty fucking pissed you signed him.
Spending unwisely just because you can afford to do so doesn’t make for a better baseball team. I think Fowler’s a poor bet on the back half of that deal, potentially wasting playing time that could go to someone much better, and it’s worth taking a year to find a better long-term solution, imo.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Fwiw, FG has him at 1.9 WAR next year right now. Steamer has him at 2.1.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
To be clear, emotionally speaking I would have found a way to be okay with it if the Cubs had brought him back. Though at 4 years max. Ideally, I would have wanted the Cubs to overpay for 3 years. Imo, that’s the way to spend when you’ve got money to burn. Just say fuck it to WAR/dollar.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Almost all free agents are bad bets on the back half of their multi-year contracts. It’s not like Jason Heyward was a good bet on the back half of his contract even before he ended up shitting the bed in the first year of the deal. Players decline as they get older and get paid about the same (or more). That’s just how free agency works. If you want to avoid that, you don’t sign a free agent beyond their age 29 season and since most free agents are hitting the market at 29 or later, you may as well just avoid free agency altogether.
I can’t speak for everyone, but I don’t care how a player accrues his value. I don’t care if it’s all in one year or spread out over the life of the contract. If the player is paid $80 million and provides $80 million in value, even if all of it is in the first year, it’s a good contract. The negative is that you’d be a bit worse than you’d hope in years 2 onward, but in that first year you’d be a whole lot better than you’d expect and that’s a good thing. You’d rather the players outperform their value in the front of their contracts than the back of them.
dmick89Quote Reply
I think the projections you mentioned are for 2016. ZiPS has him at 3 WAR IIRC.
dmick89Quote Reply
My hope is that Fowler just turns into Michael Bourn for this contract. I love Fowler, and I’m grateful for him, but he’s a Cardinal now.
mylesQuote Reply
I’m also not as confident as some of you seem that the Cardinals are just a middle of the pack team. The Cubs are better, but the gap isn’t that huge in my opinion. It wasn’t that big entering the 2016 season and the Cubs are a bit worse right now than they were this time last year. That was before they re-signed Fowler. There’s still a good amount separating them, but I can easily see them winning 90 games. I can easily see the Cubs winning less than 90. Baseball.
dmick89Quote Reply
Ah, I think you’re right. My bad.
Fair enough, but I disagree. Consistency over the life a deal has to factor in there somewhere. A player who’s super rad for one year of the deal then actively hurts your chances of winning every other year is a bad move overall, imo. Probably a good idea to have more than one way of analyzing contracts.
That said, I doubt that sort of situation will occur with Fowler. I suspect he’ll be good to very good the first two years, then increasingly a liability from there on. Cubs are in a situation where they’re good enough now not to need Fowler’s two good to very good years, and will happily be off the hook when he stops being a clear asset. It’s easily the wiser move long-term, even if it makes the Cubs a little more vulnerable in 2017 (and it may not, this easily seeing scenarios can go a lot of different ways).
I see the Cardinals as a solid contender for the play-in game and a longshot for the division. They were this before Fowler, and they’ve better solidified their status as these things with him. Whether that makes them middle-of-the-pack or not I don’t know.
But I do think that when, to put Team A in the same room with Team B, we have to invoke the capricious winds of baseball variance, the talent gap between said teams is plenty large enough. Maybe not Cubs to Reds large, but still substantial.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
If his mother is an economist, no.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Good on the Cardinals for signing a good player and a good guy by the accounts I have seen. Let Dex and his smile change that clubhouse. Hell, let the Cardinals be good. Life is more exciting that way.
ceruleanQuote Reply
I want some time in the wilderness for that festering asshole of an organization and fans. They deserve some. Life can be exciting later.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
I think there is, but I think it’s essentially the same. You analyze the contract at the time of the contract and use projections (is Dexter Fowler expected to be worth the amount he was paid?) and then you analyze it after the fact. The problem with after the fact is that it uses information that wasn’t available at the time, but both methods for calculating value are the same. You don’t care if it’s all in one year or spread out. Most likely it’s going to be such that a player declines slightly over time, but not all the time. There are positives to what you suggest and also negatives. If you never extract surplus value, you’re never allowed to sign additional players for even more wins. Why are pre-arbitration players so valuable? It’s because they’re providing a ton of surplus value allowing you to sign the likes of Lester, Heyward and so on. It’s why teams sometimes backload contracts (to get the most value out of those early years when you can best predict the player will be good).
A free agent will sign for market value, but you’d like to extract some surplus value along the way, or at least I would. Otherwise you’re always paying the same amount for a win and never maximizing the wins per dollar. That’s fine if you have a lot of pre-arbitration players that you’re getting a lot of surplus value out of, but not so good otherwise in my opinion. Do the math and it’s awfully difficult to put together a 90 win team if you’re always paying market value for the wins. You need a lot of money and it’s the situation the Yankees have found themselves in for awhile now.
dmick89Quote Reply
I think it depends on what they get out of Reyes to be honest. That guy could be ridiculous if he can minimize the walks. That’s not something he’s been able to do to this point in his career and despite that he’s still been very good in the minors. He’s also young enough that there could be a huge improvement in that area and nobody would be terribly surprised. He’s going to have some innings limit on him though, but if he takes a big step forward, I think the Cardinals can be pretty good. If he doesn’t, they’re going to have get lucky.
They also don’t have to make up all the difference in one year. It was never likely they were going to make up all the difference between the Cubs and Cardinals in one offseason. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen the Cardinals stay down for too long so I’m inclined to believe they’re going to be a tougher opponent than a lot of Cubs fans would like to believe. Maybe not in 2017, but they aren’t going to rebuild and they aren’t going to stay “down” too long.
dmick89Quote Reply
I’d probably put it at about 7 games, which is pretty big and I still think the Cubs will do something for their rotation. I hope they do anyway.
dmick89Quote Reply
This. I’ve not yet tired of Cardinals fans’ delicious tears. And it’s especially fun when the players and Matheny get salty.
I’d feel bad for Fowler, but I respect his decision. For $82MM, I’d work with a bunch of stuffy assholes too. Especially since it doesn’t sound like the Cubs intended to re-sign him anyway.
PerkinsQuote Reply
I prefer beating them in the playoffs. But I can get on board with disappointment, especially right at the end of the season. I think they are too talented to really suck unless a rash of injuries happens. And I don’t really wish injury on anyone.
Also, in the end, we all get our deserts, whether we deserve it or not. I am for delaying that end.
ceruleanQuote Reply
*That’s the deserts that’s pronounced like desserts. Fucking English ambiguity.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Except that “deserts” in the sense of “just deserts” is defined as “what one deserves.” The only plausible interpretation of that sentence is that we all get arid regions of land. Where are my deserts?
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
My takeaway from this is that I need to open a Baskin Robbins franchise out here in NM.
berseliusQuote Reply
Ah, but if the reward or punishment is precisely the same regardless of the life lived, is that what one deserves?
But waves upon wave of pulverized rocks inhospitable to life works too.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Los Helados Hermanos
Rice in limboQuote Reply
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
“I have never been a fan of meat-flavored ice cream, but this bacon flavor is pretty good.
Now where the hell did my brother go?”
ceruleanQuote Reply
Good points. A combination of the two approaches is probably the best way to go, especially when considering a team’s competitive situation. Which is why I still think it a foolish signing by the Cardinals, and a generally wise move by the Cubs to avoid. The Cardinals need the Fowler contract to be a consistent performer over its entire life, because they’re not likely to overtake the Cubs next year and probably not the next year either. The Cubs would need the contract to be a consistent performer because they don’t really “need” the wins in the short-term but might in the back half. They also now have flexibility and time to find a younger CF who can match or outperform an aging, declining Fowler at a fraction of the price. We’re all skeptical of Almora, and rightfully so, but if Fowler reverts back to the 2-2.5 WAR player he’s generally been and Almora’s defense is every bit as advertised and his bat doesn’t completely suck, Cubs should be in fine shape. And if Almora can’t hack it, Cubs aren’t on the hook here and can move on. The more I look at how this went down, the more pleased I am. I’d rather the Cubs gamble on youth for a year with flexibility to possibly add a much better player if it doesn’t work out, then blow that Tanaka money and 3000 PAs on Fowler through age 35.
And as it stands now, the best years of Fowler’s contract are likely going to be spent on a team that’s a better bet to not make the playoffs than make them. Sure, baseball happens and the Cardinals might win the next two WS titles, but all that praying-for-variance longshot stuff applied before Fowler, and bringing Fowler in only modestly lowers the volume on those prayers. The time to take a chance on someone hitting their 30s is when their presence not only closes the gap, but immediately vaults them ahead of division competition. You don’t want to be doing those kinds of contracts when they only somewhat enhance your chances of making the coin-flip game. Now granted, the Cardinals have money to burn, so this likely won’t financially prohibit pursuit of other free agents, but it’s not so much about the money as it is about promising 600+ PAs in years 3-5 to a player whose best days are likely to be burned on teams that didn’t win enough, and whose presence later will have to be worked around and made-up for. Fowler is not a game-changer like Alfonso Soriano (and lots of et al) was back in 2007. He probably only adds a couple wins, and the Cardinals need a lot more than just him. And without those other moves chances are pretty high they won’t close the gap until Dexter isn’t adding much of anything to the team anymore, and they’re put in a position of either accepting the diminishing returns and possibly not winning as much later, or eating a bunch of money to ship him out of town. Extracting surplus value in individual years is important, but not on teams unlikely to be playing into October.
But then, maybe I’m too bullish on the Cubs and too bearish on the birds.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Smokestack Lightning,
I think Fowler is probably worth what he signed for so I don’t think it’s foolish by the Cardinals. I actually think he’ll probably be worth that amount by the fourth year of the deal, but multi-year deals include a discount so I’d say by the end, there’s a good chance that he’ll be worth it. I’d have been fine if the Cubs had signed him to that, but I can understand why they wouldn’t. What I’m not sure I understand, or might understand anyway, is playing Almora over Heyward in CF. I’d rather Heyward in CF, Zobrist in RF and Baez at 2nd. I can see a platoon of Heyward and Almora in CF, but Almora probably shouldn’t face too many right handed pitchers. Not entirely sure Baez should either, which is one reason why I wanted the Cubs to re-sign Fowler.
dmick89Quote Reply
I think Cubs fans in general are, but I think it’s been a common problem any time the Cubs are good. Cubs fans seem to forget that it’s possible for both organizations to be good at the same time (I’ve been guilty of this myself). FWIW, I didn’t think the Cardinals would be very good in 2016 and they were slightly better than average. I just don’t expect that organization to stay down for long. They never have.
dmick89Quote Reply
It’s important no matter what. A big reason the Cubs were able to rebuild so quickly is that they were getting surplus value from veteran players when the Cubs sucked ass. I think you’re trying to find reasons why this is bad for the Cardinals. Dexter Fowler is a good player and the Cardinals have plenty of money. It’s not a huge contract and doesn’t stop them from signing other guys or acquiring them either. For the same reason that signing Heyward was thought to be so positive for the Cubs (taking wins directly away from the Cardinals), the Cardinals did the exact same thing here except Fowler probably won’t suck like Heyward has. The Cardinals didn’t come close to closing the gap between the two teams, but by signing Fowler, they closed a lot of it (maybe even half of it). I’d much rather Fowler have signed elsewhere for this exact reason. It makes the Cardinals better and the Cubs worse.
dmick89Quote Reply
Assuming the Cubs are not playing, which is more exciting when there is a play at the plate:
A. Out
B. Safe
SKQuote Reply
SK,
Depends on the score of the game in my opinion. On average, I’d say out, but it really depends on the game.
dmick89Quote Reply
i gotta go with out. with obvious exceptions, you shouldn’t really be going for home unless you’ve got a pretty good idea that you’ll be safe, so i would say that safe is to an extent a bit of a foregone conclusion.
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
Food for thought, guys. About your two points, I guess I’m assuming 1) a neutral score environment and 2) a 50/50 “chance” to score. Also, I’m assuming a bang-bang play. After all that, I can’t decide. Depends on my rooting interest (dying laughing)
SKQuote Reply
SK,
It might depend on how the replay review turns out, and how pissed off people are about the decision.
Rice in limboQuote Reply
SK,
If it’s a game I don’t really care about the result that I’m watching, I’d rather see the player safe. I like runs being scored and if it’s a game I don’t care about, a low-scoring game won’t keep my attention for too long.
dmick89Quote Reply
A player being safe on a bang-bang play is usually a good play by the fielder and a good send. The same is true if the player is out, but I can’t help but immediately question whether or not the player should have been held at 3rd. (dying laughing)
dmick89Quote Reply
That depends on the number of outs. With two outs, it’s almost the opposite; you send him home unless you’re pretty sure he’d be out (since most of the time, the next hitter will make the third out anyway).
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Eh, come on, man. I would much rather you conclude I’m a fucking moron who doesn’t understand the first thing about this stuff than head in this direction. When the Cardinals do moves I think are good, I say as much. When they don’t, I don’t. Simple as that. Maybe I’m out of step with what’s what, maybe I’m overestimating Fowler’s age and coming decline while underestimating the quality of this Cardinals team in the short-term, but I stand by what I’ve written, and I know my own mind enough to know when I’m pretzeling to make something work because my emotions are demanding it. That’s not happening here. I just have a slightly different outlook, or perhaps a more expansive one that takes into account other factors, factors that may or may not mean as much as I think they do.
Without other significant moves, adding Fowler doesn’t likely get the Cardinals where they want to go in the short-term, and it’s going to be a drag on their chances on the back nine of that deal. It’s not an awful, horrible, franchise-wrecking deal, but it’s the sort of deal you like to avoid if you can, one the Cardinals have historically been good about avoiding, and one the Cubs wisely did. You like the deal for the Cards. That’s great, and you could very well be right about it. But as of now, I don’t see it. And I’m actually hoping the Cardinals make more of them trying to play catch-up.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
All I really meant by it was that I think your dislike of the Cardinals may be influencing your opinion on this too much. Sorry I said it in the way that I did, but it feels as though you don’t want to like this deal, but maybe I’m just reading it wrong. If so, I’m sorry.
For the record, I don’t really like the deal for the Cardinals. I just don’t think it’s bad and I think Fowler is a good bet to be worth his contract. That doesn’t really mean I like it. In fact, I hate it. I’d much rather have seen Fowler sign elsewhere and not because I dislike the Cardinals. I don’t give a fuck about seeing former Cubs on the Cardinals. It’s just that Fowler is a good player and I’d rather the Cardinals have fewer of them.
Also, I’m not the least bit concerned about the back end of that contract. Maybe you’re right in that Fowler will hurt the Cardinals at that point, but he’s not making much money in today’s free agent contracts. The Cardinals paid him to roughly be somewhere between slightly below average to average over the life of the deal and that’s all. The Cardinals didn’t sign Fowler to be good in 2020. They did so to help them improve and close the gap on the Cubs in 2017.
dmick89Quote Reply
Also, I checked the fangraphs page on the projections. They’re for 2017. And they have Fowler at 2.1 fWAR and the Cardinals 10 wins behind the Cubs right now.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
I agree on why the Cardinals did the deal, but that’s my point. It’s not the smartest move imo because the best they’ll get out of Fowler won’t likely make up the talent gap that’s currently between them and the Cubs now (unless they’re planning on breaking the bank to make more moves and spend on…I’m not sure; nothing much else is out there), and by the time that gap does start to shrink again, Fowler could easily be part of what holds them back. They need him to be good in 2019-21 because they may not be a serious divisional threat again until then. Imo, they’re just fucking around right now. Pretending to be a serious contender in a division that currently houses the best team in baseball (that’s also as well-positioned for the future as any team we’ve ever seen and has no shortage of resources to address any shortcomings that develop), and they’re far from a shoo-in for the WC as well. They’ll likely get pretty good stuff from Fowler here in the short-term, but not enough to substantially change their chances of playing extra baseball next year, and they’ll be stuck with the less than pretty good stuff in the not-too-distant future, where they very well may not be in a position to absorb his inability to provide what he does now.
So it’s not the money, which the birds can easily afford right now, but the playing time Fowler will still be sucking up at that point, playing time that could go to a player they could get more out of. Unless the plan is to dump him to another team in 2-3 years if he starts to suck. (dying laughing) Maybe it is.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Smokestack Lightning,
The page title says 2016: http://www.fangraphs.com/projections.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&type=steamer&team=0&lg=all&players=0
Look at the title of the page in your browser.
dmick89Quote Reply
I did a WARcels projection for Fowler awhile back, but never published anything. Here’s what I got using the methodology Tango outlined in a recent post on his site.
2017: 2.7
2018: 2.3
2019: 1.9
2020: 1.5
I only looked at 4 years and that was 8.4 WAR over 4 years. I came up with 4 years and $76.3 million in value.
dmick89Quote Reply
Add in the multi-year discount and and it’s about $68 million over 4 years. Add in a 5th year and it’s probably right in line with what the Cardinals paid him.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89,
FG may not have changed that title for some reason as it does look like they have now added the 2017 Steamer projections. They haven ‘t added the ZiPS projection yet, but Fowler was at 3 or something like that.
dmick89Quote Reply
I would assume playing time is based on a couple of factors: injuries and whether or not it’s earned. The contract isn’t so large that the Cardinals are just going to play him because they’re paying him. If he sucks, they’ve got options. Their best option would be a time machine, but those don’t exist yet so I’m not counting on that. (dying laughing)
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89,
Yeah, I think bottom line it comes down to you thinking the Cardinals are closer to the Cubs than I do. If you’re right, then the Fowler deal makes sense for all the reasons you put out there. If the Cardinals are as far behind the Cubs as I think tho, then the signing can be construed a waste, and potentially a good thing for the Cubs (no word on how it helps the fucking Reds).
You may have gotten the impression I’m mad about the deal, but actually I’m fine with it for all the reasons I’ve stated. I’m sad Dexter is gone, as he’s a good player and from we know about him a good person as well. But that was always going to be the case no matter where he went. You always hate to lose good players and good people.
But as far as the deal itself, I feel confident this will at best only help the Cardinals maintain their current also-ran division status over the next season and maybe help them get into the WC game. Maybe I’m wrong to discount that, because playoffs is playoffs, but I know if the Cubs were in the same situation, I wouldn’t be happy signing Fowler to five years right now, and would actually be more in favor of a controlled roster demolition and spending the next season or two retooling for a more serious run in the future. It’s not like the Cardinals underperformed last year. They got out of their talent about what you would expect, and they haven’t done anything to ultimately change that for 2017 yet. They’re a fringe contender at best right now, and if the Cubs were that, I wouldn’t want them spending money and years on a 30+ year-old OF whose surplus value years won’t change the short-term result in the standings, and whose non-surplus years may end up being part of the reason the team can’t get over the hump down the road.
Anyway. I’ll probably be dead wrong. That’s how this shit usually plays out. (dying laughing)
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
I’m going off this.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/instagraphs/come-look-at-2017-projections-already/
And that it says 2017 on the player pages.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Smokestack Lightning,
Yeah, I think it is 2017, but I know early in the offseason all they use for next year is rest of season projections. 2.1 isn’t surprising. You’re bound to have some variance between the systems.
I guess I don’t have a problem spending when you’re not expecting to be great. I had no problem signing Edwin Jackson and still think it was an OK contract.
dmick89Quote Reply
And there’s obviously something to making yourself as good as you can in case the unexpected happens either with your team or on your rivals’. If the Cubs implode in a way nobody sees coming, then the Cardinals being positioned to take advantage will look very smart indeed. And perhaps it is the best course for them, as they’re not really positioned to sell off right now either. They’re kinda stuck in the middle. Not good enough on paper to represent a realistic challenge for the division (and unlucky enough to have the best team in baseball just getting started ahead of them), not nearly bad enough to warrant selling without catching some serious flak.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Smokestack Lightning,
Not that it matters, but I’m not sure the cubs are the best in baseball. I think they’re pretty even with the Red Sox and Nationals. That’s fine. It’s not often you enter the season as easily the best team in baseball.
dmick89Quote Reply
When the front in the war against North Korea opens up to include mainland China, do you think all MLB players will be drafted to fight overseas, or just the ones who haven’t reached FA yet?
SKQuote Reply
Smokestack Lightning,
dmick89,
The way I look at it is that the Cards survived the back end of Matt Holliday’s contract in ok shape, and Fowler’s decline is not likely to be quite that steep. They’re a team that seems to be pretty adept at squeezing the last drops of life out of the Jhonny Peraltas and Carlos Beltrans of the world and rarely overextend themselves, which allows them to eat a bad year or two on the rare long-term deals that they do sign.
I don’t know if it’ll be enough, but I feel like they’re a pretty good bet to like this deal when all is said and done. (I’m still hopeful that Fowler is the only bright spot over that time, though.)
uncle daveQuote Reply
Shit, man. I might’ve gone 5/80 on Jansen.
uncle daveQuote Reply
I guess the Dodgers get all their free agents back.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Well they certainly weren’t free…
Rice in limboQuote Reply
Speaking of LA, the Rams fired Jeff Fisher like a week after giving him an extension?
I mean, Jeff Fisher should always be fired, but the timing is odd.
RynoQuote Reply
Ryno,
Needed the write-off item, I guess.
Rice in limboQuote Reply
I’ve heard some talk of Schwarber being the potential leadoff hitter next season. I get it, since he seems like a guy who should draw a lot of walks, but I’d be a little worried that it would be easier for teams to shift against him. Also, his baserunning might not be the best, and it seems like a waste of his power to bat him in a position least likely to see men on base in front of him.
EdwinQuote Reply
Rice in limbo,
I assume they were shocked to find out how much it costs to live in LA.
RynoQuote Reply
I’d rather do something like Zobrist-Rizzo-Bryant-Schwarber, myself.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Kinda bored, so I decided to start doing mock drafts. Here’s one I did for Chicago with http://first-pick.com/NFL/DraftGame.aspx:
Traded CHI’s 1 for NYJ’s 1 and 2…
Round 1 Pick 6 (NYJ): Jamal Adams, SS, LSU
Traded a 2, a 4 and a 7 for OAK’s 1…
Round 1 Pick 30 (OAK): DeShone Kizer, QB, Notre Dame
Round 2 Pick 4: Corey Davis, WR, Western Michigan
Round 3 Pick 4: Adam Bisnowaty, OT/OG, Pittsburgh
Round 4 Pick 4: Daeshon Hall, DE, Texas A&M
Round 5 Pick 4: Jeremy Sprinkle, TE, Arkansas
Tried to go BPA with an eye on needs according to the Interwebzz
RynoQuote Reply
It sounded like the extension was signed during the offseason, and they took their time announcing it for some reason. Weren’t there rumors flying around at the beginning of the season that he was extended?
berseliusQuote Reply
Did another one…
Traded CHI’s 1 for SD’s 1-3
Round 1 Pick 8 (S.D.): Myles Garrett, DE/OLB, Texas A&M
Round 2 Pick 4: DeShone Kizer, QB, Notre Dame
Round 2 Pick 8 (S.D.): Dede Westbrook, WR, Oklahoma
Round 3 Pick 4: Jordan Leggett, TE, Clemson
Round 3 Pick 8 (S.D.): Dion Dawkins, OT, Temple
Round 4 Pick 4: Billy Price, OG, Ohio State
Round 4 Pick 13: Montravius Adams, DT, Auburn
Round 5 Pick 4: Brandon Facyson, CB, Virginia Tech
Round 7 Pick 4: M.J. Stewart, CB, North Carolina
Which one do you like better? (dying laughing)
RynoQuote Reply
berselius,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XWOlmPFg2k
RynoQuote Reply
berselius,
I hope, for their sake, that’s the case. But still, they’re the organization that hired and extended Jeff Fisher.
RynoQuote Reply
At this point, it feels like a certainty that Garrett and Jonathan Allen will be gone in the top 3 picks. Maybe a QB, too. If so, how do you Bears fans feel about drafting a QB at 4?
RynoQuote Reply
Rizzo the Rat,
I like the idea of Scchwarber hitting 1 or 2, since he sees a lot of pitches and has good command of the strike zone. I’d probably go Zobrist, Schwarber, Bryant, Rizzo (though I think The Book says to put the best hitters at 1, 2, and 4).
How to order the top of the Cubs’ lineup is a really nice problem to have.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Perkins,
I don’t necessarily like the idea of a buffalo clogging up the bases, but the guys behind them tend to hit baseballs over the wall, so it probably doesn’t matter.
Rice in limboQuote Reply
Same.
RynoQuote Reply
Ryno,
I hate reaching in a draft. If they think that a QB is in this draft who can be a QB to build around for the next 4-6 years, then I think they should take him at 4. If not, I’d rather they build some depth, get some more playmakers on defense, whatever.
EdwinQuote Reply
Sounds like Rick Perry is going to get a job heading up that thing. You know, that department, it’s, uh….ummm…not commerce, not education, the other one. It’ll come to me, just give me a minute. Huh. Sorry, I can’t…oops.
EdwinQuote Reply
Wenningtons Gorilla CockQuote Reply
It’s the one what’s in charge of taking care of the nukular arsinal and whatnot, try to keep up
SKQuote Reply
Some guy named Kory Urethra ——————-> Cubs
SKQuote Reply
SK,
Sounds like an MMA fighter.
Rice in limboQuote Reply
Biggest problem with the Cubs is that although they won the World Series last year, they’re still way too young. Simply allowing time to run it’s course isn’t working fast enough, which is why they needed to trade away Soler for Wade, and sign this Uhara person.
EdwinQuote Reply
Edwin,
Old balls are the new market inefficiency.
JKVQuote Reply
Nope.
Schwarbryzzobrist.
*drops laptop*
ceruleanQuote Reply
SKQuote Reply
http://www.trentonian.com/sports/20161214/jay-dunn-vladimir-guerrero-and-ivan-rodriguez-at-the-top-of-my-hall-of-fame-ballot
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Rizzo the Rat,
That’s because
cERA, er, I mean pitch-framing has a greater impact on the outcome of a game than RsBI. If he doesn’t frame the ball properly, the umpire gets confused. That’s a fact. Prove me wrong.ceruleanQuote Reply
cerulean,
It’s 2016, facts no longer matter. Sometimes when you have a conversation with people, you’re going to say something, and maybe you don’t have all the facts to back that up, but that’s how the American people live.
EdwinQuote Reply
bump
uncle daveQuote Reply
I think you are confusing fact with truth—in our post-truth society, truth is meaningless, a fact is anything believed with conviction, and an opinion is anything believed without conviction.
Prove me wrong and I might believe your “facts”—until then, well…that’s just, like, your opinion, man.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Comments at OV are at an all time high, while the failing BN is struggling for viewers. Sad!
EdwinQuote Reply
If you take away the tens that have commented on OV illegally, BN wins the popularity contest.
ceruleanQuote Reply
So Grampy is seeking some FO role on the Cubs. I think they should give him the title of President of Clubhouse Operations. Sounds dignified.
Hmm…maybe too dignified. How about Assistant (to the) President of Scooter Operations?
That’s better.
ceruleanQuote Reply
cerulean,
Vice President of Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence.
PerkinsQuote Reply
This sounds like a below replacement level restaurant experience:
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/12/trump-grill-review
EdwinQuote Reply
Make America Below Replacement Level Again.
ceruleanQuote Reply
cerulean,
don’t tell me what to do
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
Cubs —————–> Luxury tax for the first time every
Me ———————>
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
hey did you guys hear anything about the cubs aquiring wade davis and divesting jorge soler
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
Smokestack Lightning,
i’m actually a bit surprised by this, given the number of pre-arb players on the team. who is drawing a $10m+ salary? heyward, lackey, montero, lester, zobrist, i think arrieta and maybe hammel…who am i missing? oh and edwin jackson. still hard to see how they get to >180m though.
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
EnricoPallazzo,
Here’s BN’s breakdown:
http://www.bleachernation.com/2016/12/17/report-chicago-cubs-set-to-pay-luxury-tax-for-the-first-time-what-happens-next/
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
So Buddy Bailey returns to manage Myrtle Beach. That’s good, because I can continue to teach my kid the uselessness of bunting when the next batter hits .186. But at least Daniel Lockhart got minor league, rule 5 drafted, so it’ll be a new .186 hitter.
BVSQuote Reply
Another recent prospect list. They are not very high on the prospects overall rankings, but I also doubt their tier system was rigorously done.
Good to see Paulino make the list and still be a Cub. Fortunately, no team took a Rule 5 chance on him.
ceruleanQuote Reply
cerulean,
surprised to see clifton that far down the list. also didn’t expect to see candelario below underwood. not sure if that means i’m overestimating candelario or underestimating underwood…
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
EnricoPallazzo,
In the end, the overall rank is rather meaningless* until the players can contribute in the majors. Such a proposition becomes dicey with the likes of Candelario considering where he is on the depth chart. Underwood *should* be good…but he *probably* isn’t. I personally think Candelario is more likely to be valuable at the major league level, but Underwood is more likely to be valuable to the Cubs if he has any value at all.
Also: take these lists with a grain of salt.
*My arbitrary rule for dealing with rankings of any kind: There is little difference between the nth rank and twice the nth rank. So first and second are pretty much the same, as are second and fourth, fourth and eighth, eighth and sixteenth—you get the gist. The difference between fourth and fifth then is literally meaningless.
ceruleanQuote Reply
I was just wondering, did the Cubs acquire Wade Davis, and/or divest Jorge Soler?
SKQuote Reply
Is the new Stars War movie any good?
EdwinQuote Reply
Edwin,
Yes. The first act jumps around a lot, but overall the movie is very good. I’d say about on par with A New Hope, if not quite as good as Empire Strikes Back. The closing battle is similar in scope to the one at the end of Return of the Jedi, but much longer, more frenetic, and visceral.
There were a few fan service moments that to me came off as a bit cheesy, but others seemed to enjoy. It also does a really good job of showing the war in more shades of grey than any of the other movies. Without giving anything away, the rebels aren’t exactly “cute and cuddly.”
I need to watch it again, as my first viewing was from the front row in the theater. I had some minor issues with it, but that may have been a perspective thing. The musical scoring had a few odd choices, but I may be able to appreciate them better with a more full view of the screen.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Perkins,
Good, good. How much talk of intergalactic trade policy and senate manuvers are there?
EdwinQuote Reply
Sounds like the Cubs brought in Tyson Ross for a job interview.
SKQuote Reply
Edwin,
Those are mercifully absent. There is, however, a neat parallel drawn to our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan where Stormtroopers are shown as an occupying force in a hostile town.
This was also maybe the first Star Wars film where the cost of living under the Empire is actually made to seem real. Other than Owen and Beru in A New Hope, a lot of the oppressive stuff the Empire does is shown in big set pieces like the destruction of Alderaan or the occupation of Bespin. This one makes you feel it on a much more personal level, which is a good thing to see in a franchise nominally about interstellar war.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Perkins,
Do any of the Rebels get to yell something cool like “Not my Emperor!” or “Palpatine lied, Bothans died!”?
EdwinQuote Reply
Edwin,
Alas, they do not. But shouting to get people’s attention before you blow them up or shoot them is not generally considered tactically sound.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Review on Al’s book
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
JonKneeVQuote Reply
Perkins,
Huh. That explains why I’m so bad at paintball.
EdwinQuote Reply
Al uses “A Season For The Ages” for his book? Really?
dmick89Quote Reply
He wanted it to be “Finally, At Long Last, a Season, for the Ages…with Coleslaw,” but the editor cut it down from nonsensical to merely trite.
PerkinsQuote Reply
So Alvin’s book is 232 pages. Anybody guess how many commas are in there?
dmick89Quote Reply
2 or 288.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Per, page, period.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Correct.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Sounds like OV should get in on this whole Book thing. Tentative layout:
Chapter 1: Pizza Hut Milfs
Chapter 2: Cast Iron cookware, and proper cleaning technique
Chapter 3: On WAR and Salsa
Chapter 4: The Cover 2 Defense, and how to exploit it
Chapter 5: Breaking Bad
That’s just a start.
EdwinQuote Reply
Edwin,
Title suggestions:
Failing at Failing
Macros and their Practical Uses
How to Lose to the Dodgers in Five
Superfriendliness
The Forest Dot Book
Overcoming Exile from Al’s Sex Toy Barn
(dying laughing) All the Way Down
ceruleanQuote Reply
Edwin,
Replacement Level Restaurants
Nice Snark
Patient Motherfuckering
Discreditation
Undiscreditation
Rediscreditation
Laughing, but not (dying laughing)
PerkinsQuote Reply
Cubs win the World Series: Now I can (dying laughing) in peace.
EdwinQuote Reply
Also:
Ye Peasant Arses Converse
ceruleanQuote Reply
cerulean,
“Don’t Tell Me What to Read”
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
is OV planning on writing up a 5000 word eulogy on logan watkins?
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
EnricoPallazzo,
You mean Brendan Ryan Howard Earl Henry Aaron Boone Logan Watkins?
ceruleanQuote Reply
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-2016-cubs-won-just-like-the-1997-marlins-did/
dmick89Quote Reply
JonKneeV,
Pretty sure that is Desipio.com there. Also, with Yellon, he’s gonna use way more than 288 commas on one page alone.
Rice in limboQuote Reply
Second review on Al’s book’s Amazon page:
Wenningtons Gorilla CockQuote Reply
Edwin,
Perkins,
A new book by OV: Because We Have To
BVSQuote Reply
If dmick doesn’t have time to write the “How to Be an Optimist” chapter in the OV book, you can ghost write it.
BVSQuote Reply
That be a short chapter. So short, I’ll just get it over with:
In the end, everybody dies. So plan for naught because naught’s all you get.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Follow up chapter: It Could Go Either Way
berseliusQuote Reply
Ending Chapter: You read every word.
EdwinQuote Reply
Epilogue: False.
dmick89Quote Reply
I couldn’t get it down from 8000, so I scrapped it.
MylesQuote Reply
Back cover review of book “…big if true”
EdwinQuote Reply
Additional chapters:
1. Worst Things Every
2. Knock it Off
3. Existential Discussions, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Bologna Sandwiches
4. Browsing, but not Participating
PerkinsQuote Reply
I’m watching you.
MylesQuote Reply
Our source was the New York Times.
EdwinQuote Reply
Mediocre Festivus Day, everyone. Shall we air grievances? Or shall we settle on mere feats of strength?
Feats of strength are probably more appropriate in these trying times. So…
This year, my dad, brother, and I moved a baby grand piano that weighs well over 500 pounds using carts, boards, and a hell of a lot of ingenuity. The local piano mover I know was aghast and astonished—we didn’t have the right equipment and didn’t even bother to remove the legs. How did we get it through the door? We just tipped it sideways onto a cart and spun it through the thirty-inch-wide door.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Merry Xmas, jabronis. May Santa not find any reason to invade from Neptune.
Rice in limboQuote Reply
Merry Xmas all. I got you so many lizards.
BerseliusQuote Reply
My sister gave me Yellon’s book for Christmas. I had to fly out of town yesterday so had no choice but to go to the mall on the day before Christmas to return it. *gunshot*
uncle daveQuote Reply
Rice in limbo,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut-hn7sFieE
uncle daveQuote Reply
2016, man
SKQuote Reply
uncle dave,
Does your sister hate you?
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89,
I think her familiarity with Al Yellon is what all of ours whould be in a perfect world — she’s never heard of the guy.
uncle daveQuote Reply
BVS,
I want an awkwardly-inserted chapter the NFL Draft.
RynoQuote Reply
How about as the bonus material at the end? The “first chapter” of the authors’ next work.
Not sure about all those Yellonesque chapters though
Perkins, but we can let one of the OV principals decide. Maybe AC, since he has a lot more free time now only counting to zero.
BVSQuote Reply
uncle dave,
We should have had a pool about who got Yellons book first. You lose. My family so far has stuck to Fanatics. Whew.
BVSQuote Reply
BVS,
It seems more fitting in the middle.
RynoQuote Reply
I got a Kris Bryant ornament that looks like it was made by a blind demon. Pics to follow once I am on decent internet connection.
berseliusQuote Reply
berselius,
I got more Cubs stuff this year for Christmas than I have for all the ones before combined. My birthday is tomorrow so I wouldn’t be surprised if I get more Cubs stuff. Fortunately nobody gave me Yellon’s book. It would have found a nice home in the fireplace.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89,
I got no Cubs stuff. All I wanted was the DVD, so I just ordered it for myself.
SKQuote Reply
I also got yellon’s book. I am hoping that I can just bring it to a Barnes and Noble and just get store credit.
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
dmick89,
Given its dimensions, it could be used as a doorstop or to level out a table or chair.
Rice in limboQuote Reply
That was a DVD I recently enjoyed. Just wish the wife hadn’t decided to cut all the onions in the house during the last 10 minutes or so…
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
EnricoPallazzo,
+1 would recommend
uncle daveQuote Reply
Just mail to Yellon and tell him that his book is banned from your house. Then make him write you a letter to confirm.
JonKneeVQuote Reply
JonKneeV,
I’ll pay for postage.
dmick89Quote Reply
JonKneeV,
This assumes that he hasn’t preblocked your mail.
Rice in limboQuote Reply
happy new year jabronis
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
http://obstructedview.net/merry-new-year-obstructed-view/
berseliusQuote Reply