A few years ago I wouldn’t have considered writing something about looking ahead. The Cubs had the pieces in place to contend for as long as they were willing to supplement the roster when it was needed. Following the 2009 season the Cubs refused to do that and what they basically agreed to do at that time was a much longer rebuild than necessary. First of all, a rebuild wasn’t necessary at that time as long as they added to the roster. When they chose not to, the Cubs chose to rebuild in a different way. They decided to let contracts expire while also maintaining an inferior farm system. This results in the Cubs having to continue to put large amounts of money into their MLB roster if they want to contend.
This team needed a lot of things to go right for them to contend. I think this is something for once that all the fans agreed on. They lacked the talent that the teams above them had and trying to jump over 3 superior teams is much harder than getting lucky and jumping one team. The Cubs have just dug themselves an early hole by playing worse than expected.
The odds of coming back at this point are pretty slim. In fact, the Cubs have a 1.7% chance of winning the division at this point and a 0.4% chance of winning the Wild Card. So maybe it’s time to look ahead. (Update: after last night’s win, the odds are up to 2.7%)
The Cubs only have 6 guaranteed contracts on the books after this season, but those 6 plus other guaranteed payments will cost them $73.6 million. Alfonso Soriano and Carlos Zambrano each make $18 million. Zambrano will be in the final year of his contract next year so don’t be too surprised to see the Cubs actively shop him this winter. Ryan Demspter returns for $14 million, Carlos Marmol gets $7 million, Marlon Byrd $6.5, Sean Marshall $3.1 and the Cubs owe Carlos Pena $5 million of his $10 million 2011 contract next season. The Cubs will also have a $2 million buyout on Aramis Ramirez.
Matt Garza, Koyie Hill, Blake DeWitt and Geovany Soto will all be arbitration eligible. Randy Wells may be eligible, as well. Garza will be 3rd year eligible while Soto is eligible for the 2nd time. Koyie Hill will almost certainly be released, but I’ve been saying that for seemingly 25 years now. DeWitt and Wells would be first time eligible.
We can probably estimate that Garza will get about $8-10 million in arbitration and Soto will probably get a raise to about $5 million. DeWitt’s salary would be under $1 million and Wells could see a bump to about $3 million. That’s a total of roughly $91 million committed to 10 players.
This makes it important that the Cubs continue to get production from league minimum players like Starlin Castro, Darwin Barney and at least one of Tyler Colvin and Brett Jackson. As well as finding someone to fill out the rotation.
If the Cubs filled out their roster with league minimum guys that would be an additionaly $6.2 million. Add in the 15 guys on the 40-man roster, but not on the active roster and that’s another $1 million. The minimum payroll for the 2012 Cubs at the moment is $98-100 million. The Cubs payroll in 2011 dropped from the mid 140s to $134 million. There’s been no sign that payroll will increase and despite saying it wouldn’t decrease, it has. Let’s say the Cubs have $30-35 million to spend.
That’s a pretty good chunk of change and can help fill some holes, which the Cubs will have plenty of. Before we know how much money the Cubs need to spend to be a contender next season, we need to figure out what their talent level is, which takes some guess work since we don’t know how the rest of this season will play out.
The average player will get about .5 WAR worse per full season after the age of 27 or 28 while the player under that age will increase by .5 WAR. It changes based on skill set, but we’re going to use that beecause we understand projecting talent level a year out comes with even greater unreliability than projecting them right now. We’re not looking for perfection. We’re looking for a ballpark figure in wins to work with. Using +/- .5 WAR is good enough for what we’re doing. We’ll use the updated ZiPS projections, which are available on Fangraphs.
Doing this, we see that Geovany Soto is expected to be the best position player at 2.7 WAR. I have him projected to get 500 plate appearances next season and that’s probably too many. In 2008 Soto came to the plate just over 560 times, but in 2009 and 2010 he’s failed to come up even 400 times. He’s found himself on the DL the last couple years and is currently rehabbing in Arizona. Prince Fielder and Albert Pujols are available this offseason, but if the Cubs don’t get one of them, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Soto moved to 1st base in an effort to keep him healthy.
Matt Garza projects to be worth 3.1 WAR with Zambrnao next at 2.8 and Marmol at 2.7. For those interested, Castro is projected to be worth 2.3 WAR next season. The Cubs currently under contract or team control have a projection of about 70.2 wins for 2012. They have holes at 1st base and 3rd base. I put Tyler Colvin in RF, but we can consider the Cubs have at least one outfield hole as well. Two to three if they consider Colvin and Soriano to be next to useless.
Soto is currently the starting catcher and I’ve used Welington Castillo as the back-up. I have Darwin Barney at 2nd with Blake DeWitt getting some playing time there as well. Castro is at SS of course and the outfield is Soriano, Byrd and Colvin. There’s also a hole in the rotation after the top four of Garza, Zambrano, Dempster and Wells.
The Cubs have about $30-35 million to spend if they keep payroll the same and need at least 5 wins to consider themselves contenders. They do have some young players making league minimum that can help out significantly. In a few days we’ll take a look at that and maybe some ways the Cubs can spend money to get the team above 85 wins. Signing Albert Pujols would obviously be a big help, but if he gets $25 million per year or more, it doesn’t leave the Cubs with a whole lot of money to spend elsewhere. If Pujols only makes the Cubs an 80-win team, do you really want to spend that kind of money on him? 2012 obviously wouldn’t be the only year he’d be extremely valuable, but as much as I’d like to see Pujols in a Cubs uniform, I’m just not sure it’s the best way the team can spend money. If the Cubs can expect some quality production from guys making league minimum it might be. We’ll try to figure that out in a few days.
Comments
$35 million to spend on adding 5 wins? That actually doesn’t seem too far-fetched.
AndCountingQuote Reply
From last thread:
I haven’t really thought this through, but I think I would rather have the athletes be paid at the expense of their current glut of scholarship offerings. I mean, cut the number of scholarships allotted to any one sport and pay some of the living expenses instead. Lower-tier athletes can get student loans just like anybody else. Would athletic programs be all that less attractive to students if a handful of scholarships were cut to finance every participant being paid in cash?
AndCountingQuote Reply
MB, I don’t think the plan that was proposed is a good one (nor does it have a chance at being enacted). I’m just glad someone within the system is considering shaking up the fucked up system they have in place now.
BerseliusQuote Reply
most reports ive seen have the cubs with 50-55 to spend. Do you think arb raises are going to eat 20 mill?
dylanjQuote Reply
Look ahead? This season isn’t even over yet. I’ll wait awhile.
MuckerQuote Reply
Al says you shouldn’t look ahead, but I was eyeing the 2012 season in 2010. Unfortunately the Cubs fucked up/don’t have a long term plan.
MishQuote Reply
Al also says Tony Campana is the fastest player in baseball. So……….
dylanjQuote Reply
[quote name=Jame Gumb]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk[/quote]Yeah I do. It means you can’t be unfageted. (dying laughing)
Suburban kidQuote Reply
http://mlb.sbnation.com/2011/5/19/2179247/cubs-rays-matt-garza-trade
dylanjQuote Reply
Cubs interested in Millwood, per Heyman
BerseliusQuote Reply
The Cubs are just looking for a heartbeat at this point
dylanjQuote Reply
What are the chances the Cubs try to trade some players at the deadline? Is this team really as delusional as the Yellons of the world that they really think they can compete even if they are hovering around .500 at the deadline?
MuckerQuote Reply
[quote name=dylanj]The Cubs are just looking for a heartbeat at this point[/quote]
So Millwood is the defibrillator?
Rice CubeQuote Reply
mb, I fail to see how there is differentiation between in state and out of state athletes. There is no opportunity cost because if the player wasn’t on scholarship, they would be at a different school instead of paying the out of state tuition. The cost of scholarships are far less than actual tuition and housing for students.
Truth is, many athletes on scholarships can’t have jobs. Many come from families that can’t provide them with spending money, and receive no compensation for spending money. They deserve to be paid for the work they put in. That work gives the university revenues that exceed their true cost to the university exponentially. I went to Purdue. Jajuan Johnson, Robbie Hummell, and E’twaun Moore have produced tens of millions of revenue in merchandise, tv/ad revenues, and ticket sales. Those 3’s actual cost of attending Purdue and their room and board for 4 years is likely around $200,000. Those 3 paid for all of Purdue athletics and likely some of the costs to renovate Mackey Arena.
IMO, players should be paid $250/week (during the “official” season) to use on food, gas, movies, etc. That’s $10,000/player for 40 weeks during the year.
Moore came from East Chicago, IN. You think he has money to take his girlfriend to dinner and a movie for $50? No way unless it’s given to him “illegally.” It’s a joke.
jtsunamiQuote Reply
[quote name=dylanj]http://mlb.sbnation.com/2011/5/19/2179247/cubs-rays-matt-garza-trade[/quote]
Ooooh, let me know when KOWOH strikes.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=dylanj]http://mlb.sbnation.com/2011/5/19/2179247/cubs-rays-matt-garza-trade[/quote]We can’t look ahead, so we have to decide who won the trade right now. If anything, we should have decided this sooner.
GBTSQuote Reply
[quote name=AndCounting]From last thread:
I haven’t really thought this through, but I think I would rather have the athletes be paid at the expense of their current glut of scholarship offerings. I mean, cut the number of scholarships allotted to any one sport and pay some of the living expenses instead. Lower-tier athletes can get student loans just like anybody else. Would athletic programs be all that less attractive to students if a handful of scholarships were cut to finance every participant being paid in cash?[/quote]Athletic scholarships are far more complicated than I ever imagined when I started looking into them about a year ago. Seriously, I’ve been working on something off and on for about a year. Say you pay some of the college football players, or all of them because you can’t just pay some of them, you have to pay an equal number of female athletes the same amount of money. So you’re not really increasing the sum paid by $420,000, but rather $840,000.
Let’s say instead that we take the football players off of scholarship and pay them. Let’s even say that the money comes from outside, which is mostly does anyway. That’s 120 less male scholarships, which certainly means there will also be 120 less female scholarships. In other words, every women’s rowing team would be eliminated plus at least one or two other sports. Women’s rowing teams were largely created by schools to offset the large number of scholarships given to the football team. Take away those scholarships and the women’s rowing team is gone plus probably softball and another sport.
Whatever change you make to the current system as far as football goes, an equal change will have to be made as far as the numbers of female athletic scholarships. So say we start arguing that football players should be paid. We can reasonably argue this because the football programs are self-sustaining. They support almost every other sport a college offers. So now we’re paying them and we suddenly have to remove 120 female athletic scholarships. If they don’t, the school will be sanctioned and lose scholarship money. Can you imagine the outrage over this? A school is now officially paying 120 male athletes while cutting 120 female scholarships? We can’t reasonably argue that any female sport sustains itself well enough to pay the athletes.
You either cut 240 scholarships and pay 240 athletes (120 male, 120 female) the same amount of money, pay 120 athletes a small amount of money as suggest while also paying 120 female athletes the same amount of money or leave things as they are.
This is why nothing will ever change in college sports. The cost to change things would be twice as much as someone suggests. And I don’t want the University of Iowa paying athletes $840,000 on top of their full-ride scholarships.
That’s the other thing. Football and usually women’s rowing are the two sports that regularly offer full-ride scholarships. Even in baseball at a place like Texas, a great prospect will probably only get 50%. The average baseball player gets about 25%. Few sports give full rides.
mb21Quote Reply
So the Rays saved millions of dollars, received a ton of questionable prospects, and presently remain contenders in the toughest division in baseball.
The Cubs spent a ton of money to remain a fourth place team, which is where they were before the trade.
Yeah, win-win.
GBTSQuote Reply
[quote name=dylanj]most reports ive seen have the cubs with 50-55 to spend. Do you think arb raises are going to eat 20 mill?[/quote]$50-55 million based on their $70 million in guaranteed contracts. Then add in the arb-eligible players, auto-renewal players and guys on the 40-man, but not on the 25-man roster.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=GBTS]So the Rays saved millions of dollars, received a ton of questionable prospects, and presently remain contenders in the toughest division in baseball.
The Cubs spent a ton of money to remain a fourth place team, which is where they were before the trade.
Yeah, win-win.[/quote]
Clearly you are not looking at this through optimism goggles.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=AndCounting]$35 million to spend on adding 5 wins? That actually doesn’t seem too far-fetched.[/quote]$35 million to add based on the current roster. This doesn’t include guys like Brett Jackson who I assume takes over in CF and will probably be projected at around 3 WAR. I actually think Brett Jackson will easily be the best position player on the team next season. He might be right now. If you think the Cubs can fill the 5th spot and get 2-3 WAR, we’re talking $35 million to spend and they need 10 wins. Thereabouts.
mb21Quote Reply
That’s if you think 85 wins is being a contender. I don’t. You have to aim for 90, but this is the Cubs. They don’t really care about winning the division. They just want the illusion that they’re trying to.
mb21Quote Reply
They do have that McNutt guy, and what’s left of Cashner’s shoulder. Maybe the Cubs will hold him back to save the embarrassment of all the fans that will keep calling him Marvin McNutt.
BerseliusQuote Reply
[quote name=GBTS]So the Rays saved millions of dollars, received a ton of questionable prospects, and presently remain contenders in the toughest division in baseball.
[/quote]
I think Archer was the only real “questionable” prospect as it goes, given that every prospect from #1 to Hayden Simpson is questionable in some sense. Archer has the control issues which is ultimately going to determine his ceiling, but he’s struggled so far this year. I think Lee will be real – I don’t think his power gains will last, but I do think he’ll bring speed, OBP, and a glove. Guyer and Chirinos aren’t really “prospects” in a top level sense, but I think both easily will find a job in the majors at some level, probably as backups or platoon. And Sam Fuld’s replacement level (maybe barely above due to defense), but teh Rays probably already got the best stretch of Fuld’s career out of him.
/Rays fag’d
MishQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]They do have that McNutt guy. Maybe the Cubs will hold him back to save the embarrassment of all the fans that will keep calling him Marvin McNutt[/quote]
Does b think McNutt is left-handed?
/Inigo Montoya’d
Rice CubeQuote Reply
I’m not denying that the football program makes a lot of money, though it’s probably not as much as you think. I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but I think Georgia was the most profitable football program in the nation and they made $60 million. Texas was a close second. I believe the University of Iowa was around $17 million, but I’ll double check that later today.
It depends on what you want. Do you want an athletic department with one, maybe two sports? The only sports profitable are football and some schools see a profit from basketball. That’s 130+ scholarships right there so 130 have to be given to female athletes. They’re required by law to do this. The dollar figures I gave you above do not include teacher compensation, cost of electricity, heating, blah blah blah. It only consists of the expense the athletic department is charged. I believe I read an article a year ago that said when you consider all expenses even the best athletic departments break even.
But say we want to just go down to 135 male athletes on scholarship and 135 female athletes on scholarship. Each of the 270 people get paid $3500. The athletic department isn’t going to make much money at all. The female sports are all a loss. Whatever the football and basketball teams make will simply support the other one, two or three female programs. I can also guarantee that at that point women athletic scholarships will be gone. Schools will accept the penalty from the government and won’t care about claims of them treating women unfairly even though they are. They’ll have to in order to make money.
mb21Quote Reply
I’m not a huge Archer fan, but I’m still higher on him than Lee. If he moves off SS he loses a lot of value.
BerseliusQuote Reply
good write up mb. i think this year can be very valuable in the development of some of these guys.
if you can get this team into 85 win territory next year they can probably contend with the reds.
i wonder how much the big fatty from milwaukee is gonna make compared to albie? he might not be a bad option. he’s not the player albie is. but #1 he’s playing 1b and #2 he is left handed and #3 he’s younger. it will be interesting to see if the cubs pursue either.
ccdQuote Reply
[quote name=Mish]I think Archer was the only real “questionable” prospect as it goes, given that every prospect from #1 to Hayden Simpson is questionable in some sense. Archer has the control issues which is ultimately going to determine his ceiling, but he’s struggled so far this year. I think Lee will be real – I don’t think his power gains will last, but I do think he’ll bring speed, OBP, and a glove. Guyer and Chirinos aren’t really “prospects” in a top level sense, but I think both easily will find a job in the majors at some level, probably as backups or platoon. And Sam Fuld’s replacement level (maybe barely above due to defense), but teh Rays probably already got the best stretch of Fuld’s career out of him.
/Rays fag’d[/quote]Yeah, “questionable” was the wrong word choice. What I meant to say is they got no slam dunks, but all of them possess either very high ceilings or can presently be used a league minimum contributors.
GBTSQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]They do have that McNutt guy, and what’s left of Cashner’s shoulder. Maybe the Cubs will hold him back to save the embarrassment of all the fans that will keep calling him Marvin McNutt.[/quote](dying laughing) if he’s as good as Marvin McNutt I’ll be impressed.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]I’m not a huge Archer fan, but I’m still higher on him than Lee. If he moves off SS he loses a lot of value.[/quote]
Agreed, but I actually do think both will find footing, or at least enough to warrant a true shot at the bigs.
MishQuote Reply
MB, I get what you’re saying about the university athletic departments but the numbers still don’t add up in my head. It’s hard to imagine that programs aren’t making money hand over fist when they have essentially free labor AND boosters giving money to the program etc., while pro teams pay their players 6 to 8 figures. I can see how smaller schools who don’t charge big $$ for tickets could have problems (and what huge money-losers all sports other than football are) but that’s the basic stumbling block.
BerseliusQuote Reply
[quote name=ccd]good write up mb. i think this year can be very valuable in the development of some of these guys.
if you can get this team into 85 win territory next year they can probably contend with the reds.
i wonder how much the big fatty from milwaukee is gonna make compared to albie? he might not be a bad option. he’s not the player albie is. but #1 he’s playing 1b and #2 he is left handed and #3 he’s younger. it will be interesting to see if the cubs pursue either.[/quote]I don’t really know how much Fielder gets, but I’ve said here before that I think that’s who the Cubs sign this offseason. It really makes more sense than signing Pujols. If you sign Pujols you may as well go all out once again. If you sign Fielder you can add to the team now and in the future.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=ccd]good write up mb. i think this year can be very valuable in the development of some of these guys.
if you can get this team into 85 win territory next year they can probably contend with the reds.
i wonder how much the big fatty from milwaukee is gonna make compared to albie? he might not be a bad option. he’s not the player albie is. but #1 he’s playing 1b and #2 he is left handed and #3 he’s younger. it will be interesting to see if the cubs pursue either.[/quote]
It all depends on the years, ccd. I like Prince Fielder, probably even more than Pujols if you consider what it will take to sign him. But I don’t want to go more than 5 years with Fielder. I think it will be easier to go less years than he’s looking for with Prince than with Albert.
BerseliusQuote Reply
Yes I was initially beating the Pujols drum but I’ve eased off that and think Fielder may be the wiser choice for various reasons.
MishQuote Reply
I want both.
GBTSQuote Reply
[quote name=GBTS]I want both.[/quote]
Pujols at third, Fielder at first. Both get bullpen test if they don’t post a .400+ wOBA in April 2012.
MishQuote Reply
[quote name=Mish]Pujols at third, Fielder at first. Both get bullpen test if they don’t post a .400+ wOBA in April 2012.[/quote]
It might just work.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
http://mlb.sbnation.com/2011/5/19/2179247/cubs-rays-matt-garza-trade?login=1305823575#67623992
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]MB, I get what you’re saying about the university athletic departments but the numbers still don’t add up in my head. It’s hard to imagine that programs aren’t making money hand over fist when they have essentially free labor AND boosters giving money to the program etc., while pro teams pay their players 6 to 8 figures. I can see how smaller schools who don’t charge big $$ for tickets could have problems (and what huge money-losers all sports other than football are) but that’s the basic stumbling block.[/quote]From football they’re doing just fine, but football supports almost every other athletic program. Do we just cut those and ignore the scholarships that those programs offer to students who otherwise couldn’t go to college? I think there’s more to this than you’re implying. And even if you did just cut every other program except football, you still have to support an equal number of female athletes. All money gained is lost. If you want to argue that it’s bullshit that females have to have an equal number of athletic scholarships then I might actually support that if it’s argued logically. I think it can be. I think it’s absurd that there has to be an equal amount of female scholarships when you consider that 120 of them are given out for football alone. And that football is the program that supports all other programs. I’d be more in favor of a system that is equal AFTER you consider football. I think it’s absurd that so many male athletic programs have been cut in recent years.
Do we agree that football should be treated differently? I think we’ve talked about it before and I seem to think us both agreeing on that. If so, then I don’t necessarily disagree with you guys. I do not agree they should be paid that much money though and I never will. If you want to pay them that kind of money increase the academic standards for remaining on scholarship. The possibility of raising it to 2.0 is unacceptable if we’re going to be paying them even more money. The problem with this is that kids who otherwise couldn’t go to college will now be unable to.
It seems to me that no matter what you do with regards to football you are going to have to hurt other students in the process. Or we keep it like it is.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Jame Gumb]http://mlb.sbnation.com/2011/5/19/2179247/cubs-rays-matt-garza-trade?login=1305823575#67623992[/quote]You should have said you’ll take a wait and see approach.
mb21Quote Reply
Platoon Soriano and Fielder at first, move Pujols to third. Now you’ve freed up left field, which means you can either give the job outright to Colvin, or just trade McNutt and Campana for Carlos Gonzalez, then flip him for Melky Cabrera.
GBTSQuote Reply
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]You should have said you’ll take a wait and see approach.[/quote]
I was going this route: http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/2011/4/20/2122335/what-will-the-cubs-roster-look-like-next-april-biggest-cubs-off#64777508
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=ccd]good write up mb. .[/quote]Actually yesterday was the day for OV author props.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
[quote name=Jame Gumb]I was going this route: http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/2011/4/20/2122335/what-will-the-cubs-roster-look-like-next-april-biggest-cubs-off#64777508%5B/quote%5D(dying laughing) Damn, you got there 10 mins before I did.
MuckerQuote Reply
[quote name=Muck Muckintuck](dying laughing) Damn, you got there 10 mins before I did.[/quote]
I was surprised no one had done it yet.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=Jame Gumb]I was surprised no one had done it yet.[/quote]
Can he ban you off this post? Or only on BCB?
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]From football they’re doing just fine, but football supports almost every other athletic program. Do we just cut those and ignore the scholarships that those programs offer to students who otherwise couldn’t go to college? I think there’s more to this than you’re implying. And even if you did just cut every other program except football, you still have to support an equal number of female athletes. All money gained is lost. If you want to argue that it’s bullshit that females have to have an equal number of athletic scholarships then I might actually support that if it’s argued logically. I think it can be. I think it’s absurd that there has to be an equal amount of female scholarships when you consider that 120 of them are given out for football alone. And that football is the program that supports all other programs. I’d be more in favor of a system that is equal AFTER you consider football. I think it’s absurd that so many male athletic programs have been cut in recent years.
Do we agree that football should be treated differently? I think we’ve talked about it before and I seem to think us both agreeing on that. If so, then I don’t necessarily disagree with you guys. I do not agree they should be paid that much money though and I never will. If you want to pay them that kind of money increase the academic standards for remaining on scholarship. The possibility of raising it to 2.0 is unacceptable if we’re going to be paying them even more money. The problem with this is that kids who otherwise couldn’t go to college will now be unable to.
It seems to me that no matter what you do with regards to football you are going to have to hurt other students in the process. Or we keep it like it is.[/quote]
It’s just a mess. I’m fine with Title 9, despite what it did to many collegiate athletic programs. I think the bigger issue is the NCAA getting off its high horse about its Perfect Scholar-Athletes. Maybe they shouldn’t be paying a stipend, but I think players should be able to pursue individual opportunities (i.e. licensing, advertising, being able to so much as glance at an agent), all of which should be separate from the school and NCAA at large.
BerseliusQuote Reply
So was the demise of Josh Beckett overexaggerated?
MuckerQuote Reply
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]Can he ban you off this post? Or only on BCB?[/quote]
I guess we’ll find out soon. I think he would have banned me already, though.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=Jame Gumb]I guess we’ll find out soon. I think he would have banned me already, though.[/quote]
You are like the Steelbeak to his Darkwing Duck.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]You are like the Steelbeak to his Darkwing Duck.[/quote]
Alvin is the terror that quacks in the night
BerseliusQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]Alvin is the terror that quacks in the night[/quote]
He is the tryst that you find in the Wrigley men’s room.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]You are like the Steelbeak to his Darkwing Duck.[/quote]
I think I’m more like the Loki to his Thor. The Joker to his Robin.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=Jame Gumb]I think I’m more like the Loki to his Thor. The Joker to his Robin.[/quote]
Well, you do beat the hell out of him in the comments sections.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Muck Muckintuck]What are the chances the Cubs try to trade some players at the deadline? Is this team really as delusional as the Yellons of the world that they really think they can compete even if they are hovering around .500 at the deadline?[/quote]I’m sure they trade a player or two if they’re out of it, but I don’t expect any kind of fire sale. I don’t really think they have the talent anymore for a fire sale.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]It’s just a mess. I’m fine with Title 9, despite what it did to many collegiate athletic programs. I think the bigger issue is the NCAA getting off its high horse about its Perfect Scholar-Athletes. Maybe they shouldn’t be paying a stipend, but I think players should be able to pursue individual opportunities (i.e. licensing, advertising, being able to so much as glance at an agent), all of which should be separate from the school and NCAA at large.[/quote]I agree with that. No reason they shouldn’t be able to make money off what they do. As long as the university isn’t paying them, I don’t care.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]I’m sure they trade a player or two if they’re out of it, but I don’t expect any kind of fire sale. I don’t really think they have the talent anymore for a fire sale.[/quote]Is Castro still a valuable trading chip? At what point do the Cubs need to consider trading him to restock some prospects? Or is he beyond giving them a big return?
MuckerQuote Reply
Castro has a lot of trade value.
The guys I’m thinking of that the Cubs could trade are Geovany Soto, Sean Marshall, Carlos Marmol, Ryan Dempster and Marlon Byrd. Soto, Marshall and Marmol all have a lot of value and the Cubs could get something decent for the other two. If the Cubs do want to have a fire sale, it starts with Geovany Soto. If you’re not going to trade him there’s probably not much reason to have a fire sale.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Muck Muckintuck]Is Castro still a valuable trading chip?[/quote]
GBTSQuote Reply
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/19/shockingly-a-team-has-a-beef-with-umpire-joe-west/
MishQuote Reply
castro has no value. he’s been exposed as an above average 21 year old SS.
DFA time.
dylanjQuote Reply
[quote name=Jame Gumb]The Joker to his Robin.[/quote]
GBTSQuote Reply
Not performance related, but I’ve had a lot of respect for Fielder since that game in 2009 when Reed Johnson robbed him of a grand slam and he tipped his cap. Class all the way. I think of that whenever someone mentions Fielder.
That and Doritos.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Let’s say Castro ages like this: 2.3 WAR (2012), 2.8, 3.3, 3.8, 3.8. He makes league minimum in 2012 and 2013 and would be arb-eligible the following 3 years. He’ll make 40% of his value in arb1, 60% in arb2 and 80% in arb3. That’s a little under $50 million in trade value if they traded him after this season. I wouldn’t trade him, but if you did you’d want a blue chip prospect plus at least one other top prospect. I doubt any team would give that up for Castro because of his particular skill set.
mb21Quote Reply
Last thing I’m saying about the college athlete debate, there would be rules in place so that not all players are being paid. Example – if your parents gross annual income is in excess of $70,000 then you don’t get paid the “spending money.” This eliminates (pure guess) 40% of scholarship athletes from collecting this money.
jtsunamiQuote Reply
i still think everyone here is too pessimistic about Castro. Kid’s gonna be a star I tell ya!
dylanjQuote Reply
I’d love to trade Marmol. There are still teams out there that think closers are worth a lot. I bet we could get 2 top 10 organizational specs even though Marmol is arb eligible.
jtsunamiQuote Reply
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=13967
MishQuote Reply
[quote name=jtsunami]I’d love to trade Marmol. There are still teams out there that think closers are worth a lot. I bet we could get 2 top 10 organizational specs even though Marmol is arb eligible.[/quote]
Marmol signed a contract, a move I was hoping the Cubs wouldn’t do. A lights out closer is meaningless on a team during a meaningless season, and like you said, his perceived value (that of a closer) probably outpaces his actual value, even if he did have adominant 2010.
MishQuote Reply
i would be hard pressed to trade marmol. he is an elite closer. if somebody really wanted to make a crazy offer sure especially when Marshall is good enough to be closing for alot of teams himself but Marmol is the kind of guy that if he were on another team we would be talking about trading for.
dylanjQuote Reply
[quote name=jtsunami]Last thing I’m saying about the college athlete debate, there would be rules in place so that not all players are being paid. Example – if your parents gross annual income is in excess of $70,000 then you don’t get paid the “spending money.” This eliminates (pure guess) 40% of scholarship athletes from collecting this money.[/quote]
That wouldn’t work because you’re then relying on the parent of an adult to provide money to a student. Not all parents are going to do this. I don’t disagree that it should be done, but the students who have parents who do not want to give their kid that money have that right. Take me for example. The last thing my parents wanted to do for many years was give me $3500. It would not have been spent wisely.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=dylanj]i would be hard pressed to trade marmol. he is an elite closer. if somebody really wanted to make a crazy offer sure especially when Marshall is good enough to be closing for alot of teams himself but Marmol is the kind of guy that if he were on another team we would be talking about trading for.[/quote]I wouldn’t. When was the last time I talked about trading for a reliever? It’s been several years before that thought even crossed my mind. It’s been a few years since I even considered signing a reliever to a multi-year contract. It’s a waste of money.
mb21Quote Reply
KG
#
# Jae-Hoon Ha, OF, Cubs (Double-A Tennessee): 2-for-5, R, 2 RBI, K, CS. 5-for-14 (.357) in first three Double-A games; combines hitting skills with solid speed and good defense.
MishQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]I wouldn’t. When was the last time I talked about trading for a reliever? It’s been several years before that thought even crossed my mind. It’s been a few years since I even considered signing a reliever to a multi-year contract. It’s a waste of money.[/quote]
Yeah agreed. Plus, as strikey-outy and unhittable as he is, his walk rates indicate he’ll probably have a couple less-than-stellar years IMO. And overall, it’s a 60-70 IP max guy. I trade guys like that in a heartbeat, no matter how good.
MishQuote Reply
[quote name=dylanj]i would be hard pressed to trade marmol. he is an elite closer. if somebody really wanted to make a crazy offer sure especially when Marshall is good enough to be closing for alot of teams himself but Marmol is the kind of guy that if he were on another team we would be talking about trading for.[/quote]
But by the time his saves mean anything, he will be a problem. He’s always going to walk guys and that slider is going to get flatter as the years go by. This isn’t Mariano Rivera who can tell you the cut fastball is coming and you still can’t hit it hard. Yeah, he’d be hard to replace, but they’re going to have to replace him anyway when the team manages to get good again.
Aisle424Quote Reply
[quote name=dylanj]i still think everyone here is too pessimistic about Castro. Kid’s gonna be a star I tell ya![/quote]Pessimistic? I just gave a projection of him being worth 13.7 wins over the next four seasons. How is that pessimistic? I have him putting together 3 consecutive seasons over 3 WAR and two seasons where he’s a borderline all-star candidate. If anything, I’m still quite optimistic as far as Castro goes. If Castro is worth about 18 WAR over his cost-controlled years, that’s absolutely fantastic. He will have surpassed any reasonable expectation.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Mish]Yeah agreed. Plus, as strikey-outy and unhittable as he is, his walk rates indicate he’ll probably have a couple less-than-stellar years IMO. And overall, it’s a 60-70 IP max guy. I trade guys like that in a heartbeat, no matter how good.[/quote]I’d trade all non-Mariano Rivera pitchers in a heartbeat. Carlos Marmol ain’t Mo.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=GBTS]
[/quote]
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2011/5/17/2173532/a-reminder-that-elite-pitchers-dont-walk-guys
Tho that has nothing to do with relievers or Marmol, I agree with the premise.
MishQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Pessimistic? I just gave a projection of him being worth 13.7 wins over the next four seasons. How is that pessimistic? I have him putting together 3 consecutive seasons over 3 WAR and two seasons where he’s a borderline all-star candidate. If anything, I’m still quite optimistic as far as Castro goes. If Castro is worth about 18 WAR over his cost-controlled years, that’s absolutely fantastic. He will have surpassed any reasonable expectation.[/quote]
DJ is still waiting for your R+RBI projection for him.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=Aisle424]But by the time his saves mean anything, he will be a problem. He’s always going to walk guys and that slider is going to get flatter as the years go by. This isn’t Mariano Rivera who can tell you the cut fastball is coming and you still can’t hit it hard. Yeah, he’d be hard to replace, but they’re going to have to replace him anyway when the team manages to get good again.[/quote]Yep. Who cares if he’s saving games for a team that isn’t contending?
mb21Quote Reply
If the Yanks don’t get King Felix, which would take a ransom (Montero) + some, I’d think they would ask us about Demp and Z. Even though I know Demp’s numbers are solid, I’m just not a fan of his production. I’d trade him if we can get a couple upside specs in A and AA in their top 15. We’d send along some money of course.
jtsunamiQuote Reply
Yeah, we’ll see about that.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
I’m confused. Why does this make you think that this is what the Cubs will do then?
XoomwaffleQuote Reply
As fun as it would be to watch Castro become a star, it’s not likely happening. There are just too many things he needs to improve at to become that kind of player. He’s a poor defender whose on-base skills rely on the most unreliable offensive statistic around (batting average). He doesn’t have much power and he will probably outgrow SS before long.
Good player, yes. Fun player to watch, definitely. Great player, not likely.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=jtsunami]If the Yanks don’t get King Felix, which would take a ransom (Montero) + some, I’d think they would ask us about Demp and Z. Even though I know Demp’s numbers are solid, I’m just not a fan of his production. I’d trade him if we can get a couple upside specs in A and AA in their top 15. We’d send along some money of course.[/quote]I’d trade Dempster and Zambrano to the Yankees in a heartbeat if we could get something decent in return.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]As fun as it would be to watch Castro become a star, it’s not likely happening. There are just too many things he needs to improve at to become that kind of player. He’s a poor defender whose on-base skills rely on the most unreliable offensive statistic around (batting average). He doesn’t have much power and he will probably outgrow SS before long.
Good player, yes. Fun player to watch, definitely. Great player, not likely.[/quote]This is why I asked. He’s going to lose value as soon as he’s moved off SS. I wouldn’t want the Cubs to trade him but if they can get a couple of really good prospects in return, shouldn’t they?
MuckerQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]As fun as it would be to watch Castro become a star, it’s not likely happening. There are just too many things he needs to improve at to become that kind of player. He’s a poor defender whose on-base skills rely on the most unreliable offensive statistic around (batting average). He doesn’t have much power and he will probably outgrow SS before long.
Good player, yes. Fun player to watch, definitely. Great player, not likely.[/quote]
If he could be as good as Dunston, I’d be satisfied. The problem is I think people want ARod numbers out of him.
Aisle424Quote Reply
I’m not hesitant to say Castro can be a great player. It’s obvious he’s a natural hitter. Counting being in the minors as a 17 year old, he has never hit lower than .288.
I’ve read a lot of scouts say his body will fill out to allow for 15+ HR potential. I could give a shit about his baserunning, what’s holding him back is his defense. And defense is very fixable if you aren’t a head case like Soriano or Knoblach.
Basically, I think he has the rare gift of natural hitting. Something that can’t be taught. And he weaknesses are fixable. He’s only been under good instruction for 2-3 years.
jtsunamiQuote Reply
[quote name=Muck Muckintuck]This is why I asked. He’s going to lose value as soon as he’s moved off SS. I wouldn’t want the Cubs to trade him but if they can get a couple of really good prospects in return, shouldn’t they?[/quote]No, I wouldn’t. He’s still so young and there’s that chance he can figure out how to get on base and maybe get bigger and add some power. If that can happen you’re talking about a star regardless of position. I figure right now he’s dirt cheap and good so why bother trading him? I look at players who aren’t likely to be a part of any contending Cubs team as guys I’d consider trading. Basically anyone 26/27 or older.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Aisle424]If he could be as good as Dunston, I’d be satisfied. The problem is I think people want ARod numbers out of him.[/quote]Fans are definitely expecting A-Rod. We’ve already seen comparisons.
mb21Quote Reply
Wow, I didn’t even realize Castro’s walk rate was 3.3% (dying laughing)
jtsunamiQuote Reply
let this quote ring down from the mountainside. There has never been a player that MB21 has underrated more than Marmol. Every year doom is predicted in the middle of 08 he was supposed to be in AA. To me, Marmol is Mo. They both throw an unhittable pitch.
dylanjQuote Reply
[quote name=jtsunami]I’m not hesitant to say Castro can be a great player. It’s obvious he’s a natural hitter. Counting being in the minors as a 17 year old, he has never hit lower than .288.
I’ve read a lot of scouts say his body will fill out to allow for 15+ HR potential. I could give a shit about his baserunning, what’s holding him back is his defense. And defense is very fixable if you aren’t a head case like Soriano or Knoblach.
Basically, I think he has the rare gift of natural hitting. Something that can’t be taught. And he weaknesses are fixable. He’s only been under good instruction for 2-3 years.[/quote]His baserunning is actually pretty good. BP has his EqBRR at 1 or slightly better and 2nd best on the team. I’m not as certain as you that defense and patience are fixable. I actually think the opposite. For every younger SS who made a lot of errors and became pretty good, I can probably name at least two dozen that didn’t if I wanted to take the time. For every player that suddenly learned how to get on base, I know I can name at least 50 or more who didn’t.
Considering his age it’s definitely still possible. it’s a lot more likely for him than it is for a guy who is 23, 24 or 25 years old, but I still think overall it’s unlikely.
I think Castro is what he is, which is a good ballplayer, but not great. Nothing wrong with that. It’s a lot of production for a cheap player. The Cubs need it.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=jtsunami]Wow, I didn’t even realize Castro’s walk rate was 3.3% (dying laughing)[/quote]It’s horrendous. That’s largely why I’ve just started to accept that this is what he is. You just don’t find players who improve their walk rate to star level when it’s that low. At least not many of them. I went through the worst walk rates over the last 3-4 years here several days ago and their walk rates were all higher in the minor leagues, which we expect. Even Vlad had a 10% walk rate in the minors. Vlad could also hit baseball a very, very long way when he was younger and swinging at everything.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=dylanj]let this quote ring down from the mountainside. There has never been a player that MB21 has underrated more than Marmol. Every year doom is predicted in the middle of 08 he was supposed to be in AA. To me, Marmol is Mo. They both throw an unhittable pitch.[/quote]To you, maybe, but not to most people. I underrated a player who has been worth 5.3 WAR since that part of the 2008 season. I can live with that mistake. If that’s the most I’ve ever underrated anybody I’d make a damn fine scout. If I’m that good without even seeing them in person, imagine how good I’d be if I did that regularly.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=jtsunami]He’s only been under good instruction for 2-3 years.[/quote]
He has? I thought he was in the Cubs minor league system?
WaLiQuote Reply
Sickels:
**Blister issues are hampering Chicago Cubs prospect Trey McNutt at Double-A Tennessee. He’s made six starts but has pitched just 22.2 innings, including just two innings in his May 13th start and three more on May 18th. He’s pitched decently, with a 2.38 ERA and a 16/5 K/BB with 25 hits allowed, showing sharp control of his 92-96 MPH sinker and hard curve; reports indicate there is nothing wrong with his stuff. He just needs to get that blister problem under control. Blisters aren’t as big of a problem as a sore shoulder or throbbing elbow, of course, but they can get out of control if they aren’t handled carefully.
MishQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]To you, maybe, but not to most people.[/quote]
Oh, the deep burn!
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
did McNutt add velocity after he was drafted? It seems strange that a guy with a sinker at that speed and 1 off speed pitch could last so long in the draft
dylanjQuote Reply
(dying laughing) Major fagetry from CHC.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/19/the-most-memorable-home-runs-in-each-teams-history/
Thinking back to some recent Cubs HRs I’ve enjoyed:
-DeRosa’s in Game 1 of the NLCS
– Aramis Ramirez walk-off in 2007 vs Brewers (Back-to-Back with Lee)
– Fukudome’s opening day HR in the bottom of the ninth
– Kerry Wood’s 2 R HR in Game 7
– Aramis Ramirez’s in Game 4(?) of the NLCS 2003
Others? Some of the others that pop into mind dind’t really have much meaning but were cool nonetheless – I’m thinking a 2008 game where the Cubs were down 6-3 in the bottom of the 9th with 2 outs when two men reached in front of Soto, and then he went boom.
MishQuote Reply
[quote name=Mish]http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/19/the-most-memorable-home-runs-in-each-teams-history/
Thinking back to some recent Cubs HRs I’ve enjoyed:
-DeRosa’s in Game 1 of the NLCS
– Aramis Ramirez walk-off in 2007 vs Brewers (Back-to-Back with Lee)
– Fukudome’s opening day HR in the bottom of the ninth
– Kerry Wood’s 2 R HR in Game 7
– Aramis Ramirez’s in Game 4(?) of the NLCS 2003
Others? Some of the others that pop into mind dind’t really have much meaning but were cool nonetheless – I’m thinking a 2008 game where the Cubs were down 6-3 in the bottom of the 9th with 2 outs when two men reached in front of Soto, and then he went boom.[/quote]
Sammy’s in Game 1 of the NLCS was pretty awesome.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
I don’t think people realize how ridiculously fucking good Mo has been in his career. For example, since 2001 his rWAR is 30.7 in less than 700 innings pitched. Zambrano has been worth 31 rWAR in over 1700 innings. Mo is the best reliever in history and it’s not remotely close.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=dylanj]did McNutt add velocity after he was drafted? It seems strange that a guy with a sinker at that speed and 1 off speed pitch could last so long in the draft[/quote]I think he pitched at 88 mph prior to the draft so yeah.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Mish]http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/19/the-most-memorable-home-runs-in-each-teams-history/
Thinking back to some recent Cubs HRs I’ve enjoyed:
-DeRosa’s in Game 1 of the NLCS
– Aramis Ramirez walk-off in 2007 vs Brewers (Back-to-Back with Lee)
– Fukudome’s opening day HR in the bottom of the ninth
– Kerry Wood’s 2 R HR in Game 7
– Aramis Ramirez’s in Game 4(?) of the NLCS 2003
Others? Some of the others that pop into mind dind’t really have much meaning but were cool nonetheless – I’m thinking a 2008 game where the Cubs were down 6-3 in the bottom of the 9th with 2 outs when two men reached in front of Soto, and then he went boom.[/quote]ARam walk off vs. WhiteSox in 08 was awesome.
MuckerQuote Reply
For TEX, it’s probably this one: http://texas.rangers.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=12891975&topic_id=14873332&c_id=tex
Knew they were WS bound at that point.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
Most memorable HR I saw in person: http://texas.rangers.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=12830837&topic_id=14872014&c_id=tex
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
Ramirez’s home run vs the Brewers in 2007 was a 3-run bomb. Lee was left on deck.
mb21Quote Reply
I was a Cubs fan for 18 years. I switched to the Rangers in 2009. Less than two years later, TEX gave me a memory CHC never came close to: http://texas.rangers.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=12892895&topic_id=14873332&c_id=tex
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Ramirez’s home run vs the Brewers in 2007 was a 3-run bomb. Lee was left on deck.[/quote]
IIRC, Lee hit a sac fly to bring CHC to within one before Ramirez hit a two-run HR.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
This was a fun one too: http://texas.rangers.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=12863707&topic_id=14872518&c_id=tex
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=Jame Gumb]IIRC, Lee hit a sac fly to bring CHC to within one before Ramirez hit a two-run HR.[/quote]
Ya this is right, Lee scored Fontenot on a sac fly and Ramirez hit a 2R HR to win it.
What I was thinking of was the White Sox walk-off vs Linebrink where Lee and Ramirez went back-to-back to tie and then win the game.
MishQuote Reply
And games 5 and 6 of that ALCS were so much sweeter after this:
(dying laughing) Mook fagets.
Watch the ball jiggler in the middle for the entire gif. Then the fatass behind him repeatedly saying, “Fuck you.”
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=3503832
GBTSQuote Reply
I remember watching that Soto home run live, and I was convinced the Cubs would win the pennant that year.
Motherfucker, that team was good.
GBTSQuote Reply
I remember Daryle Ward hit a bomb in 2008 down in Florida against the Marlins in the 9th to put the Cubs ahead.
DeRosa’s go-ahead homer in the 6th or 7th vs the Rockies after trailing 9-1 also sticks out.
Castro’s first AB too.
MishQuote Reply
[quote name=Mish]http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/19/the-most-memorable-home-runs-in-each-teams-history/
Thinking back to some recent Cubs HRs I’ve enjoyed:
-DeRosa’s in Game 1 of the NLCS
– Aramis Ramirez walk-off in 2007 vs Brewers (Back-to-Back with Lee)
– Fukudome’s opening day HR in the bottom of the ninth
– Kerry Wood’s 2 R HR in Game 7
– Aramis Ramirez’s in Game 4(?) of the NLCS 2003
Others? Some of the others that pop into mind dind’t really have much meaning but were cool nonetheless – I’m thinking a 2008 game where the Cubs were down 6-3 in the bottom of the 9th with 2 outs when two men reached in front of Soto, and then he went boom.[/quote]
The best I ever saw live still has to be the 2 tying shots from Sandberg off of Sutter. Nothing has ever come close and short of a walk-off clinching a division, pennant, or WS, I find it hard to think of a scenario that tops that.
But otherwise the list of best I’ve seen live in no particular order:
– Karros PH HR off Clemens to deny his 300th win
– Sammy’s 60, 61st and 62nd HRs in 1998 against the Brewers
– Soto’s tying 3-Run HR against the Brewers in 2008
– Wood’s tying HR in Game 7
– Alou’s go-ahead 2 run shot in Game 7
– Gaetti’s HR in the 1998 tie-breaker
Aisle424Quote Reply
That was like 4 days after Zambrano’s no-hitter too.
GBTSQuote Reply
[quote name=dylanj]i still think everyone here is too pessimistic about Castro. Kid’s gonna be a star I tell ya![/quote]
Can’t spell Starlin without “star”!
WenningtonsGorillaCockQuote Reply
[quote name=GBTS]I remember watching that Soto home run live, and I was convinced the Cubs would win the pennant that year.
Motherfucker, that team was good.[/quote]
That game was fucking awesome. I got to go because a guy bailed on a friend of mine right before the game. We were over in Aisle 412 or something and we were surrounded by Brewers fans. They’re all dancing around and waving L flags and all I could think about was how hard they were hitting the ball of their closer, but the first 2 were right at guys.
When Soto hit it it was gone immediately and they were just stunned into silence as Wrigley went apeshit. That was the day I started believing in that team. Assholes.
Aisle424Quote Reply
It has to be either the Sandberg Game HRs or Sosas big HRs in 98. Honorable mention to the Sosa bomb off the Camera enclosure in CF and of course the Glenallen Hill moonshot
BerseliusQuote Reply
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3017957919029122909#
(dying laughing) The ball literally vanishes at contact.
GBTSQuote Reply
my best memory of 08 was that no matter what part of the lineup was batting i felt like we could score runs. these days once the lineup gets past Pena I just flip around until Barney is back up
dylanjQuote Reply
Work sucks. It’s just about over. I’m out fuck faces.
jtsunamiQuote Reply
[quote name=dylanj]my best memory of 08 was that no matter what part of the lineup was batting i felt like we could score runs. these days once the lineup gets past Pena I just flip around until Barney is back up[/quote]
And the fact that they would continue to pile on runs throughout games. It was like winning wasn’t enough; they had to destroy people’s morale.
I loved that shit.
PerkinsQuote Reply
From THT:
Could have just put the bolded and the story is no less cromulent.
MishQuote Reply
Ramirez grand slam in 2008 vs the Phllies. Cole Hamels had just thrown a gem and was taken out in the 7th with the Phillies leading 3-1. That team was awesome because they would make the starter throw lots of pitches and then get to the bullpen if they had to and that’s exactly what they did. They didn’t waste any time. Fontenot went deep. 3 others reached and Ramirez hit a grand slam. Cubs lead 6-4. I don’t remember who reached base, but I remember that no outs were retired before the Cubs got 5 runs to take the lead after a gem from Cole Hamels.
That’s a home run that I loved that hasn’t been mentioned here.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Ramirez grand slam in 2008 vs the Phllies. Cole Hamels had just thrown a gem and was taken out in the 7th with the Phillies leading 3-1. That team was awesome because they would make the starter throw lots of pitches and then get to the bullpen if they had to and that’s exactly what they did. They didn’t waste any time. Fontenot went deep. 3 others reached and Ramirez hit a grand slam. Cubs lead 6-4. I don’t remember who reached base, but I remember that no outs were retired before the Cubs got 5 runs to take the lead after a gem from Cole Hamels.
That’s a home run that I loved that hasn’t been mentioned here.[/quote]
I recall Victorino not moving one step.
MishQuote Reply
[quote name=Mish]I recall Victorino not moving one step.[/quote]He didn’t. I hate to say something like that was so typical of that team because it wasn’t, but I think DJ said earlier that no matter the score you always felt they had a chance. That was an example of the Cubs at their best. They battled a great pitcher and trailed by 2. They got him out after 7 and then went nuts. Game over. 5 runs after 5 batters faced and that’s pretty much ballgame. Especially with 2008 Kerry Wood ready to come in.
mb21Quote Reply
Wait, if this thread was supposed to be about looking ahead to next year, you guys are doing it wrong.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
[quote name=Suburban kid]Wait, if this thread was supposed to be about looking ahead to next year, you guys are doing it wrong.[/quote]Were you expecting us to do right?
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Were you expecting us to do right?[/quote]Actually, yes. But I love it when statnerds get all nostalgic, so it’s all good.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
Ugh, Reed Johnson gets the start tonight against a RHP. Hopefully my bitching will mean he hits some more HRs tonight (dying laughing)
BerseliusQuote Reply
New advice up: http://obstructedview.net/chicago-cubs/articles/dont-ever-bet-on-the-cubs-at-home.html
Aisle424Quote Reply