The Cubs SuperFriends Are Obviously Morans

Any moron would know that the best way to improve the Cubs is to sign Prince Fielder. (Any moron would have known that Albert Pujols was an even more obvious choice.)

Any moron can see that Sean Marshall is the best pitcher in the Cubs bullpen. Some morons would even argue he’s the best pitcher on the whole staff. Even the dumbest of morons knows you don’t trade your best reliever when your next best options are shakier than a sobered up Mickey Rourke.

A zit on the dumbest fan’s ass has enough common sense to know this team needs to improve in every phase of the game to have a shot at contending, so the idea of trading  Sean Marshall, a beacon of consistency in a dark sea of suck, is obviously moronic.

And any idiot could tell you that the free agent pickings become slim after this year. The morons know enough to tell you the recent Cubs drafts won’t improve this team for years. And Todd Ricketts can tell you the Cubs are too big-market to stage a full-on fire sale.

Other things any idiot knows: David DeJesus and Ian Stewart are not the final pieces of anyone’s championship puzzle. The Cubs still suck. The only acquisitions that have gotten any Cubs fans excited this offseason have been guys who cannot play baseball. So . . .why should we be optimistic about this front office if they can’t make moves any moron knows are the right ones?

Well, I’m hoping it’s because they aren’t idiots. I don’t really know why Jed Hoyer and Theo Epstein are making the moves they’re making or why they aren’t making the ones that are obvious to idiots. But I’d like to think they’re doing exactly what they’re being paid to do: think a little bit smarter than those of us who are paying them.

It reminds me of the movie Hoosiers, when Gene Hackman comes into the town barber shop to be greeted by everyone in town who knows exactly what he has to do to win. He walks out fairly quickly because he’s in charge and those people were idiots. So why should the Cubbie Brain Trust respond any differently to us?

That’s not to say it’s dumb to argue. It’s not. The Superfriends aren’t infallible, and I won’t go around telling everyone to shut up and swallow whatever lines Theo and company feed us. But at the same time, the things that appear obvious are the moves any GM or front office executive would make. If we expect the Cubs to compete, not just as a team in 2012 but as a franchise moving forward, we should expect the approach to surprise us every now and then.

That said, 2012 might be another awful year to watch Cubs baseball. I’d be thrilled to be surprisingly wrong. Anytime you want to do something genius, boys, be my guest.


81 thoughts on “The Cubs SuperFriends Are Obviously Morans”

  3. [quote name=bubblesdachimp]Bub bubbles would give up Marshall for Rizzo so he would 100% give up Wood for Rizzo[/quote]That doesn’t make sense. I’d trade Sean Marshall for Tim Lincecum, but I sure as hell wouldn’t trade Lincecum for Rizzo. If the Reds are going to give a shitload more for Marshall than he’s worth, take the package and be happy. Don’t destroy it by trading that extra surplus value. Trade another veteran if you want Rizzo.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  5. I’m OK with what the Cubs have done so far. It makes sense if you’re rebuilding, which is what they are doing. Theo told us it was going to take a lot longer than most people thought. That being said, it’s sure going to suck watching this team over the next 3 to 5 years.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  7. [quote name=bubblesdachimp]He might have surplus value but he might just not be very good. I think rizzo to be good.[/quote]Rizzo might have surplus value, but he just might not be very good.

    The bottom line is that you don’t trade a veteran for young talent and then trade that young cost-controlled talent for young cost-controlled talent. You might if you’re trying to contend now, but they aren’t. FWIW, Rizzo’s projections pale in comparison to Wood’s. Not even remotely close. The projections see Rizzo as slightly better than replacement. They see Wood as slightly better than average. I’m sure as fuck not trading slightly above average for slightly above replacement.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  8. [quote name=Rice Cube]I’d trade Garza to a third team so they can help the Cubs get Rizzo and extra prospects.[/quote]Yes. This is what you do. Trading Wood for Rizzo is the equivalent of trading Brett Jackson for Rizzo. I don’t think anybody would be suggesting the Cubs trade Brett Jackson for Rizzo. I hope not anyway.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  10. [quote name=mb21]Yes. This is what you do. Trading Wood for Rizzo is the equivalent of trading Brett Jackson for Rizzo. I don’t think anybody would be suggesting the Cubs trade Brett Jackson for Rizzo. I hope not anyway.[/quote]
    Travis has just regressed though.. quite a bit..

    i am jumping off the bridge a lot less than yesterday. But i am still shocked we cant get more

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  11. [quote name=mb21]I’m OK with what the Cubs have done so far. It makes sense if you’re rebuilding, which is what they are doing. Theo told us it was going to take a lot longer than most people thought. That being said, it’s sure going to suck watching this team over the next 3 to 5 years.[/quote]I’m becoming more and more resigned to the fact that this turnaround will be slow and more than a little depressing.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  13. [quote name=mb21]Yes. This is what you do. Trading Wood for Rizzo is the equivalent of trading Brett Jackson for Rizzo. I don’t think anybody would be suggesting the Cubs trade Brett Jackson for Rizzo. I hope not anyway.[/quote]
    My friend did until I convinced him it wasn’t a good idea (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  14. [quote name=AndCounting]I’m becoming more and more resigned to the fact that this turnaround will be slow and more than a little depressing.[/quote]Yeah, we all wanted a GM who would come in and do a rebuild because that is what we needed, but now that we have it, it will be tough to watch (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  15. [quote name=bubblesdachimp]Travis has just regressed though.. quite a bit..

    i am jumping off the bridge a lot less than yesterday. But i am still shocked we cant get more[/quote]Dude, Marshall has a surplus trade value of $6.5 million. Any guess what Wood’s is? Based on the Oliver projections it’s $40 fucking million. Even if you shave 25% off, it’s still $20 million. If you’d have told me yesterday morning the Cubs could get Wood for Marshall I’d have laughed my ass off. It’s why I’m certain there’s more going to Cincy in this deal. It just makes no sense for the Reds to acquire Marshall and give up Wood.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  16. [quote name=AndCounting]I’m becoming more and more resigned to the fact that this turnaround will be slow and more than a little depressing.[/quote]That’s certainly true based on the unreasonable expectations that even reasonable people had when they were hired. I think we all knew it would be slow, but we also thought there was maybe a chance they’d turn it around quickly. That’s not happening.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  19. [quote name=bubblesdachimp]So what your saying is if we get Wood AND two prospects we wing big time?[/quote]Yes. It would be a huge win. It’s the equivalent of the Marlins getting what they did for Juan Pierre.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  21. [quote name=bubblesdachimp]Alright if you say so. Bubbles still doesnt have to be happy about it. I want Brett lawrie[/quote]I want lots of things, but when you’re trading a reliever who throws 70 out of 1450 innings you can’t expect much in return. As berselius said in the last thread, it’s a very wise bet to take the under on Marshall’s projected 2 WAR.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  22. And any idiot could tell you that the free agent pickings become slim after this year. And any idiot could tell you that the free agent pickings become slim after this year.

    I feel this in my soul now.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  24. [quote name=mb21]I want lots of things, but when you’re trading a reliever who throws 70 out of 1450 innings you can’t expect much in return. As berselius said in the last thread, it’s a very wise bet to take the under on Marshall’s projected 2 WAR.[/quote]Well, but clearly the Reds are valuing short-term success much more than long-term value. They think they have a window and they want to go for it, so a few wins next year is worth more than whatever $20M would buy in 2013-16 or whatever. That’s the opposite of what the Cubs want and that’s why it could be a good trade for both.

    Not saying that the Reds aren’t still overvaluing Marshall’s short-term value, but it does make sense for the Cubs to charge a premium for that.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  25. [quote name=mb21]Dude, Marshall has a surplus trade value of $6.5 million. Any guess what Wood’s is? Based on the Oliver projections it’s $40 fucking million. Even if you shave 25% off, it’s still $20 million. If you’d have told me yesterday morning the Cubs could get Wood for Marshall I’d have laughed my ass off. It’s why I’m certain there’s more going to Cincy in this deal. It just makes no sense for the Reds to acquire Marshall and give up Wood.[/quote]
    Maybe the Superfriends have the power of supernegotiation.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  30. [quote name=bubblesdachimp]Hak Ju LEe and Chris archer=====>>> Prospects 2 and 3 in Rays farm system[/quote]Not a fantastic sign, especially for Archer after his poor 2011 (though he did come on much stronger in the last two months). But given the graduations, it was bound to come down. And I wasn’t a huge fan of their draft overall; anyways, those players are still a bit aways.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  31. [quote name=dylanj]over at the reds SB blog they are hearing Wood & Billy Hamilton is the package[/quote]
    Wow that would be fucking insane!!!

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  32. [quote name=dylanj]over at the reds SB blog they are hearing Wood & Billy Hamilton is the package[/quote]http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker&utm_campaign=Linker&id=hamilt002bil

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  33. [quote name=mb21]http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker&utm_campaign=Linker&id=hamilt002bil[/quote]Solid OBP and tons of speed. I like.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  35. not sure his bat will ever play but 100 sb’s at one level is impressive. He and Campana can just race between each inning for entertainment

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  36. Prior to the season he was rated as the #50 prospect. That’s higher than Alonso and Rizzo. If the Cubs can get that kind of deal for Marshall, just wow. Unbelievable.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  37. [quote name=dylanj]not sure his bat will ever play but 100 sb’s at one level is impressive. He and Campana can just race between each inning for entertainment[/quote]Yeah, his OBP will go down at each level because he has no power at all, but if he can post a league average OBP he’d be super valuable.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  38. Yea the kid is fast..

    He is their second ranked prospect. I can post scouting report if people like. Ranked above Yonder.. This cant be the trade

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  39. [quote name=dylanj]not sure his bat will ever play but 100 sb’s at one level is impressive. He and Campana can just race between each inning for entertainment[/quote]
    Cubs new 7th inning stretch – scrappy white guy race. (I’m pretty sure Hamilton is black, though).

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  40. From last year:

    2. Billy Hamilton, ss/2b Born: Sept. 9, 1990 • B-T: B-R • Ht: 6-1 • Wt: 160
    Drafted: HS—Taylorsville, Miss., 2009 (2nd round) • Signed by: Tyler Jennings
    Billy HamiltonBackground: Hamilton’s hometown of Taylorsville, Miss., has produced four NFL players despite a population of less than 2000, but he’s the town’s first-ever baseball draftee. He was headed to Mississippi State as a wide receiver until the Reds signed him for $623,000 as a second-rounder in 2009. He led the Rookie-level Pioneer League with 48 steals and rated as the circuit’s top prospect last summer.

    Scouting Report: Hamilton’s speed ranks among the best in the minors. A switch-hitter, he has been timed in 3.9 seconds to first base on a swing from the right side, and in 3.5 seconds on a bunt from the left. Like Ichiro Suzuki, he’ll run into his swing, slapping the ball the other way while racing down the line. He’s already a dangerous basestealer, reading pitchers well and getting good jumps. Hamilton has well below-average power, but his speed allows him to accumulate doubles and triples. He has solid strike-zone awareness for his age. His quickness gives him plenty of range for either middle-infield position, but his average arm strength and low arm slots have some scouts questioning whether he throws well enough at shortstop. He spent most of his time in 2010 playing second base.

    The Future: Hamilton again will play mostly second base when he heads to low Class A Dayton in 2011. He could be the leadoff hitter Cincinnati has sought for years.

    .

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  41. 2012 Top prospects Baseball America:

    2. Billy Hamilton, SS Born: Sep 09, 1990 B-T: B-R Ht.: 6-1 Wt.: 160
    Drafted: Taylorsville (Miss.) HS, 2009 (2nd round). Signed by: Tyler Jennings
    Background: Hamilton became the first minor leaguer in a decade to top 100 steals in 2011. The former Mississippi State wide receiver recruit recovered from hitting .195 through late May to bat .316 afterward, and he moved to shortstop after playing second base in 2010.

    Scouting Report: Hamilton’s speed is one of the easiest 80 grades a scout will ever hand out. He regularly outruns pitchouts, slide steps and pickoff throws. He still has plenty of work to do on the rest of his game, however. He’s a raw hitter with little power, and he needs to improve his bunting and plate discipline. At the Reds’ insistence, he has stuck with switch-hitting and ended up hitting better as a lefty (.721 OPS) than from his natural right side (.648 OPS) in 2011. Hamilton shows excellent range at shortstop, but his hands aren’t soft and he lacks the arm strength to make plays deep in the hole. His low arm slot makes many of his throws tail, costing him accuracy. Some scouts believe he’ll eventually move to second or center field.

    The Future: Hamilton is an off-the-charts athlete who made significant improvements in the second half of 2011. He’ll move up to high Class A Bakersfield and will need at least a couple of more years to develop before he’s ready to unleash his speed on the majors.

    .

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  43. [quote name=bubblesdachimp]Yea the kid is fast..

    He is their second ranked prospect. I can post scouting report if people like. Ranked above Yonder.. This cant be the trade[/quote]Methinks it’s Garza and Marshall for Wood, Hamilton and maybe someone else. Still a great trade.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  44. [quote name=mb21]Methinks it’s Garza and Marshall for Wood, Hamilton and maybe someone else. Still a great trade.[/quote]

    I think Garza is not part of it and neither is Hamilton.

    Or Theo and co are really good at their jobs and they NL Central taxed their ass

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  45. I definitely under-estimated Wood’s value and have come around to liking this trade. I also thought Marshall had 2 years of service remaining.

    So Phil Rogers says to watch for a potential Byrd to the Rangers for Matt Harrison. That would be insanely awesome.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  48. [quote name=mb21]Methinks it’s Garza and Marshall for Wood, Hamilton and maybe someone else. Still a great trade.[/quote]
    With the price of pitchers going through the roof there is no way they have Garza in a trade with Marshall. I honestly think Garza

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  49. [quote name=Mish]http://lakeforest.patch.com/articles/lake-bluff-resident-shoots-documentary-on-ballhawking-at-wrigley-field[/quote]I have that movie. It’s okay.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  51. Is Cubs payroll going to flat-line this year? With what appears to be selling off various pieces for top-end prospects/cheap major leaguers I am trying to figure out who the hell Thoyer is going to spend money on. Perhaps they are more in on Cespedes and Soler than the public view is aware.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  53. [quote name=mb21]Prior to the season he was rated as the #50 prospect. That’s higher than Alonso and Rizzo. If the Cubs can get that kind of deal for Marshall, just wow. Unbelievable.[/quote]
    I would be a hell of a lot more excited about this deal if that is true. That’s what I was hoping for from a trade of Marshall, somebody with upside. Wood is fine and cost-controlled and yada yada yada, but he isn’t anything I can get myself excited about especially considering the Cubs would be removing one of the few guys on their team who is actually good at their job (and better at it than most guys in the league).

    But you throw those two together (or even anything close to that) and I’m excited. I would have been more content for Hamilton by himself for Marshall, and Wood is icing on the cake.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  54. [quote name=JMan]Is Cubs payroll going to flat-line this year? With what appears to be selling off various pieces for top-end prospects/cheap major leaguers I am trying to figure out who the hell Thoyer is going to spend money on. Perhaps they are more in on Cespedes and Soler than the public view is aware.[/quote]
    I don’t know if that money is going to get spent. I think they go hard after Soler, but I’m beginning to agree with MB that they have little to no real interest in Cespedes.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  56. [quote name=GBTS]Don’t be so hard on yourself bubbles, it was an interesting story.[/quote](dying laughing)
    (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  57. [quote name=JMan]Rosenthal says the Cubs signed Reed Johnson to a 1-year deal.[/quote]I like it he was very valuable last year

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  59. [quote name=bubblesdachimp]I like it he was very valuable last year[/quote]It seems inconsequential. But with Campana and LaHair on the roster I have to wonder which OF(s) is out the door.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  60. [quote name=JMan]So Phil Rogers says to watch for a potential Byrd to the Rangers for Matt Harrison. That would be insanely awesome.[/quote]

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  62. Well, but clearly the Reds are valuing short-term success much more than long-term value. They think they have a window and they want to go for it, so a few wins next year is worth more than whatever $20M would buy in 2013-16 or whatever. That’s the opposite of what the Cubs want and that’s why it could be a good trade for both. Not saying that the Reds aren’t still overvaluing Marshall’s short-term value, but it does make sense for the Cubs to charge a premium for that.

    Yes – I have been of this mind for a long time. Wins this year versus wins next year or 3 years from now mean different things to different teams. As a result, $WAR is also different for different teams. Teams in win now mode are willing to pay more for incremental improvements because they think that increment has a chance of getting them over the top. This is especially true of teams that are in the hunt around the trade deadline.

    It makes sense. If an additional win or two can get you to the playoffs and sell a bunch of extra tickets in September and October, then OF COURSE teams will be willing to pay more for that win than a team would otherwise be.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  63. [quote name=bubblesdachimp]I like it he was very valuable last year[/quote]…and lucky. I’m OK with having Reed back, though.He’s a reasonable right-handed option who can spell DeJesus against southpaws.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  64. [quote name=JMan]It seems inconsequential. But with Campana and LaHair on the roster I have to wonder which OF(s) is out the door.[/quote]If Fielder doesn’t cave in to the Cubs’ terms I guess LaHair is at 1B next season.

    Otherwise I wonder if they’d let Campana make the team just because he’s really really fast.

    [quote name=JMan]
    So Phil Rogers says to watch for a potential Byrd to the Rangers for Matt Harrison. That would be insanely awesome.[/quote]

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  66. I’d think the Cubs would have to throw something in to get Harrison. Also, it remains to be seen how real his 2011 breakthrough is.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  70. [quote name=ACT]Mike Fast’s hit-and-run research: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=15713

    Haven’t read it yet; look forward to it.[/quote]I skipped all the math that hurt my head to get to the punchline, but will look back at it later:

    The hit-and-run is far from the worst play in baseball. For a small-ball tactic, it has been quite successful over the past nine seasons, increasing scoring by .06 runs per attempt on average. The value of the hole in the infield defense is real, adding about 27 points to the batting average of the hitter. The double plays avoided by executing the hit-and-run offset the runners caught stealing on the play, and the extra bases gained by the runner when the ball is put in play are enough to move the play into the plus column overall.

    However, there are some situations where the hit-and-run attempt made less sense and was a barely positive or even a net negative play—with the fourth and fifth hitters in the lineup up, with one out, or in the popular ball-strike count of 2-1.

    Nice work.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  71. Cubs are in negotiations with Jeff Francis. His FIP for the past couple years has been much better than his ERA, so he might be a reasonable buy-low option.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  72. Ah hell, Francis’ velocity fell to 84.7 mph last year. I’d say avoid him like he’s radioactive unless he can demonstrate that he regain it.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  74. [quote name=ACT]Ah hell, Francis’ velocity fell to 84.7 mph last year. I’d say avoid him like he’s radioactive unless he can demonstrate that he regain it.[/quote]I think they’d probably just sign him to a minor league deal with a spring training invite rather than a MLB deal right off the bat.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  75. [quote name=ACT]Mike Fast’s hit-and-run research: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=15713

    Haven’t read it yet; look forward to it.[/quote]

    The runner should be more likely to get caught stealing on a hit-and-run play where the batter swung and missed than if it were a straight steal and the batter took the pitch.

    Why is this? I would think that if the batter swung and missed, the catcher would have some sort of interference as opposed to the catcher cleanly catching the ball. Is this because in a hit and run the runner does not get as good of a jump compared to a straight steal?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  76. [quote name=WaLi]Why is this? I would think that if the batter swung and missed, the catcher would have some sort of interference as opposed to the catcher cleanly catching the ball. Is this because in a hit and run the runner does not get as good of a jump compared to a straight steal?[/quote]It’s because in a straight steal, the runner has to make sure that his chances of being safe are higher than break-even. In a hit-and-run, the runner would have a greater chance of being caught, but is counting on the batter to protect him.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  79. [quote name=ACT]It’s because in a straight steal, the runner has to make sure that his chances of being safe are higher than break-even. In a hit-and-run, the runner would have a greater chance of being caught, but is counting on the batter to protect him.[/quote]Gotcha. So you are probably doing a hit-and-run with a person on base who normally wouldn’t steal a base.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  81. [quote name=WaLi]Why is this? I would think that if the batter swung and missed, the catcher would have some sort of interference as opposed to the catcher cleanly catching the ball. Is this because in a hit and run the runner does not get as good of a jump compared to a straight steal?[/quote]
    I believe this is also because the runner is coached to glance back at the plate while running to see where the ball is going. This would likely slow down the runner.

    Maybe it’s because sometimes you’re more likely to use a slow runner in a hit and run situation in order to increase their chances of reaching 3rd on a single whereas you wouldn’t bother with that concern with, say, Tony Campana.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *