Astros @ Cubs Game Thread

In Game Threads by dmick89224 Comments

Game 162 is here and it features the worst two teams in baseball for the third consecutive day. So far the worst team has beaten the only slightly less worse team twice in a row. The Cubs are trying to avoid the embarrassing sweep at the hands of the mighty Astros. To do so, the Cubs are sending out this lineup:

LF Tony Campana
2B Adrian Cardenas
SS Starlin Castro
1B Bryan LaHair
RF Dave Sappelt
3B Josh Vitters
CF Brett Jackkkson
C Something Recker
P Travis Wood

You can see how bright the future is in Chicago with this very deep lineup. I mean, consider this: the 8th hitter is probably as good as the leadoff hitter. You aren't going to find many MLB lineups in which that is true. Up and down the lineup you have guys who are roughly equal on offense with an exception or two. It does not get any better than this. This is what October baseball is about.

Share this Post

Comments

  11. SVB

    The mysterious “second major leaguer in the line up” meme appears again here. Enrico and I are still trying to figure out who that is. Castro, and….

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  16. berselius22

    We’re shortchanging this Cubs lineup though by not mentioning the fact that NL MVP Shawn Camp is also available

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  18. berselius22

    That said Travis Wood has had a much shittier season than I thought. I guess I need to do a Another Shitty Season in Review post for him.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  29. Suburban kid

    Soriano wants to win a WS before he retires.
    Soriano wants to retire today.

    I swear, quotes from this guy rarely translate well.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  33. mikeakaleroy

    @ WaLi:
    Yeah, and like SK said, it could be translation, but it also could just be a veteran venting at the end of a VERY long year, too.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  37. Suburban kid

    (dying laughing)
    (dying laughing)
    (dying laughing)

    The TV and radio booths are going to switch places for the bottom of the 6th. Now’s your chance to hear Pat do TV.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  41. EnricoPallazzo

    Suburban kid wrote:

    There really isn’t room for another row of seats behind the plate.

    i was pissed when they put in the current seats. wrigley used to be one of the only parks in the country where you could watch a game on TV and see nothing but the backstop behind the batter. i.e. it was the only park in the country that didn’t have 20 rich assholes waving to the camera for three straight hours. that really drives me insane. now wrigley has that too and soon they will have even more of those idiots in the camera frame.

    i should say that this might be a rose-colored glasses type thing and also that i don’t really give a shit if it’s bringing in more money. but i don’t see how there’s room for more seats back there.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  53. mikeakaleroy

    So, this is my first season on this blog…Does it turn into a pumpkin after today’s game, or does it go back to being a Dunkin’ Donuts until Spring Training?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  55. EnricoPallazzo

    Berselius wrote:

    Can’t wait for this game to go 18 innings (dying laughing)

    if this game goes to extras, it wouldn’t surprise me if both teams just look at each other, shrug, say “fuck it”, and walk off the field.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  64. Rizzo the Rat

    The Rangers were doing fine before they got Soto and Dempster (who got creamed today). Cubs are losers even after changing uniforms.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  73. Rizzo the Rat

    Grandserson homer comes just after the ESPN announcers suggest that the Yankees perhaps rely on the long-ball too much.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  88. Mercurial Outfielder

    I wasn’t going to vote for either of these morally bankrupted stuffed shirts, but until I finally turned it off, that debate was making me want to never vote for anyone, ever again.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  92. SVB

    @ EnricoPallazzo:
    And seasoning cast iron pans, and the best way to snake electrical wires through a wall, and whether 10-10-10 fertilizer is better than 2-15-15 for helping your roses overwinter a harsher than average winter, and how RBIs are like teaspoons

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  97. Mercurial Outfielder

    You know who wins this debate? Lobbyists and monied interests. Wake me up when you’re interested in fixing the system.— Chris Kluwe (@ChrisWarcraft) October 4, 2012

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  101. mb21

    @ SVB:
    People say that, but I’m not sure it’s accurate. I know you mentioned the HOF, but assuming you mean what I think (not voting isn’t as productive as voting for someone who has no chance), I’m just not sure that’s true. I’d argue that philosophy has proven wrong and we continue to get the same old shit no matter how many people turn out. I’d further argue that turnout itself is for one candidate reassures the candidate they’re on the right path.

    I’m not interested in arguing political beliefs here, but I just don’t buy that voting even if you don’t like either candidate is more effective than not voting at all. I don’t know that it’s wrong, but I don’t believe it’s right either. What would happen if the winning candidate had only 30 million votes as opposted to 50 million? I don’t know, but I think it’s reasonable to think the politicans might see a message (dislike for both candidates) in that. Turnout is important to candidates and it would be considered embarassing if that was the case.

    People keep saying it’s better to just go vote for some candidate who has no chance of winning. I don’t agree. Personally, I think doing that is nearly the equivalent of placing a bet in the next 3 hours on the Cubs winning the World Series. Voting for alternative candidates hasn’t worked yet and I have no interest in wasting my time voting on someone who has no chance of winning. So I won’t vote for President. I strongly dislike where we currently are and I’m not going to enable the winner to use my vote to suggest that strong turnout means we’re on the right path.

    I’d like to see the election in which 186 people end up voting for one of the clowns running for office. If that doesn’t tell them we need to do shit differently I don’t know what will. I know it’s not me wasting time and throwing my vote away.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  103. josh

    @ mb21:
    I just don’t think shit gets changed by people not participating. If anything we should be participating more if we don’t like the way things are, actively talking to representatives and elected officials from the ground up. But I agree that without a strong base of like-minded people, it feels useless. I don’t think anything changes when polling numbers go down. The people who will vote are older people, since that’s who always votes when polling numbers are down (SEE: Every off-year election in the history of elections). And so we forfeit our decisions to the older generation and whatever they think is important. Politicians know this and play on it.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  104. josh

    @ josh:
    Pols would love to get elected by 162 people It’s extremely easy to please 162 as opposed to 500,000,000. Convince 82 people to agree with you? Much easier than 250,000,001

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  106. GBTS

    josh wrote:

    @ josh:
    It’s extremely easy to please 162 as opposed to 500,000,000. Convince 80 people to agree with you? Much easier than 247,500,000.

    /2000 Bush’d
    /Politics stops now

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  111. uncle dave

    @ josh:
    +1. Also, if you want to see third parties gain traction, you need to vote for them. Otherwise, you’re just making some other asshole’s vote more valuable by sitting on the sidelines.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  113. SVB

    @ mb21:
    Wellllll, in my tongue-in-cheek post to MO about not voting, I meant that the HOF thinks sending in blank ballots is not helpful. But that’s why this blog is so fun…

    I have to agree with Josh and disagree with you here. I believe that if the US electorate only turned out at 20%, roughly half of what we usually get, then the pols would say that there were issues with the voting process. We might get Sunday voting or a mandatory election day holiday, but I doubt it. I think the candidates and the national parties feel so self-important that they wouldn’t actually see the issue as candidate quality. If that was truly an issue, both parties would have open primaries in all states, support a stronger version of McCain Feingold, for example, or some other reforms that would help identify quality, whatever they might be. (Point is not to suggest either of these reforms as the best one, or even good, but as examples of reform…)

    So anyway, not voting just means that the national parties can ignore you. Voting the third party, or 5th party, or writing in none of the above is better. In that sense, Nevada has it right; they have a none of the above option. If you don’t register your distaste, you cannot be heard. Josh is right that we should have our Congressional reps on speed dial.

    I read somewhere that when there are strong third party candidates, then reform tends to follow. After Perot we got meaningful welfare reform and ended up at a balanced (surplus) budget. George Wallace’s campaign against desegregation and civil rights made it possible for moderate Republicans and non-Dixiecrat Democrats to continue to push civil rights legislation. I guess it was similar for the Bull Moose party and others in the past too (Anti-trust? I’m too lazy to look up wikipedia at the moment). The Republicans finally killed off the Whig party and put slavery into the discussion in a more meaningful way, etc. So supporting a third party does seem to have historical significance, even though they lose.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  115. Suburban kid

    mikeakaleroy wrote:

    So, this is my first season on this blog…Does it turn into a pumpkin after today’s game, or does it go back to being a Dunkin’ Donuts until Spring Training?

    THE POLITICAL TALK STARTS NOW

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  117. Mish

    I wholeheartedly believe that refusing to vote is a perfectly cromulent option, but I have no desire to defend or discuss my position. (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  118. mb21

    SVB wrote:

    o anyway, not voting just means that the national parties can ignore you. Voting the third party, or 5th party, or writing in none of the above is better.

    In an ideal world, I agree with this, but we don’t have that. Most of the people who are unhappy with politicians are picking one of the two candidates. They’ll pick the one they least dislike.

    If those unhappy voters voted for 3rd party candidates then I’d absolutely agree, but it doesn’t happen and I see no reason to believe it will. As long as 3rd party candidates aren’t even allowed in a presidential debate, I see little reason to believe things will change.

    As I said, I don’t know that not voting would work. If I had any reason to believe that others who are unhappy would support 3rd party candidates I’d be happy to vote for one. I just don’t believe that conventional wisdom is necessarily right.

    The media pays no attention at all to 3rd party candidates and I’d guess that a majority of the people couldn’t even name them.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  119. Mish

    I would consider voting for Gary Johnson, but I probably won’t. I view voting as assenting to the system/process that is in place, and thus assenting to the outcome and all that goes with it.

    But my single vote won’t matter, definitely not in Chicago/Illinois. And I don’t believe anyone has a “civic duty” or obligation to vote. At all.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  120. josh

    In my mind, the only time refusing to participate has worked is like with Ghandi, maybe, as part of a movement of intentional nonparticipation, which to my mind is no different from voting third party. If enough people voted third party, or simply voted against the incumbent, that could end up sending a stronger message than nothing. Nothing is sort of what the political leaders expect. Most of these debates and whatnot aren’t targeting the “swing voters,” they’re targeting apathy by drumming up team spirit.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  121. josh

    @ josh:
    Just my 2c. You could also argue voting for the platform you most agree with and then fighting to change things from within is the most rational course, which many of my friends do. But it’s hard not to be disillusioned with that method.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  122. mb21

    Mish wrote:

    But my single vote won’t matter, definitely not in Chicago/Illinois. And I don’t believe anyone has a “civic duty” or obligation to vote. At all.

    Agreed and my vote will be useless in Kansas.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  124. josh

    @ Mish:
    But you paticipate whether you want to or not. You went to a state school and drive on roads and that. It’s not like you can escape it. The system is everywhere, why not use the opportunity you have to affect it. One vote doesn’t matter in the presidential race (especially, as you note, in IL), but it does in smaller elections that are also going on. Being overwhelmed with the flood of people in the presidential race is no excuse to sit on your hands. But your attitude is common among people. Millions agree with you and don’t vote. And the ones that do are the ones that influence the election.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  126. josh

    For the record, I didn’t vote in the last two elections. the midterm out of laziness (and an utter lack of publicity by the media, which matters more than people admit), and the last presidential b/c my son was born that afternoon.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  127. Mish

    @ josh:
    Well I DO try to effect change; just not within the polling booth. I’m very outspoken about my politics and have already convinced many of my close friends to discard their liberalism for libertarianism, and even those that didn’t convert, are far more skeptical of gov’t than they used to be.

    I don’t vote in local elections because I have no interest in learning about them and thus am unable to make an educated choice. And I also don’t view it as “sitting on my hands”. I don’t believe that voting for the lesser of 2 or 3 evils is necessarily morally superior to not voting for evil at all.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  129. Mish

    Also, the system I referred to was more the election process and the duopoly of politics. Not the overarching environment in which we live in.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  131. mb21

    Mish wrote:

    I don’t believe that voting for the lesser of 2 or 3 evils is necessarily morally superior to not voting for evil at all.

    This. I’ll vote for some people and not vote in other races.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  132. mb21

    @ josh:
    Yeah I know. I just said what I did last night because I don’t believe that conventional wisdom is right just because people say it is. I don’t know that it isn’t right, but I don’t believe it just because everybody says it. I could point to the 1992 and 1996 presidential elections (even 2000 for that matter) as an example of a 3rd party candidates who did receive significant support and nothing changed.

    I agree if you had an even larger number of people voting for those candidates then it might (probably would), but I don’t see any reason to believe that will happen anytime soon. It’s one thing to say go vote for a 3rd party candidate because it can affect change, but it’s another thing for people who don’t even know them to actually go and do it. I guess that’s my point. Maybe it’s not a good one. I don’t know.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  133. mb21

    @ Mish:
    By the way, I like local elections. I actually feel like we can accomplish something from the bottom up. If I could learn only about local or national elections, I’d choose local elections. But I think trying to accomplish something from the top down is useless and that’s what most people do. Most people only vote for president.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  134. Mish

    @ mb21:
    Right – if I had a better sense of it, I would probably vote locally. It’s just a limited time/resource thing; I spend so much of my time on things like baseball and the philosophical side of politics that practical, everyday politics just doesn’t fit in. Also, porn.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  135. Mercurial Outfielder

    I post this status from my friend Ed on my FB wall:

    It’s amazing how people who like Romney think he did well and people who like Obama think HE did well. IT’S ALMOST LIKE THEY SEE WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE, AND NONE OF THIS MATTERS IN THE SLIGHTEST OR IS CHANGING ANYONE’S MIND SO EVERYONE SHUT UP.

    Almost immediately I have a (very conservative) friend post poll numbers showing Romney as the winner, as a comment.

    We’re fucked, people. This country is hopelessly and shittastically fucked. People can’t even be bothered to read a fucking sentence or learn the fucking law of large numbers and how it pertains to sample sizes in popular polls. No one reads. No one thinks. We just learn to take tests and how to be polite servants to the fucking oligarchs. And then when two of them decide they both want the same job (which is of course unavailable to 99% of the population because we didn’t attend the right slipstream of elite east coast schools), we’re supposed to give a fuck. And the really fucked up thing is that 55% of that 99% actually do give said fuck, never stopping to realize that this person for whom they are voting is so thoroughly corrupted by the time they have ascended to this position of power that no matter what they say, they have no intention of acting on it past the point where it ceases to maintenance their position of power. We’re a country of fools led around by the nose by a host of liars, cons and cheats in $5K suits and cheap shoes. Too many of my friends have died in support of this charade for me to continue to pretend that it’s not a massive charade designed to keep the populace under the thumb of a wealthy, landed minority.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  141. josh

    @ Mercurial Outfielder:
    ALL RIGHT I’M ON BOARD NOW WHAT?

    I’m 100% behind Jill Stein’s redistribution of wealth plan, but I suspect it would lead to a civil war, and I mean that literally. to me, the free market is a bigger scam and more oppressive oligarchy than government. So what’s the option? Stop using electricity? Don’t drive on roads? convince people that don’t really have free will that free will is real, by whipping up a free will fervor and using that power to topple what’s in charge and then controlling them undera system you find more equitable, until someone else convinces those same people to follow THEM under the guise of free will?

    I mean, we’re barely conscious apes. I’m ready to hear solutions.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  144. Mercurial Outfielder

    @ josh:

    Find the best way you know how to be a decent person. Then be a decent person. That’s all I have.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  146. josh

    I hate election season. Nothing makes me more acutely aware of the limitations of my consciousness than getting angry at some asshole in a suit to whom I am scum on the bottom of the shoe.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  151. Mercurial Outfielder

    When asked about magnitude of the rebuild Theo said: “It is fair to say that this is a comprehensive overhaul of the baseball operation.”— David Kaplan (@thekapman) October 4, 2012

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  153. Mercurial Outfielder

    Ryne Sandberg —————> Phillies 3B coach

    WGN —————–> Lots of shots of the Phillies 3B coach next season

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  155. Mercurial Outfielder

    /headdesk:

    #Cubs Theo “J Vitters has struggled on every level initially. It takes him longer to adjust. Not surprising. It’ll help him in the long run”— Rafer Weigel (@RaferWeigel) October 4, 2012

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  158. mb21

    Mercurial Outfielder wrote:

    /headdesk:

    (dying laughing) I suppose you gotta try and be positive, but when you rip Jackson like that it’s a little odd to see that kind of a comment. Here are the things for Vitters that wasn’t MLB ready: his swing, his ability to hit, taking walks, baserunning and defense. Other than that, great season.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  159. Mercurial Outfielder

    Soooo….

    Jackson: .280 wOBA, 41% K% = “not ready for this level”

    Vitters: .187 wOBA, 30% K% = “will help him in the long run”

    I must be missing something here.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  161. Mercurial Outfielder

    Theo with lots of good things to say about Soriano, says 2013 roster will be planned on the assumption that both Jackson and Vitters will be at Iowa.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  162. Mercurial Outfielder

    “I thought Soriano had an incredible season both on field and off. People don’t get an accurate portrayal of him from across the diamond”— David Kaplan (@thekapman) October 4, 2012

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  163. Mercurial Outfielder

    Having an significantly lower K-rate and a significantly lower wOBA than someone is impressive, I guess.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  165. Mish

    I wouldn’t read too much into those BJax/Vitters quotes. I just think he didn’t want to repeat the same exact words, and obviously he knows both have been terrible, but he’s not going to call them that.
    —

    Out of principle, I won’t link to the Sun-Times, but per Gordo:

    Theo —-> doing it wrong

    http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/newsstand/discussion/wittenmeyer_theo_epsteins_major_remodeling_of_cubs_raises_red_flags#When:14:52:12Z

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  169. mb21

    @ Mish:
    I actually think Gordo is right for the most part. I don’t think this front office anticipated how the draft or international signing restrictions was going to affect them. I think they were clearly surprised at the limitations they now had. Jim Hendry went bananas last draft signing everybody and anybody to overslot values because they were talented. Say what you want about Hendry, but i think he anticpated these changes before there was a new CBA and acted on it when the Cubs still had a chance to do so. Obviously Thoyer didn’t have that chance, but the momentum was moving in that direction so they shouldn’t have been all that surprised.

    I also agree with what the first commenter said. If you can spend freely on amateur talent, spend more on free agents. The Cubs, and all other large market teams, cannot flex their muscle with amateur talent anymore. The advantage they once had is gone. That leaves them with their advantage of being able to spend more.

    I like hearing that the Cubs will be active on the free agent market. I hope they mean it. I hope it’s not just a few David DeJesus types so the Cubs can win 65 games instead of 58. The Cubs won’t contend next year, but they should begin to piece together this team and that includes adding impact free agents. I’ll be disappointed if they don’t becuase it’s basically a Hail Mary trying to get better only through the farm system.

    I think they realize that and I think they will sign an impact free agent or two.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  170. josh

    @ mb21:
    I think so too. I think they mean to make a better showing than Ian Stewart and DeJesus.

    Ugh. This CBA really gums everything up. It’s created mass stasis. I don’t see how that’s a good thing for the sport.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  171. EnricoPallazzo

    mb21 wrote:

    People keep saying it’s better to just go vote for some candidate who has no chance of winning. I don’t agree. Personally, I think doing that is nearly the equivalent of placing a bet in the next 3 hours on the Cubs winning the World Series. Voting for alternative candidates hasn’t worked yet and I have no interest in wasting my time voting on someone who has no chance of winning.

    i could not disagree more. if everyone who wanted the cubs to win the world series put $100 on it, there would be a shitload of people who are out $100. if everyone that wanted to vote 3rd party actually voted 3rd party, there would be at least 2 very viable 3rd party candidates. no way would obama or romney get more than 30% of the vote. probably less than 25%.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  172. WaLi

    mb21 wrote:

    I think they realize that and I think they will sign an impact free agent or two.

    So what your saying is : 2013 – World Series .500 Bound!

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  173. mb21

    @ EnricoPallazzo:
    I addressed this in a later comment. The key part of what you said is”if everyone tthat wanted to vote 3rd party…” Is there any reason to believe they will? I’d also argue that the majority don’t even know who the 3rd party candidates are and that even if those who wanted a 3rd party candidated voted, both of the major parties would still get 40% or more in almost every election.

    It’s one thing to talk about an election theoretically. i agree that if everyone who actually wanted a 3rd party candidate voted for him or her that it would be best to vote. However, that does not happen. Most people who want a 3rd party candidate refuse to throw their vote away and instead focus on the one they least dislike among the two major parties.

    Given the habits of voters in this country, which I see no reason to think will suddenly change, I don’t buy that voting even if you don’t like the two major candidates is better than not voting. That’s not to say I believe the opposite is true.

    By the way, berselius started a thread on the forum to move the political talk to. There’s a link on the sidebar or at the bottom of the page. I’m sure a lot of people give exactly 0 fucks what I think about politics.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  175. Mercurial Outfielder

    BAM:

    You can go through each player’s play logs and see exactly where they earned and lost credit. There’s no replacement level here. We’re not dealing with defensive metrics that require some subjective inputs and can’t be easily replicated. This is just pure offense, and the total value of all the plays that both Trout and Cabrera were involved in.

    And Trout still comes out on top. Ignore defense. Ignore baserunning. Ignore WAR. Trout still wins. This is how amazing his season actually was. Even if you strip away the things that make Mike Trout special, he was still the best offensive performer in the American League this year, even while starting the season in the minors. This isn’t just the best performance of 2012 – it’s one of the best individual performances in the history of baseball.

    http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/trout-versus-cabrera-offense-only-context-included/

    QED, motherfuckers.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  179. Rice Cube

    @ mb21:

    I’d love to see some impact free agents become Cubs, but when I think “impact” I think Greinke and Josh Hamilton, and then I look at the rest of the list after a few other solid starting pitchers and all I see is a pile of crap. So I would like them to try to go balls out for the big names available, but they’ll likely be more useful in terms of getting the team to contention in 2014 than 2013.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  181. josh

    @ Rice Cube:
    I say fuck it and get them. If those two are available, to hell with numbers and with worries about Hamilton and just go for it. Wrigley will get behind Josh when he jacks one onto Waveland every three days.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  182. Rice Cube

    @ josh:
    I’d love to see you jack one to Waveland!

    I think Josh Hamilton is left-handed so that kind of opposite field power would be insane. And I agree, just spend the money, it’ll be fun.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  184. josh

    @ Rice Cube:
    I always get them mixed up. When I go to Wrigley, I can’t seem to find the streets they always mention. The stadium is a lot bigger in real life. I’m also usually to worried about the massive crowds to explore.

    small town boy’d

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  185. Mercurial Outfielder

    @ Rice Cube:
    I could see Grienke, but I don’t think Theo will want anything to do with Hamilton, given his off-field issues and the amount of very young players in the Cubs locker room. Then again, Theo didn’t seem to mind putting together a pretty rough locker room in Boston, so maybe Hamilton could be in the cards. But I personally don’t see it.

    I also wouldn’t rule out the Cubs spending by taking on salary in a trade. I could see Jackson being packaged maybe with Soriano or Garza (if they can prove he’s healthy) for a big bat at 3B or corner OF.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  186. Mercurial Outfielder

    How about BJ Upton? The Rays look set to let him walk. I’d have him in a heartbeat. Not a superstar, but almost an underrated player because he couldn’t live up to unrealistic hype.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  187. Rice Cube

    @ Mercurial Outfielder:
    I can see that too. They can still let the younger minor leaguers marinade while the MLB club also gets better without jettisoning too many long-term assets, especially since Jackson is going to be 25 next season and the comments from Theo shared above suggest that he’s not too enamored with Brett.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  188. Rice Cube

    @ Mercurial Outfielder:
    This begs the question…guys like Greinke aren’t going to be eligible for a qualifying offer, but Hamilton and BJ Upton almost certainly will get that offer. Are the Cubs prepared to lose their 2nd and 3rd round draft picks and that pool of money?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  190. Berselius

    @ mb21:

    I hope the Cubs make a big splash too.

    I can’t wait to hear people complain that the Cubs are blowing their money on expensive free agents that always disappoint. Due to those albatross contracts, the Cubs wouldn’t be able to sign more free agents, which could help turn things around.

    /circular logic

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  191. Berselius

    I’d love it if the Cubs got Upton too, though I’m preemptively exhausted by how much the Chicago media/fans would call him out for laziness on every play.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  194. josh

    I really think Hamilton would be fine. The relapses he’s had have never been in the locker room, but out in the world. I’d almost worry about all those care free kids tempting him than vice versa.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  195. josh

    @ josh:
    That said, I trust Theo’s judgement one way or another, and I really have no idea what the dude is like. I just don’t think a guy should be punished for past transgressions on principal or as some sort of attempt to “help” him.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  196. mb21

    @ josh:
    Yeah, I think the worry about him is overblown, but that could be my bias. Either way, I don’t think one of the first big free agents Thoyer sign is going to be someone who has had previously had off-field problems.

    What I kind of like about Hamilton is that he would presumably come at a discount because of those problems. At the same time, I kind of hope he doesn’t come to Chicago because I really really really don’t want to hear Cubs fans bashing him for being an addict when he struggles.

    I could definitely see Greinke. This team needs pitching and it’s hard to imagine after this year that Thoyer is under the impression this organization has any to provide over the next few years. I could also see BJ Upton with Jackson being traded away. I think they’ll acquire a 3B too.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  197. josh

    @ mb21:
    Plus, it sounded like most people think they’re going after pitching. I’d be fine with good pitching. The team isn’t great at scoring runs, but according to the A’s and Giants, you don’t have to be.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  198. Mish

    I’m going to go against my stat inclinations and also go with my bias and say that BJ is a better fielder than UZR credits him with. I haven’t checked the other defensive metrics?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  199. Mish

    josh wrote:

    The team isn’t great at scoring runs, but according to the A’s and Giants, you don’t have to be.

    The 2012 Rays would heavily disagree with this.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  202. Mercurial Outfielder

    From what I have seen, Upton has a great range and a solid arm, but he doesn’t get a great read on the ball and takes some really bad routes. He’s a more talented version of Soriano as a defender, IMO.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  205. WenningtonsGorillaCock

    josh wrote:

    I’m also usually to worried about the massive crowds to explore.

    You should have gone to any game during September. Plenty of elbow room.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  208. mb21

    @ Rice Cube:
    I’m assuming they decline the option, but yeah, the Sox would still be able to sign him before he can negotiate with another team. If he’s available, I think he’s a pretty big upgrade. Then again. almost anyone is an upgrade over what the Cubs got out of 3rd this season.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  210. Mercurial Outfielder

    I wouldn’t mind Youk for a season or two. Be great to have him around some of these young hitters.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  218. Mercurial Outfielder

    Theo: “The dollars you spend in major-league free agency provide the lowest return on investment of any dollarswe spend in baseball ops.”— Bruce Miles (@BruceMiles2112) October 4, 2012

    Intuitively that makes sense, given that most of the rest of baseball ops money is spent on cost-controlled players paid far below market value, but has there been any empirical work done on this exact claim?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  219. Rice Cube

    @ WaLi:

    Considering that he’s left-handed and there hasn’t been a lefty 3B in the majors in something like 30 years…I’m going to have to say “no”.

    That’s before we account for his alcohol-related impairments, but I guess we won’t go there.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  221. WaLi

    @ Mercurial Outfielder:
    And really, what other option is there? For the Cubs they need to invest in Free Agency. Their farm sucks.

    For a small market team, you need to be more concerned about ROI* and spending less, but the Cubs are a large market team and does not need as much of an ROI compared to the Rays or Pirates. I am not saying spend wildly, but definitely spend wisely on talented players..

    *I’m assuming he means Returned Wins on invested Dollars. A business, like the Cubs, should always focus on Returns of Dollars on Invested dolars, and I think by getting more wins the return of dollars for the Cubs can be far greater than the return of dollars those same wins would generate for a team like the Pirates or Rays.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  222. Rice Cube

    @ WaLi:
    I would have disagreed a year or so ago, but with so much money off the books, the Cubs have a ton of room to play with and I really do hope they throw a chunk of it at the best guys available.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

Leave a Comment