Most of the Cubs trade talks seem to be centering around Matt Garza these days. Figured a poll might be a good way to get an idea where most Cubs fans stand with regards to trading him. My best guess is it would take about 5 years and $62 million to get an extension done. He does have significant trade value, but not nearly as much as Mat Latos or Gio Gonzalez who each have four years of club control remaining. I’d guess the Cubs could get half of what each of them brought in a trade. At least that’s a reasonable expectation anyway.
Share this Post
Comments
[quote name=Trace Elliot]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tqxzWdKKu8
begets
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4DlfEQ7cyk%5B/quote%5DWhy won’t you answer the question?
mb21Quote Reply
Trade sounds good to me.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]Trade sounds good to me.[/quote]I figure the response here will be overwhelmingly in favor of trading. I’m still curious though.
mb21Quote Reply
Kinda depends on the overall strategy. I’d rather they look to contend in ’13 or ’14 and Garza could be someone to extend in that case. But if contending in ’13 or ’14 requires trading him, that’s fine too. Obviously, if the plan is to contend in ’15 or ’16, then get him the fuck outta here.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Why won’t you answer the question?[/quote]This might be one of those minotaur riddles with no true answer unless you’re a demigod.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Suburban kid]Kinda depends on the overall strategy. I’d rather they look to contend in ’13 or ’14 and Garza could be someone to extend in that case. But if contending in ’13 or ’14 requires trading him, that’s fine too. Obviously, if the plan is to contend in ’15 or ’16, then get him the fuck outta here.[/quote]I’m not even sure it’s reasonable to contend in 2015 or 2016. I think there’s good reason to think the organization will be moving in that direction and contending will be around the corner. Maybe a breakout season or something helps them contend, but I think they’re a long way away. They have to build the farm system first. Theo has even said they need to have productive guys coming up with more just behind them. THEN they’ll invest big money on free agents. If they get a bigger haul for Garza then I expect then maybe it pushes it up a year.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]This might be one of those minotaur riddles with no true answer unless you’re a demigod.[/quote]I don’t know why it’s hard to answer. If you’re going to say something like that then you should expect questions and you should be willing to provide answers. If you don’t nobody believes it and nobody should.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]I’m not even sure it’s reasonable to contend in 2015 or 2016. I think there’s good reason to think the organization will be moving in that direction and contending will be around the corner. Maybe a breakout season or something helps them contend, but I think they’re a long way away. They have to build the farm system first. Theo has even said they need to have productive guys coming up with more just behind them. THEN they’ll invest big money on free agents. If they get a bigger haul for Garza then I expect then maybe it pushes it up a year.[/quote]
I wonder if the ownership would be patient enough to sit through all those years of likely reduced revenue. I would like to think that they planned to take the hit to get this franchise on the right path.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
The six degrees of Derek Jeter:
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/Derek-Jeter-gifts-brighten-outlook-for-young-sta?urn=mlb-wp29140
Full of awesome.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
I have no handle as to what the Cubs are doing. Trade Garza for “assets.” Why not? Thing is, who’s going to pitch next year and give the team a realistic shot at anything?
I’m still all about getting Prince Fielder. If shedding salary and building around him for the next 6-7 years is an option, then I’m cool with that. Specs are just so hit-or-miss in general and to this organization (think Pie, Patterson, Prior), so I simply cannot get enthused accept for the trading/commodity aspects in bringing in bigger, more proven talent in moving them.
Another 90-loss season will be a grind to the fan base and potentially very devastating to this organization on many fronts in moving forward. Signing a guy like Fielder at least would show me the hand of optimism that I would need to see in changing direction for the future.
BUD BleachersQuote Reply
I don’t think the Cubs care about a realistic shot at anything other than a top 2 or 3 draft pick. I expect we’ll see a lot of Casey Coleman next year as the Cubs try to nail down one of the top spots in the draft.
mb21Quote Reply
I think going after Fielder makes a lot of sense.
mb21Quote Reply
Eh, I can’t really answer the question. Trading is the right decision for any player when a good deal comes along (unless, of course the player can’t be traded). I wouldn’t be disappointed to see him in the rotation next year, but they’d be foolish not to consider offers.
ACTQuote Reply
Bubbles wants no part of Kyle Drabek.. Buddy ran into him at a liqour store in Houston said he was fat as shit. Also he has heard stories about him being a drunk…
As far as Garza.. I see us getting a Latos type deal or extending.Why? Super friends are that good.
bubblesdachimpQuote Reply
[quote name=BUD Bleachers]I have no handle as to what the Cubs are doing. Trade Garza for “assets.” Why not? Thing is, who’s going to pitch next year and give the team a realistic shot at anything?
I’m still all about getting Prince Fielder. If shedding salary and building around him for the next 6-7 years is an option, then I’m cool with that. Specs are just so hit-or-miss in general and to this organization (think Pie, Patterson, Prior), so I simply cannot get enthused accept for the trading/commodity aspects in bringing in bigger, more proven talent in moving them.
Another 90-loss season will be a grind to the fan base and potentially very devastating to this organization on many fronts in moving forward. Signing a guy like Fielder at least would show me the hand of optimism that I would need to see in changing direction for the future.[/quote]
I think a good number of fans can stomach a bad year or two if they can see the team moving in the right direction. I knew a number of people who bought season tickets for the 1998 season (myself included) because we had the thought that things would be better soon.
Nobody thought 1998 would turn out like that. We just hoped they would start getting better as the farm system improved, as exemplified by Kerry Wood. 1997 was a horrendous year. I’m fairly certain that was the year they started 0-14 and the season was done before May even arrived, yet there we all were buying tickets based on nothing tangible.
If they get Prince Fielder on their terms, great. If not, I’m fine with gutting what is left of this pathetic franchise and just starting over. If they won’t do it with Wrigley, at least they can do it with the team that plays there.
Aisle424Quote Reply
Nice article on GM Lingo
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/a/15744
MishQuote Reply
If Garza brings back what we expect him to, isn’t that a tacit admission that the Garza deal was the wrong move to make when it was made? I mean the package we’re expecting in return is about what the Cubs gave up, no? It’s almost a pat on the head from Thoyer: “Nice try guys, but swapping prospects for 1-2 WAR upgrade when uou’re at 75 wins on paper and have been preaching to your fanbase that you want to build through he farm really isnt a wise piece of business. So we’regonna try and turn back the clock here before Garza gets to be a really eexpensive piece of a really mediocre team.”
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder] Garza gets to be a really eexpensive piece of a really mediocre team.“[/quote]Optimist
MishQuote Reply
I think that is exactly what it is, MO. They are trying their best to unfuck what Hendry fucked.
Aisle424Quote Reply
We lost Sam Fuld. That can never be undone.
GBTSQuote Reply
[quote name=GBTS]We lost Sam Fuld. That can never be undone.[/quote]Fucker destroyed my sweater.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]If Garza brings back what we expect him to, isn’t that a tacit admission that the Garza deal was the wrong move to make when it was made? I mean the package we’re expecting in return is about what the Cubs gave up, no? It’s almost a pat on the head from Thoyer: “Nice try guys, but swapping prospects for 1-2 WAR upgrade when uou’re at 75 wins on paper and have been preaching to your fanbase that you want to build through he farm really isnt a wise piece of business. So we’regonna try and turn back the clock here before Garza gets to be a really eexpensive piece of a really mediocre team.”[/quote]I don’t think so. The Cubs weren’t trying to rebuild a year ago. This front office has made the decision that’s what they’re going to do and trading veterans makes sense. If you’re trying to win it doesn’t. The Blue Jays appear to be the most active team in pursuit of Garza and they’re a 4th place team who is going to contend with the likes of the Red Sox and Yankees by continuing to develop their own players. If the Cubs get 5 wins out of Garza and the same exact return then it was a great series of transactions. Name one team that wouldn’t take that deal. Even the Pirates would make those deals.
mb21Quote Reply
Garza was one of the few bright spots on the team last year (arguably the brightest), so I can’t complain about the trade, especially with Archer’s struggles.
ACTQuote Reply
I’m still in the “keep him for now” camp. I think the Cubs should contend every year. I wasn’t in favor of the Garza deal when it was made, but I think it turned out to be a gamble the Cubs won. Trading him now for prospects would, in the long term, be another gamble. With good odds, maybe, but still a gamble. In the short term, though, it’s a certainty that it would make the Cubs suck more.
Maybe it’s not realistic to build a contender now, but I think the Cubs could come close without necessarily sacrificing the future. They’ve got the money, if we can ever figure out what expenses are.
AndCountingQuote Reply
[quote name=AndCounting] if we can ever figure out what expenses are.[/quote]
Suburban kidQuote Reply
I know it’s popular and makes sense to say that teams shouldn’t sign or acquire players when they don’t have a chance to win, but it’s not the reality of the situation. If it was, there would be significantly fewer veterans in the game because teams like the Royals, Pirates, Astros, Mariners and others would never consider signing a single veteran player. A win is a win regardless of whether or not you’re a 40-win team or a 90-win team. Unless Hak-Ju Lee turns out to be a very good ballplayer the Cubs got the better end of that trade. If the Cubs get the 5 wins they did from him in 2011 and then get the same amount in return that they gave up it was a very good trade.
We talked about it a lot on ACB, but the biggest mistake the Cubs made was not choosing a direction after the 2009 season. In order to contend in 2010 they had to increase payroll. I know it’s easier said than done, but that was the only way they could contend and with money coming off the books it could have been a short-term increase. If they weren’t going in that direction they should have started trading their valuable players at which point they could have gotten a lot in return. They did neither. I know it was that decision that most irritate myself and MO with regards to new ownership. Pick a fucking plan. They didn’t and now they’re trying to trade a couple valuable players and a bunch of shit in an attempt to rebuild. Won’t be easy.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=AndCounting]I’m still in the “keep him for now” camp. I think the Cubs should contend every year. I wasn’t in favor of the Garza deal when it was made, but I think it turned out to be a gamble the Cubs won. Trading him now for prospects would, in the long term, be another gamble. With good odds, maybe, but still a gamble. In the short term, though, it’s a certainty that it would make the Cubs suck more.
Maybe it’s not realistic to build a contender now, but I think the Cubs could come close without necessarily sacrificing the future. They’ve got the money, if we can ever figure out what expenses are.[/quote]I wouldn’t even say trading him for prospects has good long-term odds for what it’s worth. Most prospects fail and most of the ones they get for Garza are going to fail. You just hope one of them becomes really good. Maybe you get lucky and two do.
I don’t think there’s an easy answer to the question. I can get behind any of the 3 choices. Personally, I’d prefer they trade him, but the others could make sense too depending on what else they have in mind.
mb21Quote Reply
I guess my philosophy is, a team with the Cubs’ budget should always have a plan for competing now AND a plan for competing in the future. I don’t think there’s any excuse not to have both. Well, except for the fact that the Cubs really suck right now. But I think it’s a cop out to just completely give up on the season before it starts. Trading Garza would appear to be essentially waving the white flag. Maybe not, but that’s how I would interpret it initially. If I’m wrong about the team’s financial flexibility, then I’d definitely trade him, though.
AndCountingQuote Reply
Not definitely. But I’d be much more open to it.
AndCountingQuote Reply
I don’t think you’re wrong about the financial flexibility, AC. I think you might be underestimating how fucked this organization is. Or maybe I’m overestimating it.
mb21Quote Reply
I still think the Cubs can get to around 82-85 wins this year. Maybe I’m delusional though. I think they end up trading Garza for a catching prospect, pitcher, and/or 3B prospect. I expect them to trade Soto to TB for Wade Davis. Their rotation will be: Dempster, Wells, Wood, Davis, Deck McGuire, with F7, Sonnanstine, Jackson, etc. as the back-up starters. They’ll also sign Prince Fielder.
I think the Cubs are probably offering to pay most of Garza’s 9M salary fot 2012 in order to get a better return. That’s how big market teams with $$ should be doing it.
Recalcitrant Blogger NateQuote Reply
I think if the Cubs trade Garza to Boston, Jeff Baker goes with. Bosox just traded their RF. Maybe they want Byrd. I’ll revise my plan; Cubs traded entire roster minus Castro, Cashner for Youkilis and that announcer with the thick Boston accent.
Recalcitrant Blogger NateQuote Reply
I also don’t know why the Cubs aren’t trying to deal Barney as a SS. He’s not a 2B, but with such a low salary/years of control, and his ability to handle SS, I’d try to convince Atlanta to jump in.
Recalcitrant Blogger NateQuote Reply
I should be running this team. I have alot of killer ideas.
Recalcitrant Blogger NateQuote Reply
So that Swaim guy is saying Banuelos is in the Yankees offer. I’m not a huge fan. Hittable and walks too many people
dylanjQuote Reply
I always get Banuelos and Betances confused. Which one is supposed to be the one who can actually stick in a ML rotation, and which one is projected as more of a reliever?
Recalcitrant Blogger NateQuote Reply
[quote name=dylanj]So that Swaim guy is saying Banuelos is in the Yankees offer. I’m not a huge fan. Hittable and walks too many people[/quote]
the manager?
Recalcitrant Blogger NateQuote Reply
Betances gives up less hits and strikes out more people and walks more people as well. I’d take a chance on a guy like him vs Banuelos who is giving up a hit per IP and still walking a ton of people
dylanjQuote Reply
I’ll take Montero straight up (dying laughing).
dylanjQuote Reply
[quote name=dylanj]I’ll take Montero straight up (dying laughing).[/quote]
ageed, LSA +1, Nambla, ricketts interview part 7
I would love it if the Cubs got a cheap, long-term masher this offseason. Maybe that Cuban dude can be the one, I think they’re getting him.
Recalcitrant Blogger NateQuote Reply
If it’s the Yankees, I want Montero. Seriously.
mb21Quote Reply
If its the Yankees I want Montero and thats it. I dont care if thats all we get thats a fair trade imho.
dylanjQuote Reply
I also would want Montero, but I think I might accept the better of those pitching prospects along with that Japanese dude they want to sign and trade. He could slot as the Cubs starting 2B. A rotation piece and a starting position player is a good return to me.
Recalcitrant Blogger NateQuote Reply
B-Ref’s front page has a tally of team payrolls so far and estimates for 2012:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Mariano Rivera called Banuelos the greatest prospect he has ever seen so maybe there is more to the #’s than I’m seeing.
dylanjQuote Reply
[quote name=dylanj]Mariano Rivera called Banuelos the greatest prospect he has ever seen so maybe he’s vying for a job as an agent or Yankees front office guy when he retires at age 57.[/quote].
MishQuote Reply
Mariano Rivera will never retire because he’s a cutter-throwing pitching machine. Just give him an oil change and some lubricant every six months or so.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Another article about the awesomeness of Edgar Martinez:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/how-great-was-edgar-martinezs-bat/
Rice CubeQuote Reply
If Theo knows what Matt Garza did last year inside the manual scoreboard, he’ll definitely be traded.
GBTSQuote Reply
[quote name=GBTS]If Theo knows what Matt Garza did last year inside the manual scoreboard, he’ll definitely be traded.[/quote]That might explain the one game where the score was 420 to 69.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]That might explain the one game where the score was 288 to 2.[/quote].
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=Dr. Aneus Taint].[/quote]I can’t argue with you today.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
http://www.rlyw.net/index.php/RLYW/comments/sporting_news_yankees_red_sox_reportedly_step_up_efforts_to_acquire_cubs_ma/
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]Another article about the awesomeness of Edgar Martinez:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/how-great-was-edgar-martinezs-bat/%5B/quote%5DI may be alone in this, but I don’t think Edgar belongs in the HOF. He was so bad at fielding that he couldn’t play it. He was a poor baserunner. He was a double play machine (-20 runs in his career). A great hitter and he was quite valuable. He made up for his uselessness elsewhere by being awesome at the plate, but my HOF players would be way more balanced than Edgar was.
I didn’t agree a few years ago, but the same arguments can be made regarding Mark McGwire. At leas the played the field.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]I may be alone in this, but I don’t think Edgar belongs in the HOF. He was so bad at fielding that he couldn’t play it. He was a poor baserunner. He was a double play machine (-20 runs in his career). A great hitter and he was quite valuable. He made up for his uselessness elsewhere by being awesome at the plate, but my HOF players would be way more balanced than Edgar was.
I didn’t agree a few years ago, but the same arguments can be made regarding Mark McGwire. At leas the played the field.[/quote]
What would you say about guys like Brooks Robinson or Ozzie Smith, Hall of Famers with OPS+ < 100? They are basically in there for one dimension of their games…
MishQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]I can’t argue with you today.[/quote]
Because your team lost to mine last night?
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]I may be alone in this, but I don’t think Edgar belongs in the HOF. He was so bad at fielding that he couldn’t play it. He was a poor baserunner. He was a double play machine (-20 runs in his career). A great hitter and he was quite valuable. He made up for his uselessness elsewhere by being awesome at the plate, but my HOF players would be way more balanced than Edgar was.
I didn’t agree a few years ago, but the same arguments can be made regarding Mark McGwire. At leas the played the field.[/quote]I don’t think you’re alone; it’s going to be difficult for Edgar to make it in the HOF because he’s primarily a DH, but at least you’ve explained more in detail why you would keep Edgar out besides the default “he’s a DH” rationale.
I often thought he was so good at offense that it outweighed him being just a DH, though.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Dr. Aneus Taint]Because your team lost to mine last night?[/quote]I didn’t actually expect Cal to win to be honest. Especially because they liked giving the ball back to Texas all the time.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]http://www.rlyw.net/index.php/RLYW/comments/sporting_news_yankees_red_sox_reportedly_step_up_efforts_to_acquire_cubs_ma/[/quote]Seems that Yankees fans would be more displeased if NYY gave up prospects for Garza than the Reds fans were about the Marshall trade.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]Seems that Yankees fans would be more displeased if NYY gave up prospects for Garza than the Reds fans were about the Marshall trade.[/quote]
Garza would immediately be their 2nd best starter. I don’t think they’ll be able to piece it together with Freddy Garcia, Bartolo Colon, and Ivan Nova the way they were last year. Plus AJ Burnett really blows now. I’d suggest swapping him for Soriano. The Yankees need pitchers until Banuelos and Betances get there. I bet they sign Roy Oswalt or Hiroki Kuroda, but I’d be fine with them overpaying for Garza (dying laughing)
Recalcitrant Blogger NateQuote Reply
my money is on Garza to Det for Jacob Turner and prospects
dylanjQuote Reply
[quote name=dylanj]my money is on Garza to Det for Jacob Turner and prospects[/quote]
that will do
Recalcitrant Blogger NateQuote Reply
[quote name=dylanj]my money is on Garza to Det for Jacob Turner and prospects[/quote]
I also like Casey Crosby and Andy Oliver who project to be front of the rotation guys.
RodrigoQuote Reply
Turner, Andy Oliver and Castellanos
dylanjQuote Reply
[quote name=Recalcitrant Blogger Nate]Garza would immediately be their 2nd best starter. I don’t think they’ll be able to piece it together with Freddy Garcia, Bartolo Colon, and Ivan Nova the way they were last year. Plus AJ Burnett really blows now. I’d suggest swapping him for Soriano. The Yankees need pitchers until Banuelos and Betances get there. I bet they sign Roy Oswalt or Hiroki Kuroda, but I’d be fine with them overpaying for Garza (dying laughing)[/quote]Seems the fans would prefer the Yankees just give money to Edwin Jackson, Oswalt or Kuroda instead of giving the Cubs prospects for Garza based on some of the comments in that post.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
I’d extend Garza with a deal similar to the one Danks received.
In 2-3 years when the Cubs are in a position to compete ( and I personally think this is the timefram), they’ll be looking for pitchers just like Garza.
RodrigoQuote Reply
[quote name=Rodrigo]In 2-3 years when the Cubs are in a position to compete ( and I personally think this is the timefram)… [/quote]
based on what? do you think they are going after the fielder? the cubans?
GWQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]I didn’t actually expect Cal to win to be honest.[/quote]
You know you thought they’d win in the early second quarter. I thought they would too.
[quote name=Rice Cube]Especially because Texas liked taking the ball from us all the time.[/quote].
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=dylanj]my money is on Garza to Det for Jacob Turner and prospects[/quote]
Are you serious, Clark?
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=GW]based on what? do you think they are going after the fielder? the cubans?[/quote]
Based on a normal timeframe for teams with money to rebuild a ML roster. I’m not talking about the entire organization, but I think it’s reasonable to expect the Cubs to be fielding good teams by then. It’s my own speculation and not based on anything specific
RodrigoQuote Reply
[quote name=Dr. Aneus Taint].[/quote]Nah…after the second turnover I decided that Texas was probably going to win. Don’t really trust our QB and O-line that much. Cal hasn’t been that good since Aaron Rodgers left…QBs are shit, but the program does spit out some pretty good RBs.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
JIm Callis:
Like them both, but they’re yrs away. @miguelbenitez1: with all the Garza/#Jays talk what are your thoughts on Snydergaard & Nicolino?
MishQuote Reply
[quote name=Rodrigo]Based on a normal timeframe for teams with money to rebuild a ML roster. I’m not talking about the entire organization, but I think it’s reasonable to expect the Cubs to be fielding good teams by then. It’s my own speculation and not based on anything specific[/quote]
I don’t see it. Seems like they are waiting on free agents until they can supplement the homegrown talent, and the homegrown talent either sucks or is nowhere near ready.
GWQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]I may be alone in this, but I don’t think Edgar belongs in the HOF. He was so bad at fielding that he couldn’t play it. He was a poor baserunner. He was a double play machine (-20 runs in his career). A great hitter and he was quite valuable. He made up for his uselessness elsewhere by being awesome at the plate, but my HOF players would be way more balanced than Edgar was.
I didn’t agree a few years ago, but the same arguments can be made regarding Mark McGwire. At leas the played the field.[/quote]Not sure that I agree, but there’s something to be said for this view. Fangraphs only has his baserunning stats for his final 3 years, but he cost his team a whopping 17 runs on the bases in that short time. The number of runs he cost over his career could be truly staggering (even accounting for the likelihood that he wasn’t as bad in his prime).
ACTQuote Reply
[quote name=GW]I don’t see it. Seems like they are waiting on free agents until they can supplement the homegrown talent, and the homegrown talent either sucks or is nowhere near ready.[/quote]
They have too much money for it to take 5 years. Even if they don’t sign a major FA this year, they’re getting a ton of money off the books this year and next. I expect them to throw a nice chunk at Soler, and maybe the older Cuban too, because the IFA rules are changing next year. Once they get rid of Zambrano and Dempster, I think they’ll be ready to add a couple more long term contracts if necessary, and I don’t expect Soriano to be on the team in 2013, even if that means he’s released.
Recalcitrant Blogger NateQuote Reply
[quote name=Mish]What would you say about guys like Brooks Robinson or Ozzie Smith, Hall of Famers with OPS+ < 100? They are basically in there for one dimension of their games…[/quote]Well, Brooks' OPS+ is actually 104. Both Brooks and Ozzie were very useful offensive players when you take position (and in Ozzie's case, baserunning) into account. Both have a career oWAR of over 40 (that is, WAR only taking offense and position adjustment into account, ignoring defensive stats).
ACTQuote Reply
To put it another way, if Brooks and Ozzie were both average defenders, they still would have been very good players (though not HOF-ers).
ACTQuote Reply
[quote name=Recalcitrant Blogger Nate]They have too much money for it to take 5 years. Even if they don’t sign a major FA this year, they’re getting a ton of money off the books this year and next. I expect them to throw a nice chunk at Soler, and maybe the older Cuban too, because the IFA rules are changing next year. Once they get rid of Zambrano and Dempster, I think they’ll be ready to add a couple more long term contracts if necessary, and I don’t expect Soriano to be on the team in 2013, even if that means he’s released.[/quote]
don’t get me wrong, i think they could, but all the signs seem to be pointing in the other direction. I think keeping garza makes a ton of sense if they plan to compete again in 2-3 years, yet they have been aggressively trying to dump him all offseason. cespedes would be a good indicator in the opposite direction (but not soler), as would credible fielder pursuit rumors
GWQuote Reply
[quote name=GW]don’t get me wrong, i think they could, but all the signs seem to be pointing in the other direction. I think keeping garza makes a ton of sense if they plan to compete again in 2-3 years, yet they have been aggressively trying to dump him all offseason. cespedes would be a good indicator in the opposite direction (but not soler), as would credible fielder pursuit rumors[/quote]
I think they’re targetting ML ready pitchers for Garza, which to me could still allow them to compete by 2013-14. The 2013 rotation would be (in no order): Wood, Wells, McGuire/Turner/Betances (whoever tehy get in trade), McNutt, Cashner, plus Hamels, Greinke, Marcum and Cain are FA, so they’d grab one of those. Obviously some question marks, but also youth and upside. Sign Fielder and Cespedes this year, and your lineup is:
RF Dejesus
SS Castro
C Soto
1B Fielder
CF Jackson
LF Cespedes
3B FA?
2B surely someone will come out of the system by then
Not a bad team, still young and can easily improve through trades or other FA’s. Even if they don’t get Fielder, I’m guessing they end up with Rizzo or guy who is in ML by 2012. The other thing that will speed the rebuild is that the Cards, Reds, and Milwaukee are clearly going for it now, and will be turning over their rosters in 2 years.
Recalcitrant Blogger NateQuote Reply
[quote name=Mish]What would you say about guys like Brooks Robinson or Ozzie Smith, Hall of Famers with OPS+ < 100? They are basically in there for one dimension of their games…[/quote]Ozzie wasn't a good hitter, but he wasn't bad either. Edgar was such a bad fielder he couldn't even be asked to play a terrible 1st base. I love the DH. I hope the NL gets one at some point, but for me, the bar is raised for a DH getting into the HOF. Edgar just doesn't come close to that bar for me.
I don’t think Brooks Robinson should be in the HOF.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]I don’t think you’re alone; it’s going to be difficult for Edgar to make it in the HOF because he’s primarily a DH, but at least you’ve explained more in detail why you would keep Edgar out besides the default “he’s a DH” rationale.
I often thought he was so good at offense that it outweighed him being just a DH, though.[/quote]But it is really about him being a DH. I expressed it in different terms, but that’s what it boils down to. If he was a good baserunner or didn’t ground into double plays that much he would have been in the field. Since he was so bad at those it almost certainly meant he was a horrible fielder. As such, I want more than what Edgar provided for me to support him getting in. He’s a borderline candidate if we’re using his WAR as it already is. He’s at the 50/50 point.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Ozzie wasn’t a good hitter, but he wasn’t bad either. Edgar was such a bad fielder he couldn’t even be asked to play a terrible 1st base. I love the DH. I hope the NL gets one at some point, but for me, the bar is raised for a DH getting into the HOF. Edgar just doesn’t come close to that bar for me.
I don’t think Brooks Robinson should be in the HOF.[/quote]
Edgar is somewhere near 67+ WAR, right? I think that, given his peak, is enough for me. I’m not as concerned with how multi-faceted his value was. He would have the most substantial DH time of any HOFer (I think Molitor is around 43%). I assume Frank Thomas would clear your hurdle?
MishQuote Reply
[quote name=Recalcitrant Blogger Nate]I think they’re targetting ML ready pitchers for Garza, which to me could still allow them to compete by 2013-14. The 2013 rotation would be (in no order): Wood, Wells, McGuire/Turner/Betances (whoever tehy get in trade), McNutt, Cashner, plus Hamels, Greinke, Marcum and Cain are FA, so they’d grab one of those. Obviously some question marks, but also youth and upside. Sign Fielder and Cespedes this year, and your lineup is:
RF Dejesus
SS Castro
C Soto
1B Fielder
CF Jackson
LF Cespedes
3B FA?
2B surely someone will come out of the system by then
Not a bad team, still young and can easily improve through trades or other FA’s. Even if they don’t get Fielder, I’m guessing they end up with Rizzo or guy who is in ML by 2012. The other thing that will speed the rebuild is that the Cards, Reds, and Milwaukee are clearly going for it now, and will be turning over their rosters in 2 years.[/quote]
if they sign cespedes and fielder, i will change my tune. i just don’t expect them to.
GWQuote Reply
[quote name=GW]I don’t see it. Seems like they are waiting on free agents until they can supplement the homegrown talent, and the homegrown talent either sucks or is nowhere near ready.[/quote]That’s the same way I feel about it. I really don’t think the Cubs will see contention for at least 5 years. I suppose they could get lucky, but I wouldn’t bet on it.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]
I don’t think Brooks Robinson should be in the HOF.[/quote]OK, now this is going too far.
ACTQuote Reply
[quote name=Mish]Edgar is somewhere near 67+ WAR, right? I think that, given his peak, is enough for me. I’m not as concerned with how multi-faceted his value was. He would have the most substantial DH time of any HOFer (I think Molitor is around 43%). I assume Frank Thomas would clear your hurdle?[/quote]He’s another one I wouldn’t vote for, but I think he has a better case than Edgar does.
mb21Quote Reply
Brooks Robinson has the same OPS+ as Keith Moreland.
GBTSQuote Reply
[quote name=ACT]To put it another way, if Brooks and Ozzie were both average defenders, they still would have been very good players (though not HOF-ers).[/quote]I agree with this. They weren’t one dimensional players.
Regarding Brooks, he’s just not someone I would vote for, but that’s based only on stats.
mb21Quote Reply
Brooks was better than Santo, and third basemen are under-represented (compared to other positions) anyway.
ACTQuote Reply
[quote name=GW]don’t get me wrong, i think they could, but all the signs seem to be pointing in the other direction. I think keeping garza makes a ton of sense if they plan to compete again in 2-3 years, yet they have been aggressively trying to dump him all offseason. cespedes would be a good indicator in the opposite direction (but not soler), as would credible fielder pursuit rumors[/quote]Yeah, trading Garza means you don’t have much intention of contending in the next 3 to 5 years. I can’t get over Theo’s comment about needing a farm system that is developing impact talent on a year basis and THEN investing in free agents. I think he told us on Day One that this team wasn’t contending for 5 years.
Take the 2009 Draft as an example. The Cubs grabbed Brett Jackson in the 1st round and he was a 3-year college player. It’s 3 years later and he’s likely to begin the year in AAA. The guys they drafted in 2011 were mostly high school players (the top shelf talent anyway). These guys are 4 years away at the very least. They don’t have much other than Jackson until that draft class is close to ready.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=GW]if they sign cespedes and fielder, i will change my tune. i just don’t expect them to.[/quote]Signing Cespedes scares me. I loved that video as much as anyone else, but you could make a kick ass awesome video of Darwin Barney hitting BP fastballs and working out. He’s 26 and the Cuban league is the equivalent of A ball. How excited would anyone around here be if I told you the Cubs had this awesome prospect in A ball and then told you he was 26? It would be nice to see them spend some money, but I have a feeling that’s going to be a complete waste of resources.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]That’s the same way I feel about it. I really don’t think the Cubs will see contention for at least 5 years. I suppose they could get lucky, but I wouldn’t bet on it.[/quote]THat’s the likelihood but I think they are looking at 2013/14. The goal now is to restock the farm system(Hoyer/McLeoud did in 2 years while in SD) and look at adding FA where necessary/possible.
JManQuote Reply
[quote name=ACT]Brooks was better than Santo, and third basemen are under-represented (compared to other positions) anyway.[/quote]Brooks played a hell of a lot longer than Santo did and he played without diabetes.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Yeah, trading Garza means you don’t have much intention of contending in the next 3 to 5 years. I can’t get over Theo’s comment about needing a farm system that is developing impact talent on a year basis and THEN investing in free agents. I think he told us on Day One that this team wasn’t contending for 5 years.
Take the 2009 Draft as an example. The Cubs grabbed Brett Jackson in the 1st round and he was a 3-year college player. It’s 3 years later and he’s likely to begin the year in AAA. The guys they drafted in 2011 were mostly high school players (the top shelf talent anyway). These guys are 4 years away at the very least. They don’t have much other than Jackson until that draft class is close to ready.[/quote]
this.
GWQuote Reply
I think after 2012 a lot of impact pitching goes on the market. Cubs might invest in that but you have to pray that a lot of them don’t sign extensions with their present teams.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=JMan]THat’s the likelihood but I think they are looking at 2013/14. The goal now is to restock the farm system(Hoyer/McLeoud did in 2 years while in SD) and look at adding FA where necessary/possible.[/quote]I hope you’re right. That would make me happy, but I’ll be surprised.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Signing Cespedes scares me. I loved that video as much as anyone else, but you could make a kick ass awesome video of Darwin Barney hitting BP fastballs and working out. He’s 26 and the Cuban league is the equivalent of A ball. How excited would anyone around here be if I told you the Cubs had this awesome prospect in A ball and then told you he was 26? It would be nice to see them spend some money, but I have a feeling that’s going to be a complete waste of resources.[/quote]
yeah, it’s definitely a scout-heavy decision. i’ll be surprised if they make a serious run at him.
GWQuote Reply
If the top prospects from last year didn’t melt this past season I might see 2014 as a realistic year they could contend, but 16 or 18 of the top 10 on Sickels’ list had shitty seasons. Most of them were unworthy of being in a top prospects lists and most of them now shouldn’t even qualify. 2011 was the worst year I’ve seen Cubs prospects have since I started following them almost a decade ago. Even the breakout candidate they had early on ended up having TJS.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=GW]yeah, it’s definitely a scout-heavy decision. i’ll be surprised if they make a serious run at him.[/quote]I don’t think they will either and I’m kind of glad about that. Soler interests me, but mostly because he’s younger and a lot cheaper.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]If the top prospects from last year didn’t melt this past season I might see 2014 as a realistic year they could contend, but 16 or 18 of the top 10 on Sickels’ list had shitty seasons. Most of them were unworthy of being in a top prospects lists and most of them now shouldn’t even qualify. 2011 was the worst year I’ve seen Cubs prospects have since I started following them almost a decade ago. Even the breakout candidate they had early on ended up having TJS.[/quote]It’s a way of (L)ife.
MishQuote Reply
[quote name=ACT]Brooks was better than Santo, and third basemen are under-represented (compared to other positions) anyway.[/quote]
Not sure how you come to that consensus. The stats say otherwise. Other than Robinson playing longer and a touch better defensively his offense pales compared to Santos.
PinetarQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Brooks played a hell of a lot longer than Santo did and he played without diabetes.[/quote]Yup. But I don’t care about what-if scenarios. Brooks helped his team by staying healthy and getting a ton of at-bats.
ACTQuote Reply
[quote name=Pinetar]Not sure how you come to that consensus. The stats say otherwise. Other than Robinson playing longer and a touch better defensively his offense pales compared to Santos.[/quote]Exactly. Longevity matters of course, but so does the reason one was unable to play very long.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=ACT]Yup. But I don’t care about what-if scenarios. Brooks helped his team by staying healthy and getting a ton of at-bats.[/quote]That’s true. I’m not arguing he wasn’t a valuable player. He was. He was a very, very good ballplayer, but he wouldn’t be in my HOF.
mb21Quote Reply
(dying laughing) …of the top 20
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21](dying laughing) …of the top 20[/quote]So the Cubs have half-prospects now?
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Pinetar]Not sure how you come to that consensus. The stats say otherwise. Other than Robinson playing longer and a touch better defensively his offense pales compared to Santos.[/quote]It’s possible they are closer defensive than I think (both played before my time). Still, Brooks had a reputation of being the best defensive third baseman and comes out far ahead of Santo in FRAA and TZ. Brooks leads Santo in rWAR, fWAR and WARP, largely because of the playing time. Santo had a better peak, but I think Brooks comes out ahead for his career.
ACTQuote Reply
Some of these reclamation projects might work out too. I’m not saying that Stewart or Corpas or DeJesus are going to end up being long-term members of the team, but some of them could be. The Cubs are in the position now of going after these guys the market is undervaluing and throwing a bunch of shit against the wall to see what sticks. If they pan out, great and they can possibly be a part of the rebuild. If not, no big deal.
Maybe they never find another Ryan Dempster, but if they do, it could speed up the rebuild process. If they can put a halfway decent team together just by piecing together value players amongst the few guys from the Cubs system that might be worth a damn in the next couple of years, the Cubs have the money to go and supplement with some better talent free agents.
I don’t think Tom Ricketts can be on board with a full 5 year rebuild. I don’t think even he is so delusional as to think that people are going to continue playing Red Sox/Yankee prices for 60-70 wins a year. Cubs fans are stupid, but part of what got people out to Wrigley when the team sucked was that it was halfway affordable. That isn’t true anymore.
I like that they aren’t just slapping some easy fixes together by tossing money around because they can, but the fact remains that they do have the money and they can use it as their competitive advantage against the rest of the division.
Aisle424Quote Reply
I think I estimated the Cubs had a 5 year buffer on their wait list assuming everything went wrong back in 2009. Well we are now entering year 3 of just about everything going wrong on the baseball side.
Aisle424Quote Reply
This is important, but you have to have a solid core for that to be effective. As we’ve seen, you need productive players making small amounts of money for it to pay off to go after high priced free agents. What I just don’t see is a core of talent that is going to enable the Cubs to do that any time soon.
Castro is a good player and should improve, but this is his last year at league minimum. If we accept they won’t contend this year or even next year, we’re looking at Castro making $5-10 million in 2014 and more after that. Hopefully Brett Jackson pans out. Maybe Trey McNutt can have a rebound season, but other than those 3, there’s really no cheap core to build around. And Castro won’t be cheap much longer.
mb21Quote Reply
Yeah, not dirt cheap, but cheap by MLB standards.
What if we were optimistic about what Soriano, Dempster, and Zambrano could do for this team? We’re paying them for about 11 wins or so, what if they were actually worth that like a theoretical fresh free agent signing would be expected to be? Then all of a sudden you have a decent core that is certainly good enough to compete in the NL Central and at this point in the Cubs’ development, that’s all you need. Just get them in competition for that division without selling your damn soul on free agents and having absolutely nothing to fill in from the system, which is pretty much how they’ve been going to the playoffs every 5 years or so since the Trib took over.
Aisle424Quote Reply
I disagree on Cespedes, mb. A few years ago when Chapman came over from Cuba, we all complained that the Cubs didn’t at least take a risk on him. The Reds got him for 6/30M. Sure, he could have been a bust, and may only turn out to be a somewhat elite LH reliever (thats more the Reds fault tho), but over a 6 year term (his peak) that’s the kind of risk big market clubs should be taking. If they get him for 45M, that’s a 7.5M AAV. He’d only have to be league average to be worth more than his contract, and if like some scout believe, he can stick in CF, that should be easy. He of course could bust and look like Tyler Colvin, but that’s a risk big market clubs should use their advantage to take. In part because you rarely if ever find players with that high a ceiling who are that close to ML. Start him in AAA, or if 2012 is a lost year, let him play everyday in LF and make his adjustments. It just seems like 3 years ago when Chapman floated up on the inner-tube, everyone was singing a different tune.
Recalcitrant Blogger NateQuote Reply
Padres beat writer being summarized on MLBTR.
Recalcitrant Blogger NateQuote Reply
[quote name=Recalcitrant Blogger Nate]Padres beat writer being summarized on MLBTR.[/quote]Who on earth would the Rays want from CHC?
Perhaps Barney? Seeing as they are supposedly interested in Theriot?
Suburban kidQuote Reply
Also:
Suburban kidQuote Reply
I dont really want to trade Garza since i think he is a player winning teams keep but it might be necesarry to bring back the required talent.
If i could choose any package i would go with Jesus montero. That is who i wantmore than anything
bubblesdachimpQuote Reply
Have any Cubs beat writers done any work at all since the winter meetings?
I haven’t seen anything bubble up through here, but I suppose everyone else could have stopped seeking out their shit like me.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
[quote name=Suburban kid]Who on earth would the Rays want from CHC?
Perhaps Barney? Seeing as they are supposedly interested in Theriot?[/quote]What about Soto?
I also kinda agree with MB about Cespedes. I do want to invest myself (i want to win damnit!!!) But if he did those numbers in America we would all say the same shit that he was too old for his competition. Howeve if Theo and Hoyer want him I will blindly trust them
bubblesdachimpQuote Reply
[quote name=Suburban kid]Who on earth would the Rays want from CHC?
Perhaps Barney? Seeing as they are supposedly interested in Theriot?[/quote]
I was thinking Soto
Recalcitrant Blogger NateQuote Reply
[quote name=Recalcitrant Blogger Nate]I was thinking Soto[/quote]Yeah this. Catcher, MIF, and 1B are the only spots they really need, and they could probably live with Rodriguez as one of those infielders (if just for his glove). I guess they need a DH but I don’t see them looking at any Cubs players in that regard. They don’t need starters and I doubt they would overvalue someone like Marmol.
MishQuote Reply
I think Tampa will flip Rizzo for Nolasco.
Aisle424Quote Reply
[quote name=Suburban kid]Have any Cubs beat writers done any work at all since the dawn of time?
[/quote]
No.
Aisle424Quote Reply
[quote name=Aisle424]No.[/quote]Correct
Suburban kidQuote Reply
[quote name=Recalcitrant Blogger Nate]I disagree on Cespedes, mb. A few years ago when Chapman came over from Cuba, we all complained that the Cubs didn’t at least take a risk on him. The Reds got him for 6/30M. Sure, he could have been a bust, and may only turn out to be a somewhat elite LH reliever (thats more the Reds fault tho), but over a 6 year term (his peak) that’s the kind of risk big market clubs should be taking. If they get him for 45M, that’s a 7.5M AAV. He’d only have to be league average to be worth more than his contract, and if like some scout believe, he can stick in CF, that should be easy. He of course could bust and look like Tyler Colvin, but that’s a risk big market clubs should use their advantage to take. In part because you rarely if ever find players with that high a ceiling who are that close to ML. Start him in AAA, or if 2012 is a lost year, let him play everyday in LF and make his adjustments. It just seems like 3 years ago when Chapman floated up on the inner-tube, everyone was singing a different tune.[/quote]Aroldis Chapman was 21 year old while Cespedes is 26. Chapman was going to sign for about $25 to $30 million while the numbers being rumored for Cespedes range from $50 to $60 million. If the price drops to $30 million then I’m fine with it. I’d like them to go after Soler, but I want nothing to do with a guy who will be making nearly $10 million per year and has never played a game higher than A ball.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Aisle424]Yeah, not dirt cheap, but cheap by MLB standards.
What if we were optimistic about what Soriano, Dempster, and Zambrano could do for this team? We’re paying them for about 11 wins or so, what if they were actually worth that like a theoretical fresh free agent signing would be expected to be? Then all of a sudden you have a decent core that is certainly good enough to compete in the NL Central and at this point in the Cubs’ development, that’s all you need. Just get them in competition for that division without selling your damn soul on free agents and having absolutely nothing to fill in from the system, which is pretty much how they’ve been going to the playoffs every 5 years or so since the Trib took over.[/quote]Except you really need that 11 wins coming from cost controlled players. Here’s an example of what I mean. Replacement level is a .300 winning percentage (48.6 wins). If we were to say you have to get to 85 wins to be considered a contender entering the season, the team would need to add 36.4 wins. If you bought all those wins on the free agent market it would cost the team $182 million and that’s only getting you to 85 wins. If 11 of those wins were coming from cost-controlled players, you could get to 85 wins and have a payroll at about $130 million.
In 2008 the Cubs offense got 11.2 fWAR from cost-controlled players. They added 3.7 pitching. This doesn’t include negative WAR. The 2008 Cubs were so damn good because they got 15 wins from cost-controlled players. They entered the season as 90+ win team with a pretty high payroll, but they were that good because they had good young players.
The problem with the 2008 team’s young players is that only Geovany Soto, Carlos Marmol and Sean Marshall had long-term value to the Cubs. Two of them were relievers. So in 2009 they went back to having little to no contribution from cost-controlled players.
In the near future the Cubs might have Castro, Jackson, McNutt and maybe one or two guys they trade for. That’s best case scenario. Is that good enough?
I think best case scenario is this team could be contending again about the time the 2011 Draft class begins to reach the big leagues. I’m mostly talking about Javier Baez, Prince Blanco, and Dillon Maples. Those guys are all very young and a long way away from the big leagues. An ETA of 2016 would be nice, but I’d guess it’s closer to 2017 and probably a year later before they’re productive at the big league level. That’s if they all work out.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Mish]Yeah this. Catcher, MIF, and 1B are the only spots they really need[/quote]Then it’s gotta be Bryan LaHair. (dying laughing)
mb21Quote Reply
http://www.tampabay.com/sports/baseball/rays/tampa-bay-rays-evan-longoria-on-twitter-trade-talk-completely-false/1208292
So the Rays beat writer took on the rumor as submitted by Scott swaim. I think this is the first time I have seen an Internet rumor directly quoted from instead of being referred to as an “Internet rumor”..
JManQuote Reply
Sounds to me like this Swaim guy is a fraud.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Mish]Yeah this. Catcher, MIF, and 1B are the only spots they really need, and they could probably live with Rodriguez as one of those infielders (if just for his glove). I guess they need a DH but I don’t see them looking at any Cubs players in that regard. They don’t need starters and I doubt they would overvalue someone like Marmol.[/quote]Weren’t the rays rumored tongue interes in Soriano if the cubs essentially paid all but a few million of his freight? He has value as a DH due to his power.
JManQuote Reply
[quote name=JMan]Weren’t the rays rumored tongue interes in Soriano if the cubs essentially paid all but a few million of his freight? He has value as a DH due to his power.[/quote]
Autocorrect or the kinkiest post every happened to this blog.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Sounds to me like this Swaim guy is a fraud.[/quote]Or just slightly more connected than Chicago beat writers. The guy is probably legit but is going to need to be right about every rumored deal for the next several offseasons before being taken seriously.
JManQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]Autocorrect or the kinkiest post every happened to this blog.[/quote]Or just outing the entire Rays front office.
JManQuote Reply
[quote name=JMan]Or just outing the entire Rays front office.[/quote]Well, they *are* a progressive organization.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
hoyer and wife had a baby: namerd it beckett.
bubblesdachimpQuote Reply
[quote name=bubblesdachimp]hoyer and wife had a baby: namerd it beckett.[/quote]Compensation for Theo.
MishQuote Reply
Love it Mish… Love it…
bubblesdachimpQuote Reply
Melvin Mora ———-> retirement
mb21———> didn’t even know he was still playing
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Mish]Compensation for Theo.[/quote]Compensation = firstborn child? (dying laughing)
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Seriously i hate josh beckett more than any player ever. hope he gets bitten by an aids infected alligator
bubblesdachimpQuote Reply
That’s probably not best case scenario. Best case scenario is more than a few of their value reclamation projects become useful members of the team – like DeJesus becoming a 3-4 win player for a few years.
So it is going to take luck, but that can happen if they put the pieces together smartly and don;t fall in love with their lucky teams. I’ve gotten so used to the Cubs doing stupid shit like giving Gaetti the starting 3rd baseman job based on his lucky 2nd half of ’98 that I actually cringe when a guy like Reed Johnson shows up and starts to actually perform above expectations. I don’t worry as much that will happen with the Cubs. I expect some of these guys will outperform their lowered projections, and the Superfriends will know when to sell high, thus turning some of these veteran pieces into younger pieces along the way of being halfway watchable.
I’m not saying it will be easy, or that a certain amount of luck won’t be involved, but these Cubs may take some good luck at the table and cash out, while Hendry would keep letting it ride on black 17.
Aisle424Quote Reply
[quote name=Aisle424]That’s probably not best case scenario. Best case scenario is more than a few of their value reclamation projects become useful members of the team – like DeJesus becoming a 3-4 win player for a few years.
So it is going to take luck, but that can happen if they put the pieces together smartly and don;t fall in love with their lucky teams. I’ve gotten so used to the Cubs doing stupid shit like giving Gaetti the starting 3rd baseman job based on his lucky 2nd half of ’98 that I actually cringe when a guy like Reed Johnson shows up and starts to actually perform above expectations. I don’t worry as much that will happen with the Cubs. I expect some of these guys will outperform their lowered projections, and the Superfriends will know when to sell high, thus turning some of these veteran pieces into younger pieces along the way of being halfway watchable.
I’m not saying it will be easy, or that a certain amount of luck won’t be involved, but these Cubs may take some good luck at the table and cash out, while Hendry would keep letting it ride on black 17.[/quote]
I’d say Travis Wood is a candidate to provide a couple of 3-win seasons while under club control, as likely would be at least 1 on the players who will come in return for Garza.
Recalcitrant Blogger NateQuote Reply
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
Is anyone watching the Baylor-Washington bowl?
Someone should remind the Big 12 that there is also a part of football entitled “defense”
/SEC fan
Recalcitrant Blogger NateQuote Reply
[quote name=Recalcitrant Blogger Nate]I’d say Travis Wood is a candidate to provide a couple of 3-win seasons while under club control, as likely would be at least 1 on the players who will come in return for Garza.[/quote]
I’d agree he is a candidate, and I’m not saying either or any of them WILL, but there is that possibility that the Cubs hit on a couple of guys just by dumb luck, and we know they are smarter than that.
Aisle424Quote Reply
Mb, I agree with you that the Cubs might not have a foundation for sustained success until 2016 or 2017. But to say the ML roster won’t be contending until then might be a little off.
RodrigoQuote Reply
I think we might be talking about two different things here. You’re right that they could turn a reclamation project into something valuable and that’s necessary too. I actually think the Cubs will be pretty good at that, but at the same time those aren’t the guys you’re going to build around. I think the Cubs could luck their ways into contention in a few years, but even Theo has said they want to be there every year. I think it’s going to take several years for that foundation to be built. The Cubs do have money, but they’re essentially building an organization from the ground up.
I hope you’re right, 424. I really do. I think the Cubs will get there. I’m just not as optimistic as some are that it’s going to happen within the next 5 years. It’s worth pointing out that one standard deviation in projected wins is about 11 so even if they could be a 75-win team entering the season they could win 90. That would be great, but it’s not really what I’m talking about. I’m talking more about the point at which the Cubs find themselves being contenders on annual basis. The point at which the season ends and we know that next year they’re going to be playing October baseball. This isn’t anything the Cubs have tried to do in the last 100 years.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Rodrigo]Mb, I agree with you that the Cubs might not have a foundation for sustained success until 2016 or 2017. But to say the ML roster won’t be contending until then might be a little off.[/quote]I realize now I wasn’t clear earlier and haven’t been all offseason, but that’s what I’m talking about. We’ve been Cubs fans for a long time and we’ve seen this organization reach the playoffs periodically. There’s no reason to think that won’t continue, but I’m focusing on how long it’s going to take them to reach the stated goal (annual contention).
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Recalcitrant Blogger Nate]I’d say Travis Wood is a candidate to provide a couple of 3-win seasons while under club control, as likely would be at least 1 on the players who will come in return for Garza.[/quote]This is where people will say that I hate prospects, but most of them fail. I’m sure I’m going to be excited by what they get in return, but it’s important to remember that what they do get in return is likely to fail. I’d say we can hope at least one of them is a 3-win player for at least a few years, but I wouldn’t say at least 1 of them. I would say 1 of them being that good is unlikely.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]This is where people will say that I hate prospects, but most of them fail. I’m sure I’m going to be excited by what they get in return, but it’s important to remember that what they do get in return is likely to fail. I’d say we can hope at least one of them is a 3-win player for at least a few years, but I wouldn’t say at least 1 of them. I would say 1 of them being that good is unlikely.[/quote]I think most fans realize that, but hey, you gotta start somewhere.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Seriously? 60-56 with 8 minutes to go in the game. Kinda boring actually. It’s like they’re playing against high school defenses
Recalcitrant Blogger NateQuote Reply
Bulls win!
bubblesdachimpQuote Reply
(dying laughing) @ lack of defense in Alamo Bowl
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Recalcitrant Blogger Nate]Someone should remind the Big 12 that there is also a part of football entitled “defense”
/SEC fan[/quote]
Someone like Cal?
Next year, I’ll put Texas’ defense up against any in the SEC.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/12/al-west-notes-pujols-wilson-balfour-kata.html
*spit take*
ACTQuote Reply
I’m really looking forward to the next month in review; the first two were hilarious.
joshQuote Reply
[quote name=josh]I’m really looking forward to the next month in review; the first two were hilarious.[/quote]March 2011. Did it even happen?
Flip NolascoQuote Reply
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/is-byrd-the-word-for-washington/
MishQuote Reply
MishQuote Reply
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
[quote name=ACT]http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/12/al-west-notes-pujols-wilson-balfour-kata.html *spit take*[/quote]They better win now, because in 8 years they won’t be able to afford replacement players. (dying laughing)
AndCountingQuote Reply
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]
[/quote]Probably one of the dwarfs. Judging by the size of the box, I’d say Stubby.
AndCountingQuote Reply
I used Tango’s method to calculate how much Fielder would be worth over a various number of years. I’m using the starting point of 6 years and $120 million as that’s what he’s worth.
Year Per Year total
6 20 120
7 19 133
8 18 144
9 17 153
10 16 160
11 15 165
12 14 168
13 13 169
It just reverses at that point. The most money I think any team should pay Fielder is $169 million and that’s over 13 seasons. (dying laughing) And there’s no way in hell you’d ever consider that.
Whoever signs him is going to regret it if the figures being thrown around are accurate.
Fielder is actually better off taking a 3 or 4 year deal if he really thinks he’s worth that much money. At the end of that contract we’d have a much better idea how he’ll age into his 30s. Right now we just have to assume he’s not going to age well.
mb21Quote Reply
Whose long-term health and performance is more difficult to project at this point: Fielder’s or the economy’s?
AndCountingQuote Reply
FUCK…my head hurts.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]
FUCK…my head hurts.[/quote]Dehydration can cause that.
AndCountingQuote Reply
[quote name=AndCounting]Dehydration can cause that.[/quote]Amazingly, there is still water in Lake Michigan.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]Amazingly, there is still water in Lake Michigan.[/quote]I think something like 25% of the world’s freshwater is in the Great Lakes. And since those calculations look like they’re for total water and not freshwater, I’d say we should have dried up before Jesus came.
AndCountingQuote Reply
[quote name=Flip Nolasco]March 2011. Did it even happen?[/quote]The OV interns have been a little slow digging up the links, but I got my whip out this morning. That should move the process along.
Aisle424Quote Reply
[quote name=AndCounting]I think something like 25% of the world’s freshwater is in the Great Lakes. And since those calculations look like they’re for total water and not freshwater, I’d say we should have dried up before Jesus came.[/quote]It’s worse than that. Did you know that other animals besides humans drink water?
ACTQuote Reply
[quote name=Aisle424]The OV interns have been a little slow digging up the links, but I got my whip out this morning. That should move the process along.[/quote]
fang2415Quote Reply
[quote name=ACT]It’s worse than that. Did you know that other animals besides humans drink water?[/quote]Yes, but they don’t use toilets. That’s where the real water gets used up.
AndCountingQuote Reply
[quote name=Aisle424]The OV interns have been a little slow digging up the links, but I will whip it out this morning. That should move the process along.[/quote]
Indeed.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
Merry Christmas, photoshoppers:
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
Just got a letter from the Cubs inviting me to select my 2012 season ticket seats. I honestly forgot I signed up on the wait list. I’m guessing it was somewhere around 2004…
How they found my new address is a whole different question.
26.2cubsfanQuote Reply
[quote name=AndCounting]Whose long-term health and performance is more difficult to project at this point: Fielder’s or the economy’s?[/quote](dying laughing) I think the next few years are relatively easy to project for Fielder so I’d say the economy. After that it might be Fielder.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=26.2cubsfan]Just got a letter from the Cubs inviting me to select my 2012 season ticket seats. I honestly forgot I signed up on the wait list. I’m guessing it was somewhere around 2004…
Who owns the Cubs is a whole different question.[/quote].
Aisle424Quote Reply
[quote name=26.2cubsfan]Just got a letter from the Cubs inviting me to select my 2012 season ticket seats. I honestly forgot I signed up on the wait list. I’m guessing it was somewhere around 2004…
How they found my new address is a whole different question.[/quote]It’s pretty amazing how quickly they are burning through that list. It used to be easier to get a table at Trotter’s than to get a call from the Cubs about season tix. Not so sure that’s the case any more.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
[quote name=Aisle424].[/quote]And let’s not even mention the unfathomable question of where the Silva money is going.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]And let’s not even mention the unfathomable question of where the Silva money is going.[/quote]I heard it could be going to Washington.
AndCountingQuote Reply
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]It’s pretty amazing how quickly they are burning through that list. It used to be easier to get a table at Trotter’s than to get a call from the Cubs about season tix. Not so sure that’s the case any more.[/quote]
Gotta be the pricing – when tickets were cheaper people didn’t mind paying about 81x face value, even if they couldn’t make all the games. $3,800 for upper deck box seats? I can see how someone would decline renewals, especially if you have multiple tickets. I shudder to think what the nicer seats run.
26.2cubsfanQuote Reply
[quote name=26.2cubsfan]Gotta be the pricing – when tickets were cheaper people didn’t mind paying about 81x face value, even if they couldn’t make all the games. $3,800 for upper deck box seats? I can see how someone would decline renewals, especially if you have multiple tickets. I shudder to think what the nicer seats run.[/quote]Well, the pricing relative to the on-field product. People are willing to pay a premium for a product they can enjoy. Much less so for a mediocre-to-bad product. Not mention that the venue is closer to some Roman gladitorial shithole than a modern sports venue.
You want me to pay 4 grand to sit in a crumbling urine-soaked relic and watch Ian fucking Stewart bumble around 3B and Darwin Barney make Koyie Hill look like Hank Greenburg? No thanks.
But my tune just might change if you can at least give me some indication I could be sitting in that urine-soaked relic in late October. The Cubs problem seems to be they think because the team owners are so fucking agog over the urine-soaked relic, that they can just wave the urine-soaked relic in people’s faces and then those people will pay them 4 grand just for the privilege of sitting in that fucking heap. But the truth is that given the current state of the team and the current state of the economy, many more people are disinclined to succumb to the medieval charm of Wrigley Field.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Merry Christmas, photoshoppers:
Squint if you’re a faget.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Well, the pricing relative to the on-field product. People are willing to pay a premium for a product they can enjoy. Much less so for a mediocre-to-bad product. Not mention that the venue is closer to some Roman gladitorial shithole than a modern sports venue.
You want me to pay 4 grand to sit in a crumbling urine-soaked relic and watch Ian fucking Stewart bumble around 3B and Darwin Barney make Koyie Hill look like Hank Greenburg? No thanks.
But my tune just might change if you can at least give me some indication I could be sitting in that urine-soaked relic in late October. The Cubs problem seems to be they think because the team owners are so fucking agog over the urine-soaked relic, that they can just wave the urine-soaked relic in people’s faces and then those people will pay them 4 grand just for the privilege of sitting in that fucking heap. But the truth is that given the current state of the team and the current state of the economy, many more people are disinclined to succumb to the medieval charm of Wrigley Field.[/quote]The secondary market has to be a big factor, too. It’s not just the experience. Having season tickets used to be worth real money, too. This past season, season ticket holders who wanted to pawn their tickets off on StubHub might as well have been selling houses in downtown Gary.
AndCountingQuote Reply
[quote name=AndCounting]The secondary market has to be a big factor, too. It’s not just the experience. Having season tickets used to be worth real money, too. This past season, season ticket holders who wanted to pawn their tickets off on StubHub might as well have been selling houses in downtown Gary.[/quote]Well, there’s kind of a chicken-and-egg thing here. I tend to think the collapse of the secondary market was a downstream effect of which the post-2008 playoff collapse malaise was the cause. The demand for tickets lessened, and in 2009 the brokers took a bath. They stopped buying big lots of tickets, both from STH and the team. So you now had a surplus of tickets in both places. Then STH holders who used the sale of their tickets to games they did not attend to finance the games they did attend found themselves unable to work that strategy any longer and dropped their ST. And that gave the team an even larger surplus of tickets, with two markets having collapsed at once. And yet somehow this team still hit the 3 mil mark and averaged 90% for the season. When you look at it, it seems like Wrigley is operating on an almost unsustainable model. The Cubs are counting on selling a product at premium even as demand for that product has fallen off a cliff.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
A couple of Cubans:
http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/prospects/2011/12/cubs-sign-cuban-prospects-yasiel-balaguert-carlos-martinez/
AndCountingQuote Reply
Sounds like an excellent addition to the Tyoshahason Hoffolvinoegerbois continuum.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
Sorry to hear about your daughter, mb
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/12/01/man-hires-prostitute-and-his-daughter-turns-up-115875-23600938/
MishQuote Reply
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Well, there’s kind of a chicken-and-egg thing here. I tend to think the collapse of the secondary market was a downstream effect of which the post-2008 playoff collapse malaise was the cause. The demand for tickets lessened, and in 2009 the brokers took a bath. They stopped buying big lots of tickets, both from STH and the team. So you now had a surplus of tickets in both places. Then STH holders who used the sale of their tickets to games they did not attend to finance the games they did attend found themselves unable to work that strategy any longer and dropped their ST. And that gave the team an even larger surplus of tickets, with two markets having collapsed at once. And yet somehow this team still hit the 3 mil mark and averaged 90% for the season. When you look at it, it seems like Wrigley is operating on an almost unsustainable model. The Cubs are counting on selling a product at premium even as demand for that product has fallen off a cliff.[/quote]And as far as the Cubs are concerned, they don’t really feel it. Since their primary customers (STHs) are also sellers, it takes them quite awhile to be hurt by the dip in the market. It’s just that the secondary market has now become the primary market, more or less. But if they suck for another couple of years, the waiting list could evaporate, paid attendance will drop, and prices will have to as well. But they’re one pennant race away from rebuilding the reserves, I think.
AndCountingQuote Reply
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Sounds like an excellent addition to the Tyoshahason Hoffolvinoegerbois continuum.[/quote]
You were squinting when you typed that, weren’t you?
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
Someone needs to make a “Overhyped Middle-aged Cubs Prospect” Name Generator
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
[quote name=AndCounting]And as far as the Cubs are concerned, they don’t really feel it. Since their primary customers (STHs) are also sellers, it takes them quite awhile to be hurt by the dip in the market. It’s just that the secondary market has now become the primary market, more or less. But if they suck for another couple of years, the waiting list could evaporate, paid attendance will drop, and prices will have to as well. But they’re one pennant race away from rebuilding the reserves, I think.[/quote]
I think this is right. It’s just strange to think about how recession-proof the Cubs ticket market seems to be. They have a dip in STH renewals, the secondary market collapses and they manage to make up the difference by selling single market tix without a markdown. Baffling.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
[quote name=Dr. Aneus Taint]You were squinting when you typed that, weren’t you?[/quote]I’m sorry, you’ll have to type larger, I’m squinting as hard as I can and still can’t read it.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
Using the math that Scott Boras does, the Cubs attendance would be about 4.2 million in 2018 if they signed Fielder. http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/prince-fielder-agent-scott-boras-taking-time-finding-right-deal-for-superstar-free-agent-slugger-hot-stove-122811
Since that’s not possible, I’m thinking the Cubs should get a massive discount.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Using the math that Scott Boras does, the Cubs attendance would be about 4.2 million in 2018 if they signed Fielder. http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/prince-fielder-agent-scott-boras-taking-time-finding-right-deal-for-superstar-free-agent-slugger-hot-stove-122811
Since that’s not possible, I’m thinking the Cubs should get a massive discount.[/quote]You have to assume Marlon Byrd would win the MVP, too, if he could hit in front of Fielder.
AndCountingQuote Reply
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]I think this is right. It’s just strange to think about how recession-proof the Cubs ticket market seems to be. They have a dip in STH renewals, the secondary market collapses and they manage to make up the difference by selling single market tix without a markdown. Baffling.[/quote]
As long as that wait list exists and they can fill the gaps left by people giving up their seats, they will sell about 2.1 million tickets every year before they even sell one single game ticket. That is their buffer and they are exploiting it now to get the time they need to rebuild. The problem is they are now two years into pissing everyone off and about 2 months into the actual rebuild.
Aisle424Quote Reply
The Cubs cut the cost of the ticket slightly for next year. In my opinion that tells us more than anything else about what the Cubs think their attendance is likely to be. They don’t expect much of a drop and have adjusted the pricing so they could have the same revenue.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]The Cubs cut the cost of the ticket slightly for next year. In my opinion that tells us more than anything else about what the Cubs think their attendance is likely to be. They don’t expect much of a drop and have adjusted the pricing so they could have the same revenue.[/quote]
Not all tickets. Just the bleachers and the corners up in the 500 level and maybe some of the sections way under the upper deck. Basically, the seats that didn’t sell last year and are least owned by season ticket holders.
Plus, I don’t even think the cut was across the board, they lowered a few games to their lower tier of pricing, but I think they raised the highest profile games, so the net gain/loss by their “best customers” is right around zero.
Aisle424Quote Reply
(dying laughing)
Ouch.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=AndCounting]You have to assume Marlon Byrd would win the MVP, too, if he could hit in front of Fielder.[/quote]
You’d have to give that award to Carlos Silva, though.
BerseliusQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube](dying laughing)
Ouch.[/quote]While they’re at it, they should look for a fielder and a baserunner.
ACTQuote Reply
[quote name=ACT]While they’re at it, they should look for a fielder and a baserunner.[/quote](dying laughing)
mb21Quote Reply
We’re interested in Ryan Theriot, but we’re looking for a hitter, fielder and baserunner first. — Walt Jockety (dying laughing)
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]We’re interested in Ryan Theriot, but we’re looking for a hitter, fielder and baserunner first. — Walt Jockety (dying laughing)[/quote]It’s like they’re trying to make sure the last kid picked doesn’t feel too bad.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]It’s like they’re trying to make sure the last kid picked doesn’t feel too bad.[/quote]It’s almost like they’re trying to pay him less than league minimum.
Hey, Ryan, we’d really like to add you, but you suck at most everything that we typically pay players to do. Would you pay us to come work here?
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]It’s almost like they’re trying to pay him less than league minimum.
Hey, Ryan, we’d really like to add you, but you suck at most everything that we typically pay players to do. Would you pay us to come work here?[/quote]If that’s the case it sounds like the best Theriot can hope for is a minor league deal with an invite to spring training.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
The Pinstripe Bowl is being played in Yankee Stadium (just flipped around and found it on the interwebs). It must be nice to play football in a baseball stadium and be able to use both of the end zones.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]The Pinstripe Bowl is being played in Yankee Stadium (just flipped around and found it on the interwebs). It must be nice to accurately measure a baseball stadium to ensure a football field will fit and be able to use both of the end zones.[/quote].
mb21Quote Reply
@ Yankee stadium:
@ Wrigley:
What they probably should have tried:
So why didn’t they?
Rice CubeQuote Reply
It doesn’t fit that way. Apparently the only way a football field would fit at Wrigley was the way they put it for the NU game or the way the Bears used to have it configured up the left field line. They couldn’t do it the way t he Bears had it because they lost some field space since the days when they did that in their renovations, so they had to do it along the right field line.
It fit, but the Big Ten got scared about player safety having the back of the end zone as a brick wall, hence the playing one way thing they did.
Aisle424Quote Reply
Serious question here: I grew up a Redskins fan in NC. I now live in Philadelphia. A friend just offered me a free ticket to Redskins-Eagles on Sunday here in Philly. Wear the old Redskins hat and risk the abuse, or wear all neutral and secretly root for the Skins?
Recalcitrant Blogger NateQuote Reply
[quote name=Aisle424]It doesn’t fit that way. .[/quote]TWSS
Suburban kidQuote Reply
[quote name=Recalcitrant Blogger Nate]Serious question here: I grew up a Redskins fan in NC. I now live in Philadelphia. A friend just offered me a free ticket to Redskins-Eagles on Sunday here in Philly. Wear the old Redskins hat and risk the abuse, or wear all neutral and secretly root for the Skins?[/quote]Depends. Do you own brass knuckles?
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
[quote name=Aisle424]It doesn’t fit that way. Apparently the only way a football field would fit at Wrigley was the way they put it for the NU game or the way the Bears used to have it configured up the left field line. They couldn’t do it the way t he Bears had it because they lost some field space since the days when they did that in their renovations, so they had to do it along the right field line.
It fit, but the Big Ten got scared about player safety having the back of the end zone as a brick wall, hence the playing one way thing they did.[/quote]
The diagram above probably isn’t completely accurate then. I could see how that would affect plays to the back corners of each end zone as the guys would either slam into the brick wall or fall into the dugouts (dying laughing)
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Depends. Do you own brass knuckles?[/quote]
I would do whatever doesn’t get you killed.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Suburban kid]TWSS[/quote]FLAGGED
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Depends. Do you own brass knuckles?[/quote]
No, but i heard batteries were on sale at Target, so I went to buy some to throw back at the Eagles fans. That’s when I found out the rack was empty- all of them had already been purchased. Apparently someone let the word out that the halftime show was disabled children, and the Philly fans want to make sure to pelt them with batteries.
Recalcitrant Blogger NateQuote Reply
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Depends. Do you own firearms?[/quote].
MishQuote Reply
.[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]FLAGGED[/quote]
I know exactly who you are.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
Detroit looking at Garza. Time to go shopping!
http://www.minorleagueball.com/2011/10/30/2525941/detroit-tigers-top-20-prospects-for-2012
Rice CubeQuote Reply
When I heard they were having football at Wrigley, this is what I assumed they’d do:
When I found out otherwise (the day they realized it didn’t fucking work) I was shaking my head at how stupid they were.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Aisle424]It doesn’t fit that way. Apparently the only way a football field would fit at Wrigley was the way they put it for the NU game or the way the Bears used to have it configured up the left field line. They couldn’t do it the way t he Bears had it because they lost some field space since the days when they did that in their renovations, so they had to do it along the right field line.
It fit, but the Big Ten got scared about player safety having the back of the end zone as a brick wall, hence the playing one way thing they did.[/quote]How does it not fit having one end zone near home and the other out in CF? The alleys are what, 368? I’d think they could fit one in, but maybe I’m an idiot.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Recalcitrant Blogger Nate]Serious question here: I grew up a Redskins fan in NC. I now live in Philadelphia. A friend just offered me a free ticket to Redskins-Eagles on Sunday here in Philly. Wear the old Redskins hat and risk the abuse, or wear all neutral and secretly root for the Skins?[/quote]Based on what I’ve heard of Eagles fans, I’d wear neutral colors.
mb21Quote Reply
By the way, that’ll be the last of the serious questions today. One is enough.
mb21Quote Reply
If you look at Wrigley this way, you’d think there would be enough room.
But then you look at it like this and I think I see what 424 is saying.
mb21Quote Reply
^ Yeah, they would probably have maybe a millimeter of space between the corners of each end zone and the boundaries if they didn’t knock out a wall or section.
You’d think someone would have actually measured the field before they scheduled the game and did all the paperwork.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
It’s the extra three rows of seats they put in a few years ago that fucked it up for football.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
If you look at the field when the actual football field is on it, you can see it wouldn’t fit if it was pivoted to go from home to CF. From dugout to dugout is just not wide enough.
I’m amazed they played NFL games there for as long as they did.
Aisle424Quote Reply
[quote name=Aisle424]If you look at the field when the actual football field is on it, you can see it wouldn’t fit if it was pivoted to go from home to CF. From dugout to dugout is just not wide enough.
I’m amazed they played NFL games there for as long as they did.[/quote]
Where would Al have sat then?
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]
Where would Al have sat then?[/quote]
Aisle424Quote Reply
Rice CubeQuote Reply
http://literallyunbelievable.org/post/15026009031/top-ten-facebook-reactions-to-the-onion-of-2011-part-i
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]http://literallyunbelievable.org/post/15026009031/top-ten-facebook-reactions-to-the-onion-of-2011-part-i[/quote]OMG!!! Those storys our HORIBBLE! WHYYYY won;t the govirnment DOOOOOOO SOMTHINGGGGGG!!!
Aisle424Quote Reply
new shit: http://obstructedview.net/chicago-cubs/articles/is-brett-jackson-the-best-outfielder-on-the-cubs.html
mb21Quote Reply
Cot’s has a new site: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/
Aisle424Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]By the way, that’ll be the last of the serious questions today. One is enough.[/quote]don;t tell me what not to do
Recalcitrant Blogger NateQuote Reply