A wild blog post appears!
To paraphrase something Theo Epstein said during the 2015 playoffs*, whoever wins the World Series will prove the Right Way to Win and every other team will follow suit in the offseason. In 2016 the conventional wisdom has turned out to be having a relief ace or two that you can ride to death in the playoffs. Just witness that the Cardinals have jumped out in front to sign Brett Cecil to a 4/30 deal. Cecil is better than his 2016 numbers and front offices are way more numerate than in the Jim Hendry days, but I'd still think that teams might ask for a bit of a discount on a reliever who nearly posted a 4.00 ERA, whatever his BABIP/strand rate/HR per FB might be.
*I can't find the quote since "Theo Epstein World Series" was more or less googlebombed by some assholes this October
When it comes to filling the big, whiff of human garbage smelling hole left by Aroldis Chapman, the Cubs have a few options:
- Re-sign Chapman
- Sign Kenley Jansen
- Sign Mark Melancon
- Stay out of the high-end RP market
To be honest I'm leaning towards number four here myself, but I can take off my Randy Wells colored glasses for a second and note that while Rondon was a dominant reliver pre-injury, he has not looked good since returning. I thought Strop did look good but Joe obviously did not, given how he used him in the playoffs. If anything last year's team proved that depth was important, and it would be pretty interesting to peek into the alternate universe where someone else traded for Chapman and Strop and Rondon went down not long after. It's easy to say this now that the Cubs finally have that championship (dying laughing).
As far as the big names go, I thought when I started this that there was one clear option:
| Chapman | Jansen | Melancon | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 IP | 58 | 68.2 | 71.1 |
| 2016 ERA | 1.55 | 1.83 | 1.64 |
| 2016 FIP | 1.42 | 1.44 | 2.42 |
| 2016 xFIP | 1.92 | 2.41 | 2.99 |
| 2016 K% | 40.5% | 41.4% | 24.1% |
| 2016 BB% | 8.1% | 4.4% | 4.4% |
| 2016 K%-BB% | 32.4% | 37.0% | 19.6% |
| Age | 28 | 29 | 31 |
| Draft pick compensation | N | Y | N |
| DV arrests | 1 | 0 | 0 |
I think I'd still take Mark Melancon over both of those guys, but it's not quite as big of a gap as I thought. I'm too old to chase down the weak contact numbers on Melancon, but I bet they're pretty good considering how many cutters he throws. Normally I'd say he costs less too, but if this is a market where Brett Cecil is getting 4/30 and Chapman is looking for seven figures everyone is going to be overpaid. They might be able to get a good deal in the relative sense for Melancon though, considering that Chapman cost Gleyber Torres while Melancon cost a MLB-level relief pitcher and a live arm in A-ball at the trade deadline.
Working against Chapman, aside from whatever penalty you may feel his past actions might incur on the fanbase (again), is the chance that something could happen again off the field. But even aside from that there are enough questions on the field to balk at offering him a long term deal. While Chapman was more than game to go multiple innings in the playoffs, I still think it's something he's relatively uncomfotable with compared to guys like Jansen, Miller, etc. He was clearly gassed in game seven, though blame for that can certianly be spread around. And to be fair, Andrew Miller wasn't exactly himself by the end of that marathon of a series. Fanfuckingtastic story as it was, I don't think David Ross homers off a rested Miller. But I do think this is another shadow cast over Chapman, even if I'm engaging in some NYT-worthy innuendo here. Finally, as we've seen from time to time when Chapman does get gassed, he's much more hittable throwing 98-99 than most other relievers. The inexorable passage of time destroys all, and while Chapman is the youngest of the big three I think it's easy to see him having the biggest dropoff if he hits a setback.
Based on my extremely subjective eyeball norm, Jansen had much less of a problem with multiple innings when asked. He also came to pitching late so he may have more bullets left in his arm than most of these guys when they hit free agency. But he costs a draft pick to sign, and that is the kind of capital that this front office hates to part with. Everything has its price, and without the compensation he'd be the easy pick here. At least in this case the pick that the Cubs would stand to lose would be at the end of the first round, probably just before the pick they stand to get for Fowler if they don't resign him. Chances are they'll get the guy they want, though not two of them. Or the bonus pool money. If Fowler is not in their plans they could make a play here anyway.
My own preferences would be
1. No one (and re-sign Fowler)
2. Melancon
3. Jansen
(huge gap)
4. Chapman
Comments
I don’t think spending big money on RPs (or even medium-sized money in multi-year deals*) is a good idea, even if the entire profession of the RP is being redefined in 2017.
If we’re short, trade for the next Strop and Rondon and add them to the mix. Re-sign Cahill and Wood for reasonable money. Trade for a rental star RP at the deadline if available. Done deal sealed.
*lookin at you, Mike Remlinger and Bob Howry
SKQuote Reply
If it’s Fowler or one of these relievers, I’d go with Fowler, but I’m not sure why it’s one or the other. The Cubs are a large market team who have gone deep into the playoffs two years in a row, including a world series championship. I’m getting the same impression that the Cubs don’t have much to spend, which doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. I guess I don’t care which of the three relievers they sign or if they sign any of them. That being said, I’d much rather spend on one of these guys than give up half the farm system to acquire a similar talent at the deadline.
I’d probably put them in this order: Chapman, Melancon, Jansen. I think Jansen is the best of the three, but he’s going to cost more money and will cost the Cubs a first round pick.
dmick89Quote Reply
SK,
I know what you mean, and not signing any of them and working around the margins is still the top option for me. But I’m trying to step out of the “the Cubs need to get value on every deal” bubble a bit, since they can probably fill the entire infield with stacks of money and set it on fire and still make a profit after last year (dying laughing).
berseliusQuote Reply
One advantage the Cubs have over a lot of teams when valuing these relievers is that the Cubs are pretty good bets to reach the postseason in the coming years. That maximizes their value to the point where even 7-figures may not be an overpay.
dmick89Quote Reply
I’m still processing the fact that they won the WS. Maybe I’ll feel differently after I finish, but I was more happy about the NLCS win. I felt like they gave me something they owed me since 20013. #narcissism
I was OK with the team losing in the WS all the way up until they were up with a few outs to go. That moment when I let myself think they were going to win it.
RynoQuote Reply
https://twitter.com/UTmikeperrin/status/800728498428149761
WTF?
RynoQuote Reply
Pretty sure we had the same impression a year ago this time, only to find out otherwise in rather dramatic fashion.
For my part, I think it’s either the Cubs are old-fashioned and still believe in reliever volatility and not paying 30+ year-old OFs for their decline (though I think in Fowler’s case they should reconsider), and they are about to dazzle us with their discipline to these probably wise principles, or the rumors we’ve heard so far reflect the not-much that’s leaked so far to the mongers and sportswriters, and the Cubs have every intention of trying to either retain or land a 100+MM closer and keep Fowler once his market takes shape.
I seriously doubt it’s the Cubs can’t afford anything good.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
I think Chapman is looking for nine figures, though I expect he’ll only get eight. If it only takes seven and the Cubs don’t get him, the World Champion Superfriends will invoke invoke the wrath of the Chapman curse and never blow a save in game seven of the World Series again. I am not sure I want my children’s children’s children to never see that happen in their lifetimes.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Based on what we know, which admittedly isn’t much, I lean more toward the Cubs paying Jansen if they’re paying any reliever at all. I think they underestimated the controversy the Chapman move would generate (and I don’t really blame them for such, the DV story had pretty much faded up until the point he was traded; it is a little strange that it came roaring back just because he switched uniforms), and I imagine at this point the dollars plus the character issues plus the less-flexible routine he prefers have them on board the Jansen-or-bust train.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Interesting story :
I work with a pretty big Cubs fan who is also a very attractive woman. She went to Prism Saturday night with her husband and some friends, and at midnight Baez and Chapman came to the bar. Her husband dragged her over to meet them (she’s a huge Baez fan but didn’t want to embarrass herself). They ended up all hitting it off and stayed at that bar until 5am Sunday morning. Got a lot of pictures and said that Baez was super nice and personable in person. Chapman was also nice but not as outgoing (my coworker only speaks a little Spanish, though). Baez apparently picked up the tab at the end of the night.
Was glad to see that Baez is apparently delightful in person.
MylesQuote Reply
Why don’t we dispense with the nominal value of these contracts and just look at the number of wins above a stack of burning money.
Looking at things that way, Cecil’s contract is for 3.5₩ (because Won is the past tense of win, obvs), less than 1₩ a year. Chapman is looking for 11.5₩ over five or six. Jansen could probably be had for 10₩ over that kind of timeframe.
Of course, when looking at things this way, it’s important to consider the upside. Given current usage rates, the best case scenario for the actual value of Jansen or Chapman is two to three WASBM. That’s not a lot of surplus.
However, as DMick mentioned, the Cubs are more likely than any other team going to benefit from such a reliever’s services during the postseason, very possibly contributing a win when wins are the most scarce. Given the Cubs’ on-field abilities, I would prefer they go big for Jansen because he is the best.
The Yankees don’t achieve the heights they did in such short series without Rivera, even if he blew game seven versus the Dbags in 2001—a series the Yankees nearly stole despite a run differential of -21 at that point with four one-run wins—and three against the Red Sox in 2004. (It’s worth noting that since 2002 when I presume BS became a stat, those three blown saves where the only ones he had in the postseason—and they all came in that one series. Against the Red Sox. Choker. Three Bronx cheers for Mariano.)
ceruleanQuote Reply
My other idea about signing Rich Hill for the Sutter role still stands. Hill has been as lights out as anyone. I do believe that he would excel in that kind of role without aggravating the blisters to the extent he does as a starter. He and Edwards finishing out games two innings at a time would be huge, especially when factoring potential injuries to starting pitchers.
ceruleanQuote Reply
cerulean,
I like it, but I think Hill probably prefers to start, and will get paid plenty of money to start. Cubs would probably need to pay pretty heavy to convince him to be that 2-3 IP per appearance guy.
EdwinQuote Reply
Are the Bears better off simply trading their 1st round picks? Seems like they aren’t doing shit with them anyways.
EdwinQuote Reply
Smokestack Lightning,
Not signing Jansen is a bigger risk than not signing Fowler in my opinion. And what is the purpose of having money if not to manage risk? If they find out they have a Dellin Betances and an Andrew Miller as well, all the better.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Edwin,
If he averages an inning a game, that’s 162 IP, 50 more than he had last year. I think he could be convinced, especially when considering the Andrew Miller effect. It wouldn’t be a demotion put that way.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Are the Bears still a team? I thought they were disbanded when Lovie, Devin, Peanut, Urlacher, and others all died in that tragic plane crash.
ceruleanQuote Reply
I’m just completely floored that we’re talking about the same Rich Hill who lost the strike zone about eight years ago.
Baseball.
PerkinsQuote Reply
An important point that everybody seems to be overlooking: Jansen’s experience as a minor league backstop could make him an ideal candidate to be the Cubs’ third catcher next year.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
No argument from me on wanting a Jansen or Chapman and Fowler back. I’m all for spending the dollars and going into 2017 as the same dominant force the Cubs were in 2016.
But from the most prudent team-building perspective I can’t say it’s a bad move to let Fowler walk and pass on six figure closers either.
(dying laughing), so basically the Cubs can do no wrong this offseason.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Would still be behind Javy on the depth chart.
Rice in limboQuote Reply
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
berseliusQuote Reply
Hill is tons of fun to watch when he’s not facing your team (dying laughing). I think the Cubs should stay away, I think it’s safe to say that his injury history is a huge risk, whether he starts or he agrees to be Miller’d.
berseliusQuote Reply
I think not signing Fowler is probably the bigger risk because you have to get to the postseason first. I think they could probably do it without Fowler, but it would be easier with him. Jansen could potentially be worth more in the postseason. Sign them both in my opinion.
dmick89Quote Reply
wasn’t it rich hill that had all of those anxiety issues? seems like that kind of makeup would not thrive in an andrew miller-role. maybe i’m thinking of someone else though.
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
EnricoPallazzo,
not that i can recall. are you thinking of greinke?
GWQuote Reply
GW,
I do recall there was some speculation about that. I think “anxiety issues” was kind of the nice way of saying “he sucks” back then.
dmick89Quote Reply
I can confirm first-hand that sucking does lead to anxiety issues.
berseliusQuote Reply
Hill had extreme command/control issues, which people may have assumed was due to anxiety. Seems more like people simply trying to tie a narrative to the situation than an actual thing though.
EdwinQuote Reply
I always just assumed it was due to chronic back issues fucking with his mechanics.
berseliusQuote Reply
EnricoPallazzo,
GW,
Greinke and a kid from St Louis who tried to come back as an OF later. Think the 2nd guy blew a playoff game.
BVSQuote Reply
NSFW?
BVSQuote Reply
dmick89,
If the Cubs don’t make to the postseason, it isn’t because they didn’t sign Fowler. However, a shutdown guy like Jansen pays off in the postseason.
But why choose—sign them both!
ceruleanQuote Reply
Given the paucity of starters on the market, he will likely be priced higher than he should be given his age and injury history. However, the guy was worth nearly four wins above sacks of burning money in a scant 110 IP. I’d say that he gets a max of 6₩ for at least three years. He could be worth double that in just 400 IP. Maybe he only gets to 300 IP—9 WASBM is still a pretty decent bet.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Sign all of the Free Agents.
Nuclear holocaust don’t give a shit.
ceruleanQuote Reply
BVS,
Ankiel
dmick89Quote Reply
Edwin,
They’re not as bad as Cleveland…
Hasn’t Leonard Floyd been pretty decent this year? I figured he wouldn’t really contribute until next year.
I know Long at least had been good. White and Fuller not doing anything for you?
RynoQuote Reply
Ryno,
Fuller hasn’t really done much since that one 49ners game his rookie year. He’s decent enough that he’s not a total disaster, but otherwise he’s been a pretty quiet player. And this year he’s been hurt all season.
White seemed to show some flashes earlier as to why the Bears thought so highly of him, and then immeadiately got injured for the season. I’m not too big on players coming out of college who miss 90% of their first two NFL seasons, especially when they were considered “projects” at the time of draft.
Floyd’s been playing better lately, although he’s still really one dimensional at this point. Now he’s probably going to miss the rest of the season, which could stunt his growth, and who knows how a guy comes back from injuries.
I think the last time the Bears drafted someone who went on to have a productive career for the Bears, it was Urlacher in 2000, or maybe Tommy Harris in 2004. Otherwise pretty much everyone else has been either traded, bad, or hurt. I guess Kyle Long is ok.
EdwinQuote Reply
So I still haven’t gotten any information about STH renewal/relocation and have been told it’s coming sometime in December; I get the feeling that a lot of the operations staff got a well-deserved holiday after the World Series. The timeline is behind last year’s by a few weeks. I’m also curious how much they’re going to hike ticket prices next season. Demand is going to be pretty high.
PerkinsQuote Reply
I have a source deep inside the Cubs and they said prices are going up “a fuckload.”
Hope this helps.
MylesQuote Reply
Myles,
I only have half a fuckload to my name.
dmick89Quote Reply
oh I was actually talking about Rich Hill, Missouri. Lotta anxiety issues there. Sorry for any confusion.
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
dmick89,
Global economists are currently concerned about a decrease in the forecasted supply of fuckloads, leaving many citizens with few or even zero fucks to give about anything.
EdwinQuote Reply
As long as I can resell most of them for “a fuckton,” then I should be okay.
PerkinsQuote Reply
That’s why I don’t like taking CBs in the first round. True lockdown corners are so rare. The best you can usually hope for is solid, consistent play.
RynoQuote Reply
So there’s apparently talk from the owners about locking out the players. A few points in the CBA negotiations are contentious.
That’s unexpected.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Perkins,
The cost of season tickets would be a lot less than a fuckload.
dmick89Quote Reply
Perkins,
Sounds as if the international draft is the main bone of contention.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Rizzo the Rat,
Yeah, the owners want that in exchange for giving up the QO system. I’d heard the JDA is another point of disagreement. Hard to believe any of that would outweigh the gravy train they’re all enjoying, though.
In any case, I’m glad the Cubs got the World Series out of the way this year.
PerkinsQuote Reply
They could possibly be as low as an assload.
PerkinsQuote Reply
SKQuote Reply
Given the context of the last month or two (Cubs-wise, not dystopian hellscape-wise), I’ve been listening to various Cubs podcasts. Enjoyable (Cubs won the World Series bitches) but so, so nerdy.
SKQuote Reply
Perkins,
I’m not even sure why we are seeing reports of a lockout when spring training doesn’t even start for almost four months. I’d be surprised if an extension isn’t worked out and I hope there’s no international draft.
dmick89Quote Reply
You’re a Raiders fan, aren’t you dmick? Am I remembering that right?
RynoQuote Reply
Ryno,
You are, though it’s been a long time since I gave a shit about them. I’ve watched parts of their last couple games. First time I’ve watched any NFL in a long time.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89,
Yeah, it’s a good time to be a Raiders fan. They did a great job of building that team to this point and they could end up running that division for a few years.
RynoQuote Reply
Best homepage on the W.W.W. to buy Cubs merch?
SKQuote Reply
I’d ask jeeves.
MylesQuote Reply
Myles,
Lycos, AltaVista and Dogpile ftw
SKQuote Reply
Myles,
You know when your kid wants that one beanie that Joe was wearing during the playoffs, and not any other one? You will.
SKQuote Reply
You can send Obstructed View your credit card info and we’ll take care of the order for you.
dmick89Quote Reply
Interesting idea. I’m not a fan of how the current draft system incentivizes losing for non-competitive teams.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
The downside I see is that losing teams prepare for the future by trading away talent for prospects, and this proposed system would work against that. i.e., Len’s idea might make rebuilding more difficult.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Rizzo the Rat,
yeah, I’d rather see a lottery than what Len suggested. i wouldn’t mind something like it, but a mix of good and bad teams. Something like this for draft order: 11th best record, 12, 13, 14, 15, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21.
That way you are incentivizing winning, but also not incentivizing giving up prospects just for a chance to get a better pick when you know you aren’t making the postseason.
I’d prefer to just leave things as they are. I have no problem with tanking (I hate that word though). I don’t see it as tanking. I see it as putting your team in the best possible situation to win at a later date.
dmick89Quote Reply
You could also set up the draft so that 30-1 pick in the first round and then 1-30 in the second round and so on.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89,
Yeah, MLB teams don’t really tank on purpose. Managers and players always try to win and even FOs don’t really try to build the worst team they can so much as they spend more conservatively and focus on the long term when they aren’t in contention. My concern is more that, as I fan, I always hated how the Cubs were punished for winning with a lower draft pick. i.e., I wanted to see them succeed on the field, but not at the expense of their future success. That tension made those lean years even harder to take.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
I once proposed that the top draft pick be rewarded to the team with the longest championship drought. However, upon careful reflection, I have recently come to see the folly of my ways.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Restructuring the draft just strikes me as a solution in search of a problem.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Perkins,
I don’t think it’s necessarily an urgent need. It’s just something that used to annoy me back in 2010-2014. YMMV.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
That Dbacks/Mariners trade is certainly interesting. Pretty much Taijuan Walker for Jean Segura. What do y’all think?
Rice in limboQuote Reply
Can either of them be flipped for Nolasco? Otherwise, I’m not sure what the point was.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Incompetent hot dog vendor ——————————> deputy commerce secretary
SKQuote Reply
Smokestack Lightning,
Matt Cain is the only person you can trade for Nolasco.
RynoQuote Reply
Happy Eat-Pre-Slaughtered-Native-American-Bird Day.
America used to be great and slaughter native American birds on the day of, but now we import all of our birds from Mexico. Sad.
ceruleanQuote Reply
cerulean,
It’s a sham with yams. A yam sham.
berseliusQuote Reply
berselius,
And a damn shame of a yam sham to boot, because they really mean sweet potatoes.
It’s a sham yam sham.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Sean Rodriguez ————————————–> Barves
SKQuote Reply
I made sure to show the brined turkey to our rooster, as a warning. The dude has been kind of a cock recently.
berseliusQuote Reply
Happy Thanksgiving, jabronis.
PerkinsQuote Reply
(dying laughing) at the amazon reviews for Alvin’s book.
SKQuote Reply
SK,
He crapped that one out pretty quick. Did he just republish his blog posts?
berseliusQuote Reply
SK,
(dying laughing) at one of Al’s interns giving a whitewash of a review while putting Yellon on a pedestal then giving the book four starts
berseliusQuote Reply
berselius,
I don’t know, but I just skimmed Pat Hughes’ Foreword – five full pages and only two sentences alluding to Al and the book.
SKQuote Reply
SK,
Link?
dmick89Quote Reply
Yeah, I’m not really sure how a book can be out about it yet. I’ve been thinking about rewatching the postseason and marking down every time Joe did something stupid so I can write about it, but that seems kind of pointless. The Cubs won. Get over it, dmick89. (dying laughing)
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89,
bologna
SKQuote Reply
I got a kick out of this:
I didn’t know people were still reading his site in 2013.
dmick89Quote Reply
Nobody goes there anymore—it’s too crowded.
ceruleanQuote Reply
SK,
Is there an online version of this foreword?
Rice in limboQuote Reply
Rice in limbo,
Check the preview on the amazon page
berseliusQuote Reply
Al remains painful to read
Nate the old recalcitrant one from a long time agoQuote Reply
Rice in limbo,
Please tell me you didn’t think I’d bought the book.
All due respect to Pat, it’s just a five page summary of the Cubs season described very boringly. Almost as if Pat gave the project the due care it deserved.
SKQuote Reply
SK,
They should’ve set it up as an audio recording. Books on tape with Al might have been even more painful, though.
Rice in limboQuote Reply
Apparently Levine is reporting Cubs are interested in Chucky Blackmon as a Dexter replacement.
30 years old, but two years of control left. I could be okay with this move.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Smokestack Lightning,
I’d be fine with Blackmon, but I imagine he’s going to cost a decent amount.
dmick89Quote Reply
I would imagine he would. But he represents one of the few non-Mike-Trout-acquiring scenarios where the Cubs lose Dexter and don’t miss a beat.
Rockies seem to love bad pitching. Any one of the Cubs farm arms could end up being quite bad, especially with the Rockies preternatural skill at turning any pitcher into the worst version of himself. Seems like a perfect fit.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Smokestack Lightning,
I guess I’d rather give up some talent for a starting pitcher and re-sign Fowler.
dmick89Quote Reply
I think Rich Hill would be the better addition over trading for Blackmon or going after Kenley Jansen. Less money, no draft pick and not giving up any prospects. Considering 2016’s long playoff run, I’m envisioning Hill rounding out our rotation and Monty making 2 starts a month when everyone is healthy. Everybody gets an extra days rest 1-2 times a month and we see how Monty looks as a starter in limited capacity. I see Joe carrying an extra bullpen arm in the place of a third catcher so that Monty stays stretched out.
Bringing Hill in on what im guessing will be a 3 year deal allows the cubs to be in a better position in 2017 when Jake and Lackey leave for FA. I recognize Hill is a very “win now” asset but we should really look at Jake’s last year as a mini window.
mcalis2Quote Reply
My choice as well, but I’m near 100% convinced Dex is gone. Not that that feeling is worth much. (dying laughing)
mcalis2,
I was fine with acquiring Rich Hill for the stretch run last year. I want no part of Rich Hill at market price going forward.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
I was 100% sure Dex was gone last year, so maybe that’s a good sign.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Sickels’s Top 20 from down on the Cubs’ farm is out. He still counts Almora as a prospect at No. 5 and is higher on Trevor Clifton and Dylan Cease than Ian Happ.
ceruleanQuote Reply
On Almora:
That’s an interesting way to put it.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Kellogg, Moreno, Hedges, and Paulino in the C+ bucket are each interesting.
Hannemann, a C with no write-up, over Paulino on the 40-man is baffling for a team that needs pitching in the near term. I know Paulino is still raw, and a team would be taking a risk whether he can give at least replacement level innings in the bigs while maturing, but if I am running the likes of the Reds, I would take that chance. The worst that could happen for them is they mess with his development and break him, then return him with a better draft standing.
Effing nepotism.
ceruleanQuote Reply
In addition to winning the World Series in a landslide, the Cubs won every game if you deduct the millions of runs which were scored against them illegally.
EdwinQuote Reply
(dying laughing)
berseliusQuote Reply
Who is Hannemann related too?
Worked for Piazza…
BVSQuote Reply
cerulean,
suprised by the happ ranking. not much love for candelario either.
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
BVS,
McLeod, according to AZPhil. Hannemann is a pretty good player, but I can’t help but think this wasn’t a factor.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Yuge, if true.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
ummmm…sure
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
EnricoPallazzo,
I think that has to do with compressing a player’s proximity to the majors and the wide range of potential at that level into a single grade system. Basically, I think that he is valuing the unknown in the further away Clifton a bit more than the known in the likes of Happ.
I am guessing he sees Happ as a switch-hitting Chris Coghlan. Passable at second, good on-base skills and enough power to play the outfield so long has his hit tool sticks around. Coghlan did win the ROY after mashing in the minors, but the BABIP authority he displayed before the bigs rather disappeared.
Sickels seems to be showing a novelty bias too, highlighting those that are on the ascent over those who have been at the top if for no other reason than the established prospects being a year older without forcing their way through the system, which in the Cubs’ case, requires a lot just to get a shot.
ceruleanQuote Reply
I don’t know—I am loathe to give up Edwards.
(dying laughing)
ceruleanQuote Reply
I posted this on BN, but just for fun here’s a flashback of the Farm from when Theo had just taken over, from Sickels.
http://www.minorleagueball.com/2012/1/6/2688854/chicago-cubs-top-20-prospects-for-2012
EdwinQuote Reply
Edwin,
Um…
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
I also love how it describes Baez as a bat-first player with questionable defense.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Screw that. The cubs were robbed of millions of wins.
dmick89Quote Reply
Edwin,
Good lord, the cupboard was bare. Also (dying laughing) at Brett Jackson’s being ranked higher than Rizzo.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Rizzo the Rat,
I think minor league scouting reports on defense are mostly complete shit. Kris Bryant “might” be able to stick at 3rd base.
dmick89Quote Reply
Edwin,
Rizzo, of course, was a Theo transaction. So just disregard him at number 2.
ceruleanQuote Reply
cerulean,
I’m surprised they even considered him a prospect, since he’d already played for the Padres.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Christ, this org was shit. It’s pretty incredible that they just won the World Series.
The Cubs won the World Series.
GBTSQuote Reply
Perkins,
Maybe trading Chris Archer for Matt Garza wasn’t such a shrewd move after all.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
*throws the 3 billionth thing since that trade*
Rice in limboQuote Reply
I was always worried about the strikeouts. There is no way in hell he can be a productive player and strikeout as much as he does.
I wonder if he still has any trade value. Is Nolasco available for a deal? Or would that be asking too much?
ceruleanQuote Reply
Kris Bryant’s no. 1 comp on ZiPS: Ron Santo.
It breaks my heart.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Amusing, but wrong. It was Dodgers in five.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Hak-Ju Lee was the centerpiece of the deal, IIRC he’s still in high A or something.
EDIT: He’s been in AAA for three years. Still seems to have a good eye walk rate-wise but can’t seem to hit the ball out of the infield. Or infielders’ gloves.
berseliusQuote Reply
I remember reading that the Cubs were a potential player if the orientals posted Shohei Otani next year. Is that for real or just the usual attaching the Cubs to anything for clicks?
RynoQuote Reply
False
SKQuote Reply
It’s not the first of the month at noon yet.
SKQuote Reply
No disrespect.
Bill ParcellsQuote Reply
Ryno,
I assume it’s real. If he’s posted, the Cubs will definitely be big bidders.
dmick89Quote Reply
(dying laughing) that guy was awesome.
dmick89Quote Reply
berselius,
I think Archer was generally a higher-rated prospect, though some saw him as a potential closer.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
I remember not thinking that he would make it as a starter at the time due to his walk rate and associated high pitch counts.
BerseliusQuote Reply
I remember thinking it was weird to trade for Matt Garza in a season when the Cubs would obviously be bad.
PerkinsQuote Reply
I’m trying to work out a framework for a Soler for Greinke trade, but jesus Greinke is 5/172 (!!!!). I think Greinke is on the market, and a team is going to trade for him, but there will have to be some money coming to whatever team trades for him. I imagine that Soler would be appetizing for the Diamondbacks.
MylesQuote Reply
dmick89,
I’m still giggling about him dropping 20 posts in a closed thread.
Myles,
I’m not sure I’d drop that kind of scratch on a guy who is going to be 34 and has been worth 3-4 wins save for a couple of career years. Then again, maybe I’m underestimating the cost of pitching.
uncle daveQuote Reply
Berselius,
Baseball America had him as a top 30 prospect, so it’s not as if his success came out of nowhere. http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/rankings/top-100-prospects/2011/2611317.html
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Rizzo the Rat,
Love that Mike Montgomery was 19th on that list, one spot ahead of Sale.
uncle daveQuote Reply
uncle dave,
Should have traded Vogelbach for Sale smdh.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Perkins,
That was a “save my job” trade…
…it was not super-effective, although the subsequent Garza trade did help the Cubs in some ways.
Rice in limboQuote Reply
So BN has a summary of top contracts for RP. My summary, don’t spend big, you are nearly guaranteed to throw half your money away. Also if you spend big, don’t spend on anyone over 32 or more than three years.
BVSQuote Reply
Don’t tell me what to do.
berseliusQuote Reply
Cespedes ——> Mets, 4/110
sounds like no opt out this time around.
berseliusQuote Reply
Edwin,
Lendy Castillo mentioned.
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
BVSQuote Reply
So I have a torn labrum. My pitching career is over.
MylesQuote Reply
Myles,
At least you have all that money.
dmick89Quote Reply
berselius,
In your case RP = Rudimentary Physicist right? Not sure if the over under age is 32.
BVSQuote Reply
Myles,
There’s a procedure for that right? Episiotomy or something….
BVSQuote Reply
I can still be a special assistant to the blog.
MylesQuote Reply
I’m a little surprised La Potencia didn’t hold out for a longer contract. He must love playing for the Mets.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Jon Jay ——————-> World Champion Chicago Cubs
1 yr/8mm
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Smokestack Lightning,
Wow. That’s quite a step down from Dexter Fowler. I hope this doesn’t mean the organization is tightening their belt this off-season.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
False. According to Phil Rogers’ +/-, Cubs broke even. Prove me (and him) wrong.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Maybe he’s replacing Coghlan, not Fowler.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Maybe I’m just not up with inflation, but 8MM seems a lot to pay a backup OF. From what I can tell, it looks like the Jay/Almora show in 2017.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
This isn’t ideal. I guess they can’t win 103 games every year.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Maybe Dex is going to get something close to 20MM per over 5 when all is said and done. I do believe the one of us with a source said that prices are a fuckload higher this year.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Most definitely not. I suppose some small part of me is rejoicing at seeing the Cubs not overpay an OF into his mid-thirties, as it isn’t probably the most prudent move long-term, and if Jay sucks it’s not like he’ll be around very long anyway.
I guess Bryant will just have to hit a few more HRs next year to make up for the lost wins.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Someone please tell me Jay is a defensive wizard out there and then everything will be fine.
SKQuote Reply
I’m pretty sure CF is Almora’s to lose at this point.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
I’d honestly rather go with Heyward in center.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
On the bright side, nice to BN in full meltdown mode again.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Me too. But I can understand if the Cubs don’t.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
An outfield of Heyward, Schwarber and Zobrist (or Bryant) should be well above average. I’ll be disappointed if Jay gets regular playing time.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Sweeney/Mather 2017!
GWQuote Reply
This.
dmick89Quote Reply
I can’t. Schwarber in LF, Heyward in CF and Zobrist in RF (Baez at 2nd) is way better than Jay in in CF for a meaningful amount of games.
dmick89Quote Reply
Perhaps the Cubs feel Heyward has enough on his plate next season getting his swing back.
And I think this is probably about Almora seeing the most time in CF, not Jay. That may or may not make it better. (dying laughing)
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Smokestack Lightning,
I think it’s about Almora too, but my previous comment is still true. Just change Jay to Almora.
dmick89Quote Reply
http://www.avclub.com/article/lin-manuel-miranda-produce-and-compose-kingkiller–246585
holy shit
berseliusQuote Reply
So…nobody here believes that they can unlock Jay’s power. It worked for J-Hey.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Maybe he’s the son who brings the blood
berseliusQuote Reply
berselius,
Though I guess in that case it would be more likely that he makes John Lackey a CYA winner next year.
/nerd
berseliusQuote Reply
Fixed
BVSQuote Reply
When the wind blows in I’d think it would br Schwarber, Heyward, Soler.
Basically looks like Fowler and Coghlan out, Almora amd Jay in. Plus semi-cameos in OF by Zo and KB.
If Heyward reverts to 2015 and Soler is a little more consistent then Jay and Almora are just defense and we won’t miss Fowler much. I think Almora starts in AAA again anyway to fix strike zone issues.
Not sure who leads off though, maybe Zo.
BVSQuote Reply
If Baez forces his way into the line up, maybe he plays 3rd, Zo 2nd, and Bryant goes to right or center. ..
Zo 2b
Schwarber lf
Bryant cf/rf
Rizzo 1b
Contreras c
Russell ss
Heyward rf/cf
Baez 3b
Arrieta p
Power off bench with Soler. D off bench with Almora and Jay.
And Montero sending drunk tweets.
BVSQuote Reply
Could be right. I’ve tried to get worked up over this, but just can’t do it. Long way to go this offseason still, and being WS champs is quite the calming influence. I figure if Theo wants to see what he’s got in Almora, then fine. He’s Theo. He’ll probably end up being right. Meanwhile, the rest of us have been wrong so often around here I sometimes wonder why we bother to have opinions at all. (dying laughing)
Anyway, if he’s right, Cubs saved a ton of money that can go elsewhere. If he’s wrong, meh, fix it midseason or next year. Team should still win most days even if they decide not to send out a CF at all. Granted, no Dex in 2017 probably means it’ll be a tick or two harder to win the whole thing again, but that would probably be the last year we would be able to say that, and the Cubs would be on the hook for up to another 4 years of diminishing returns at top dollar. It sucks Fowler won’t be around for next year’s run, as the dropoff could be even steeper post-2017 if this FO doesn’t address the long-term rotation outlook soon, but I don’t mind as much as I thought I would the idea of the FO opting to adhere closer to their ideals now that they’ve bagged the big one. And I’ll never get too upset about not paying for every year of a player’s decline.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
I suppose Jay could just be a Coghlan/Szczur replacement. Both are FA right?
SKQuote Reply
Szczur is still around but is out of options.
BerseliusQuote Reply
SK,
I’m certainly hoping that the rumored CF platoon doesn’t happen.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
I’ll miss Fowler, but if any team can get away with a glove-first CF in Almora, it’s a team with Bryant, Rizzo, and Schwarber in the lineup.
As with this year, playing time seems to be an issue, barring trades or injuries. I have to think Schwarber gets at least a few starts at C (maybe once every two turns through the rotation) just to get more reps for Javy and Soler. Probably more rest for Russell and Heyward as well.
PerkinsQuote Reply
I’m fine with Jay as a depth guy. Even with Fowler leaving PAs are going to be at a premium with War Bear picking a lot of those up.
berseliusQuote Reply
berselius,
Yeah, as depth it’s kind of a whatever move.
dmick89Quote Reply
Todd Ricketts ———–> Trump’s cabinet
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
JonKneeVQuote Reply
JonKneeV,
Gonna have to watch for hot dogs in the White House garbage. /recycled joke
Rice in limboQuote Reply
Rice in limbo,
Only if Donald can eat it with a knife and fork.
JonKneeVQuote Reply
JonKneeV,
Jesus, the Cubs just won the World Series and they’ve already gone back to being an embarrassment.
dmick89Quote Reply
Didn’t Trump threaten Joe Ricketts during the primary season? I’m sure it was an idle threat because Trump is a vain toddler, but I seem to remember his threatening to run ads showing whatever dirt he claimed to have on Joe since he’d supported one of the other contenders.
It’s really fucking depressing to see how many people Trump insulted sell their souls and kiss the ring. If someone said the kind of things about my wife that Trump said about Heidi Cruz (for example), my only public statement about that person would be that I hope he or she commits suicide.
PerkinsQuote Reply
False. Losing Todd Ricketts to Trump is a +1 for the organization, I don’t care what Phil Rogers says.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Perkins,
I think he said something about Joe’s wife, didn’t he? I agree. It’s sickening see these people kiss Trump’s ass when they should be even more defiant.
dmick89Quote Reply
Smokestack Lightning,
Wrong. There’s nothing the Cubs can do at this point to distance themselves from the racist, homophobic, mysognistic piece of shit that will soon live in the White House.
Todd Ricketts didn’t do shit for the organization so the Cubs don’t gain anything except the recognition that one a member of the Ricketts family works for that racist pile of garbage.
dmick89Quote Reply
I didn’t have a problem rooting for the Cubs after they acquired Chapman and still will obviously root for them, but this is even more fucked up than acquiring someone like Chapman.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89,
Trump literally quoted in his press release that Todd is an impressive part of the Cubs ownership group and he helped the Cubs win the World Series (dying laughing).
JonKneeVQuote Reply
dmick89,
I can’t decide whether it’s funny or terrifying that he’s picked the least talented Ricketts. Terrifying, I guess. His cabinet has about enough combined brainpower to light a 40-watt CFL.
uncle daveQuote Reply
I’m not a huge fan of the Jay signing, but I can’t complain too much about an outfield where we’ll have Almora and Heyward side by side. You could basically park Almora in left-center and have him go all Kelly Leak any time a ball was hit to Schwarber/Soler.
uncle daveQuote Reply
He’s also considering Sarah Palin for VA Secretary, apparently.
James Mattis and Mitt Romney are the only people getting serious consideration who are both adults and not terrible or incompetent. Petraeus as well, I guess, but it would be ironic to see him get the nod after all the “lock her up” crap about Hillary during the campaign.
Whoever gets elected in 2020 is going to have a hell of a mess to unravel.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Perkins,
It’s like he created a Friends list and then pulled names out of a hat to fill these positions.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89,
Only if that “friends list” was created by David Duke and Peter Thiel.
JonKneeVQuote Reply
there are some “Choose Your Own Adventure” books written by R. A. Montgomery.
there are some other “Choose You Own Adventure” books written by Ramsey Montgomery.
i had always assumed that R. A. Montgomery and Ramsey Montgomery were the same person. it actually turns out that R. A. is the father of Ramsey!
you’re welcome.
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
Perkins,
All that I have left to hope for is that the idiots he picks are actually too lazy to put in the work required to unravel the various agencies and bureaucracies that they’ve been put in charge of. (Palin, for instance, does not strike me as someone who will put in 60-hour weeks.) Maybe that’s false hope, but it’s what I have. My job basically depends on a healthy HUD, sooooo…well, Ben Carson looks like a guy who would literally fall asleep at the switch, right?
uncle daveQuote Reply
uncle dave,
I generally don’t think of hope as a strategy, but the hope I have, such as it is, centers around this. Trump is fundamentally lazy, especially intellectually. He has never shown the patience, attention span, or intellect to comprehend anything more complex than “something I like good; something I don’t like bad.”
If his administration’s laziness and incompetence exceeds its will to power, we may get out of this with minimal damage. I think it’s a somewhat reasonable hope, but not one that should prevent continuous resistance and vigilance throughout his time in office.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Dude. I was fucking kidding. Good grief.
I’ll check back in around 4 years. Maybe we’ll all have figured out by then matching unhinged with unhinged is not helping matters.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
The Ricketts funded a PAC that ran ads against Trump in the primary.
Trump called them out as corrupt, hiding secrets, and bad at Cubs ownership.
After the nomination, the Ricketts funded a PAC in SUPPORT of Trump.
Trump appears lazy, but I wouldn’t expect those he is hiring to be so. They don’t have to take these jobs. They are idealogues, and/or billionaires who enjoy pulling the strings of power. Second-tier appointees (with the exception of Todd) may even be evil dudes with sick agendas like Bannon.
I’m a liberal type person so I’m one of those who looks at Trump and his posse with fear. I’m actually scared of what they will do to the US and the world.
What are Trump voters feeling right now? That’s it’s awesome that Wall Street is now moving into Washington and rolling up its sleeves, while Trump watches CNN and twitter all day, making Mitt Romney grovel like an Apprentice contestant?
SKQuote Reply
Smokestack Lightning,
Sorry, dude.
dmick89Quote Reply
SK,
As a classical liberal (or small “l” libertarian), he’s terrifying. He’s an existential threat to the Western alliance that has existed since the end of WWII, through either his sheer incompetence and ignorance, or his desire to wave his micropenis at the weaker members of the alliance.
He’s also a huge threat to the Constitution, again through ignorance or through hostility to its fundamental principles like free speech, equal protection under the law, protection against self-incrimination and unreasonable search and seizure…
As to the people who voted for him, I’m amused that so many of the much discussed white working class are unlikely to find themselves better off since they mostly lost their jobs to automation. I’m genuinely curious if they’ll hold him accountable at the ballot box in 2020. I’m also sad that they likely don’t understand what a precarious position they’ve put the world in just so they can feel good that someone is pretending to listen to them.
PerkinsQuote Reply
I would like to be a part of Trump’s cabinet. The worst thing is not Donald Trump—the oversized toddler—it’s the assholes that surround and enable him. I would sacrifice my dignity just to fight for reason.
But if nothing else, maybe Todd can keep Trump off that trigger for nuclear holocaust because the Cubs are worth not destroying civilization for.
ceruleanQuote Reply
my first thought upon reading this was “hey that’s great news”
then my second thought was “wait they can just extend the fucking deadline????” why the hell hasn’t anyone brought this up before?
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
EnricoPallazzo,
That was a recent factoid I enjoyed.
Rice in limboQuote Reply
Don’t worry about it, man. We’ve all been a little tetchy since the election, and I’ve been no different. I have large amounts of both sides of the political aisles on both sides of my family, and to put it mildly, Thanksgiving did not go well this year. My ears are still ringing.
Honestly I can’t figure out who I’m more confounded with. Those whose temper tantrum got Trump elected in the first place, those throwing a temper tantrum now who seem to want to confirm the worst thoughts of the first tantrum throwers and make sure he get two terms, and myself, for simply not taking this election seriously at all, because I didn’t ever find it plausible he’d actually win (not to mention my own occasional tantrum, which is basically me yelling at everybody, then myself, then going to bed feeling superior, then waking up and realizing I’m as big an asshole as anybody, maybe bigger).
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
uncle dave,
I don’t want Almora and Heyward side by side. I’m fine with starting Almora over Heyward against a tough lefty, but I don’t think Almora’s bat is good enough to play in the everyday lineup of a contender.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Smokestack Lightning,
I know what you mean. I tell someone at least once a day that I can understand why some people (the non-racists) voted for Trump and go on to explain why that might be. Then I also at least once a day go on and bitch about all of them as if they should be all lumped together when that’s far from fair. It’s a fucked up situation and it sucks. Contrary to what many Democrats think, they are also to blame for this shit. Had they just nominated someone (anyone) other than Clinton, I don’t think it’s possible that Trump wins. Both parties nominated the candidate least likely to win the general election and one of them did.
dmick89Quote Reply
CBA’d
BerseliusQuote Reply
No 26th man with a restructuring of how September call ups are handled. Damn. Oh well. The Cubs surely would lose Paulino if it were it were instituted.
ceruleanQuote Reply
dmick89,
I actually don’t know about that. Clinton was villified, as any Dem would be, including Bernie, though given the fact that he is an old white dude probably would have made him more competitive. Don’t underestimate the misogyny. She’s a witch. Burn her.
That Ctrl-Alt-Right machine is the result of a confluence of terrible moments in time—the boomers longing for the golden postwar past that never was, an irrational to the point of existential crisis kind of fear of the other, and gamergaters in their parents’ basements looking for lulz and a scapegoat for their unhappiness.
And dammit, I am so sick of Baby Boomers running this damn country.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Make the Electoral College Great Again.
Yes please. Apparently, Hamilton designed the electorate specifically for the likes of Drumpf.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Agreed.
Eh. I don’t think that’s the case with HRC anymore than it was when we were all losing our minds about Sarah Palin being one heart attack away from the presidency eight years ago. Palin was terrible regardless of gender, and we all knew that, and nobody thought she was getting jobbed because she was a woman. And HRC, while not a Palin-level DEFCON disaster obviously, was not a good candidate by any metric, and I say that as someone who nearly broke his pen coloring the oval next to her name.
I also think it’s comforting to think it was all the bad-racist-sexist-old people who caused all these problems, and fall back into blaming everything on any and every ism we can come up with, but that doesn’t have the ring of truth to me this time. And if this past holiday dealing with family showed me anything, it’s that left and right do not understand each other, and we all sound fucking stupid and mean when we try to engage the other side, self included. I said something similar to what you wrote above in conversation about a week ago and thought it was pretty insightful. But the more I keep thinking about this stuff, the more I’m beginning to think I was completely talking out of my ass, and I don’t know as much as I think I know, particularly about other voters who don’t do what I want them to do.
Which I guess means I’m saying you too are talking out of your ass (dying laughing) (but please know I don’t say that maliciously; we’re all grappling with some serious shit right now). I know those elements you mention were present in an alarming number of Trump voters (and by alarming number, I mean anything more than zero), but as an explanation for the entire phenomenon? Nah. That’s a load of shit. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a very tidy load of shit that is very comforting to believe (and I want to believe it), but it’s shit. We’ve got to start thinking better than this.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
espn
Hooray. 2nd dumbest thing in sports is gone.
BVSQuote Reply
This
BVSQuote Reply
Maybe
berseliusQuote Reply
I like the 10 day DL.
I don’t like how they muddied the qualifying offer system yet again. Just get rid
If it.
I’m ok with the penalty for teams that go $40 million over the luxury tax.
The raise to league minimum was a joke.
I love that the ASG has no impact on the World Series. That was the dumbest thing ever.
dmick89Quote Reply
I’m taking a wait and see approach.
MylesQuote Reply
BVS,
Our long national nightmare is over.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Indeed. Tho I am happy Cubs got four games out of Schwarber instead of three because of it.
Also, I don’t think there’s any way the Cubs win a game seven of the WS at home. Certainly not if the game seven 8th inning we got would have repeated itself at Wrigley.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Don’t blame me, I voted for David Pumpkins.
EdwinQuote Reply
Smokestack Lightning,
Yeah, this year it definitely worked out in the Cubs’ favor. Having 4 games with Schwarber was pretty clutch.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Perkins,
Especially given Maddon’s reluctance to deploy him as a pinch-hitter.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Smokestack Lightning,
It wasn’t just the sexist/racist/old people—a lack of education with the wishful thinking and gullibility it produces also played a big part.
And don’t turn a blind eye to the sexism. You forget that in the halcyon days of 1959, women’s work was still in the home, and ever since they have been taking jobs from men. I thought #gamergate was ridiculous from the outset—but the fact that I have met people duped by it has changed my opinion significantly on the latent misogyny of the general populace. I am pretty convinced that a Hal Rodham Clinton would not have been as easy to raise objections about being “too weak” for office. A woman is either too weak for office or too domineering. To put into words of the alt-fascist, she’s a pussy of a bitch. (vomiting in my mouth)
That said, the voter suppression tactics used by some of these swing states were effective, as were the fake news and overblown inquisitions. Sexism happened to be an effective vector of attack against a woman that—I am sad to say—colored my views of her and the views of everyone on this blog. It’s easy to say that a better candidate would have won, but if you narrow the scope to women that are overqualified enough to be a democratic presidential nominee, it’s Clinton or Elizabeth Warren or Nancy Pelosi. Would the other two have fared better?
ceruleanQuote Reply
i’m all for the ASG rule and the 10-day DL. as for the QO stuff, agreed that they should just fucking get rid of it, but it’s definitely a much better situation than it was before. also, i keep reading that the details on the league minimum raise haven’t been worked out yet – why do you say it was a joke? did you see a specific number?
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
A misconception, once conceived, is doubly difficult to disconceive.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Smokestack Lightning,
I forgot to add that so called right-wing movements are happening all over the world. This is not just an American thing. France just elected their version of Trump on a platform of xenophobia. Brexit happened mostly out of fear about the freedom of movement of terrorists, aka muslims. Austria is expected to elect a demagogue preying on these same fears.
ceruleanQuote Reply
RynoQuote Reply
cerulean,
My principal objection to HRC was her use of a private server and subsequent glib dismissal of its importance (though she eventually accepted responsibility and apologized). Having held a clearance, I found it unconscionable that she’d transmit and store classified (up to Top Secret) information on an unsecured server, order aides to reproduce classified information digitally on the low side, and that she’d try to claim the “it wasn’t’ marked classified at the time” defense with information obviously natively classified (such as information about Special Access Programs like drones). In any normal election, that would have been enough to sink a candidate for me, man or woman. Huge security violation and huge breach of integrity.
I still voted for her though, because holy shit have you guys seen or heard everything Donald Trump has said and done in his lifetime and especially in the past 18 months.
PerkinsQuote Reply
If what is being tweeted out right now is true, not only are international signings limited to $5MM, the age has been stepped up to 25. So I doubt someone like Otani is getting posted soon…
Rice in limboQuote Reply
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
EnricoPallazzo,
I saw just over half a million. I think it should at least have doubled from what it was.
dmick89Quote Reply
Perkins,
Yeah, same here. I also love how there were so many “dark clouds” and “shadows” and corruption allegations over potential Clinton foundation stuff, and now everyone is just kind of shrugging when the thought foreign governments are giving sweetheart deals to Trump properties is mentioned.
berseliusQuote Reply
berselius,
Bonus irony if Petraeus gets a cabinet seat.
berseliusQuote Reply
cerulean,
I agree in principle with much of what you’re saying—though I resent the idea that just because I disagree with your take on sexism in this election, I’m turning a blind eye to that. Stop that shit. We do this all the time. Someone disagrees and they’re blind, stupid, ignorant, horrible, awful, etc. We just disagree. We can both have eyes wide open on this issue and come to different conclusions.
My personal take is stuff like sexism in regards to HRC is the comforting way out, a cop-out. Otherwise we might have to engage the opposition on other grounds, and that takes work. It’s easier just to dismiss them and paint them as the worst thing every. For once, I’d like to take a break from that. It’s not doing any good or winning anyone over.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Yep. Same old shit. Nobody cares what’s being done if it’s their side doing it. Just about done with it all.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
I think sexism played a part just as racism played a part in the 2008 and 2012 elections. I think Warren wins this election. Not sure about Pelosi. She’s probably sitting in the same boat as Clinton (leading the popular vote by quite a bit and losing the electoral college.
dmick89Quote Reply
He helped by staying the fuck out of the way.
Wenningtons Gorilla CockQuote Reply
berselius,
No shit, some people I served in the Army with said that HRC might be the most corrupt person ever to run for the presidency. This despite Trump’s pattern of stealing goods and services from employees and contractors, attempts to do business in embargo-ed Cuba, shady-ass financial ties (exacerbated by his flat refusal to release his tax returns), evidence his campaign was in contact with Russian officials (and the rewriting of the GOP platform on the Ukraine during the convention), and his myriad personal and moral failures (repeated sexual assault, rape of his first wife, apparent desire to bone his daughter, and serial lying and suborning conspiracy theories).
While I’m sure sexism was a factor for many people, Hillary was a deeply flawed candidate. The private server alone would have sunk most ordinary candidates, but she was running against the most loathsome individual ever to be nominated by a major party and somehow still lost. There was a persistent false equivalence between the two, that it was okay to shrug one’s shoulders and say, “I think they’re both terrible.” Or that the media should have devoted equal time to Hillary’s one or two scandals versus Trump’s literally dozens of scandals.
And while they were indeed both terrible, their defects were not even close to the same neighborhood. Barring some sort of atonement and/or efforts to contain a lot of the shit Trump said he wants to do, there are a number of people in my life whom I can never respect again. Anyone who looked at the two of them and decided Trump was the better option (or at least no worse) is not someone whose intellect merits respect. This election made me completely lose faith in the American people and media, and it shook my faith in a number of our institutions (as well as making me fear for their safety and continued existence).
I realize that engagement with the other side is a necessary and productive endeavor. That we’re not going to fix what currently doesn’t work without that (and that where we’re at is largely a product of political polarization, non-competitive districts, campaign finance, and lack of education/anti-intellectualism). And I’m certainly interested in conducting that engagement for the sake of the republic. But I can’t pretend to have empathy for anyone who voted for Trump, however desperate or frustrated they might have been. Literally the only reason I hope they don’t all make abject failures of the rest of their lives and starve to death is that it would bring about even greater instability and likely armed violence. So I may not be ready for engagement just yet. (dying laughing)
PerkinsQuote Reply
False. Although it could happen when France holds its election in April.
Brexit was also about closing the door on non-terrorist refugees, and the Poles and Romanians that have come in their droves as members of the EU. Foreigners taking out jobs (and entitlements) legally! A bridge too far! And also some general giving the finger to the bureaucratic monolith that is the EU. Not surprisingly, it was old and rural (white) people that voted for it.
SKQuote Reply
I didn’t find the e-mail/private server issue to be that big a deal. I think it was an error in judgment, one whe was very slow to admit, but otherwise not a big thing. She was bad with technology, wanted a way to be more efficient, and made some dumb decisions. She’s been thoroughly investigated, and the FBI concluded that there really wasn’t much of a case against her criminally. I found this to be an interesting listen: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/601/master-of-her-domain-name
And other than that, I didn’t really see anything else which would make her a “terrible” candidate. Does she have a lot of powerful and rich connections, which she’s used for her benefit? Sure, but that’s pretty par for the course as far as politics go, and it’s almost impossible to take money and influence out of politics.
Policy wise, she’s fairly stable. Nothing big, pretty much a “stay the course” candidate, which I don’t think is so bad, considerng the policies she supports are the same policies we’ve had the past 8 years, which has been 8 stable years of growth. I just dont’ see any way someone could actually consider her “terrible” in the same way that Donald Trump is terrible.
EdwinQuote Reply
Edwin,
For what it’s worth, mishandling classified information like that would almost certainly have gotten me time in military prison and a dishonorable discharge. Granted, UCMJ is a different standard than civil law, but what she did is serious offense for a civilian or a service member. From friends of mine who work or have worked at State, it sounds like the entire department is more or less uniformly awful at information security, which maybe makes her conduct more understandable).
There was also at least the appearance of pay to play for Clinton Foundation donors while she was SecState, which would be bad (though in the grey area of normal politics). Beyond that, she’s terrible inasmuch as she’s not as inspiring as someone with her qualifications ought to be. I totally get why she comes off as she does (and I actually sympathized with her in a couple respects during the campaign), but she needed to be able to provide a compelling vision for our future and articulate it clearly. She didn’t really do that.
Still, she’s nowhere close to as bad as Trump, whom I believe to be an animate sack of turds stuffed into an ill-fitting suit.
PerkinsQuote Reply
I agree with this. Maybe if she had pushed for some more exciting policies, she would have gotten better turnout. Paid Family Leave, Universal Income, Public Option for Healthcare, finding a serious way to take on climate change, those would have been interesting issues which could have driven discussion.
EdwinQuote Reply
Well, maybe I’m missing things, but I’ve gotten the distinct impression that a certain segment of the population isn’t dazzled like the rest of us by press scorecards saying things are stable and getting better the last eight years when that’s not been the case for them. Add to that a candidate who all but ignored them during the campaign, while the other candidate specifically said I got your back and will fix your shit, and it’s really not too hard to understand why they ultimately threw their lot in with him.
Not that I’m not pissed at them for not seeing through the ruse. Trump won’t help these people. But he at least pretended to give a shit. Hillary really didn’t. Sad!
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
I mean, since when does the Democratic Party election platform not feature a clear, articulated message geared toward helping working class voters?
I guess once it decided it wanted to lose all the elections. (dying laughing, but bitterly)
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
The election wasn’t about issues at all though, as evidenced by all those Trump voters who are going to be shocked when they find out the R’s have no real plan to replace Obamacare and even worse nuke Medicare and replace it by laughably ineffective vouchers. One can certainly blame Clinton for not trying to force actual issues into the conversation, not that the media seemed to care very much. I thought her biggest problem is that she is a fucking terrible campaigner / campaign strategist, but I’d trust her over any other politician if it came to actually getting into a room and actually doing shit.
berseliusQuote Reply
Jaime Garcia—–>Barves
PerkinsQuote Reply
I’m interested to see how the new Jobs Policy of giving companies tax breaks so that they only ship half their jobs away plays out.
EdwinQuote Reply
I dunno if what we’re seeing means that the election wasn’t about issues for the fabled ‘white working class’ who voted for Trump. I’m more inclined to believe that those folks did vote on the issues, but that there was a severe information deficit related to both horrid messaging on the part of Democrats as well as the nature of programs such as Obamacare that do help those voters.
The former problem isn’t anything we didn’t already know. The Democrats have been bad at that for a long time, but were further hamstrung by the conflict between defending Obama’s legacy and admitting that there are broad swaths of the country that have not benefitted from the recovery.
I’d not given much thought to how difficult selling Obamacare to a lot of people really was until recently, though. I think that the folks who frequent this blog are both smarter and more tuned in than many other Americans are, and it’s relatively easy for us to understand the core benefits of the ACA even if we’ve never directly experienced them. For someone who isn’t paying attention, though, what does the program look like? You don’t notice the preexisting condition ban until you can’t buy an individual policy. You don’t notice the lifetime out of pocket limit until you face medical bankruptcy. You might not even notice that you’re getting a subsidy if you either weren’t insured before or if you weren’t aware of how expensive insurance is because you’d previously gotten it through an employer-sponsored plan.
If you’re one of those people, Obamacare doesn’t feel like much of a benefit. I work through byzantine federal programs for a living, and one of the most complicated things I’ve ever dealt with in that regard was helping someone navigate the insurance exchange. So for what appears to be next to no upside, you have to go through this bureaucratic maze, pay for the privilege, and get fined if you don’t do it. You know what that sounds like to me? Paying your taxes.
Never mind that Obamacare would have been critically important for millions of people, of course. If nobody knows that, it’s not going to be a politically durable program. And it wasn’t. What it needed to be was “you can go to the doctor and not pay.” THAT is a program that people would never have voted against.
I can’t say that I lost respect for a lot of people who voted for Trump, primarily because those folks that I know who did have been known racists and misogynists for a long time. It feels a bit different to me, but I’m not exactly learning much new about them. I’d made up my mind about most of my extended family a long time ago. But I also don’t think that they sat down and said, “hey, we can vote for a racist asshole, so let’s do it!” I just think that they didn’t care he’s a racist asshole, because they live in towns that are entirely populated by white Christians and Trump’s bad behavior literally does not affect anyone they know. I feel like that’s still morally reprehensible, but I’m reluctant to join the RACIST ASSHOLES VOTED AGAINST THEMSELVES ZOMG (dying laughing) PWND crowd because I think that their thought process is far more complicated than those folks are giving it credit for. And the Democrats need to think a bit harder about that if they want to peel off some of those voters.
uncle daveQuote Reply
only true if they know zero females
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
you guys, i’m starting to get worried that we’re straying from the true mission of this site, which (to my understanding) is discussing cast-iron cookware.
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
“MSM and especially Crooked OV keep trashing me instead dealing with the real issue which is cast iron cookware. Pathetic!”
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
EnricoPallazzo,
Fair enough. I think that it’s worth noting that there’s quite a bit of difference of opinion among women as to what their proper role in society should be, while I don’t think you’ll find many Muslims who would volunteer to be catalogued and interned.
I’m not saying any of this to defend racist or misogynist behavior. Just noting that it may not have been at the top of the decision tree.
uncle daveQuote Reply
I only buy Trump cookware. It's made of solid gold, the best, so classy. It's low melting point means it makes the best fucking eggs you ever tasted.
berseliusQuote Reply
This went unnoticed. Hate to say it, but think the Cards did well here to unload Garcia.
Also, word is Dex is looking for 18MM a year. I think he gets it.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
SK,
I misunderstood a headline. I guess he just won the conservative party’s version of a primary. Oops.
But given the state of the world, chances are it’s a fait accompli.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Smokestack Lightning,
I started a really long post about reasons this and reasons that, even with a side rant equating linguistic determinism to the Freudian interpretation of Capgras delusion, and deleted it intentionally.
Suffice it to say that I am a prejudiced and sexist and racist bigot. My admonition as much to me as any man. Take it as a compliment that I hold you to the same unattainably high bar that I hold myself.
And sorry I try to mansplain. It is part of my nature to assume I understand the shape of the world.
Dammit. None of the above is supposed to be anything near condescending or passive aggressive. Communication is as hard as community.
ceruleanQuote Reply
I keep wondering how different this post would have been if it was titled “Making stock of the top relief pitching options”.
I’m partial to just using a slow cooker.
EdwinQuote Reply
Not to distract us from the core discussion here, but anyone have a particularly good summary of the new CBA they can link to?
uncle daveQuote Reply
We've been busy prepping the OV cookbook, "How To Cook For Humans"
berseliusQuote Reply
Fixed for Max Ambiguity.
ceruleanQuote Reply
uncle dave,
Passan has one:
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/the-inside-details-from-baseballs-fascinating-new-cba-082559072.html
Rice in limboQuote Reply
berselius,
The OV Christmas Catalogue is coming along nicely. It should ship by the 23rd.
dmick89Quote Reply
Edwin,
I’ve never used a slow cooker to make a stock. I always use a large stock pot with no lid.
dmick89Quote Reply
whoa…uncalled for
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
berseliusQuote Reply
berselius,
*blows dust off* “How To Cook Forty Humans”
EdwinQuote Reply
I didn’t take it that way so no harm done. As I said above, we’re largely in agreement on principle, and when you get right down to it probably only a little diff on how we’re interpreting recent events.
And you can mansplain to me any day, you magnificent sky-blue bastard.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
There’s a Kindle version available. 60% less dust.
dmick89Quote Reply
Rice in limbo,
Thanks! Will be interesting to see how aggressively the Cubs get in on trading for international bucks.
uncle daveQuote Reply
Plus 10% less anal leakage.
ceruleanQuote Reply
https://mobile.twitter.com/IanMBrowne/status/804769066003165185
Cubs apparently talking with Chapman’s agent. Good to know.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Personally, I wish they had decided to spend all their FA money on pitching. They don’t need positional depth (unless they have some kind of trade planned. Soler, maybe?).
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Given the restrictions on international signings, I really hope the Cubs find a nice chest to hide their embarrassment of riches. That Kenley Jansen model looks pretty cool. The Rich Hill model is certainly interesting, but I find the branding a bit too on the nose.
Also, any chance Otani could sign a one year deal for five million next year and then get extended?
ceruleanQuote Reply
Rizzo the Rat,
Does Brian Duensing count?
dmick89Quote Reply
Duensing —————–> Cubs
LeBron ——————–> Cubs
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Looks like he count to at least 1:
Wenningtons Gorilla CockQuote Reply
Can he play C?
Wenningtons Gorilla CockQuote Reply
I would imagine he’ll be flipped for Nolasco before we get a chance to find out.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Ben Revere was almost as “valuable” as Andrew McCutchen last year. The Nationals just non-tendered Revere and will probably land McCutchen.
ceruleanQuote Reply
It’d be pretty awesome if he goes to Cubs on that deal to bet on himself. If he’s badass then pay him whatever he wants the next year.
Rice in limboQuote Reply
dmick89,
He looks a lot like Travis Wood. Can he play LF?
BVSQuote Reply
cerulean,
If Cutch really is in decline, then I endorse this 100%
BVSQuote Reply
Tyson Ross—–>non-tendered
PerkinsQuote Reply
5 mo and World Series rings later, we can get him without shipping Soler to SD.
He pays for his own band aids per new CBA right?
BVSQuote Reply
Rich Hill ——————–> back to Dodgers (probably)
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Would have been nice if Wisconsin remembered to bring their secondary from Madison.
berseliusQuote Reply
Relief pitching will continue to be an important need for all teams serious about advancing to the playoffs and beyond.
Berdj J. RassamQuote Reply
Holliday ———> NYY 1/13
berseliusQuote Reply
So the Nationals are going after McCutchen, Chris Sale and Kenley Jansen. They're trying to enter the season with the kind of advantage the cubs had entering 2016.
dmick89Quote Reply
Thanks, Bears, for beating SF yesterday and helping us get a better draft pick to fuck up.
RynoQuote Reply
I’d still take the Cubs. Plus Cubs are younger, more flexible financially, and wouldn’t have a ton of money committed long term.
JonKneeVQuote Reply
JonKneeV,
I would too. Especially long term, but depending on how the offseason unfolds, the Nationals might be in the better position in 2017. I’m still kind of bummed about the Cubs releasing Jason Hammel so they can use Mike Montgomery. That’s quite a step down.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89,
In this case, however, I don’t think the nice guys will finish last.
Rice in limboQuote Reply
Melancon ——-> Giants
PerkinsQuote Reply
Yep. 4/62.
Pretty good payday for a closer who, while very good (for now), doesn’t strike out a batter per inning.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Given what we know I feel compelled to think the plan is to acquire another option that will push Montgomery back to the 6th starter/swing role. Otherwise there’s no reason to let Hammel go (unless the Cubs don’t think he can pitch anymore), especially if the Cubs are not serious about Chapman or Jansen, and won’t bring back Dexter either. Hammel is not expensive, he’d only be around another season at most anyway, and the Cubs prize SP depth. Makes no sense unless they need the cash to land Jansen or retain Chapman or Fowler. You don’t let Hammel go so you can pay Jon Fucking Jay.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Smokestack Lightning,
And Brian Duensing. Don’t forget Duensing. (dying laughing)
dmick89Quote Reply
Smokestack Lightning,
I would put the Cubs chances of not landing a starter meant to help in the rotation for at least three years at 10%. And half of those times, they shell out for Jansen or Chapman. Since 3/5ths of the rotation comes off the books next offseason, they have to look for starters this offseason—getting three of a kind is hard to do.
But to get started this offseason—and generate some goodwill on account of the players that might choose them—they made Hammel’s option mutual. It’s a risk they might regret, but if I may use a word that is oft despised in these circles, the payoff is intangible. If there exists a team that can absorb that kind of risk, it’s these Cubs.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Don’t tell me what do to.
BerzeliusQuote Reply
Thinking about the Cubs and spending a ton on a closer (or on retaining Fowler), I’m remembering a lot about Theo’s motivation to leave Boston in the first place, namely that ownership didn’t trust in the process and told him to go out and get a bunch of big names through free agency and/or trades (AGon, Crawford, etc.). He said something in an interview that Henry seemed more concerned with the optics of appearing to compete every year (and marketing) than about actually being sustainably competitive.
While the Cubs are at a point where they should probably seek to minimize volatility and increase their short term odds of winning another World Series, I can see why they would prize financial flexibility and trying to find the next Jansen or Fowler, rather than paying for the current ones. This is especially true if they’re bearish on the TV deal outlook in 2020…best not to spend too much of the money they don’t yet have in hand.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Meanwhile, Cubs season ticket prices go up and Bryce Harper allegedly wants his $400MM extension. What a time to be in baseball.
Rice in limboQuote Reply
Perkins,
I don’t think signing Jansen would be about optics. Someone like him greatly enhances the Cubs’ postseason chances. He is the closest to Mariano Rivera that can be had today. There is worry about the body breaking down—big men often don’t age gracefully—but I worry about the other Rivera-esque outlier available (Chapman) losing velocity in the same way.
Bringing back Dexter would be about optics insofar as it’d be about sentimentality—and highway robbery according the Player’s Association.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Perkins,
Considering the new gm traded a lot of those guys that you mentioned after Theo left, I have a difficult time believing he was mandated to do anything like that. If Theo said something like that, sounds more like trying to save his own ass.
I think the Cubs will do something big. They’re still in on Jansen and I expect them to acquire a starter. Hard to believe they’d go with Monty over Hammel. I hope not anyway.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89,
I’d hope they go for either Jansen or Chapman inasmuch as high leverage innings mean more to the Cubs than to most teams. I also think they’ll go for a starter, but I’m genuinely curious what they give up. Cleveland could use some power in its lineup, but I don’t think Soler is the starting point of those discussions anymore. I expect they’ll do something big, and this front office’s MO has generally been to keep it close to the vest until a move is complete or nearly complete, so I’m not sweating the relative quiet.
I’ve read a couple of things the past few years talking about how the Red Sox were expecting to enter a couple years of “blip” (similar to StL in 2007-08) before their next impact players would arrive, and that Henry didn’t want them to miss any years of contention. Could have been Theo covering his own ass after the fact. Could also be that the 2011 collapse convinced Cherington/Henry that the “acquire the big names” strategy was a bust. I don’t really know.
One scenario in which I could see Monty as preferable to Hammel is if Hammel’s injury woes from late in the season are more serious than we thought. It could also be that the front office/coaching staff thinks Monty can become much more effective with some tweaks to mechanics/pitch selection. I know I’d much prefer him as a 6th starter/long reliever, at least based on the information we have.
PerkinsQuote Reply
I’m surprised you have difficulty believing that. It’s pretty much common knowledge, even among Red Sox fans, that Theo was mandated to go spend a bunch of money that offseason. It took almost a complete bottoming out and a pre-Friedman Dodger org that wanted star power and didn’t care about money before Cherington got permission to unload. It didn’t happen right away.
And while Theo is certainly not immune from fuckups, especially in free agency, it’s not been his MO not to own up to them, so a CYA thing doesn’t fly with me.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
cerulean,
Jansen or Chapman would certainly not be about optics, but they would also be a large payroll commitment during a period when Bryant, Russell, and Schwarber can be expected to get hefty raises in arbitration. I’m not saying the Cubs can’t swing it, or that they shouldn’t, but that I understand if the front office wants to take a more fiscally prudent approach to the bullpen.
That said, I really hope they get one of Chapman or Jansen. Ideally Jansen since Chapman doesn’t seem to have as much beyond his overwhelming velocity, and may not age as well.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Also forgetting a Yankee WS win in there, which may have had something to do with the sudden impatience too.
And if what I’ve read is true, the binge was partly about filling seats. The Red Sox had apparently lost some of their sizzle. Seem to recall something about wanting “sexier” names on the roster. (dying laughing)
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Robothal sez Cubs after Wade Davis.
He was pretty super back when the Royals were going to the WS every year. But I don’t recall if he’s healthy these days. Depending on cost (Soler is being rumored), could be a worthwhile get.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Smokestack Lightning,
Get Wade Davis and sign Kenley Jansen.
ALL YOUR RELIEVER ARE BELONG TO ME!
But seriously, getting pitching for Soler from an AL team sounds pretty nice to me. I don’t think a one-for-one makes sense given Wade’s salary for a single year of control and some injury risk, but a decent prospect or two may make all the difference.
The Cubs’ strategy so far seems to be for short-term stopgaps until their pitching matures.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Now that I think about it a bit, I would say not. After unloading and winning the WS by going back to basics, the Sox turned around and started binge-spending again after another last-place finish. If anything, the schizo reactiveness of that organization from year to year over the last five lends credence to Theo’s version of events.
(dying laughing) I know I’m probably coming across like a Theo homer right now, but the CYA thing bothered me for some reason.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Ya know. I kinda thought the same thing a second ago (curiously, after I read every word of your post). I’d be all for that.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
I’m partial to a Chapman/Jansen closer platoon myself.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Then trade Schwarber for Andrew Miller and re-sign Dex. Who needs starting pitching anyway?
ceruleanQuote Reply
It would clear some of the outfield logjam and turn a lot of games into 5 inning affairs (assuming a return to form for Rondon and Strop).
PerkinsQuote Reply
I just bought a Schwarber jersey. Selfishly hoping they don’t trade him. (dying laughing)
PerkinsQuote Reply
The Red Sox had been spending gobs of money for a long time. They were always 2nd in payroll to the Yankees and their fans bitching about the Yankees payroll was always laughable. The Red Sox spent money so it’s no surprise they spent big. Maybe it was always the owner mandating the team to spend big, but it’s on Theo to spend it wisely. I don’t know what happened, but I know the Red Sox had been big spenders for awhile and see no reason to suddenly think ownership mandated a different course when it had proven successful.
dmick89Quote Reply
Shame Rich Hill is off the market. 4 years for $50M, maybe $55M would have been worth it—maybe as good as Jansen or Miller will be per inning. 6₩ is not unreasonable, even in the limited role I proposed.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Don’t worry, I don’t think they will sign both Chapman and Jansen either.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Had the Red Sox not had that epic collapse, they’d have gone to the postseason that year, kept Gonzalez and that would have turned out to be a pretty decent contract. The one given to Crawford was always going to be bad, but Gonzalez is exactly the kind of player that Theo would target in free agency.
dmick89Quote Reply
I’m including Gonzalez there since they extended him early in the 2011 season.
dmick89Quote Reply
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Nice of you to send up the Berselius-signal (dying laughing)
berseliusQuote Reply
Eck. I feel we’re already off the rails on this.
I’m not even sure what to argue. Like I said, it’s common knowledge that there was pressure coming from inside the Boston org to go after more exciting players and that the organization as a whole decided to go in that direction . And IIRC correctly, Theo never said it was everybody else’s fault, and that it was done without his approval, just that baseball ops relented and ended up straying from the organizational philosophy (to his credit, he pointed out owner John Henry was a critic of at least one of the signings they ended up making). Absolutely, it’s his fault they got “impatient” and dumped a bunch of money on Carl Crawford and traded for Adrian Gonzalez, et al, and it didn’t work out. And I’m pretty sure he’s said as much. Anytime I’ve read Theo talk about what happened it’s always been in the context of how he and the Red Sox strayed from what they believed to work the best (and how they let non-baseball ops personnel have too much influence over roster decisions) and how he’s learned from that time and won’t make that mistake in the future. Which is why I thought the “cover his ass” comment was uncharitable and careless and, honestly, false.
And ftr, the Red Sox were actually more economical during the Theo years than you give them credit for. Sure, they were second to the Yankees in payroll many years, but it was a Cardinals second place to Cubs first place sort of distance. Payroll actually went down from its peak in 2007 (143MM) all the way to 121MM by the end of the 2009 season. Prior to 2010, Theo spent big on Lackey, but other than that went the stop-gap route, which, along with backloaded deals coming due, elevated payroll again. After 2010, 60MM went off the books, and then the shift happened.
Yada yada yada, and then the Cubs won the World Series. (dying laughing)
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
berselius,
Even if the siren emojis don’t show up.
berseliusQuote Reply
What’s amusing is I really liked that 2010-11 Red Sox offseason and thought they were set to dominate for five years. Thought they were playing chess while everyone else was playing checkers.
I mean, Crawford was a stretch, but I thought he’d age well and be a tremendous asset for most of the deal, and I thought the Gonzalez trade was a coup as well. Why that team fell apart I’ll never know.
But I’m glad it did.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Beer and fried chicken.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Chapman is looking for six years. Good luck with that one buddy.
berseliusQuote Reply
I think the “sexy” players comment came from Francona and I’m pretty sure Henry had to walk back some comments he made about not wanting the Red Sox to sign Crawford. I’m also pretty sure Theo even admitted that (maybe that’s why Henry had to clarify his comments).
dmick89Quote Reply
I dunno. Here’s the link to Theo saying Henry didn’t want to do the Crawford deal. It’s from 2012.
http://www.si.com/si-wire/2012/01/12/theo-epstein-john-henry-didnt-want-to-sign-carl-crawford
Also, from the ESPN in-depth Theo piece from a couple of months back. Re-reading this, I’ll go ahead and walk back the “mandate” argument, as that’s the wrong word for it. Theo wasn’t ordered to spend against his will; it looks like he gave in. But he also didn’t shirk responsibility for the meltdown either, which was the only reason I responded to any of this (and now I wish I hadn’t) in the first place.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
To be clear, I said “if Theo” had said something along those lines, that’s what it sounded like to me.
dmick89Quote Reply
Soler and Chesny Young for Wade Davis, Kyle Zimmer, and Khalil Lee?
Zimmer has excellent stuff but has trouble staying healthy—and with a name like Zimmer, you know he’s at least worth a shot. And how can you not want a two-way lefty named Khalil—a potential LOOGY that can hit and field that also addresses the dearth of Khalils in the Cubs’ org I find so upsetting.
Chesny Young may be the scrappiest McScrapface prospect the Cubs have, perfect fit for KC—and a cool name to boot.
ceruleanQuote Reply
cerulean,
Considering how much money elite closers are being paid this offseason, I imagine it’s going to take a top prospect or two for Davis even with the injury concerns.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89,
You think Davis has more value than Soler?
ceruleanQuote Reply
Yeah, I know. It doesn’t even matter if he did or he didn’t. Didn’t intend for the discussion to carry on this long. I’m bad at the internet.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
cerulean,
No, but I think closers may be overrated, especially after the last few playoffs and how much they’ll be paid this offseason. If Davis was a free agent (and healthy), he’d easily get $17-19 million per season. Soler wouldn’t come close to that.
dmick89Quote Reply
Probably? If Torres isn’t enough for Chapman, Soler probably isn’t enough for Davis (though with the injury concerns, it might be – even then, those concerns go both ways).
My bet trade idea is Soler and Clifton (perhaps another prospect like Candelario) for Andrew Miller. Indians can’t afford to keep Miller in 2018, and probably don’t want a huge payroll in the bullpen in 2017. They could likely use Soler in RF (over Chisenhall), and the prospects are just prospects. Cubs could easily attempt to extend Miller during the season if that’s a possibility; even if it isn’t, he’s a dominant reliever that throws from the left side, two things we don’t have. We have even less of it if Montgum is going to start.
MylesQuote Reply
Why aren’t you guys talking about this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIRT7lf8byw
RynoQuote Reply
Ryno,
That’s only marginally better than Man Bites Dog, but nowhere near Man Mauls Bear or Man Bangs Dolphin.
I don’t know why we weren’t talking about either. It’s one of those mysteries that Robert Stack should be reanimated to narrate.
Speaking of Robert Stack, I once received a diagnosis of a brain cloud. The volcano god rejected my sacrifice.
Which reminds me, why aren’t we devoting our discussions to voluntary human sacrifices to dubious gods for corporate gain?
ceruleanQuote Reply
Myles,
Soler > Torres and Davis < Chapman.
Soler’s exit velocity is elite and he has a good eye—his floor is a decent DH.
Torres is still just a prospect in A-ball, even with the finish to the year he had.
Davis is not anything near as dominating as Chapman in terms of stuff—though stats say otherwise.
Also, paradoxically, the cost of a player a year from free-agency in the offseason is often less than at the deadline—especially those with injury concerns.
ceruleanQuote Reply
I strongly disagree with the former premise. I’d trade Soler for Torres right now more-or-less instantly.
MylesQuote Reply
Soler’s floor is injuries take him out of the league, which isn’t at all an unlikely outcome.
MylesQuote Reply
cerulean,
The kangaroo’s reaction is elite.
“The fuck did you just do?” *looks around” “Did anyone else see what this slow, soft, weak, manicured creature just did?”
RynoQuote Reply
Re: Baseball, if I may…
The value of elite relievers is interesting to me. Isn’t it likely that Epstein’s comments about (to paraphrase) creating/finding the next elite reliever rather than buying one are the actual plan and not bullshit?
RynoQuote Reply
Me too. Easily. I don’t think Soler is very good so it really depends on how good you think Soler can be. I think he’s a 4th outfielder with injury issues who is also not very good at fielding or base running or pretty much anything in all honesty. I guess he’s an average-ish hitter. Maybe.
dmick89Quote Reply
I think he’s pretty close to that happening to be honest. He doesn’t have much of any value in a trade at this point.
dmick89Quote Reply
Only takes one team to watch 2015 NLDS on repeat for us to extract value from him, but i tend to agree. I think he’s likely an average DH (which is pretty valuable), but it’s the most likely outcome, not a certain one.
MylesQuote Reply
Myles,
I don’t know. I think if teams valued him as a league average DH, they’d have traded him last offseason. IIRC, the offer they got in return from the Braves (or maybe it was another team) was ridiculous and probably even less than I think he’s worth. I think his injury issues and his overall suckiness since his first partial season, as well as his service time makes him almost value-less in a trade. I think he’s a throw-in and I think the Cubs might prefer just to have him as outfield depth.
dmick89Quote Reply
There was ample discussion of politics earlier in this thread.
uncle daveQuote Reply
Ryno,
Yes, with a caveat—in the first half of last year, the Cubs had arguably the best closer in the game, #NeverRondon notwithstanding. But he got injured. Edwards has elite stuff and team control. But he’s young. These teams have demonstrated that depth is overlooked and highly valuable. So that’s where acquiring a closer using either excess depth or excess cash makes sense.
The Dodgers beat the Cubs in 5 because of the best starter and the best closer. The Cubs probably win the World Series otherwise.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Myles,
Right now, yes. But last July? Someone who has proven that he can handle MLB pitching in an elite way is a better bet than every prospect in A ball.
Sure, Cubs’ prospects have been terrible at doing what prospects do best—that is fail—but it doesn’t change the original premise, to me at least.
ceruleanQuote Reply
cerulean,
If Strop is in pre-injury form, he should make at least an average closer.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
I’m sure the Cubs want to trade Soler–the outfield is seriously overcrowded–but the only way to get much value back would be to time travel back to the 2014-2015 offseason. He’s sunk like a stone since then.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
How about a new thread sometime before 2017? It takes me eleventy minutes to scroll all the way down on my phone. I’m in danger of not reading every word.
Wenningtons Gorilla CockQuote Reply
Sale ——-> Red Sox
Moncada, Kopech——-> White Sox
MuckerQuote Reply
I had one about the new CBA, but thought it wasn’t funny enough to pass muster. I’ll send it through anyway.
MylesQuote Reply
New Shit
http://obstructedview.net/changes-baseball-cba/
mylesQuote Reply