Marlins at Cubs IST

[justaChifan]

sure. any GM who is in "true" contention will probably buy. Do you think they will be in contention?

I don't know if they will be in contention, but something tells me the FO never planned on it and it's something they really don't want happening right now in the still "early part" of the rebuild.
None of the revenue generators are in place yet.

 

[Parade_Rain]

The biggest revenue generator they could possibly have is to put out a winning product.

 

[justaChifan]

The biggest revenue generator they could possibly have is to put out a winning product.

I would never argue that.

But isn't it about the baseball side meshing with the business side in unison?
I don't think the bus. side is there yet.
God forbid they have to try to sustain an unsustainable streak of success out of pocket.

 

[chibears55]

The biggest revenue generator they could possibly have is to put out a winning product.

That and the players that are most responsible for them winning are ones that are mainstays on this team.. so if they deal away lake castro rizzo castillo kids in pen, then we can say their trying to lose

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T217A using Tapatalk

 

[justaChifan]

That and the players that are most responsible for them winning are ones that are mainstays on this team.. so if they deal away lake castro rizzo castillo kids in pen, then we can say their trying to lose

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T217A using Tapatalk

I'm thinking more along the lines of Shark and Hammel.

 

[chibears55]

I'm thinking more along the lines of Shark and Hammel.

Hammel yes, but I think they wont lose to much with whomever replaces him unless it with a total didn't see that one coming dog.

Samardzija, I don't know.. I think he finishes the year and he either extended or traded in off season

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T217A using Tapatalk

 

[justaChifan]

Hammel yes, but I think they wont lose to much with whomever replaces him unless it with a total didn't see that one coming dog.

Samardzija, I don't know.. I think he finishes the year and he either extended or traded in off season

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T217A using Tapatalk

Are they going to replace Hammel with someone that gives the same amount of production?
Or is it about the future? Whenever that is.

 

[chibears55]

Are they going to replace Hammel with someone that gives the same amount of production?
Or is it about the future? Whenever that is.

Lets keep in mind that hammel having a career year, I mean this is only 2nd time in 8 full yrs his ERA been below 4...
We cant predict rest of season for him, but odds are he not going to maintain his production to date and is bound to have more bad starts then good in 2nd half.

Who replaces him.. like I said they could throw a dog a bone like wada or rusin again or go with either hendricks rhee or jokisch who could be part of rotation next yr

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T217A using Tapatalk

 

[beckdawg]

Are they going to replace Hammel with someone that gives the same amount of production?
Or is it about the future? Whenever that is.

Hendricks might end up being what you generally would have expected out of Hammel prior to the season. Obviously Hammel is pitching a bit out of his mind right now and that's hard to replace. But, I really like Hendricks. His 3.90 ERA is pretty meh but you also have to factor in that he is playing in the PCL which is a well renowned hitters league park wise. His 8.60 k/9 is the highest of his career and his 2.55 bb/9 while up from previous years is still pretty good. Anything under 3 is generally pretty good. Hendricks isn't hyped up because he doesn't have outstanding tools. However, pitchers who don't walk batters often can succeed.

 

[Parade_Rain]

I would never argue that.

I wasn't arguing with you. I'm disagreeing with Ricketts needing the additional revenue streams before putting a good product on the field. You put a good product on the field and that generates additional revenue. I don't care for their business model or at least the one they claim publicly to need.

But isn't it about the baseball side meshing with the business side in unison?

Sure. What's the Cubs' horoscope reading today?

I don't think the bus. side is there yet.

The old chicken versus the egg situation.

 

[justaChifan]

Hendricks might end up being what you generally would have expected out of Hammel prior to the season. Obviously Hammel is pitching a bit out of his mind right now and that's hard to replace. But, I really like Hendricks. His 3.90 ERA is pretty meh but you also have to factor in that he is playing in the PCL which is a well renowned hitters league park wise. His 8.60 k/9 is the highest of his career and his 2.55 bb/9 while up from previous years is still pretty good. Anything under 3 is generally pretty good. Hendricks isn't hyped up because he doesn't have outstanding tools. However, pitchers who don't walk batters often can succeed.

Again I realize its early.
BUT, if the Cubs go on tear with ALL the mainstays along with Shark and Hammel, should they sell those two off for possible future success?
Upset the apple cart and all.
A good thing going.
Let the "mainstays" know that the org. is really committed to winning now?

 

[justaChifan]

I wasn't arguing with you. I'm disagreeing with Ricketts needing the additional revenue streams before putting a good product on the field. You put a good product on the field and that generates additional revenue. I don't care for their business model or at least the one they claim publicly to need.

Sure. What's the Cubs' horoscope reading today?
The old chicken versus the egg situation.

Again, I can't argue with anything you said.
This is what TR, Theo & Co told fans to expect.
Do sheep lay eggs?

 

[chibears55]

I wasn't arguing with you. I'm disagreeing with Ricketts needing the additional revenue streams before putting a good product on the field. You put a good product on the field and that generates additional revenue. I don't care for their business model or at least the one they claim publicly to need.

your right, they dont need the extra revenue stream to put a good product on field but they do need it if they want to put a great one on field to compete with those that been reaping the rewards of having it with signing the big name FAs/top international players..



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T217A using Tapatalk

 

[beckdawg]

Again I realize its early.
BUT, if the Cubs go on tear with ALL the mainstays along with Shark and Hammel, should they sell those two off for possible future success?
Upset the apple cart and all.
A good thing going.
Let the "mainstays" know that the org. is really committed to winning now?

There's 35 games until the trade deadline and they are 5.5 back in the wild card. To be a buyer they'd need to be within a game or two by the deadline. And with the wild card it's not just one team you are chasing. There's 9 teams ahead of them. So, making up ground is much harder. They are 10 out of the division. I really don't think contention is realistic. I say this as one of the people who was saying 70-75 wins when many were predicting 100+ losses. I think they can still get to that area but that's not going to get them a wild card and likely isn't close enough to buy either.

Perhaps they don't sell off as much. I could see them holding on to Shark especially if the offers aren't to their liking. But Hammel seems to be gone regardless. He's playing too well and he's on a one year deal. He's likely to get $12-15 mil in FA and I'm not sure they will view him being worth that to re-sign. I assume they will sell him off and look to add someone in FA. And considering they've done this 3 straight years who's to question them if they do it again? I've made the argument that Hammel will net a price similar to Dempster and Garza-lite. Assuming that is right, you're talking about real prospects there and not reclamation projects like Arreita and Strop were or injured players like Vizcaino was.

 

[chibears55]

Again I realize its early.
BUT, if the Cubs go on tear with ALL the mainstays along with Shark and Hammel, should they sell those two off for possible future success?
Upset the apple cart and all.
A good thing going.
Let the "mainstays" know that the org. is really committed to winning now?

I see what your saying but if this team is anywhere near .500 by mid july first Renteria needs to be manager of year, 2nd we have to assume Jackson and wood has totally turned their season around..

I think fir what you just said about the "mainstays" is part of reason they keep samardzija.

But I believe hammel and rest of team knew that he was going to be a flip from day one when he signed 1 yr deal..
It good incentives sometimes for a career struggling player knowing you could be traded to a contender if you play well

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T217A using Tapatalk

 

[justaChifan]

There's 35 games until the trade deadline and they are 5.5 back in the wild card. To be a buyer they'd need to be within a game or two by the deadline. And with the wild card it's not just one team you are chasing. There's 9 teams ahead of them. So, making up ground is much harder. They are 10 out of the division. I really don't think contention is realistic. I say this as one of the people who was saying 70-75 wins when many were predicting 100+ losses. I think they can still get to that area but that's not going to get them a wild card and likely isn't close enough to buy either.

Perhaps they don't sell off as much. I could see them holding on to Shark especially if the offers aren't to their liking. But Hammel seems to be gone regardless. He's playing too well and he's on a one year deal. He's likely to get $12-15 mil in FA and I'm not sure they will view him being worth that to re-sign. I assume they will sell him off and look to add someone in FA. And considering they've done this 3 straight years who's to question them if they do it again? I've made the argument that Hammel will net a price similar to Dempster and Garza-lite. Assuming that is right, you're talking about real prospects there and not reclamation projects like Arreita and Strop were or injured players like Vizcaino was.

I appreciate you clarifying the definition of being in contention. That's what I inferred about going on a tear.

The question is. If the Cubs can somehow maintain this level of success and actually be in contention at the deadline, Should they break it up??? It's pretty simple.

 

[beckdawg]

I appreciate you clarifying the definition of being in contention. That's what I inferred about going on a tear.

The question is. If the Cubs can somehow maintain this level of success and actually be in contention at the deadline, Should they break it up??? It's pretty simple.

Well I think you have to talk about what they are. I mean they've won 5 straight and they are still only at .424 win% which is a 69 win pace over 162 games. So, what exactly are we talking about in terms of maintaining this level of "success?" .450 win%? .500? The problem I have is I think everyone would say the cubs would be far exceeding their talent if they played .500 ball. However, at the moment .500 ball doesn't even get you into the playoffs. St. Louis is 1 game over .500 and are still a half game back in the wild card. So, if we're talking about a .500 team you're talking about a team that is playing well above what most would consider their talent ceiling and it's still not good enough to get you into the playoffs.

Again, they might not totally break the team up but I can't see them adding high profile pieces to that via deadline trades because they aren't there yet. And in the case of Hammel, he's gone at the end of the year unless you re-sign him. He's 31 as well so I can't see them wanting to re-sign him. So, I think he's gone regardless especially when you consider he can net a real prospect.

Other than Hammel, what's there to break up? They aren't trading Wood, Rizzo and Castro. They probably can't trade Jackson. There's no reason to trade Arreita. The only moveable pieces are Shark and some of the lessor guys like Bonifacio, Russell, Villanueva and Schierholtz. And as I said before, if they play exceedingly well, maybe they consider keeping Shark. But, the rest isn't really that much of a loss.

 

[justaChifan]

Well I think you have to talk about what they are. I mean they've won 5 straight and they are still only at .424 win% which is a 69 win pace over 162 games. So, what exactly are we talking about in terms of maintaining this level of "success?" .450 win%? .500? The problem I have is I think everyone would say the cubs would be far exceeding their talent if they played .500 ball. However, at the moment .500 ball doesn't even get you into the playoffs. St. Louis is 1 game over .500 and are still a half game back in the wild card. So, if we're talking about a .500 team you're talking about a team that is playing well above what most would consider their talent ceiling and it's still not good enough to get you into the playoffs.

Again, they might not totally break the team up but I can't see them adding high profile pieces to that via deadline trades because they aren't there yet. And in the case of Hammel, he's gone at the end of the year unless you re-sign him. He's 31 as well so I can't see them wanting to re-sign him. So, I think he's gone regardless especially when you consider he can net a real prospect.

Other than Hammel, what's there to break up? They aren't trading Wood, Rizzo and Castro. They probably can't trade Jackson. There's no reason to trade Arreita. The only moveable pieces are Shark and some of the lessor guys like Bonifacio, Russell, Villanueva and Schierholtz. And as I said before, if they play exceedingly well, maybe they consider keeping Shark. But, the rest isn't really that much of a loss.

Was it not stated by Theo, years ago, that if the Cubs were in contention they would be buyers?
The game is actually based on results and not projected results.
Unless you're waiting for the official directive from Theo and the FO, I don't think you know how to answer the question.

 

[chibears55]

Was it not stated by Theo, years ago, that if the Cubs were in contention they would be buyers?
The game is actually based on results and not projected results.
Unless you're waiting for the official directive from Theo and the FO, I don't think you know how to answer the question.

What are you buying and who you willing to trade off to hopefully be contenders and not pretenders this yr, ?

Their not gonna move any top prospects for a vet that may or may not help them make playoff at deadline...

Their 35 games to deadline. They need to go 22-13 just to be a .500 team Aug. 1...

If they miraculously get to .500, that a tough decision for any GM to make is if it worth trading away future for a slight possibility of making the playoffs... if they miss out, it sets the organization back

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T217A using Tapatalk

 

[justaChifan]

I'm not saying it's a sure thing they will contend.
But if they do and realize where they may need some help, they could possibly sign some ya know "rental players".
Teams that are out of it usually love to unload that type of player at minimal cost to the buyer.
The FA's the Cubs have signed since Theo took over were hoped to catch lightening in a bottle.
Is it wrong to catch too much lightening in too many bottles with out signing them to long term contracts?