MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: RushmoreAcademy on October 07, 2015, 02:12:08 PM
-
As a Cubs fan, it's nice to even be thinking about playoffs.
Big game tonight, and as much as I hate the system at the moment, you have to be happy that you have the best pitcher in baseball currently heading to the mound for you. Not saying he will win, but if you were hand picking a guy to pitch a wild card game in MLB right now, it would be Arrieta.
The game could easily be 0-0 or 1-1 into the late innings and then your advantage is gone.
I know it's the popular pick, but in the AL I like Toronto.
In the NL it's hard to pick against the Greinke/Kershaw buzzsaw.
-
Kershaw isn't Kershaw in the playoffs, though. Never gone past 7 innings; ERA well over 5.00; over 3 BB per 9 innings.
Greinke is better, but still an ERA over 3.60; Ks down.
-
I dunno, this Mets team kinda reminds me of the 05 White Sox. They dont get a lot of hype, no real superstars in their mix but everybody is having their best year for them so far and combine that with solid pitching from starters 1-4. Wouldnt count them out either.
That being said though, the Cubs have a good of chance as any this year. Toronto has a great lineup but are those 6 RPG gonna last in the playoffs? Playoff baseball is a different animal and pitching is much better because you can get away with going 4 or even 3 starters pending on the schedule.
-
Cardinals over Royals
I just puked in my mouth.
-
I'm rooting for the Cubs because it would make my many Cub fan friends happy, and for the Astros because I like Carlos Gomez.
The Cubs and Astros have to give Brewers fans some hope right? If they can find a team to take the Braun contract off their hands, that will be a good thing.
-
I'm rooting for the Cubs because it would make my many Cub fan friends happy, and for the Astros because I like Carlos Gomez.
The Cubs and Astros have to give Brewers fans some hope right? If they can find a team to take the Braun contract off their hands, that will be a good thing.
Fiers and Gomez hit the jackpot, huh?
Gomez will have a huge season next year being the leader on a team where the top players are latinos - Correa, Springer, Altuve.
-
Toronto v. Cards or Cubs.
-
I think whoever wins the NL game tonight takes out St. Louis. As a Cubs fan I have the utmost confidence in Arrieta. As a Cubs fan I am also terrified of Cole. Should be a great, low-scoring game.
-
Fiers and Gomez hit the jackpot, huh?
Gomez will have a huge season next year being the leader on a team where the top players are latinos - Correa, Springer, Altuve.
Pretty sure Springer grew up and went to prep school in CT...
-
#FlytheW
-
Well, coming from a Sox fan that was really, really impressive. Didn't even look like arietta had his best stuff.
-
I need to dig a Cards hat out from somewhere in my closet
-
Looks like Kyle Schwarber laughed at everyones predictions of a 1-0 game.
-
I worked for three managers in my career when I was with the Angels...Terry Collins (now at the Mets), Mike Scioscia, and Joe Maddon (now at Cubs). Was so hoping my Halos would find a way to make it all three for this year's playoffs.
I hate the one game playoff after 162 games, but it is what it is. Cubs could do a lot of damage. As long as the Doyers don't win it, I'll be thrilled.
-
Pretty sure Springer grew up and went to prep school in CT...
Definitely a local kid. From New Britain (known locally as New Britski). He started at the local public school and as often happens with kids with sports talent a local prep school gets him to transfer. Played baseball at UConn which has a good team coached by Jim Penders, the brother of retired college basketball coach Tom Penders.
-
When the Cubs got up 3-0, the Pirates panicked. I actually think that subbing Alvarez for Rodriguez early got "we need offense!" in their heads and they started pressing. Arrieta didn't have his best but the Pirates helped him out a lot with some awful at bats. That tension obviously boiled over when Watson plunked Arrieta...which was a stupid thing to do considering, at that point, the Pirates only had 5 baserunners and 2 got on via HBP.
Tons of confidence in Arrieta going forward. Lester and Hammel? Not as much. Should be a fun series with StL!
-
This bad blood all started with the hard slide into Kang right? I can also understand the Pirates frustrations hosting the WC game two years in a row and getting shut out each time.
-
This bad blood all started with the hard slide into Kang right? I can also understand the Pirates frustrations hosting the WC game two years in a row and getting shut out each time.
Yup. Pirates get a nice prize for having the second best record in all of baseball. First, they have to face the hottest pitcher in the last 100 years (maybe in history), and, should they have survived that, face the best team in baseball.
The current setup is also unfair to the Cards. The best team should get to face the weakest team. The process should be designed to reward the best team, not to maximize punishment for the wild card team, who generally will not be the worst team (the odds of the three best teams being one per division are around 27.5%).
I like Toronto vs Chicago in the WS. The way Arrieta is pitching right now it's like the Cubs go into any 7 game series with a 2-0 lead.
-
This bad blood all started with the hard slide into Kang right? I can also understand the Pirates frustrations hosting the WC game two years in a row and getting shut out each time.
I'd assume so. I have nothing against the Pirates but their fans were pretty silly all week. Lots of sour grapes during the game last night including booing Arrieta after each HBP. As if he was doing it on purpose, I mean seriously. Not to mention there was a nice social media buzz about how Kang was their best hitter against Arrieta and this was all carefully designed. FOH
Cole was absolutely RATTLED. Shaky after the Cubs scored early, absolutely done after Schwarber. Meanwhile, Arrieta didn't have his best stuff in the mid innings but held the line. The DP to end the 6th was one of the most exciting and reliving moments this season.
While a 1 game playoff is a bit unfair, I agree, the outcome was fair. Cubs were a far hotter team, Pirates had a pretty dismal record against the cream of the NL Central. I hope Carlos Zambrano called Sean Rodriguez to give him pointers on how to properly knock out a Gatorade cooler...and how to not suck at hitting.
-
I'd assume so. I have nothing against the Pirates but their fans were pretty silly all week. Lots of sour grapes during the game last night including booing Arrieta after each HBP. As if he was doing it on purpose, I mean seriously. Not to mention there was a nice social media buzz about how Kang was their best hitter against Arrieta and this was all carefully designed. FOH
Cole was absolutely RATTLED. Shaky after the Cubs scored early, absolutely done after Schwarber. Meanwhile, Arrieta didn't have his best stuff in the mid innings but held the line. The DP to end the 6th was one of the most exciting and reliving moments this season.
While a 1 game playoff is a bit unfair, I agree, the outcome was fair. Cubs were a far hotter team, Pirates had a pretty dismal record against the cream of the NL Central. I hope Carlos Zambrano called Sean Rodriguez to give him pointers on how to properly knock out a Gatorade cooler...and how to not suck at hitting.
Ahh, the chirping that comes when your team finally wins a "Playoff game" for the first time in 12 years.
I hope I have that opportunity as a Brewers fan within that time frame. Not holding my breath, though.
-
Cubs were a far hotter team, Pirates had a pretty dismal record against the cream of the NL Central.
Let's not forget, they also lost 21 games to the Brewers and Reds
-
While a 1 game playoff is a bit unfair, I agree, the outcome was fair. Cubs were a far hotter team, Pirates had a pretty dismal record against the cream of the NL Central. I hope Carlos Zambrano called Sean Rodriguez to give him pointers on how to properly knock out a Gatorade cooler...and how to not suck at hitting.
Let's not get carried away. The Pirates went 17-21 vs Cubs/StL with 13 games decided by 1 run. Not exactly dismal.
For reference...
Cubs vs Pit/StL: 19-19
Cardinals vs Cubs/Pit: 21-17
-
Let's not get carried away. The Pirates went 17-21 vs Cubs/StL with 13 games decided by 1 run. Not exactly dismal.
For reference...
Cubs vs Pit/StL: 19-19
Cardinals vs Cubs/Pit: 21-17
Good stats. You would expect teams to have worse records against better teams. They are, after all, better teams.
What really hurt the Pirates is their inability to beat the Brewers (and Reds), somehow. If they win a few more of those games they win the Division.
-
If ever there was a chance to get St Louis, it might be now, with Molina on the mend, Martinez out and Wainwright relegated to the bullpen.
I also felt like Arrieta didn't have his best stuff, but it's kind of funny because he has raised the expectations so much. Not sure if anyone saw the post game interview, but a reporter asked him how he got through not being as crisp out there and he said "I'm not sure what game you were watching..."
The time he was really in trouble was because of a hit batter and an error, but it's comes so infrequently lately that it feels like a bigger moment of struggle.
-
How awful was that TBS broadcast though?
-
Great job by Maddon. I don't know of any other manager who would do what he did in that game.
Schwarber in RF; Bryant in LF; LaStella at 3B - all had started 6 or fewer games at those positions all year.
Or go back to switching Russell and Castro. That is the kind of move - mid-season - that can tear teams apart.
-
Great job by Maddon. I don't know of any other manager who would do what he did in that game.
Schwarber in RF; Bryant in LF; LaStella at 3B - all had started 6 or fewer games at those positions all year.
Or go back to switching Russell and Castro. That is the kind of move - mid-season - that can tear teams apart.
Which is ironic because Bryant and LaStella didn't matter from an offensive standpoint. And the best defensive plays at 3B were when Bryant was in the game.
-
How awful was that TBS broadcast though?
It was horrid.
I may seriously go radio next game. If only I had a way to DVR the radio.
-
Let's not get carried away. The Pirates went 17-21 vs Cubs/StL with 13 games decided by 1 run. Not exactly dismal.
For reference...
Cubs vs Pit/StL: 19-19
Cardinals vs Cubs/Pit: 21-17
My mistake, I knew their record against the Central wasnt' great, without the breakdown I assumed they struggled against the Cubs and Cards cause I knew the Cubs had the season series comfortably.
And of course Wades can't resist a Chicago shot. If Cubs fans were acting like that (and I'm sure the pink hats and crew at the DraftKings Fanzone, or whatever the hell that was, would) I'd say the same thing. I won't mention the Brewers fans that constantly mocked the Cubs and their "sorry franchise" during their time in the sun. They hadn't won a playoff series in 30 years and they responded by telling me that I was salty that the Brewers owned the Cubs and now that Attanasio was in charge, that wouldn't change.
But enough of that, I'm gonna enjoy October baseball for the first time in years.
-
How awful was that TBS broadcast though?
+1
I was lucky to avoid a lot of it by being in a room full of my loud friends, but the parts I heard were painful.
-
My mistake, I knew their record against the Central wasnt' great, without the breakdown I assumed they struggled against the Cubs and Cards cause I knew the Cubs had the season series comfortably.
And of course Wades can't resist a Chicago shot. If Cubs fans were acting like that (and I'm sure the pink hats and crew at the DraftKings Fanzone, or whatever the hell that was, would) I'd say the same thing. I won't mention the Brewers fans that constantly mocked the Cubs and their "sorry franchise" during their time in the sun. They hadn't won a playoff series in 30 years and they responded by telling me that I was salty that the Brewers owned the Cubs and now that Attanasio was in charge, that wouldn't change.
But enough of that, I'm gonna enjoy October baseball for the first time in years.
Every team has their insufferable fans. ( See Wade with the Packers) usually I'm not too fond of Cubs fans overall but at the bar I was at last night only one guy bothered me, he pulled a Jae Crowder it's over throat slash in the 7th inning. But the other cubs fans were nothing but respectful and happy. They even called that other cubs fan out reminding him that they are indeed still the Cubs.
I'm a Sox fan but always a chicago fan. So go cubs. Plus my mom would be ecstatic if the Cubs actually won.
-
How awful was that TBS broadcast though?
Too "bro-ey."
They should just use Brian Anderson
-
My mistake, I knew their record against the Central wasnt' great, without the breakdown I assumed they struggled against the Cubs and Cards cause I knew the Cubs had the season series comfortably.
And of course Wades can't resist a Chicago shot. If Cubs fans were acting like that (and I'm sure the pink hats and crew at the DraftKings Fanzone, or whatever the hell that was, would) I'd say the same thing. I won't mention the Brewers fans that constantly mocked the Cubs and their "sorry franchise" during their time in the sun. They hadn't won a playoff series in 30 years and they responded by telling me that I was salty that the Brewers owned the Cubs and now that Attanasio was in charge, that wouldn't change.
But enough of that, I'm gonna enjoy October baseball for the first time in years.
Fans boo at every single baseball stadium when their team gets hit by a pitch. I don't know why you'd be surprised that it'd be a little more passionate in a do or die game that is sold out and emotions are high. But hey, maybe Cubs fans cheer on and encourage opposing pitchers when a Cub is hit in Wrigley ::).
The fact that the Brewers are a joke of a franchise doesn't change the fact that the Cubs are a sorry franchise at all.
-
Fans boo at every single baseball stadium when their team gets hit by a pitch. I don't know why you'd be surprised that it'd be a little more passionate in a do or die game that is sold out and emotions are high. But hey, maybe Cubs fans cheer on and encourage opposing pitchers when a Cub is hit in Wrigley ::).
The fact that the Brewers are a joke of a franchise doesn't change the fact that the Cubs were a sorry franchise at all.
Fixed that for you.
-
Yeah I think the Cubs are going to be good for awhile. They have a bunch of talent in their system and will have even more revenue after the Wrigley renovations are done. Smart of them to get off their reliance on the high priced free agents (hello Yankees!!!) and work on a more balanced system developing their own with a FA here and there to fill holes.
-
My mistake, I knew their record against the Central wasnt' great, without the breakdown I assumed they struggled against the Cubs and Cards cause I knew the Cubs had the season series comfortably.
And of course Wades can't resist a Chicago shot. If Cubs fans were acting like that (and I'm sure the pink hats and crew at the DraftKings Fanzone, or whatever the hell that was, would) I'd say the same thing. I won't mention the Brewers fans that constantly mocked the Cubs and their "sorry franchise" during their time in the sun. They hadn't won a playoff series in 30 years and they responded by telling me that I was salty that the Brewers owned the Cubs and now that Attanasio was in charge, that wouldn't change.
But enough of that, I'm gonna enjoy October baseball for the first time in years.
Like clockwork. I actually really like wades outside of any Chicago discussion. Inferiority complex or overcompensation - not sure which.
-
They'll be good no doubt, but 1 year where you win the 2nd Wild Card doesn't turn your franchise from 108 years of being a joke to suddenly not being a sorry franchise.
-
Like clockwork. I actually really like wades outside of any Chicago discussion. Inferiority complex or overcompensation - not sure which.
Meh. If you guys really think that any other team's fans in the world would react differently than the Pirates fans did, then I'm fine with you guys thinking I have an inferiority complex or overcompensation. Their players got hit by pitches. They booed. Find me a stadium where that won't happen and maybe I'll consider the possibility that one of those two descriptions fit me.
-
Like clockwork. I actually really like wades outside of any Chicago discussion. Inferiority complex or overcompensation - not sure which.
I've seen the Cubs play in 9 different stadiums other than Wrigley (including several games in StL). The only two where the home fans took major exception to the large number of Cubs' fans in attendance were Milwaukee and the South Side. It might be an inferiority issue or perhaps only the most loud and obnoxious Cubs fans travel to those games because everywhere else is relatively welcoming.
-
I've seen the Cubs play in 9 different stadiums other than Wrigley (including several games in StL). The only two where the home fans took major exception to the large number of Cubs' fans in attendance were Milwaukee and the South Side. It might be an inferiority issue or perhaps only the most loud and obnoxious Cubs fans travel to those games because everywhere else is relatively welcoming.
I was just referring to wades taking shots at Chicago teams in nearly every thread about sports or players - Cubs, Bears, Blackhawks, Cutler, etc.
This is what I was referring to:
Ahh, the chirping that comes when your team finally wins a "Playoff game" for the first time in 12 years.
I hope I have that opportunity as a Brewers fan within that time frame. Not holding my breath, though.
-
When the Cubs got up 3-0, the Pirates panicked. I actually think that subbing Alvarez for Rodriguez early got "we need offense!" in their heads and they started pressing. Arrieta didn't have his best but the Pirates helped him out a lot with some awful at bats. That tension obviously boiled over when Watson plunked Arrieta...which was a stupid thing to do considering, at that point, the Pirates only had 5 baserunners and 2 got on via HBP.
Tons of confidence in Arrieta going forward. Lester and Hammel? Not as much. Should be a fun series with StL!
"Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth."
-
They'll be good no doubt, but 1 year where you win the 2nd Wild Card doesn't turn your franchise from 108 years of being a joke to suddenly not being a sorry franchise.
I don't think they are "108 years of being a joke." They have gone 108 years since winning a championship. Those are two different things.
-
Fans boo at every single baseball stadium when their team gets hit by a pitch. I don't know why you'd be surprised that it'd be a little more passionate in a do or die game that is sold out and emotions are high. But hey, maybe Cubs fans cheer on and encourage opposing pitchers when a Cub is hit in Wrigley ::).
The fact that the Brewers are a joke of a franchise doesn't change the fact that the Cubs are a sorry franchise at all.
Id have expected them to get excited, lord knows they weren't loading up on baserunners otherwise.
-
I was just referring to wades taking shots at Chicago teams in nearly every thread about sports or players - Cubs, Bears, Blackhawks, Cutler, etc.
This is what I was referring to:
Blackhawks? More like Bulls. Other than the Kane investigation I don't think I've ever said anything about hockey on here. I don't pay one iota of attention to hockey. And with the Bulls it's pretty much just Derrick Rose. Turns out, Jimmy Butler feels about the same as I do about him. And turns out that some of Cutler's former Hall of Fame teammates feel the same about him as I do. So there's that.
I don't think they are "108 years of being a joke." They have gone 108 years since winning a championship. Those are two different things.
They haven't been to a World Series since 1945. They have won a total of 3 Playoff series since then. For a big market team, they have essentially been a joke for 108 years.
-
Blackhawks? More like Bulls. Other than the Kane investigation I don't think I've ever said anything about hockey on here. I don't pay one iota of attention to hockey.
Fire? Sky?
-
Fire? Sky?
Huh?
-
Blackhawks? More like Bulls. Other than the Kane investigation I don't think I've ever said anything about hockey on here. I don't pay one iota of attention to hockey. And with the Bulls it's pretty much just Derrick Rose. Turns out, Jimmy Butler feels about the same as I do about him. And turns out that some of Cutler's former Hall of Fame teammates feel the same about him as I do. So there's that.
What about his current teammates who voted him a team captain?
-
Huh?
Two more Chicago teams. Just a joke.
-
I was just referring to wades taking shots at Chicago teams in nearly every thread about sports or players - Cubs, Bears, Blackhawks, Cutler, etc.
This is what I was referring to:
I guess it wasn't very clear but I was supporting you. Many Brewers fans (like wades) and many Sox fans hate all things Cubs and tend to blame that hatred on the obnoxious Cubs' fans, despite the fact that very few other fanbases have anywhere close to that same level animosity even if their stadiums are filled with Cubs fans.
-
What about his current teammates who voted him a team captain?
Guess it just goes to show why they're 1-3.
Must've been the enhanced leadership ability he showed in the offseason. Kind of like when his teammates and coaches were saying he had taken a huge step forwards going into last season and he was ready to have an MVP season ;D
-
I guess it wasn't very clear but I was supporting you. Brewers fans (like wades) and Sox fans hate all things Cubs and tend to blame that hatred on the obnoxious Cubs' fans, despite the fact that very few other fanbases have anywhere close to that same level animosity even if their stadiums are filled with Cubs fans.
Grouping all sox fans in that category is the same exact thing as grouping all cubs fans together. No difference. See my earlier posts.
-
Grouping all sox fans in that category is the same exact thing as grouping all cubs fans together. No difference. See my earlier posts.
FIFY
-
Guess it just goes to show why they're 1-3.
Must've been the enhanced leadership ability he showed in the offseason. Kind of like when his teammates and coaches were saying he had taken a huge step forwards going into last season and he was ready to have an MVP season ;D
That has nothing to do with anything. You tried to claim that his teammates don't like him and that's just not true.
-
That has nothing to do with anything. You tried to claim that his teammates don't like him and that's just not true.
http://97zokonline.com/brian-urlacher-calls-out-jay-cutler-during-interview/
He also called him out for being his only teammate not to call him when he retired. Which is exactly what I said. Brandon Marshall (another potential HOF player) also called him out this offseason. You brought up his current teammates, I had never said anything about them.
And turns out that some of Cutler's former Hall of Fame teammates feel the same about him as I do.
-
Leave it to wade to turn a MLB thread into a let's talk about how terrible a person and quarterback jay Cutler is. Give it a rest dude.
-
Brandon Marshall is a crazy person.
And wades is Scoop's Skip Bayless.
Hope this helps.
-
Leave it to wade to turn a MLB thread into a let's talk about how terrible a person and quarterback jay Cutler is. Give it a rest dude.
Hmm, might want to check who brought up the Bears and Cutler in this thread. Get back to me on that.
-
Hmm, might want to check who brought up the Bears and Cutler in this thread. Get back to me on that.
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story, though.
-
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story, though.
Huh? Last time I checked we were talking about the unnessary hatred cubs fans get after yoy took a shot at chicago. Someone brought up your previous digressions against chicago sports teams and you took it and ran with it again. Let's not pretend yoy did nothing to instigate it.
-
Huh? Last time I checked we were talking about the unnessary hatred cubs fans get after yoy took a shot at chicago. Someone brought up your previous digressions against chicago sports teams and you took it and ran with it again. Let's not pretend yoy did nothing to instigate it.
Nothing to instigate what? So me saying that every single MLB fan base in the United States of America boos when their players get hit at a home game instigated bringing up Jay Cutler and the Bears? Got it. That makes sense.
Sorry for the instigation. You're right, leave it to me to turn an MLB thread into a discussion about the Bears and Jay Cutler because I responded about fan reactions to being hit by pitches (an event that happens in the MLB...).
;D
-
Nothing to instigate what? So me saying that every single MLB fan base in the United States of America boos when their players get hit at a home game instigated bringing up Jay Cutler and the Bears? Got it. That makes sense.
Sorry for the instigation. You're right, leave it to me to turn an MLB thread into a discussion about the Bears and Jay Cutler because I responded about fan reactions to being hit by pitches (an event that happens in the MLB...).
;D
This was your instigation:
Ahh, the chirping that comes when your team finally wins a "Playoff game" for the first time in 12 years.
-
I was just referring to wades taking shots at Chicago teams in nearly every thread about sports or players - Cubs, Bears, Blackhawks, Cutler, etc.
Blackhawks? More like Bulls. Other than the Kane investigation I don't think I've ever said anything about hockey on here. I don't pay one iota of attention to hockey. And with the Bulls it's pretty much just Derrick Rose. Turns out, Jimmy Butler feels about the same as I do about him. And turns out that some of Cutler's former Hall of Fame teammates feel the same about him as I do. So there's that.
What about his current teammates who voted him a team captain?
jesmu first mentioned Cutler, albeit somewhat in passing.
wades took exception, as he tends to do.
I pushed it. I'll take the blame on this one, though I'm not the only one at fault here ;)
-
http://97zokonline.com/brian-urlacher-calls-out-jay-cutler-during-interview/
He also called him out for being his only teammate not to call him when he retired. Which is exactly what I said. Brandon Marshall (another potential HOF player) also called him out this offseason. You brought up his current teammates, I had never said anything about them.
Guys have a limited shelf life in the NFL. Stars aren't going to call him out until they retire or are traded because they want to remain in fan's good graces. Marginal players aren't going to do it because they want to stick around.
Packer player on offense have to answer to Aaron even before the coaches. We've seen him go off on players who didn't prepare properly a few times. Jay would never garner that sort of respect.
-
This was your instigation:
You left out the whole part about me hoping the Brewers are in that position within the next 8ish years...AKA I was saying I'm jealous of where the Cubs are. So if that's instigating then yes, again, my fault.
-
Packer player on offense have to answer to Aaron even before the coaches. We've seen him go off on players who didn't prepare properly a few times. Jay would never garner that sort of respect.
Jay has done that plenty of times and he then gets ripped in the media. This is somewhat similar to the LBJ/JJ Watt thread. Both Rodgers and Cutler can be aloof, prickly and standoffish. However, Rodgers cares greatly about his image, does fun commercials and "It's Aaron," which makes him seem warm and fuzzy. Oh, and he's also the best QB in the game today which gives him a pass on being a d!ck at times. Cutler, on the other hand, doesn't care about his image and he's not big on endorsements or on self-promotion when it comes to his charity work. Therefore, he seems primarily aloof, prickly and standoffish. Also, he also hasn't lived up to his hype in the NFL which makes him an easy target.
All that said...who you guys got tonight? KC or Houston? KC is a better team but Houston reminds some of last year's KC team where they're too young to realize that they're not supposed to be here so they'll play loose.
-
Jay has done that plenty of times and he then gets ripped in the media. This is somewhat similar to the LBJ/JJ Watt thread. Both Rodgers and Cutler can be aloof, prickly and standoffish. However, Rodgers cares greatly about his image, does fun commercials and "It's Aaron," which makes him seem warm and fuzzy. Oh, and he's also the best QB in the game today which gives him a pass on being a d!ck at times. Cutler, on the other hand, doesn't care about his image and he's not big on endorsements or on self-promotion when it comes to his charity work. Therefore, he seems primarily aloof, prickly and standoffish. Also, he also hasn't lived up to his hype in the NFL which makes him an easy target.
All that said...who you guys got tonight? KC or Houston? KC is a better team but Houston reminds some of last year's KC team where they're too young to realize that they're not supposed to be here so they'll play loose.
Can't decide how many games these series go, but I'm going with Rangers, Royals, Cards, and Mets (no idea why, just have seen the Dodgers fail to perform in the Playoffs too often).
-
(http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/rolling_eyes_neil_degrasse_tyson.gif)
-
They haven't been to a World Series since 1945. They have won a total of 3 Playoff series since then. For a big market team, they have essentially been a joke for 108 years.
And all of those years of futility have nothing to do with where the team and franchise is going to go in the next 5 - 10 years.
-
And all of those years of futility have nothing to do with where the team and franchise is going to go in the next 5 - 10 years.
...and 1 3rd place finish in the division doesn't turn all those years from being a sorry franchise to a not sorry franchise. The future looks bright. But they haven't done anything at all.
It would be like a Marquette fan claiming that they have had the better program over the past 5 years if Marquette wins their first round game and then loses in the round of 32 while Wisconsin loses in the first round this year. Yes, the future looks bright, but that doesn't erase what has been done in the past.
-
So...... about those MLB playoffs...........
Jays losing the first one at home was a little surprising. Price just has not brought it in the playoffs. Now they have to go out and beat Cole Hamels. Pressure is on.
-
...and 1 3rd place finish in the division doesn't turn all those years from being a sorry franchise to a not sorry franchise. The future looks bright. But they haven't done anything at all.
It would be like a Marquette fan claiming that they have had the better program over the past 5 years if Marquette wins their first round game and then loses in the round of 32 while Wisconsin loses in the first round this year. Yes, the future looks bright, but that doesn't erase what has been done in the past.
The 3rd place finish in the division happened to be the 3rd best record in baseball but you must have accidentally left that information out.
I didn't say they've accomplished anything or that the past ineptitude didn't happen. However, the futility of the past has no bearing what will happen in the future. This is a different organization with different ownership and a different front office. The shape the franchise is in today is probably the best it has ever been.
-
The 3rd place finish in the division happened to be the 3rd best record in baseball but you must have accidentally left that information out.
Also, happens to be more wins in a season then any Brewers team has ever put together.
-
Also, happens to be more wins in a season then any Brewers team has ever put together.
Yaaaay! If you have to compare your franchise to the Brewers franchise, you have just proven my point that you are a sorry franchise.
But my fault, you guys are right. Because the Cubs had 1 season with 97 wins they are no longer a sorry franchise. Which is exactly what I said. 1 season doesn't turn a franchise from being a joke to being great. Yes, they are currently a very good team, and the future looks very good. But that doesn't mean they're not a sorry franchise.
Another example, just because the Minnesota Vikings were good for a year with Brent doesn't mean they suddenly because some great franchise. Was that season sorry? No. Was this season sorry for the Cubs? No. But 1 good season doesn't decide whether it's a good or bad franchise.
-
Yaaaay! If you have to compare your franchise to the Brewers franchise, you have just proven my point that you are a sorry franchise.
But my fault, you guys are right. Because the Cubs had 1 season with 97 wins they are no longer a sorry franchise. Which is exactly what I said. 1 season doesn't turn a franchise from being a joke to being great. Yes, they are currently a very good team, and the future looks very good. But that doesn't mean they're not a sorry franchise.
Another example, just because the Minnesota Vikings were good for a year with Brent doesn't mean they suddenly because some great franchise. Was that season sorry? No. Was this season sorry for the Cubs? No. But 1 good season doesn't decide whether it's a good or bad franchise.
I'm a Brewers' fan and you sound like an idiot. If the Cubs are a sorry franchise, what does that make the Brewers?
-
I'm a Brewers' fan and you sound like an idiot. If the Cubs are a sorry franchise, what does that make the Brewers?
Haha. It makes the Brewers a sorry franchise. Where did I ever claim the Brewers were anything more? Or that they are a better franchise than the Cubs?
The Cubs haven't won a WS in 108 years, they haven't been to a WS in 70 years, they have won a total of 3 Playoff series in 70 years, they just won their first Playoff game in 12 years in a 1 game Wild Card playoff, they just now made their 7th Playoff appearance in the last 70 years, they have won their Division 5 times in the last 70 years, etc.
If someone who looks at what the Cubs have done, a team who can spend as much as they want, comes to the conclusion that they're a sorry franchise is an idiot, then hell yeah I'm an idiot. Because that's absolutely a sorry franchise, which doesn't mean the Brewers are some great franchise. Not sure where someone would come to that conclusion.
-
Are the Cincinnati Bengals a great franchise?
How about the Cleveland Cavaliers?
Tampa Bay Lightning? (They could be. I really don't know.)
-
In the 4 games so far this postseason, the home team has never held a lead.
-
In the 4 games so far this postseason, the home team has never held a lead.
That ends tonight at about 9:55 EST.
-
I'm a lifelong Cubs fan and admit that they have not been a good franchise. I don't feel the need to be offended because I'm just a fan... I don't have any say into how they run things.
That said, just because they have been terrible in the past, it doesn't mean I can't hope or even think that they are turning things around or even..... God forbid.... be a fan of them even if they are sorry.
So yes, the Cubs have sucked for a long time, but I'm thinking the next 5-10 could be damn good.
-
I'm a lifelong Cubs fan and admit that they have not been a good franchise. I don't feel the need to be offended because I'm just a fan... I don't have any say into how they run things.
That said, just because they have been terrible in the past, it doesn't mean I can't hope or even think that they are turning things around or even..... God forbid.... be a fan of them even if they are sorry.
So yes, the Cubs have sucked for a long time, but I'm thinking the next 5-10 could be damn good.
Absolutely. I'm not denying that in the least bit. I hate that the Cubs look like they're poised to be really dang good for an extended period of time.
My point is that just because the future looks bright for the Cubs (and, hell, the present looks great too) doesn't mean that suddenly they aren't a sorry franchise. If they have more seasons like this over the next decade (which I expect they will) that changes thing. But having 1 good season, which, as of right now, is all they have done, doesn't change that. Hell, they have been known as the "lovable losers."
-
Absolutely. I'm not denying that in the least bit. I hate that the Cubs look like they're poised to be really dang good for an extended period of time.
My point is that just because the future looks bright for the Cubs (and, hell, the present looks great too) doesn't mean that suddenly they aren't a sorry franchise. If they have more seasons like this over the next decade (which I expect they will) that changes thing. But having 1 good season, which, as of right now, is all they have done, doesn't change that. Hell, they have been known as the "lovable losers."
Only the Yankees, Cardinals, Dodgers, Giants and Red Sox have better all-time winning percentages than the Cubs (.511). It's the nearly total lack of postseason success that has given the Cubs such a bad rap.
-
Only the Yankees, Cardinals, Dodgers, Giants and Red Sox have better all-time winning percentages than the Cubs (.511). It's the nearly total lack of postseason success that has given the Cubs such a bad rap.
Fair enough, didn't realize that. I guess that surprises me since they had so "few" post season appearances in such a long period of time. Very surprising that only 6 teams have better all time winning percentages than a franchise only slightly over .500.
-
Fair enough, didn't realize that. I guess that surprises me since they had so "few" post season appearances in such a long period of time. Very surprising that only 6 teams have better all time winning percentages than a franchise only slightly over .500.
I mean, hell, Cubs fans won't be thrilled with the 2000s up to this point, especially with the heartbreak of 2003, but they have 3 division titles in that time, even while playing in the same division as arguably the best team in baseball during that time.
-
Absolutely. I'm not denying that in the least bit. I hate that the Cubs look like they're poised to be really dang good for an extended period of time.
My point is that just because the future looks bright for the Cubs (and, hell, the present looks great too) doesn't mean that suddenly they aren't a sorry franchise. If they have more seasons like this over the next decade (which I expect they will) that changes thing. But having 1 good season, which, as of right now, is all they have done, doesn't change that. Hell, they have been known as the "lovable losers."
I guess it's getting down to semantics. They certainly have a lousy history based on postseason success but the franchise as it stands today is anything but lousy. To me there is a distinct difference between the history and where the organization stands today.
-
I guess it's getting down to semantics. They certainly have a lousy history based on postseason success but the franchise as it stands today is anything but lousy. To me there is a distinct difference between the history and where the organization stands today.
I don't disagree with this at all.
When they brought Theo in everything changed.
When I say that they are a "sorry franchise" I am looking at the history of the franchise. The current team that they have is obviously not sorry, having won 97 games this season. And their future does not look sorry, as it looks like their core will be together for a long time.
-
Fair enough, didn't realize that. I guess that surprises me since they had so "few" post season appearances in such a long period of time. Very surprising that only 6 teams have better all time winning percentages than a franchise only slightly over .500.
Coming into this season, 17 teams were actually under .500 all-time.
-
I guess it's getting down to semantics. They certainly have a lousy history based on postseason success but the franchise as it stands today is anything but lousy. To me there is a distinct difference between the history and where the organization stands today.
In the opposite direction, see the 9-time World Champion Chicago Bears as an example of this.
-
Only the Yankees, Cardinals, Dodgers, Giants and Red Sox have better all-time winning percentages than the Cubs (.511). It's the nearly total lack of postseason success that has given the Cubs such a bad rap.
Only if you include the 1800s-era Chicago White Stockings, Chicago Orphans, and Chicago Colts in with the record.
And the have only been over .500 in 12 of last 43 years. 19 of the last 70 years.
And, championships matter.
But, the future looks very bright. If they can bring in Price or Cueto, they will be looking at a long run.
-
If it's not sorry, it sure feels like it has been sorry. Postseason success is everything.
Speaking of which... let's get it done tonight Lester.
-
Are the Cincinnati Bengals a great franchise?
How about the Cleveland Cavaliers?
Tampa Bay Lightning? (They could be. I really don't know.)
Tampa actually is a decent franchise, not to nitpick. Haven't been around that long and already won a Stanley Cup and been in 2 more finals and consistantly in the playoffs (though admittedly not as impressive to do in the NHL)
-
Only if you include the 1800s-era Chicago White Stockings, Chicago Orphans, and Chicago Colts in with the record.
And the have only been over .500 in 12 of last 43 years. 19 of the last 70 years.
And, championships matter.
But, the future looks very bright. If they can bring in Price or Cueto, they will be looking at a long run.
What did you think "all-time winning percentage" meant? Just the last 70 years?
I never said that championships don't matter.
-
Tampa actually is a decent franchise, not to nitpick. Haven't been around that long and already won a Stanley Cup and been in 2 more finals and consistantly in the playoffs (though admittedly not as impressive to do in the NHL)
Haha well shows my hockey knowledge. Bad example then. Just knew they were in the Stanley Cup Finals last year but don't remember ever hearing them having won it or really about any success prior to that. So thought maybe they weren't very good up until last year.
-
Only the Yankees, Cardinals, Dodgers, Giants and Red Sox have better all-time winning percentages than the Cubs (.511). It's the nearly total lack of postseason success that has given the Cubs such a bad rap.
I'm calling a "Chicos" on you, Stache. Your stat is technically true but misleading. The Cubs all-time winning percentage is .511, but post WWII (the past 70 years) it's .469. 20 winning seasons in the last 70. For the lifetime of every Scoop poster the Cubs have been a decidedly sub par franchise - at the very least one of the worst in baseball.
That said, IMO they're on the brink of an awesome stretch - multiple World Series wins seem likely.
-
That said, IMO they're on the brink of an awesome stretch - multiple World Series wins seem likely.
Oh my lord, stop. My knuckles are bleeding from knocking every piece of wood in my office building.
-
I'm calling a "Chicos" on you, Stache. Your stat is technically true but misleading. The Cubs all-time winning percentage is .511, but post WWII (the past 70 years) it's .469. 20 winning seasons in the last 70. For the lifetime of every Scoop poster the Cubs have been a decidedly sub par franchise - at the very least one of the worst in baseball.
That said, IMO they're on the brink of an awesome stretch - multiple World Series wins seem likely.
I would never say even a single world championship in any sport is "likely." It takes a lot of things to go right to win a World Championship, even for the most talented/best teams. I would definitely say it is certainly possible, though.
-
I would never say even a single world championship in any sport is "likely." It takes a lot of things to go right to win a World Championship, even for the most talented/best teams. I would definitely say it is certainly possible, though.
I'm more than happy to start with one and go from there.
-
I'm calling a "Chicos" on you, Stache. Your stat is technically true but misleading. The Cubs all-time winning percentage is .511, but post WWII (the past 70 years) it's .469. 20 winning seasons in the last 70. For the lifetime of every Scoop poster the Cubs have been a decidedly sub par franchise - at the very least one of the worst in baseball.
So, when are we starting all-time stats, Post WWII? We're not including Gehrig and Ruth for the Yankees?
-
If one happens, I'm not sure PTM's liver will make it.
I've had Super Bowls from the Pack where I've peed in my hallway closet and the Stanley Cups where I've passed out in my cul-de-sac.
Cubs World Series...I...don't...I'll apologize to my family with a mailer.
-
So, when are we starting all-time stats, Post WWII? We're not including Gehrig and Ruth for the Yankees?
Whatever makes you happy. But the point remains the reason the Cubs are so ridiculed is because they haven't won the World Series for 109 years AND because they've been mostly bad period for 70 years. Maybe your favorite team's record from 1900-1910 gives you the warm and fuzzies, but I'd guess most Cub fans/baseball fans find it meaningless. UW fans are regularly mocked here for thinking their NCAA championship in 1941 is relevant - rightly so.
-
I can't remember, who did TV play by play for the Brewers before BA? For some reason I feel like whoever it was got scooped up by a national station. If so, it's too bad the Brewers can't evaluate baseball talent like they can TV broadcasters. BA does a good job in both baseball and basketball.
-
I can't remember, who did TV play by play for the Brewers before BA? For some reason I feel like whoever it was got scooped up by a national station. If so, it's too bad the Brewers can't evaluate baseball talent like they can TV broadcasters. BA does a good job in both baseball and basketball.
Vasgerian or Kasper?
-
I can't remember, who did TV play by play for the Brewers before BA? For some reason I feel like whoever it was got scooped up by a national station. If so, it's too bad the Brewers can't evaluate baseball talent like they can TV broadcasters. BA does a good job in both baseball and basketball.
Daron Sutton I believe
-
Whatever makes you happy. But the point remains the reason the Cubs are so ridiculed is because they haven't won the World Series for 109 years AND because they've been mostly bad period for 70 years. Maybe your favorite team's record from 1900-1910 gives you the warm and fuzzies, but I'd guess most Cub fans/baseball fans find it meaningless. UW fans are regularly mocked here for thinking their NCAA championship in 1941 is relevant - rightly so.
I admit this is a dumb argument.
That said, the Cubs have made the postseason 7 times in my 38 years of life, ('84, '89, '98, '03, '07, '08, '15).
There are only 11 (of the 30) MLB teams who have made the postseason more than 7 seasons the last 38 years, (ATL, BOS, HOU, LAA, LAD, MIN, NYY, OAK, PHI, SF, STL). There are many reasons why the Cubs are painted as consistent losers, but I don't think the stats back up the image.
-
One down, two to go
-
I admit this is a dumb argument.
That said, the Cubs have made the postseason 7 times in my 38 years of life, ('84, '89, '98, '03, '07, '08, '15).
There are only 11 (of the 30) MLB teams who have made the postseason more than 7 seasons the last 38 years, (ATL, BOS, HOU, LAA, LAD, MIN, NYY, OAK, PHI, SF, STL). There are many reasons why the Cubs are painted as consistent losers, but I don't think the stats back up the image.
Would you make that same argument for the Vikings from an NFL perspective? # 8 on the all time winning %, #5 on playoff appearances (tied with Bears and Steelers), tied for #11 on SB appearances (one behind GB)
-
Would you make that same argument for the Vikings from an NFL perspective? # 8 on the all time winning %, #5 on playoff appearances (tied with Bears and Steelers), tied for #11 on SB appearances (one behind GB)
I don't follow the NFL at all. But I don't think the Vikings are considered "losers" as much as the Cubs are. (I could be wrong).
-
I would never say even a single world championship in any sport is "likely." It takes a lot of things to go right to win a World Championship, even for the most talented/best teams. I would definitely say it is certainly possible, though.
Yep. When only one team wins, the odds of one are very long, and even longer. When you talk multiple. I have a bet with my son that the Cubs will win one in the next three years (this year included). Looks good for me, but I reality, the odds are still very much in his favor. Doesn't take much to go wrong to completely mess up a season. You can look at ten cardinals and Giants, and say, "of course the Cubs will win multiple WS." Then look at the Pirates, Dodgers, Yankees, Tigers, etc. and say, "no they won't." Fact is, it's more likely they won't win one, than it is they'll win multiple.
Those of us who call ourselves Packer fans understand this concept all too well.
-
"losers" my be a strong word for their perception (insert angry Packer and Bear fans outrage here) but not viewed as a successful franchise and certainly viewed as a tortured fan base.
My point is that within a fanbase those stats do a lot to confirm past believe and instill hope for the future. For other fanbases to give you credit you need a) a championship and b) sustained playoff presence.
-
One down, two to go
Typical Sox fan.
-
Typical Sox fan.
They are still thanking their lucky stars over an inept call in the Angels series to aid them along the way.
-
They are still thanking their lucky stars over an inept call in the Angels series to aid them along the way.
It was the correct call, the ball absolutely changed directions. That was a decade ago now, smart play by AJ. Anyways, I'm cheering for the Cubs, always rather see a Chicago team win.
-
They are still thanking their lucky stars over an inept call in the Angels series to aid them along the way.
Please. The Sox crushed the Angels 4-1 and you're still whining 10 years later over one stinking call? Unreal.
-
Utley is going to get PLUNKED by Harvey.
-
Utley is going to get PLUNKED by Harvey.
Plunked is an understatement.
-
I can't remember, who did TV play by play for the Brewers before BA? For some reason I feel like whoever it was got scooped up by a national station. If so, it's too bad the Brewers can't evaluate baseball talent like they can TV broadcasters. BA does a good job in both baseball and basketball.
Sutton went to the Diamonbacks and was subsequently fired.
-
It was the correct call, the ball absolutely changed directions. That was a decade ago now, smart play by AJ. Anyways, I'm cheering for the Cubs, always rather see a Chicago team win.
It was not the correct call ever. No dirt came up, replays clear. He caught the ball.
Furthermore, the ump MADE THE OUT CALL with his fist. When the ump does that, the out is registered. PERIOD.
44 second mark. He caught the ball cleanly. Tim McCarver knows, the catcher ALWAYS knows. There's no benefit for the catcher not to throw down to first. As McCarver properly states, if he didn't make the catch, he would have thrown to first. It is what a catcher does, not roll it to the mound...especially when the umpire calls him out.
How you can claim it was the right call is beyond me. Umpire called him out, over.
https://www.youtube.com/v/9Tn5CQ9vyYQ
Now, who knows even who wins that game or the series, but that was not the correct call.
-
Update: Utley suspended by MLB for Games 3 and 4.
That's pretty shocking, honestly. I also feel like that has to indicate the rulebook will be adjusted for next season.
-
Update: Utley suspended by MLB for Games 3 and 4.
That's pretty shocking, honestly. I also feel like that has to indicate the rulebook will be adjusted for next season.
Jes, that call at 2nd base makes me wonder if managers will start appealing the "phantom tag" at 2nd base on double plays. The reason the play was allowed was to avoid injuries like we saw on this play.
-
I think you need to have a rule that you slide directly into the bag in a force situation. They stopped the catcher collisions with no adverse impact to the soul of baseball. This would be the same.
-
I think you need to have a rule that you slide directly into the bag in a force situation. They stopped the catcher collisions with no adverse impact to the soul of baseball. This would be the same.
Good point. Seems crazy that you can't barrel into a (mostly) stationary player who is wearing protective equipment who is also focused solely on the runner. But you can barrel into a non-stationary player who is not wearing any protective equipment and is focused on the throw.
-
I think you need to have a rule that you slide directly into the bag in a force situation. They stopped the catcher collisions with no adverse impact to the soul of baseball. This would be the same.
Seems so simple, doesn't it?
Man, Torre really talked himself into a hole after the game. Utley never touched second but was ruled safe because, according to Torre, no one tagged him...because he was called out and he only returned to the dugout without touching second because he was called out so he didn't think he had to touch second...which is also why no one tagged him. Huh? Torre also deemed he was safe because it was NOT the "neighborhood play," which is in place to help keep middle infielders safe from plays exactly like this one. Not Joe's finest hour.
Suspending Utley 2 games after all of that is bizarre.
-
There was no fundamental difference between what Utley did and what Coghlan did to Kang a few weeks ago. Coghlan was never suspended. The only reason Utley was is because it is during the playoffs and was higher profile.
MLB screwed this one up big time. If you don't like the results of plays like this, change the rule.
-
The Coghlan / Kang play will likely be the primary exhibit in Utley's appeal today. Per the talking heads.
-
There was no fundamental difference between what Utley did and what Coghlan did to Kang a few weeks ago. Coghlan was never suspended. The only reason Utley was is because it is during the playoffs and was higher profile.
MLB screwed this one up big time. If you don't like the results of plays like this, change the rule.
Coghlan both touched the bag and started his slide well before the bag, neither of which Utley did. Both were aggressive take out slides to be sure, but Utley's execution was far more egregious.
-
There was no fundamental difference between what Utley did and what Coghlan did to Kang a few weeks ago. Coghlan was never suspended. The only reason Utley was is because it is during the playoffs and was higher profile.
MLB screwed this one up big time. If you don't like the results of plays like this, change the rule.
It was also magnified by the review awarding Utley second AND the Dodgers scoring 4 runs with 2 outs to take the lead. If the Mets retire the side with no runs scoring and/or Utley is called out, that play likely does not become nearly as big of a deal and Utley doesn't get suspended.
-
Coghlan both touched the bag and started his slide well before the bag, neither of which Utley did. Both were aggressive take out slides to be sure, but Utley's execution was far more egregious.
Completely agree. Just watched both plays again and where Utley started his slide was much worse.
-
Completely agree. Just watched both plays again and where Utley started his slide was much worse.
Coghlan both touched the bag and started his slide well before the bag, neither of which Utley did. Both were aggressive take out slides to be sure, but Utley's execution was far more egregious.
Not to speak for Sultan, but he did say that there was no fundamental difference between the slides. I don't think he meant that the slides were the same or equally vicious or anything. Just that both slide consisted of a runner taking an indirect route to the base in order to take out the SS.
-
Not to speak for Sultan, but he did say that there was no fundamental difference between the slides. I don't think he meant that the slides were the same or equally vicious or anything. Just that both slide consisted of a runner taking an indirect route to the base in order to take out the SS.
Correct. Utley may have executed it horribly, and he may be stupid, but obviously no malice or intent to injure. Just not sure it rises to the level of suspension. If the umpires messed up, that's on them, not Utley. Seems almost like a little bit of "eye for an eye" coming out of MLB.
-
This seems like a classic "my guy" scenario. Like 2 days after Coghlan broke Kangs leg, Cub supporters were on here complaining about a cardinal side (Molina maybe, don't exactly remember). It really sucks that this keeps happening. Losing Kang was a significant loss for the Bucs. This is will hurt the Mets too. It is hard for me to say Utleys slide was worthy of a 2 game playoff suspension where Coghlan's was business as usual. Especially since this wasn't Coghlan's first foray into ending someone's season with a slide into second.
-
Not to speak for Sultan, but he did say that there was no fundamental difference between the slides. I don't think he meant that the slides were the same or equally vicious or anything. Just that both slide consisted of a runner taking an indirect route to the base in order to take out the SS.
Yes. Thank you.
Furthermore had Utley's not injured Tejada, would there be any suspension? Nope. I doubt it would have even been talked about 24 hours later.
-
This seems like a classic "my guy" scenario. Like 2 days after Coghlan broke Kangs leg, Cub supporters were on here complaining about a cardinal side (Molina maybe, don't exactly remember). It really sucks that this keeps happening. Losing Kang was a significant loss for the Bucs. This is will hurt the Mets too. It is hard for me to say Utleys slide was worthy of a 2 game playoff suspension where Coghlan's was business as usual. Especially since this wasn't Coghlan's first foray into ending someone's season with a slide into second.
That may be true for some fans but when you objectively looked at the Coghlan slide vs. the Molina slide there was a distinct difference. Same with the Utley slide.
Unless the rule is changed it will keep happening.
-
It was also magnified by the review awarding Utley second AND the Dodgers scoring 4 runs with 2 outs to take the lead. If the Mets retire the side with no runs scoring and/or Utley is called out, that play likely does not become nearly as big of a deal and Utley doesn't get suspended.
Hypothetically, if Utley doesn't take him out, would he have had enough time to get runner at 1st? I never thought it was a certainty. (Not implying you did, just asking.)
-
Hypothetically, if Utley doesn't take him out, would he have had enough time to get runner at 1st? I never thought it was a certainty. (Not implying you did, just asking.)
It's doubtful. That said, the umpire could have ruled Utley out at second AND the runner out at first since Utley didn't make a legit attempt to touch second base on his slide. That would have ended the inning. Even if they only called Utley out on the neighborhood play, that would have been the second out. Seager then flew out before the big hit. Obviously, we don't know if/how things would have changed if there were 2 outs when Seager came to bat, etc, etc, Abed, timelines, etc. but at the very least, there should have been 2 outs when he hit.
-
First off, Utley has a history of doing this, especially against people named Tejada (took out Miguel in 2010). Secondly, the injury should have no bearing on the play, it was a dirty play straight up. He came in late, high, and with no intention of tagging the base. In fact he had to change his path of travel almost out of the base path just to get to where Tejada was.
It doesn't mean Utley was trying to injure but it is a play that shouldn't be allowed if we are going to eliminate catchers in protective gear blocking the plate at home.
The biggest head scratcher in the whole thing for me is how the umpires can rule it's not a neighborhood play....the only reason Tejada was physically in the position he was in was so he could attempt a throw to first
Just bonkers stuff all the way around.
-
First off, Utley has a history of doing this, especially against people named Tejada (took out Miguel in 2010). Secondly, the injury should have no bearing on the play, it was a dirty play straight up. He came in late, high, and with no intention of tagging the base. In fact he had to change his path of travel almost out of the base path just to get to where Tejada was.
It doesn't mean Utley was trying to injure but it is a play that shouldn't be allowed if we are going to eliminate catchers in protective gear blocking the plate at home.
The biggest head scratcher in the whole thing for me is how the umpires can rule it's not a neighborhood play....the only reason Tejada was physically in the position he was in was so he could attempt a throw to first
Just bonkers stuff all the way around.
So Utley has a problem with people who have the last name "Tejada," and Coughlin has a problem with Asians?
-
Utley's slide was dirty as hell.
I'm thrilled that Torre -- an ex-Dodgers manager and a man of great integrity -- suspended him.
I'm not a fan of headhunting at all, but I gotta admit that I hope Utley gets plunked tonight. I don't want him to get killed or maimed or even seriously hurt, but I want something that leaves a mark!
-
Finally saw the play today. That slide was brutal. He started his slide half a foot before the bag.
I think the rule should be if you slide feet first, your lead foot has to be the first thing that touches the bag. So basically if you slide feet first but your hip or elbow touches the bag first you're out.
This won't completely take out a hard slide but it will be safer and middle infielders will know where they should protect themselves instead of having to guess.
-
Finally saw the play today. That slide was brutal. He started his slide half a foot before the bag.
I think the rule should be if you slide feet first, your lead foot has to be the first thing that touches the bag. So basically if you slide feet first but your hip or elbow touches the bag first you're out.
This won't completely take out a hard slide but it will be safer and middle infielders will know where they should protect themselves instead of having to guess.
Yes. That is a great way to phrase it. (Force plays only.)
-
Finally saw the play today. That slide was brutal. He started his slide half a foot before the bag.
I think the rule should be if you slide feet first, your lead foot has to be the first thing that touches the bag. So basically if you slide feet first but your hip or elbow touches the bag first you're out.
This won't completely take out a hard slide but it will be safer and middle infielders will know where they should protect themselves instead of having to guess.
Makes sense, especially when you consider that the runner is attempting to beat a force play so the first body part to the base should logically be the first thing to touch the base.
That said, it would likely need to be worded that the player must make a "natural slide" (or some better, similar wording) and a reasonable attempt to touch the base with his foot first. You don't want to open the door to...
1) players taking wide slides and basically rolling in sideways but touching the bag with their foot first
2) replay officials trying to figure out if a player's foot actually did graze the base prior to his knee or some other body part.
The concerns would be whether you're going to see players diving head-first into second to break up a double play. Hopefully not, but you never know.
-
Makes sense, especially when you consider that the runner is attempting to beat a force play so the first body part to the base should logically be the first thing to touch the base.
That said, it would likely need to be worded that the player must make a "natural slide" (or some better, similar wording) and a reasonable attempt to touch the base with his foot first. You don't want to open the door to...
1) players taking wide slides and basically rolling in sideways but touching the bag with their foot first
2) replay officials trying to figure out if a player's foot actually did graze the base prior to his knee or some other body part.
The concerns would be whether you're going to see players diving head-first into second to break up a double play. Hopefully not, but you never know.
When someone slides feet first into a base they almost never touch the base with their foot. It's almost always their calf or something in that region. You would see a lot more sprained ankles in baseball if your foot is required to touch 2nd base before any other part of your body when you slide.
-
The Coghlan slide will be his defense? He'd be much better using the Holliday slide against Scutaro.
-
That was a lot of home runs.
-
Yet again the Cubs bounce back in a HUGE way. Untouchable Arrieta gives up 2 runs, Cubs respond with a barrage of YABOs. Cut it to 1 again, another offensive barrage from the Cubs. Even Rondon didn't seem rattled after the HR in the 9th.
This team is so much fun.
-
Yet again the Cubs bounce back in a HUGE way. Untouchable Arrieta gives up 2 runs, Cubs respond with a barrage of YABOs. Cut it to 1 again, another offensive barrage from the Cubs. Even Rondon didn't seem rattled after the HR in the 9th.
This team is so much fun.
On the first night in months that Arrieta's command is off the offense picks him up. Great to see. Series is far from over - don't want to go back to St. Louis. Hopefully Hammel can be sharp tomorrow and they can get to Lackey on short rest.
Hopefully Russell is able to play - missed his defense after he went out.
-
As long as the Doyers don't win it, I'll be happy.
-
That was a lot of home runs.
The wife and I were in right field last night. You sit in those bleachers your whole life just waiting for a night like that. Homer after homer after homer. So hoarse I can barely talk today, but so worth it. The wind blowing out to right was insane. So sick of "the Cardinal way" pompous bs -- one more!
-
I'm enjoying the Cubs. They are young and having a lot of fun. Hope they go all the way.
-
The wife and I were in right field last night. You sit in those bleachers your whole life just waiting for a night like that. Homer after homer after homer. So hoarse I can barely talk today, but so worth it. The wind blowing out to right was insane. So sick of "the Cardinal way" pompous bs -- one more!
RIGHT FIELD SUCKS!
-
W
-
Brutal.
A
B
C
Anyone but the Cubs
-
RIGHT FIELD SUCKS!
LOL - They started that for about 5 seconds and everyone was so frickin' nervous it never took off.
-
Not only are the Cubs good, but they are playing spectacular baseball right now. Not sure they have the rotation depth to win two more series, but they keep hitting like this, they have a shot.
-
Not only are the Cubs good, but they are playing spectacular baseball right now. Not sure they have the rotation depth to win two more series, but they keep hitting like this, they have a shot.
That's all that matters when it gets to October.
-
Brutal.
A
B
C
Anyone but the Cubs
3 down, 8 to go.
I'd worry more about the massive rebuild necessary eight miles south if I were you.
-
Right field does suck
-
3 down, 8 to go.
I'd worry more about the massive rebuild necessary eight miles south if I were you.
I'm worried about that too. My concern is spread out
-
I'm worried about that too. My concern is spread out
Worried? I wish they started the rebuild by dealing Sale for an entire farm system.
-
I'm worried about that too. My concern is spread out
Fair enough.
-
The Sox problem isn't just the massive rebuild, but the Reinsdorf tradition of hanging onto "his guys" too long. Kenny Williams should have been let go a few years ago.
-
Congrats to the Cubs fans!
I suspect they will be the favorites against either the Mets or the Dodgers. They look very sharp right now and can set their rotation for the next series.
-
Worried? I wish they started the rebuild by dealing Sale for an entire farm system.
When you look at the other major hauls big pitchers have gotten, it seems like there's a point where Sale's contract will get diminishing returns. Typically you see teams empty their farm systems for 2 years of control on aces, and Sale has 4 left, so I wonder how much more teams will be willing to unload.
But I do agree with you, a total haul on Sale and a couple more Top 5-10 draft picks and the Sox can get there in a few years.
-
When you look at the other major hauls big pitchers have gotten, it seems like there's a point where Sale's contract will get diminishing returns. Typically you see teams empty their farm systems for 2 years of control on aces, and Sale has 4 left, so I wonder how much more teams will be willing to unload.
But I do agree with you, a total haul on Sale and a couple more Top 5-10 draft picks and the Sox can get there in a few years.
Very true, there has to be a top-end limit. If Sale stays in Chicago (White Sox at least), ugh. Waste of talent.
-
When someone slides feet first into a base they almost never touch the base with their foot. It's almost always their calf or something in that region. You would see a lot more sprained ankles in baseball if your foot is required to touch 2nd base before any other part of your body when you slide.
The pop-up slide has apparently become a lost art.
-
Very true, there has to be a top-end limit. If Sale stays in Chicago (White Sox at least), ugh. Waste of talent.
Really? Would you call Felix Hernandez a waste of talent? Seems a bit silly.
Anyone watching this AL game? This is the weirdest inning I can remember seeing.
-
What do the unwritten rules say about a bat flip like that?
-
When you look at the other major hauls big pitchers have gotten, it seems like there's a point where Sale's contract will get diminishing returns. Typically you see teams empty their farm systems for 2 years of control on aces, and Sale has 4 left, so I wonder how much more teams will be willing to unload.
But I do agree with you, a total haul on Sale and a couple more Top 5-10 draft picks and the Sox can get there in a few years.
The thing is, they don't need to necessarily trade Sale. They could get a haul for Quintana. They have a lot of pitching depth to trade from. Heck, the centerpiece in the Tulo trade was a pitcher ranked just below Frank Montas (Jeff Hoffman). They have other very high end arms in Spencer Adams and Carson Fulmer. They have a wealth of guys that could be mid rotation guys, like Erik Johnson, Chris Beck, and Tyler Danish.
Maybe all this depth makes it more palatable to trade Sale. Maybe they deal from minor league pitching depth for minor league hitters, though they haven't had a great eye for that, but the new regime seems a bit more adept there. Maybe they trade minor league pitching for Major league hitting.
The one thing they have in the minors on the offensive side is speed. Lots of speed. It could show a new philosophy for the team. They have guys like Anderson, May and Engel that were among the top basestealers in baseball.
I don't think it is as bleak as a lot of people make it out to be. But then, I am an eternal optimist. I am also a believer in pitching. Great pitching can carry mediocre offense. The problem is, they have a way to go to get to mediocre, and to great. The top 3 look to be what they need, but the back of the rotation needs work. Break in Montas and Johnson next year, have Fulmer on deck for the next. Who knows.
I guess I just don't think you need to trade Sale now. You have him locked up for cheap. You can still get a haul of prospects next year, and the year after. No need to rush into anything, unless someone completely blows you away.
-
What do the unwritten rules say about a bat flip like that?
They say no one is getting drilled in a deciding playoff game unless it gets out of hand.
-
Really? Would you call Felix Hernandez a waste of talent? Seems a bit silly.
No, mostly because Seattle has continuously tried to go for it via free agency, just horribly. CHW, not so much, and they'll waste his contract without getting value
-
What do the unwritten rules say about a bat flip like that?
It says he'll get plunked a few times next season.
-
The Sox problem isn't just the massive rebuild, but the Reinsdorf tradition of hanging onto "his guys" too long. Kenny Williams should have been let go a few years ago.
Cant Jerry bring in MJ to DH? lol
-
No, mostly because Seattle has continuously tried to go for it via free agency, just horribly. CHW, not so much, and they'll waste his contract without getting value
Ok, well you obviously missed last off season for the Sox.
But beside that, what is the difference in going for it via free agency or another way. If the avenue fails, it would still seem to be a waste of his talent, if winning championships is the only measuring stick for the proper use of his talent as you seem to be making it out to be.
-
Cant Jerry bring in MJ to DH? lol
MJ couldn't hit AA breaking stuff. He's K too much, not have enough power and his lagging speed would be a detriment on the basepaths.
Seems like a perfect Sox move actually.
-
Really? Would you call Felix Hernandez a waste of talent? Seems a bit silly.
Anyone watching this AL game? This is the weirdest inning I can remember seeing.
I don't recall ever having seen a throw from the catcher to the pitcher deflected by the batter, let alone it leading to a go-ahead run in the 7th inning of a winner-take-all playoff game.
I have lots of respect for Cole Hamels keeping it together as Elvis Andrus decided not to catch anything in the bottom half of the inning. The Jays winning four-run rally was routine grounder to short, routine grounder to first, easy play on a bad bunt to third, routine grounder to first, routine pop-out to second, home run. 4 runs on one hit with no walks or hit batsmen. A Little League rally.
-
I don't recall ever having seen a throw from the catcher to the pitcher deflected by the batter, let alone it leading to a go-ahead run in the 7th inning of a winner-take-all playoff game.
I have lots of respect for Cole Hamels keeping it together as Elvis Andrus decided not to catch anything in the bottom half of the inning. The Jays winning four-run rally was routine grounder to short, routine grounder to first, easy play on a bad bunt to third, routine grounder to first, routine pop-out to second, home run. 4 runs on one hit with no walks or hit batsmen. A Little League rally.
No kidding. It is a little odd that they team that had the super weird play benefit them is the one that collapsed. That was one wild inning of baseball.
Now we get DeGrom-Greinke tonight. It's the most wonderful time of the year.
-
Ok, well you obviously missed last off season for the Sox.
But beside that, what is the difference in going for it via free agency or another way. If the avenue fails, it would still seem to be a waste of his talent, if winning championships is the only measuring stick for the proper use of his talent as you seem to be making it out to be.
I simply don't see the Sox trading Sale yet unless an offer is so utterly outrageous that it can't be turned down. And with the success of the Cubs and Astros and the youth of those teams, I don't see other teams willing to part with the pieces it will take to get Sale.
-
Ok, well you obviously missed last off season for the Sox.
But beside that, what is the difference in going for it via free agency or another way. If the avenue fails, it would still seem to be a waste of his talent, if winning championships is the only measuring stick for the proper use of his talent as you seem to be making it out to be.
No, I watched it happen. Still didn't think they were a contender, neither did Reinsdorf. It was just enough to get people to buy tickets again.
-
No, I watched it happen. Still didn't think they were a contender, neither did Reinsdorf. It was just enough to get people to buy tickets again.
Still don't see a difference between that and the Mariners
-
Cubs fans......who are you hoping to win tonight?
I'm an AL guy (yes, I wanted to see TX not Tor come to KC) and am too busy to follow both leagues. I know more obnoxious Met fans than Dodger fans so I'd like to see LA win, but my vote doesn't count.
-
Cubs fans......who are you hoping to win tonight?
I'm an AL guy (yes, I wanted to see TX not Tor come to KC) and am too busy to follow both leagues. I know more obnoxious Met fans than Dodger fans so I'd like to see LA win, but my vote doesn't count.
Cubs went 7-0 vs Mets during the regular season. But it feels like this current Mets team is different than before.
With the Dodgers, you gotta face Kershaw and Greinke and possibly twice, each.
Mets.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/zwhwYqG.gif)
-
Cubs fans......who are you hoping to win tonight?
I'm an AL guy (yes, I wanted to see TX not Tor come to KC) and am too busy to follow both leagues. I know more obnoxious Met fans than Dodger fans so I'd like to see LA win, but my vote doesn't count.
Both very good teams. I actually lean towards LA slightly. While they obviously have Kershaw and Greinke, I think the Mets have more rotation depth, a better offense at this point, and a better bullpen. The way it lines up now the Cubs should have an advantage in game one with Lester likely facing Brett Anderson, then a complete toss-up with the Kershaw-Arrieta matchup in game 2, while LA would have a clear advantage with Greinke in game 3. Either way it will be very tough.
The Cubs 7-0 record was when the Mets were running a minor league lineup out there so I don't put any stock into that.
-
Both very good teams. I actually lean towards LA slightly. While they obviously have Kershaw and Greinke, I think the Mets have more rotation depth, a better offense at this point, and a better bullpen. The way it lines up now the Cubs should have an advantage in game one with Lester likely facing Brett Anderson, then a complete toss-up with the Kershaw-Arrieta matchup in game 2, while LA would have a clear advantage with Greinke in game 3. Either way it will be very tough.
The Cubs 7-0 record was when the Mets were running a minor league lineup out there so I don't put any stock into that.
Thanks - if it turns out to be the Mets, I hope some of you who have seats in a row dress up in Charlston Chiefs/Hansen Bro's costumes.
-
I am hoping for Mets.
A good friend and MU grad (Schroeder 10 S) is a Mets fan. Back in the day...he was Yank.
Can't wait to drink the Jameson he will owe me. We owe the Mets. F Darryl Dinglebery.
-
Doyers out....I'm happy.
-
Doyers out....I'm happy.
It's been a long time since 1988.
-
It's been a long time since 1988.
LOL....and I remind Doyer fans when they get cocky, as they do each and every year. Mattingly won't survive this.
I was a sophomore in college when they last won it, and I'm about to have one of my own in college in 18 months. $300 million just doesn't buy what it used to.
-
(http://www.gammonsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/dodgers-payroll-otoons.jpg)
-
Was hoping for the Dodgers, but Mets will make it sweeter
-
Was hoping for the Dodgers, but Mets will make it sweeter
Agreed. Taking down the Cards, then the Mets.....sweet.
-
Yeah, I would say the Cubs got the less desirable of the two matchups, but certainly not by a wide margin. Who knows what's gonna happen. I like the Mets pitching depth, 1-12. My fear for the Cubs is that they are simply going to run out of pitching, and going to have to continue to hit the ball out of the ball park in order to win. That is typically not a recipe for success in the playoffs, but again, who knows. What happens in games 1,2,3 impacts what happens and the decisions you make/are able to make in games 2,3,4, etc.
Things really continue to fall the Cubs way, though. Having the extra couple days is really big. Being able to set up Lester, Arrieta in games 1 and 2 while DeGrom and Syndergard were battling through game 5 definitely provides an advantage. Obviously, if the Mets get to Leter or Arreita, the advantage theoretically swings back to the Mets.
-
Yeah, I would say the Cubs got the less desirable of the two matchups, but certainly not by a wide margin. Who knows what's gonna happen. I like the Mets pitching depth, 1-12. My fear for the Cubs is that they are simply going to run out of pitching, and going to have to continue to hit the ball out of the ball park in order to win. That is typically not a recipe for success in the playoffs, but again, who knows. What happens in games 1,2,3 impacts what happens and the decisions you make/are able to make in games 2,3,4, etc.
Things really continue to fall the Cubs way, though. Having the extra couple days is really big. Being able to set up Lester, Arrieta in games 1 and 2 while DeGrom and Syndergard were battling through game 5 definitely provides an advantage. Obviously, if the Mets get to Leter or Arreita, the advantage theoretically swings back to the Mets.
The Mets do have more pitching depth, which is why I had a slight preference to play LA. Having Lester and Arrieta go for four of the games, including games 1 and 2, helps. Should be a great series.
-
The Mets do have more pitching depth, which is why I had a slight preference to play LA. Having Lester and Arrieta go for four of the games, including games 1 and 2, helps. Should be a great series.
I assume the Mets are going to go Harvey, Syndergard, DeGrom.
Bottom line for the Cubs, Lester has to do what they brought him in to do. If he does, they can match up fine, but if he doesn't, they may be in trouble. those three guys above will be very tough. I think it's reasonable for Cub fans to have some concern about Arrita's innings as well. He's pitched a lot. When I say the Cubs may run out of pitching, that is a big potential reason why.
-
I'm not as scared of Harvey as I would have been 3 months ago. Between the off the field distractions, his pitch limits, and his stuff being a bit less than it had been, he's not nearly as formidable. That said, DeGrom is TOUGH and so is Thor. Should be intense.
Lester should be fine. Outside of a bit of a rough start, he threw a great game in Game 1. If we get that again, I would be very pleased.
-
In my opinion this will be a much better series than Dodgers vs. Cubs would have been. These are 2 of the 3 hottest teams in baseball, and that's really what it comes down to in the Playoffs. Both have some guys who can turn a mistake into a series altering homer, both have solid pitching. I'm hoping for the Mets, but am thinking the Cubs win this in 7.
-
Yea, I think the Cubs would have beat the Dodgers in 5. This mets, cubs series is going 7 unless the Mets pitchers catch fire.
-
Cubs fans better hope the time off didn't give their team time to cool off and start thinking.
-
Cubs fans better hope the time off didn't give their team time to cool off and start thinking.
They were partying up until yesterday. They're like the royals last year, to young to know they probably shouldn't be winning this year. They're just kids around my age playing baseball and having fun.
-
I'm still wondering if my Dodgers hit one home run all post season.
-
Cubs got outplayed in the first two games. It happens, which makes the playoffs in any sport but the NBA tough to call. Some of the weaknesses that we all knew about are coming to light here. High strikeout/high HR is a tough way to win in October, and of course a rotation with no depth. I'd have a different view of being down 2-0 the series if our 3 and 4 didn't seem so outmatched.
It's not over yet, but regardless, it's been fun to see expectations exceeded this season.
-
I think the Cubs start hitting a bit at home. Murphy has been the difference. You take away his homers in Game 1 and 2 and it doesn't seem as lopsided. Its concerning having to see DeGrom vs Hendricks in Game 3, but the atmosphere tomorrow should be electric and I think that may lift the guys a bit. If the Cubs can take Game 3, optimism is back.
-
The Cubs really needed to get Game 1 or 2 in NY to win this series. Coming home will be nice but Hendriks and Hammel don't inspire a lot of confidence especially with deGrom on the mound tomorrow night. The Cubs will have to outslug the Mets in the next couple of games.
-
Don't know how the series will work out, but the Mets are the worst match up the Cubs could have. A team that strikes out a lot against a bunch of young, hard-throwing strikeout pitchers.
deGrom is already one of the best starters in baseball and Syndegaard will soon be at that level. Harvey was a top 5 starter before hurting his arm and is getting back pretty close to what he was.
You have to get the bat on the ball against the Mets and that is the biggest weakness on the Cubs.
The Mets could be at the point the Braves were when they had Smoltz, Maddux and Glavine. Different philosophies, but the chance to be just as good.
-
Cubs might get swept. Lots of defensive mistakes tonight. But more importantly, they can't get any hits. Much credit of that to Mets pitching.
As a fan, it sucks to get this far and realize we aren't going farther. The only back-of-my-mind relief is knowing that this is, by the design, one year ahead of where we were supposed to be.
-
I'd be shocked if they get swept. I just feel like this team guts at least one out. I don't ever want to see Cahill and his pot belly on the mound again. Keep a ball from bouncing off the plate one time for me. Good god.
-
While the Cubs are certainly ahead of schedule, so are the Mets. The future of the Mets may be even brighter than that of the Cubs. That pitching staff is STACKED! And young. They'll have to pay a few everyday players this offseason, but they are really, really good.
-
While the Cubs are certainly ahead of schedule, so are the Mets. The future of the Mets may be even brighter than that of the Cubs. That pitching staff is STACKED! And young. They'll have to pay a few everyday players this offseason, but they are really, really good.
And the rookie going tomorrow is another hard thrower who averaged over a strikeout per inning in the minors.
As I said earlier, this is a bad matchup - series-wise for the Cubs. All hard throwing strikeout pitchers against a team that strikes out a ton.
The future is bright for both teams and this off-season will have a big bearing on that. Cubs need another arm. Mets need to either re-sign Cespedes and Murphy or spend some dollars on a couple sticks. But if that staff stays healthy, they could dominate for years.
-
And the rookie going tomorrow is another hard thrower who averaged over a strikeout per inning in the minors.
As I said earlier, this is a bad matchup - series-wise for the Cubs. All hard throwing strikeout pitchers against a team that strikes out a ton.
The future is bright for both teams and this off-season will have a big bearing on that. Cubs need another arm. Mets need to either re-sign Cespedes and Murphy or spend some dollars on a couple sticks. But if that staff stays healthy, they could dominate for years.
My guess is they just out-right pay for two more top of the rotation starters. No trades.**
Edit: **maybe Starlin
-
Was not difficult to see this coming. Been saying all season and again before this series, this is not a WS winning roster, and the series has gone about exactly as expected. Still have another offseason/trade deadline of moving pieces around to go. Need more pitching and need to get better defensively. Someones gonna get moved. Not sure who, but I'd say every position player except Bryant, Schwarber, Rizzo and Russell are probably on the table for the right deal.
They're gonna get there. They're just not there yet.
-
Too many sluggers and not enough guys filling the bases, in my opinion. I like Fowler, but I'm not sure he's the type of lead off hitter they need. the Mets pitchers have been throwing from a full windup almost the entire series.
-
My guess is they just out-right pay for two more top of the rotation starters. No trades.**
Edit: **maybe Starlin
I will be very surprised if they are not part of a significant offseason trade involving one of their young guys (Castro included - though his value is not as high as some of the others). I agree they will sign a FA starter, but there are flaws in the roster makeup that will become bigger issues obpver time, and they have guys that will net a very good return. Someone's gonna be (and should be) moved.
-
My understanding is the Cubs have a lot of good position players in the pipeline. No reason not to trade for pitching or defense if that is indeed the case. Don't over-value your own guys.
-
I would trade for pitching, but not defense. Bryant is bound to improve. He's a rookie. I wouldn't trade for a LF because Schwarber misplayed a ball last night. I can live with his mistakes with his bat. Soler also made a young mistake charging that ball but has the tools to be a very good RF. These guys are really young.
The guy I see being moved is Baez. His defensive miscues have been really bad since Russell got hurt. He's supposed to be some defensive whiz (some say Russell's equal) but they keep replacing him in the late innings. Fans have been oversold on him and I wouldn't be surprised if he's riding the pine the rest of the series.
-
As disappointing as this series has been the Cubs are still in a great spot moving forward. You also can't completely overreact to a bad series. They have plenty of talent at all levels to make moves and should start to have more payroll flexibility moving forward. Should be an interesting offseason.
While the Mets young arms are fantastic pitching is much less predictable than hitting. Maybe they turn out like the Braves staffs or they could run into injury and/or ineffectiveness.
-
My guess is they just out-right pay for two more top of the rotation starters. No trades.**
Edit: **maybe Starlin
I'm calling Price right now. He wants to play for Madden and has said in interviews before that he'd love to play in Chicago.
I think they'll sign a second tier starter too.
-
Too many sluggers and not enough guys filling the bases, in my opinion. I like Fowler, but I'm not sure he's the type of lead off hitter they need. the Mets pitchers have been throwing from a full windup almost the entire series.
Cub batters leading off an inning are 0 for 25 in the series. Only Rizzo (one walk, one HBP) has reached as a lead off man.
-
I'm calling Price right now. He wants to play for Madden and has said in interviews before that he'd love to play in Chicago.
I think they'll sign a second tier starter too.
I heard an interview with Price in which he said the manager will make no impact on his decision. He was answering a question about Maddon. Price will go where he gets 150/5.
-
My guess is they just out-right pay for two more top of the rotation starters. No trades.**
Edit: **maybe Starlin
Anyone who trades even a second tier starting pitcher for Starlin Castro is nuts IMO. He can hit but is undisciplined at the plate - low OBP. Below average fielder, low baseball IQ, forgets the situation or even how many outs there are. But maybe the Cubs will get lucky - only takes one dumb GM to overpay for him.
-
The guy I see being moved is Baez. His defensive miscues have been really bad since Russell got hurt. He's supposed to be some defensive whiz (some say Russell's equal) but they keep replacing him in the late innings. Fans have been oversold on him and I wouldn't be surprised if he's riding the pine the rest of the series.
+108
No guarantee that Russell would have made all the plays that Baez has missed, but I see that as being the (negative) difference from the NLDS.
-
I heard an interview with Price in which he said the manager will make no impact on his decision. He was answering a question about Maddon. Price will go where he gets 150/5.
305 million for the Lester/Price combo seems like an awful lot. When does Arrieta become a free agent and how much will he get?
-
Either Baez or Castro will be moved this offseason. Madden really seems to like Tommy LaStella so he'll likely split time at 2B with whomever the Cubs keep. My guess is that it'll be a LaStella/Baez platoon with Castro moved.
Castro is what he is. A team might be willing to trade a pitcher for him if the Cubs throw in another prospect like Torres, McKinney or Almora. Baez is a high-ceiling/low-floor guy. There's probably a GM out there who will buy his potential, but he hasn't done much at the Major League level to justify giving up a quality arm for him.
I heard it reported yesterday on the radio (possibly by Bruce Levine) that the Cubs plan to make a run at Jason Heyward to play CF and are likely to make a short-term offer to Samardzija, but Price is unlikely.
-
Didn't realize Heyward is only 26. I thought he was nearer to 30. I would definitely be a fan of that though he's likely going to be costly.
I think Castro has been improved moving to 2nd, but I am not at all opposed to moving him. Baez has great power and potential, but with all the power the Cubs have in their lineup with Schwarber, Rizzo, Bryant, and Soler, I'd be happy with a guy who hits for more average/fills the bases.
I like Price, but his playoff struggles have me wary if we're talking 25-30MM per.
-
305 million for the Lester/Price combo seems like an awful lot. When does Arrieta become a free agent and how much will he get?
Not positive but I believe he is a free agent after next season. If he has another season like this one, he will be in the 22-25 range I'd guess.
-
He is signed through 2017
-
He is signed through 2017
The Cubs may look to extend Arrieta this offseason and acquire another SP via trade. I'd love Price but based on what he will cost and his age, I'd be surprised if they give out such a huge contact one year after signing Lester.
-
The Cubs may look to extend Arrieta this offseason and acquire another SP via trade. I'd love Price but based on what he will cost and his age, I'd be surprised if they give out such a huge contact one year after signing Lester.
Boras client. They typically don't do extensions before free agency.
-
It is unlikely, but I would not give up on the Cubs just yet. I hate the pitching matchup for them tonight, but if they can find a way to win, they have fully-rested Lester and extra-rested Arrieta for games 5 and 6, and if it ever gets to game 7, given their recent history of choking, Mets will be awfully tight.
First things first, gotta find a way to win tonight. Need to score early and take a lead for a change.
-
I don't see them closing out the series at Wrigley. Probably mets in 6.
-
Boras client. They typically don't do extensions before free agency.
I'm well aware, although a number of his clients have signed extensions prior to free agency. If the Cubs present an offer that Arrieta deems fair and he wants to stay here he'll sign.
-
It is unlikely, but I would not give up on the Cubs just yet. I hate the pitching matchup for them tonight, but if they can find a way to win, they have fully-rested Lester and extra-rested Arrieta for games 5 and 6, and if it ever gets to game 7, given their recent history of choking, Mets will be awfully tight.
First things first, gotta find a way to win tonight. Need to score early and take a lead for a change.
The problem for the Cubs isn't getting through games 5 and 6... the problem is being rewarded with facing deGrom in Game 7 if it gets that far.
-
The problem for the Cubs isn't getting through games 5 and 6... the problem is being rewarded with facing deGrom in Game 7 if it gets that far.
They can only take it one game at a time. Find a way to win tonight and then you have a chance with Lester and Arrieta coming up. It's obviously a long shot but I'm not giving up yet. They had DeGrom on the ropes in the first couple of innings last night but weren't able to capitalize.
And bring on robo ump for balls and strikes.
-
I'm well aware, although a number of his clients have signed extensions prior to free agency. If the Cubs present an offer that Arrieta deems fair and he wants to stay here he'll sign.
Really? Which ones? I certainly thought it was his policy to never do that.
-
Right now the Mets have the 3 best pitchers in the series. I'll never say never, but I don't see this one going back to NY.
-
Right now the Mets have the 3 best pitchers in the series. I'll never say never, but I don't see this one going back to NY.
I assume you're saying DeGrom, Syndergaard, and Harvey. But thats silly, cause Harvey finished the year weakly and was pedestrian against the Dodgers. He had a good outing in Game 1, but outside of Arrieta struggling in Game 2, saying Harvey is the better pitcher is pretty baseless. I'd take a rested Arrieta off a bad start over anyone was but DeGrom right now for the Mets.
-
I assume you're saying DeGrom, Syndergaard, and Harvey. But thats silly, cause Harvey finished the year weakly and was pedestrian against the Dodgers. He had a good outing in Game 1, but outside of Arrieta struggling in Game 2, saying Harvey is the better pitcher is pretty baseless. I'd take a rested Arrieta off a bad start over anyone was but DeGrom right now for the Mets.
I guess if you consider 2 earned runs over his 3 starts after rejoining the rotation to end the year in 17 2/3 innings with 24 Ks to 1 walk and 14 hits for a WHIP of 0.849 and an ERA of 1.02 then yes, you're right, Harvey "finished the year weakly."
Include his 2 Playoff starts and the numbers are giving up 8 runs, 25 hits and 5 walks while striking out 40 in 30 1/3 innings for an ERA of 2.37 and a WHIP of 0.989 with 1.32 K/IP and a K/BB ratio of 8:1 then yes, you're right. Very pedestrian numbers...
That's not a knock on Arrieta in the least bit. The Mets pitchers have been pitching lights out all year, and it has been even better in the stretch run. Arrieta has given up 4 ER in each of his last 2 starts. deGrom, Syndegaard, Harvey, and Matz have combined to do that 0 times in 8 Postseason starts.
I will stick to my statement that the Mets have the 3 hottest starters in this series.
-
I guess if you consider 2 earned runs over his 3 starts after rejoining the rotation to end the year in 17 2/3 innings with 24 Ks to 1 walk and 14 hits for a WHIP of 0.849 and an ERA of 1.02 then yes, you're right, Harvey "finished the year weakly."
Include his 2 Playoff starts and the numbers are giving up 8 runs, 25 hits and 5 walks while striking out 40 in 30 1/3 innings for an ERA of 2.37 and a WHIP of 0.989 with 1.32 K/IP and a K/BB ratio of 8:1 then yes, you're right. Very pedestrian numbers...
That's not a knock on Arrieta in the least bit. The Mets pitchers have been pitching lights out all year, and it has been even better in the stretch run. Arrieta has given up 4 ER in each of his last 2 starts. deGrom, Syndegaard, Harvey, and Matz have combined to do that 0 times in 9 Postseason starts.
I will stick to my statement that the Mets have the 3 hottest starters in this series.
Tsk Tsk...
But that's not what you said.
Right now the Mets have the 3 best pitchers in the series. I'll never say never, but I don't see this one going back to NY.
You said 3 best pitchers in the series. And maybe you are right, DeGrom, Thor, and Familia.
-
Tsk Tsk...
But that's not what you said.
You said 3 best pitchers in the series. And maybe you are right, DeGrom, Thor, and Familia.
Tsk Tsk...you forgot the right now. AKA, the hottest 3 pitchers. At the moment.
Were Harvey, deGrom, and Syndergaard all better throughout the year than Arietta? Nope. But right now they are pitching better than Arietta is.
-
I guess if you consider 2 earned runs over his 3 starts after rejoining the rotation to end the year in 17 2/3 innings with 24 Ks to 1 walk and 14 hits for a WHIP of 0.849 and an ERA of 1.02 then yes, you're right, Harvey "finished the year weakly."
Include his 2 Playoff starts and the numbers are giving up 8 runs, 25 hits and 5 walks while striking out 40 in 30 1/3 innings for an ERA of 2.37 and a WHIP of 0.989 with 1.32 K/IP and a K/BB ratio of 8:1 then yes, you're right. Very pedestrian numbers...
That's not a knock on Arrieta in the least bit. The Mets pitchers have been pitching lights out all year, and it has been even better in the stretch run. Arrieta has given up 4 ER in each of his last 2 starts. deGrom, Syndegaard, Harvey, and Matz have combined to do that 0 times in 8 Postseason starts.
I will stick to my statement that the Mets have the 3 hottest starters in this series.
Looking back at his end of regular season splits, I confused actual performance with the buzz around him. Specifically him getting hit well though not a ton of runs against the Reds and then him pulled early on the pitch count against the Nats.
I stand by what I said about the Dodger game. I'm not lumping his end of season in with playoffs. In the playoffs, he had 1 good start and 1 decent start. He gave up 3 runs on 7 hits in 5 innings. It wasn't disastrous but it wasn't great from an "ace". Just like DeGrom wasn't bad last night, but he wasn't hot. But I get your overall point.
-
Looking back at his end of regular season splits, I confused actual performance with the buzz around him. Specifically him getting hit well though not a ton of runs against the Reds and then him pulled early on the pitch count against the Nats.
I stand by what I said about the Dodger game. I'm not lumping his end of season in with playoffs. In the playoffs, he had 1 good start and 1 decent start. He gave up 3 runs on 7 hits in 5 innings. It wasn't disastrous but it wasn't great from an "ace". Just like DeGrom wasn't bad last night, but he wasn't hot. But I get your overall point.
Fair enough. Again, it's not a knock on Arietta, but the Mets starters have been, for the most part, lights out lately. I personally don't see it going back to NY as a result, but I could certainly be wrong. And hey, if anybody can make this thing interesting, it's a bunch of young 20-somethings who don't know that they're not supposed to win 4 straight games.
-
Saw an interesting stat about how poor the Cubs hit fastballs that are 94+ mph. Synd, DeGrom, Harvey all average over that this year. Makes sense. Last night, DeGrom noted how the Cubs seemed to have been keying in on his fastballs, so he switched tactics and threw more breaking - that appeared to work as the Cubs best inning was 1.
-
I was just thinking about how all the young pitchers for the Mets throw hard. I have no stats to back this up, but I feel like pitching staffs that have the most success in the Playoffs seem to have mostly hard throwing starters. That could be completely wrong, but it just seems that way to me.
-
I was just thinking about how all the young pitchers for the Mets throw hard. I have no stats to back this up, but I feel like pitching staffs that have the most success in the Playoffs seem to have mostly hard throwing starters. That could be completely wrong, but it just seems that way to me.
Don't know about playoff specific, but there is plenty of evidence that hard throwers have more success.
BABIP (batting average on balls in play) is pretty consistent for pitchers, be they hard throws or breaking ball pitchers. so being able to strike out a lot of guys does make a difference. Can't get on base when you strike out a lot. A guy who strikes out 180 times a year is putting the ball in play a lot less than a guy who strikes out 80 times. And, so the guy who strikes out 80 times, on average will get about 30 more hits a year.
This is one reason why a team like the Cards is so successful. 250 less Ks than the Cards.
-
Don't know about playoff specific, but there is plenty of evidence that hard throwers have more success.
BABIP (batting average on balls in play) is pretty consistent for pitchers, be they hard throws or breaking ball pitchers. so being able to strike out a lot of guys does make a difference. Can't get on base when you strike out a lot. A guy who strikes out 180 times a year is putting the ball in play a lot less than a guy who strikes out 80 times. And, so the guy who strikes out 80 times, on average will get about 30 more hits a year.
This is one reason why a team like the Cards is so successful. 250 less Ks than the Cards.
While the Cubs do strike out a ton, their OBP was equal to St. Louis' for the season and they had a higher OPS. I imagine it is even a bigger difference in the second half as the Cubs' offense was mediocre for the first few months of the season.
Hopefully as some of their young hitters mature they can cut down on the Ks but swing and miss will always be a part of the game for guys like Bryant and Schwarber. That's ok when you also draw walks and hit for power.
-
What a piss poor showing. Oh well, better team is gonna win this series.
-
Schwarber has looked a lot like a DH the last couple days.
-
Schwarber has looked a lot like a DH the last couple days.
Yes.
-
Schwarber has looked a lot like a DH the last couple days.
Looks like a guy that's barely played the OF.
-
Life is good today
-
Delicious schadenfreude in today's USA Today.
-
Life is good today
Did you accept that the Sox are and will continue to be irrelevant? Good for you!
-
Cubs fans better hope the time off didn't give their team time to cool off and start thinking.
Ahem. Momentum sapped. The team that played most recently carried their momentum and emotion into the series. Cubs never got started.
-
Delicious schadenfreude in today's USA Today.
The Compu-Fax!
-
Life is good today
You are, by far, my favorite Chicago sports fan. Back in the day Sox fans never rooted for the Cubs. And they liked it like that.
My Chicago cousins are (were) all cheering for the Cubs. Half of them grew up Sox fans. Just not right.
Enjoy.
-
Did you accept that the Sox are and will continue to be irrelevant? Good for you!
The White Sox have been much more relevant than the Cubs (and Brewers) have in this decade, millennium, and generation.
-
The White Sox have been much more relevant than the Cubs (and Brewers) have in this decade, millennium, and generation.
In the past decade, the White Sox have made one post season, losing in the ALDS.
The Brewers have been to two post seasons during that same time frame and advanced to the NLCS once.
The Cubs have been to three post seasons during that same time frame and advanced to the NLCS once.
-
In the past decade, the White Sox have made one post season, losing in the ALDS.
The Brewers have been to two post seasons during that same time frame and advanced to the NLCS once.
The Cubs have been to three post seasons during that same time frame and advanced to the NLCS once.
Sorry, I included the White Sox's World Series from 2005 in the last decade. The point remains, a Cubs fan calling the White Sox irrelevant is pretty funny.
-
If you include the 2005 WS, then your statement is accurate until next Tuesday. The Sox won the series on 10/26/05.
-
Sorry, I included the White Sox's World Series from 2005 in the last decade. The point remains, a Cubs fan calling the White Sox irrelevant is pretty funny.
You have a strange sense of humor considering it's true. The Cubs are no longer irrelevant and will be very good for the foreseeable future. The past doesn't matter. And aside from one postseason when they got hot, let's not act like the White Sox have a long history of success either.
The White Sox are largely irrelevant in Chicago - they can't even draw fans when they have a decent team. Not to mention they've been worse than the Cubs the past three years on the field as well, which is saying something considering how awful the Cubs have been until this year.
I don't have any problem with Sox fans rooting against the Cubs - it's completely natural. But those Sox fans who seem to care more about the Cubs losing than their own team winning, and there are a lot of them, deserve a little crap for it.
-
It was their year to win it.
I'm glad the Cubs lost.
I wouldn't be able to take the 24/7 sports talk about their appearance in the Series.
#BlameMurphy
-
Murphy's Law.
-
The Cubs are no longer irrelevant and will be very good for the foreseeable future.
Said every Cubs fan in late October 2003.
-
It was their year to win it.
I'm glad the Cubs lost.
I wouldn't be able to take the 24/7 sports talk about their appearance in the Series.
#BlameMurphy
Hold on, what? Their year to win it? Based on what? Being in the NLCS?
Said every Cubs fan in late October 2003.
Night and Day, that was a window closing despite having 2 good young pitchers. That team was anchored by 3 outfielders over the age of 35 in Sosa, Alou, and Lofton. The only young offensive talent was Ramirez and Patterson (debatable). Not to mention the strength of the farm system at the moment.
-
It was their year to win it.
I'm glad the Cubs lost.
I wouldn't be able to take the 24/7 sports talk about their appearance in the Series.
#BlameMurphy
Hold on, what? Their year to win it? Based on what? Being in the NLCS?
Said every Cubs fan in late October 2003.
Night and Day, that was a window closing despite having 2 good young pitchers. That team was anchored by 3 outfielders over the age of 35 in Sosa, Alou, and Lofton. The only young offensive talent was Ramirez and Patterson (debatable). Not to mention the strength of the farm system at the moment.
-
Night and Day, that was a window closing despite having 2 good young pitchers. That team was anchored by 3 outfielders over the age of 35 in Sosa, Alou, and Lofton. The only young offensive talent was Ramirez and Patterson (debatable). Not to mention the strength of the farm system at the moment.
Two good young pitchers?
Kerry Wood was 26.
Mark Prior was 22.
Carlos Zambrano was 22.
Juan Cruz - the guy Cubs fans insisted was the next Pedro Martinez - was 24.
Heck, Matt Clement was only 28.
It's funny you now claim Patterson was seen as a "debatable" talent. You're either very young or very forgetful of the hype that surrounded that guy as a surefire five-tool superstar, a guy Baseball America once ranked the top prospect in all baseball. And let's not forget 24-year-old Hee-Seop Choi, the guy the Cubs dumped Mark Grace for.
Yes, the Cubs lineup of 2003 was older than the Cubs lineup of 2015, but no one in their right mind chooses a stable of young, talented position players over a stable of young, dominant starters.
I mean, would you really rather have Bryant, Rizzo, Reed and Schwarber over deGrom, Harvey, Syndergard and Matz?
Look, my point here is sh-- happens in baseball. Guys get hurt. Guys regress (often). Career years never get repeated. Bad luck occurs. Assuming the Cubs are going to be "very good for the foreseeable future" is foolish. It's certainly a possibility. It's also possible they never win anything that matters.
-
Two good young pitchers?
Kerry Wood was 26.
Mark Prior was 22.
Carlos Zambrano was 22.
Juan Cruz - the guy Cubs fans insisted was the next Pedro Martinez - was 24.
Heck, Matt Clement was only 28.
It's funny you now claim Patterson was seen as a "debatable" talent. You're either very young or very forgetful of the hype that surrounded that guy as a surefire five-tool superstar, a guy Baseball America once ranked the top prospect in all baseball. And let's not forget 24-year-old Hee-Seop Choi, the guy the Cubs dumped Mark Grace for.
Yes, the Cubs lineup of 2003 was older than the Cubs lineup of 2015, but no one in their right mind chooses a stable of young, talented position players over a stable of young, dominant starters.
I mean, would you really rather have Bryant, Rizzo, Reed and Schwarber over deGrom, Harvey, Syndergard and Matz?
Look, my point here is sh-- happens in baseball. Guys get hurt. Guys regress (often). Career years never get repeated. Bad luck occurs. Assuming the Cubs are going to be "very good for the foreseeable future" is foolish. It's certainly a possibility. It's also possible they never win anything that matters.
Personally, I'd absolutely rather have Bryant, Rizzo, Russell (not Reed), and Schwarber over DeGrom, Harvey, Syndergaard and Matz. And the young Cubs pitchers you mention earlier in your post are exactly why. Good pitching beats good hitting but good hitting is much more sustainable and less prone to injury or breaking down than pitching. Look at what happened to Wood and Prior.
As for Corey Patterson, there was a ton of hype around him and he did have a lot of talent but Baseball America and other ranking services have made their fair share of mistakes. Choi was also traded for Derrek Lee, which turned out pretty well.
You are absolutely right to say that sh*t happens and nothing is guaranteed in baseball. Career years are never repeated - that's why they are career years. Two players on this team had career years this season - Jake Arrieta and Dexter Fowler. Rizzo had an MVP-caliber season and can still get better. If you think Bryant, Russell, Schwarber and Soler won't continue to improve I would strongly disagree with you. This is a team with an immense amount of talent already in place, increasing payroll flexibility, a great manager, an excellent front office, and likely a top 5 system to fill in pieces or trade for proven talent, even after bringing up the players mentioned above.
Assuming they should be very good for the foreseeable future is not foolish - it is an educated opinion. Once you get to the playoffs it's a crapshoot but there's no reason to think they won't be annual contenders for the next five years.
-
Is the edit function not working? Been trying to fix a typo in the last post with no luck.
-
Best sign of the night!
http://m.mlb.com/assets/images/4/0/0/155219400/cuts/102115_nym_murphy_goat_rjpm18s3_a9xw47vo.jpg (http://m.mlb.com/assets/images/4/0/0/155219400/cuts/102115_nym_murphy_goat_rjpm18s3_a9xw47vo.jpg)
Guess the Cubs still can't overcome the Curse of the Billy Goat!!
-
If you include the 2005 WS, then your statement is accurate until next Tuesday. The Sox won the series on 10/26/05.
Ok, why on Earth would you not count that. It was within the last 10 years. I'm soaking it up for the next 5 days.
-
The White Sox are largely irrelevant in Chicago - they can't even draw fans when they have a decent team. Not to mention they've been worse than the Cubs the past three years on the field as well, which is saying something considering how awful the Cubs have been until this year.
Well a well. A cub fan crowing about attendance. That's really an original take. Quick question, did you go to MU or Dayton?
All I know is that over my life the Sox (since 81) have been considerably better. Over my lifetime the Sox have had 20 seasons of .500 or better ball. Over that same period the Cubs have had 12. I know, not exactly the measure of greatness, but still the Cubs are 12-20 in reaching .500 over my life.
It is also dangerous to say the Cubs are going to be really good for a long time. It sure looks like it, but you never know. The 2000 White Sox had some truly great core of young hitters, Konerko, Magglio, and C Lee. With some highly touted prospects on the horizion. But that group was never able to slug their way to a championship. It was their young pitching that made more of an impact (Buehrle and Garland) Not too much of a point other than baseball can be a weird game.
I will say, I loved this series. And no, not just because the Cubs lost. For me it was the matchup. The team that focused on building around young pitching vs the team that focused on young hitting. Pretty good stuff. It looks like they will be seeing more of each other in the playoffs, but I guess the Cards, Pirates, Giants, Dodgers, Dbacks etc all will have something to say about that.
-
On Inside Pitch (an MLB radio show) they were discussing the Cubs offseason, and brought up trading Schwarber. Their logic was that he is basically a DH, and Bryant's future is likely in the OF. So they were saying the Cubs could play Baez at 3b, Russell at SS, Castro at 1B, move Bryant to LF, find a CF (Eddy Martinez??? Really shady how they signed him btw), and keep Soler in RF.
I know the Cub fans are probably protesting, but the trade they were hypothetically discussing was Schwarber for Sonny Gray. What would you all think about that?
To me that still seems like enough offense, especially since all your best prospects are hitters, and a front 3 of Arrieta, Gray and Lester would be pretty dang strong.
If I were Theo, I'd probably take that.
-
On Inside Pitch (an MLB radio show) they were discussing the Cubs offseason, and brought up trading Schwarber. Their logic was that he is basically a DH, and Bryant's future is likely in the OF. So they were saying the Cubs could play Baez at 3b, Russell at SS, Castro at 1B, move Bryant to LF, find a CF (Eddy Martinez??? Really shady how they signed him btw), and keep Soler in RF.
I know the Cub fans are probably protesting, but the trade they were hypothetically discussing was Schwarber for Sonny Gray. What would you all think about that?
To me that still seems like enough offense, especially since all your best prospects are hitters, and a front 3 of Arrieta, Gray and Lester would be pretty dang strong.
If I were Theo, I'd probably take that.
On the score they were just talking about the opposite, how Schwarber is Maddons and Epsteins guy and how he is the last one that is gonna be traded.
-
Personally, I'd absolutely rather have Bryant, Rizzo, Russell (not Reed), and Schwarber over DeGrom, Harvey, Syndergaard and Matz. And the young Cubs pitchers you mention earlier in your post are exactly why. Good pitching beats good hitting but good hitting is much more sustrightble and less prone to injury or breaking down than pitching. Look at what happened to Wood and Prior.
It's a mistake to think progress is inevitable for a young hitter with potential. Fact is, Kris Bryant and Addison Russell may be as good as they're ever going to be.
As a Cubs fan, you out of all people ought to know this.
See: Jerome Walton
See: Starlin Castro
See: Mel Hall
See: Geovany Soto
Yes, the risk of injury is greater with a pitcher. Said risk is much greater when your manager allows them to tack up ridiculous pitch counts (Hi, Dusty!). But starting pitching is so much more valuable than any other part of the game - and much harder to replace. I'm still wholly convinced 10 out of 10 MLB GMs would take the Mets' rotation over the Cubs' lineup. I mean, did the last five days teach us nothing?
-
On the score they were just talking about the opposite, how Schwarber is Maddons and Epsteins guy and how he is the last one that is gonna be traded.
Schwarber = Pete Incaviglia.
-
On the score they were just talking about the opposite, how Schwarber is Maddons and Epsteins guy and how he is the last one that is gonna be traded.
John Paxon syndrome eh? To me he seems like a natural to be traded, since he doesn't have a position. I suppose next season will tell. If he shows he can play a passable LF, that changes. But if he doesn't get better, he needs to be Manny Ramirez good (at least) to support that defense. I mean, he made Dayan Viciedo look like Alex Gordon.
-
Theo today said again they plan to have Schwarber catch, but also play the outfield. The dude is not going to catch. He is destined for the OF, and can probably be ok. The problem as I see it, is that I think Bryant is going to end up in the OF as well. I think the run the risk of having a very bad defensive outfield. Whatever, they're smart people. they'll figure it out, but I too think they would be wise to seriously consider offers for Schwarber. They need to improve rotation depth, find a bullpen arm or two, get better defensively, and round out their bench.
-
Theo today said again they plan to have Schwarber catch, but also play the outfield. The dude is not going to catch. He is destined for the OF, and can probably be ok. The problem as I see it, is that I think Bryant is going to end up in the OF as well. I think the run the risk of having a very bad defensive outfield. Whatever, they're smart people. they'll figure it out, but I too think they would be wise to seriously consider offers for Schwarber. They need to improve rotation depth, find a bullpen arm or two, get better defensively, and round out their bench.
Thing is, there are so many top level pitchers and hitters out there this off season in free agency that they can fill most of those spots without a trade. I think the only way they take a trade is if it balances their way
-
Thing is, there are so many top level pitchers and hitters out there this off season in free agency that they can fill most of those spots without a trade. I think the only way they take a trade is if it balances their way
Well, through trade they can acquire someone controllable at a more reasonable rate. The top tier starting pitchers are going to get a lot of money, as they always do. They are paying Jon Lester 25 mil a year, are they really going to commit 50 mil or more to two starters? Price, Zimmerman, Cueto will all command mid 20s at least, I'd guess. They could probably sign a guy like Leake or Samardizja for mid to high teens. Gray (just for the sake of an example) is on par with the top guys and isn't a free agent until 2020.
I know the Cubs have the money, but that's, well, Dodger/ Yankee money.
Not to mention that giving long term high rate contracts to starters over 30 usually doesn't work out too well.
-
Two good young pitchers?
Kerry Wood was 26.
Mark Prior was 22.
Carlos Zambrano was 22.
Juan Cruz - the guy Cubs fans insisted was the next Pedro Martinez - was 24.
Heck, Matt Clement was only 28.
It's funny you now claim Patterson was seen as a "debatable" talent. You're either very young or very forgetful of the hype that surrounded that guy as a surefire five-tool superstar, a guy Baseball America once ranked the top prospect in all baseball. And let's not forget 24-year-old Hee-Seop Choi, the guy the Cubs dumped Mark Grace for.
A lot has been hashed out. But by 2003, Juan Cruz was on his way out. He was 2-7 in 2003 and on his way out the next year. Zambrano was good but didn't break out till the next year. Nowhere near the level of Degrom or Thor. Borderline Matz at the time. And are we really talking about Clement? He was no better than Hammels or Hendricks.
As for Patterson, I remember the hype, he was one of the biggest prospect disappointments of the 2000s. But he was only decent in 2002, 2003 was better but cut short by injury. He never had the major league production of some of the guys people are excited about now. His buzz was hopeful potential, Bryant, Schwarber, and Russell have come up and played really well. His talent wasn't debatable, the future outlook was, IMO.
I think people have far more optimism in the track record of Theo and Hoyer compared to Hendry and Co.
-
Thing is, there are so many top level pitchers and hitters out there this off season in free agency that they can fill most of those spots without a trade. I think the only way they take a trade is if it balances their way
Oh there's no question a guy or two is gonna be traded (Soler, Baez, Castro...). The roster still needs work to be more complete. Doesn't have to necessarily be only about pitching. They need to figure out who's going to play CF, which goes to the defense, bench, etc. Pitching is clearly a priority, but there's a few other teaks that need to be made as well. guess my point is Schwarber probably should not be considered untouchable. If he was truly going to be the catcher, then yes, you hang onto him no matter what. I don't see that happening, so moving him in the right deal, could make your team better.
-
You have a strange sense of humor considering it's true. The Cubs are no longer irrelevant and will be very good for the foreseeable future. The past doesn't matter. And aside from one postseason when they got hot, let's not act like the White Sox have a long history of success either.
The White Sox are largely irrelevant in Chicago - they can't even draw fans when they have a decent team. Not to mention they've been worse than the Cubs the past three years on the field as well, which is saying something considering how awful the Cubs have been until this year.
I don't have any problem with Sox fans rooting against the Cubs - it's completely natural. But those Sox fans who seem to care more about the Cubs losing than their own team winning, and there are a lot of them, deserve a little crap for it.
But don't you think it goes both ways? I recall lots of fans not wanting the Sox to win the Series. The reality for Chicago baseball is that both teams have been mediocre or worse throughout most of baseball history, especially for the size of the city. I'd argue that the Cubs bear much greater responsibility for that given their inherent economic advantages associated with WGN nationwide TV. The standard for the Cubs all these years should be the Atlanta Braves who have had their share of success. Frankly, that's what makes the Kansas City resurgence so attractive. I always cheer for the small market teams, including my Brewers, and appreciate when the stars can align for them for relatively short windows of time given the economic inequality inherent in MLB.
-
A lot has been hashed out. But by 2003, Juan Cruz was on his way out. He was 2-7 in 2003 and on his way out the next year. Zambrano was good but didn't break out till the next year. Nowhere near the level of Degrom or Thor. Borderline Matz at the time. And are we really talking about Clement? He was no better than Hammels or Hendricks.
As for Patterson, I remember the hype, he was one of the biggest prospect disappointments of the 2000s. But he was only decent in 2002, 2003 was better but cut short by injury. He never had the major league production of some of the guys people are excited about now. His buzz was hopeful potential, Bryant, Schwarber, and Russell have come up and played really well. His talent wasn't debatable, the future outlook was, IMO.
I think people have far more optimism in the track record of Theo and Hoyer compared to Hendry and Co.
After the Cubs acquired Maddux, SI put them on the cover and declared them favorites to win the 2004 World Series. They had the incredible young pitchers who now would be tutored by Maddux. They would be a juggernaut to be dealt with for years.
Hell, the hype was so great that many were debating if the Cubs hadn't assembled not only the greatest pitching staff in years but the greatest stable of "hitting pitchers" -- in other words, pitchers who could help themselves with the bat -- of all time.
Like many here, I was in Chicago then. And the hype about the whole team -- especially the pitching -- was off the charts.
While the 2003 playoff collapse was spectacular in its suddenness, the 2004 final-week collapse was also remarkable.
As for Patterson, what a lot of folks forget is that he probably was the team's MVP the first half of 2003, keeping the team around .500 before the pitching fueled the amazing second-half run. He was batting .298 with 13 HR, 55 RBI and 16 SB before he blew out his knee just before the All-Star break. He was finally living up to his potential. He followed with a decent 2004 season but then gradually faded away.
-
But don't you think it goes both ways? I recall lots of fans not wanting the Sox to win the Series. The reality for Chicago baseball is that both teams have been mediocre or worse throughout most of baseball history, especially for the size of the city. I'd argue that the Cubs bear much greater responsibility for that given their inherent economic advantages associated with WGN nationwide TV. The standard for the Cubs all these years should be the Atlanta Braves who have had their share of success. Frankly, that's what makes the Kansas City resurgence so attractive. I always cheer for the small market teams, including my Brewers, and appreciate when the stars can align for them for relatively short windows of time given the economic inequality inherent in MLB.
I don't think its to the same extent. I rooted for the Sox in the 2005 WS. I was happy for the city of Chicago. I also hadn't lived in the city of Chicago to that point. I moved here a few years later, and experienced the vitriol and don't know if I would now have the same cheering loyalties. Ive had multiple people that are Sox fans find out I was a Cubs fan from Milwaukee and sneer that I clearly don't know much about baseball. Its just weird.
I went to a Sox game in, i want to say, 2010. They were still in the thick of the divisional race and they won a close, exciting game against the Tigers. As we're leaving the ballpark, a pretty loud and uniform chant of "F*&# the Cubs, F*&# the Cubs" echoed through the concourse. I was taken aback and just confused. The Cubs SUCKED at the time and had no bearing on them. It was just weird. I don't think Cubs fans are all pious and happily root for the team down South, but you'd never hear something like that at Wrigley.
-
On Inside Pitch (an MLB radio show) they were discussing the Cubs offseason, and brought up trading Schwarber. Their logic was that he is basically a DH, and Bryant's future is likely in the OF. So they were saying the Cubs could play Baez at 3b, Russell at SS, Castro at 1B, move Bryant to LF, find a CF (Eddy Martinez??? Really shady how they signed him btw), and keep Soler in RF.
I know the Cub fans are probably protesting, but the trade they were hypothetically discussing was Schwarber for Sonny Gray. What would you all think about that?
To me that still seems like enough offense, especially since all your best prospects are hitters, and a front 3 of Arrieta, Gray and Lester would be pretty dang strong.
If I were Theo, I'd probably take that.
I assume you meant Castro at 2B in your comments because Rizzo isn't going anywhere.
While I don't think anyone can ever truly be considered untouchable, I do think Rizzo, Bryant, Russell, and Schwarber (even in spite of his current defensive limitations, which can be improved) aren't going anywhere. Soler, Baez, and Castro would all be more likely to be moved, IMO. Of course, they should still have around a top five minor league system so if they wanted to acquire a cost-controlled young pitcher via trade they would have the assets to do so without disrupting the major league roster.
I do agree that I think they could be hesitant to sign another free agent pitcher to a huge contract one year after doing so with Lester and that a trade might be more likely.
-
After the Cubs acquired Maddux, SI put them on the cover and declared them favorites to win the 2004 World Series. They had the incredible young pitchers who now would be tutored by Maddux. They would be a juggernaut to be dealt with for years.
Yep.
(http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/542213/SIcubswood.png)
-
It's a mistake to think progress is inevitable for a young hitter with potential. Fact is, Kris Bryant and Addison Russell may be as good as they're ever going to be.
As a Cubs fan, you out of all people ought to know this.
See: Jerome Walton
See: Starlin Castro
See: Mel Hall
See: Geovany Soto
Yes, the risk of injury is greater with a pitcher. Said risk is much greater when your manager allows them to tack up ridiculous pitch counts (Hi, Dusty!). But starting pitching is so much more valuable than any other part of the game - and much harder to replace. I'm still wholly convinced 10 out of 10 MLB GMs would take the Mets' rotation over the Cubs' lineup. I mean, did the last five days teach us nothing?
I don't believe the players you mentioned above have the same pedigree as Bryant, Russell or Schwarber. And in spite of some bumps, Castro has been a productive player over his career. We'll see if all three of those guys along with Soler peaked this year but I feel pretty comfortable that they haven't.
Yes, the last five days taught us that the Mets were better those five days. The playoffs are a crapshoot. And I wholly disagree with you that 10 out of 10 GMs would take the pitchers over the hitters.
-
But don't you think it goes both ways? I recall lots of fans not wanting the Sox to win the Series. The reality for Chicago baseball is that both teams have been mediocre or worse throughout most of baseball history, especially for the size of the city. I'd argue that the Cubs bear much greater responsibility for that given their inherent economic advantages associated with WGN nationwide TV. The standard for the Cubs all these years should be the Atlanta Braves who have had their share of success. Frankly, that's what makes the Kansas City resurgence so attractive. I always cheer for the small market teams, including my Brewers, and appreciate when the stars can align for them for relatively short windows of time given the economic inequality inherent in MLB.
I absolutely wanted the Astros to beat the White Sox in 2005. What I wouldn't have done is posted on a message board or rubbed it in Sox fan's faces, including a couple of misguided friends that root for the Sox, if the Astros had won.
The Cubs have been managed terribly. The state of the entire organization when this new front office took over was abysmal. People can talk about the past futility all the want but it has absolutely no bearing on where the organization is now and where it is going.
-
I assume you meant Castro at 2B in your comments because Rizzo isn't going anywhere.
While I don't think anyone can ever truly be considered untouchable, I do think Rizzo, Bryant, Russell, and Schwarber (even in spite of his current defensive limitations, which can be improved) aren't going anywhere. Soler, Baez, and Castro would all be more likely to be moved, IMO. Of course, they should still have around a top five minor league system so if they wanted to acquire a cost-controlled young pitcher via trade they would have the assets to do so without disrupting the major league roster.
I do agree that I think they could be hesitant to sign another free agent pitcher to a huge contract one year after doing so with Lester and that a trade might be more likely.
You may be right, but I don't see any way that they trade Soler. I think he is the breakout player for the Cubs next year. He's a guy that only had about 550 ABs in the minors and so he's learning on the job. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see a .280+ season next year with 25 HR.
I do think they would deal Castro or Baez for decent starter and there are options available in free agency.
-
I don't believe the players you mentioned above have the same pedigree as Bryant, Russell or Schwarber. And in spite of some bumps, Castro has been a productive player over his career. We'll see if all three of those guys along with Soler peaked this year but I feel pretty comfortable that they haven't.
Yes, the last five days taught us that the Mets were better those five days. The playoffs are a crapshoot. And I wholly disagree with you that 10 out of 10 GMs would take the pitchers over the hitters.
You can take the "those five days" out of it. The Mets are a better team. Period. And it's really not even close. Outside of the Wild Card game, the Playoffs really aren't a crapshoot. In a best of 7 series, the better team almost always wins.
Since Doug Melvin is no longer the Brewers GM, I do feel pretty confident in saying 10/10 GMs would take the Mets' pitching staff over the Cubs' lineup.
-
I went to a Sox game in, i want to say, 2010. They were still in the thick of the divisional race and they won a close, exciting game against the Tigers. As we're leaving the ballpark, a pretty loud and uniform chant of "F*&# the Cubs, F*&# the Cubs" echoed through the concourse. I was taken aback and just confused. The Cubs SUCKED at the time and had no bearing on them. It was just weird. I don't think Cubs fans are all pious and happily root for the team down South, but you'd never hear something like that at Wrigley.
The paragraph above is a perfect example of what I was referencing earlier.
-
You may be right, but I don't see any way that they trade Soler. I think he is the breakout player for the Cubs next year. He's a guy that only had about 550 ABs in the minors and so he's learning on the job. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see a .280+ season next year with 25 HR.
I do think they would deal Castro or Baez for decent starter and there are options available in free agency.
Agree 100% on Soler. I just think the other four I mentioned are even less likely to go. Either Baez or Castro would be the most likely and they will only be traded if they get what the feel is appropriate value.
-
You can take the "those five days" out of it. The Mets are a better team. Period. And it's really not even close. Outside of the Wild Card game, the Playoffs really aren't a crapshoot. In a best of 7 series, the better team almost always wins.
Since Doug Melvin is no longer the Brewers GM, I do feel pretty confident in saying 10/10 GMs would take the Mets' pitching staff over the Cubs' lineup.
Well if you think the playoffs aren't a crapshoot once you get there you know even less about baseball than I assumed.
You can feel confident about what the GMs would say but you shouldn't. Here is a recent article that asked that exact question of scouts, GMs, and other front office personnel prior to the series. 9 took the Cubs hitters and 5 took the Mets pitchers.
http://nypost.com/2015/10/16/mets-or-cubs-future-mlb-execs-torn-over-nls-young-studs/
-
Well if you think the playoffs aren't a crapshoot once you get there you know even less about baseball than I assumed.
You can feel confident about what the GMs would say but you shouldn't. Here is a recent article that asked that exact question of scouts, GMs, and other front office personnel prior to the series. 9 took the Cubs hitters and 5 took the Mets pitchers.
http://nypost.com/2015/10/16/mets-or-cubs-future-mlb-execs-torn-over-nls-young-studs/
I wonder if the results would be different now.
-
You may be right, but I don't see any way that they trade Soler. I think he is the breakout player for the Cubs next year. He's a guy that only had about 550 ABs in the minors and so he's learning on the job. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see a .280+ season next year with 25 HR.
I do think they would deal Castro or Baez for decent starter and there are options available in free agency.
I'm with you. I love Soler's potential. He's raw and still figuring it out. But he's built in that Cespedes and Puig mold. He's only 23. His outfield assist in the clinching game over the Cardinals showed his potential defensively.
-
A lot has been hashed out. But by 2003, Juan Cruz was on his way out. He was 2-7 in 2003 and on his way out the next year. Zambrano was good but didn't break out till the next year. Nowhere near the level of Degrom or Thor. Borderline Matz at the time. And are we really talking about Clement? He was no better than Hammels or Hendricks.
As for Patterson, I remember the hype, he was one of the biggest prospect disappointments of the 2000s. But he was only decent in 2002, 2003 was better but cut short by injury. He never had the major league production of some of the guys people are excited about now. His buzz was hopeful potential, Bryant, Schwarber, and Russell have come up and played really well. His talent wasn't debatable, the future outlook was, IMO.
I think people have far more optimism in the track record of Theo and Hoyer compared to Hendry and Co.
Were you a Cub fan in 2003? There was astronomical hype on that team. Zambrano was super hyped, and in his third season (second full season), unlike Syndergaard who was in his what, third month?
Hendry came to the Cubs from a scouting background. There was tons of optimism about their farm system. Not only Patterson, Hee Soep Choi was the next great slugger, and I think Felix Pie got more hype than Bryant. There were others as well. Lots and lots of others.
Oh, and Clement was way better than Hendricks or Hammel. And for some reason I remember him being fantastic in those playoffs. I could be wrong, but that's how I remember it.
-
I'm with you. I love Soler's potential. He's raw and still figuring it out. But he's built in that Cespedes and Puig mold. He's only 23. His outfield assist in the clinching game over the Cardinals showed his potential defensively.
Throws are not a measure of defensive potential. Assists are a very small part of most outfielders games. As a Sox fan, the two best OF arms they've had recently were Viciedo and Carlos Quentin. Great arms, terrible defenders.
-
I wonder if the results would be different now.
Certainly possible but I would question someone who let one series completely alter their philosophy.
Both sides have great arguments and I wouldn't say that someone who would go with the Mets' pitchers is wrong, even if I would disagree. However, I would say that being 100% sure that 10 out of 10 GMs would take the pitchers is ludicrous, which is my point.
-
Throws are not a measure of defensive potential. Assists are a very small part of most outfielders games. As a Sox fan, the two best OF arms they've had recently were Viciedo and Carlos Quentin. Great arms, terrible defenders.
Soler was poor defensively this year. His routes left a lot to be desired. Metrics showed during the season Schwarber was slightly below average, although his performance in the NLCS made him appear much worse. Both are young and have limited experience so while neither will ever be plus defenders I think they can improve so they aren't liabilities. And it makes it more important to have a great defensive CF.
-
The Cubs have made it pretty clear from the get-go that they were going to draft mostly young bats and develop a pitching staff through a combination of young arms and free agents. They signed the first of those free agents last year (Lester) and are probably looking at Price this off-season.
2015 wasn't supposed to be their year. I think a 24 win improvement wasn't something you plan for. So they are ahead of schedule.
Do all plans work out? No. But I think they expected that a year or two from now is when their plan would really kick into gear.
-
You can take the "those five days" out of it. The Mets are a better team. Period. And it's really not even close. Outside of the Wild Card game, the Playoffs really aren't a crapshoot. In a best of 7 series, the better team almost always wins.
Since Doug Melvin is no longer the Brewers GM, I do feel pretty confident in saying 10/10 GMs would take the Mets' pitching staff over the Cubs' lineup.
Disagree everywhere. One, the best team does not almost always win in baseball. It is unusual, for example, for the team with the best record to win the World Series.
Second, many GMs would prefer young hitters because young pitchers get hurt at a much higher rate. History says at least one of Harvey, DeGrom and Syndegard will not be a good starting pitcher in 3 years due to injury.
Anything can happen in baseball. Last place teams sweep series from first place teams during the season.
-
Disagree everywhere. One, the best team does not almost always win in baseball. It is unusual, for example, for the team with the best record to win the World Series.
Second, many GMs would prefer young hitters because young pitchers get hurt at a much higher rate. History says at least one of Harvey, DeGrom and Syndegard will not be a good starting pitcher in 3 years due to injury.
Anything can happen in baseball. Last place teams sweep series from first place teams during the season.
Right. You're confusing regular season with Playoffs. In the regular season a last place team's #1 pitcher routinely matches up with a contending team's #5 pitcher. Injuries occur over the course of a 162 game season. Teams rest starters over the course of a 162 game season. Etc., etc., etc.
In the Playoffs you start to see only a team's best pitchers, they're playing their regulars every game, you're getting days off more often, and you know who's going to be available (healthy) for you every day. In a best of 7 baseball series, the better team almost always wins. That doesn't mean the team that had the best record is the better team. Regular season baseball and Playoff baseball (just like basketball) are 2 very different things.
Were the Cardinals better than the Cubs by the end of the year? I say no. Apparently Cubs fans think yes, but the dice just rolled their way for their series.
-
Right. You're confusing regular season with Playoffs. In the regular season a last place team's #1 pitcher routinely matches up with a contending team's #5 pitcher. Injuries occur over the course of a 162 game season. Teams rest starters over the course of a 162 game season. Etc., etc., etc.
In the Playoffs you start to see only a team's best pitchers, they're playing their regulars every game, you're getting days off more often, and you know who's going to be available (healthy) for you every day. In a best of 7 baseball series, the better team almost always wins. That doesn't mean the team that had the best record is the better team. Regular season baseball and Playoff baseball (just like basketball) are 2 very different things.
What is your definition of best team? The team that wins? If that is the case I guess you are always right. The Mets won in large part because a mediocre 30 year-old second baseman (who they were going to be happy to be rid of before the playoffs started) that has a career high of 14 homers and hit homers in back to back games exactly once in the eight years since he joined the big leagues went on the hottest streak of his life at the best possible time.
I don't necessarily disagree that the October 2015 Mets are better than the October 2015 Cubs, but I do disagree that the best team at any given time usually wins in baseball. Despite the 7 games series, I think baseball is a bigger "crapshoot" than football. I think the best team in the NFL is far more likely to win the championship than the best team in MLB. And the best team in the NBA is far more likely to win the championship than the best team in the NFL.
-
Were you a Cub fan in 2003? There was astronomical hype on that team. Zambrano was super hyped, and in his third season (second full season), unlike Syndergaard who was in his what, third month?
Hendry came to the Cubs from a scouting background. There was tons of optimism about their farm system. Not only Patterson, Hee Soep Choi was the next great slugger, and I think Felix Pie got more hype than Bryant. There were others as well. Lots and lots of others.
Oh, and Clement was way better than Hendricks or Hammel. And for some reason I remember him being fantastic in those playoffs. I could be wrong, but that's how I remember it.
Yes I was a Cubs fan. And I'm not denying there was hype. I'm saying there is more results based hype than in 2003. Patterson, Choi, Pie, none of them contributed to that 2003 team's final run. Patterson and Choi weren't even on the postseason roster. I don't know why you bring Pie into it, he was in Single A in 2003. None of them was ROY. None of them were key figures on a NLCS team like Bryant, Schwarber, or Russell. I'm not saying there was no hype, I'm saying the hype now is different.
Clement may have been better, but he was still just a bottom of the rotation starter. He was like 14-12 in 2003. And he won Game 4 of the NLCS, but he wasn't great. He got shelled in the NLDS vs the Braves and pitched fine in Game 4, wasn't a gem.
As for Soler, I like whatever flashes he shows. He doesn't seem to be hopeless out there, beyond correction, and having a hose that people need to respect out there will not be a bad thing, especially if they bring in a great, rangy CF.
-
What is your definition of best team? The team that wins? If that is the case I guess you are always right. The Mets won in large part because a mediocre 30 year-old second baseman (who they were going to be happy to be rid of before the playoffs started) that has a career high of 14 homers and hit homers in back to back games exactly once in the eight years since he joined the big leagues went on the hottest streak of his life at the best possible time.
I don't necessarily disagree that the October 2015 Mets are better than the October 2015 Cubs, but I do disagree that the best team at any given time usually wins in baseball. Despite the 7 games series, I think baseball is a bigger "crapshoot" than football. I think the best team in the NFL is far more likely to win the championship than the best team in MLB. And the best team in the NBA is far more likely to win the championship than the best team in the NFL.
I don't know that I really have a definition as to "best team." I don't think that with uneven schedules you can simply say, "Well, this team won more games than that team in the regular season, so them winning a best of 7 series in the Playoffs is just pure luck."
And I would argue that the Mets' starting pitching had much, much more to do with them winning the series than Daniel Murphy's hot streak.
Any situation where it's "one and done" compared to a series of games, the one and done situation is going to be more of a crapshoot. I don't think the NFL's best team wins the SB all that often. Last season I was at the Packers vs. Patriots game that the Pack won, and if either team could've played better it was the Packers. But the Packers choked away the game against the Seahawks, and then the Seahawks, who in my opinion were better than the Patriots, choked away the game to the Patriots. Were the Giants really a better team than the Patriots the 2 times they beat them in the SB? In my opinion, no. But in a 1 game setting it just takes 1 good game from a team that isn't as good and 1 sub par game from a better team and you're done.
-
Yes I was a Cubs fan. And I'm not denying there was hype. I'm saying there is more results based hype than in 2003. Patterson, Choi, Pie, none of them contributed to that 2003 team's final run. Patterson and Choi weren't even on the postseason roster. I don't know why you bring Pie into it, he was in Single A in 2003. None of them was ROY. None of them were key figures on a NLCS team like Bryant, Schwarber, or Russell. I'm not saying there was no hype, I'm saying the hype now is different.
Clement may have been better, but he was still just a bottom of the rotation starter. He was like 14-12 in 2003. And he won Game 4 of the NLCS, but he wasn't great. He got shelled in the NLDS vs the Braves and pitched fine in Game 4, wasn't a gem.
As for Soler, I like whatever flashes he shows. He doesn't seem to be hopeless out there, beyond correction, and having a hose that people need to respect out there will not be a bad thing, especially if they bring in a great, rangy CF.
I love that you used Clement's W/L record. Did you know that Kerry Wood's best record ever was 14-11. Why do Cub fans not consider him a bottom of the rotation starter I wonder? Clement threw over 200 innings that year (third time in his career, Hammel has done it well, never). He was never a top rotation guy, but in my opion he was better and more valuable than Hammel. But maybe not.
And here is his line from his wasn't great game. 7.2 innings, 5 hits 2 BB, 3 K 3 runs. Maybe not great, not far from it. Anytime your starter is getting you into the 8th, that guy deserves a lot of credit. Especially when you are comparing him to a guy that can't get out of the 2nd.
I didn't bring up Pie in relation to that team, just in general, in reference to the hype Cub prospects were getting during the reign of Jim Hendry, and the optimism that was surrounding the entire organization.
-
Disagree everywhere. One, the best team does not almost always win in baseball. It is unusual, for example, for the team with the best record to win the World Series.
Second, many GMs would prefer young hitters because young pitchers get hurt at a much higher rate. History says at least one of Harvey, DeGrom and Syndegard will not be a good starting pitcher in 3 years due to injury.
Anything can happen in baseball. Last place teams sweep series from first place teams during the season.
Well, the fact that both Harvey and Matz have both already recovered from TJ (and they will get Wheeler back from TJ next season) may skew that in the Mets favor. They have already endured the injuries. Doesn't mean it won't happen again, but they've already gotten through it.
-
What is your definition of best team? The team that wins? If that is the case I guess you are always right. The Mets won in large part because a mediocre 30 year-old second baseman (who they were going to be happy to be rid of before the playoffs started) that has a career high of 14 homers and hit homers in back to back games exactly once in the eight years since he joined the big leagues went on the hottest streak of his life at the best possible time.
I don't necessarily disagree that the October 2015 Mets are better than the October 2015 Cubs, but I do disagree that the best team at any given time usually wins in baseball. Despite the 7 games series, I think baseball is a bigger "crapshoot" than football. I think the best team in the NFL is far more likely to win the championship than the best team in MLB. And the best team in the NBA is far more likely to win the championship than the best team in the NFL.
Both the Cubs and Mets had been great in the second half. To give all the credit to Murphy seems a bit misplaced. Obviously he was great, but the Mets hit better, played better D, ran the bases better, and pitched better. They completely outplayed the Cubs in every facet of the game, and even changed their personality a bit to address a weakness the Cubs had (the running game), which suggests the Cubs were also out managed. After watching that series, there is very little doubt who the better team was.
-
Both the Cubs and Mets had been great in the second half. To give all the credit to Murphy seems a bit misplaced. Obviously he was great, but the Mets hit better, played better D, ran the bases better, and pitched better. They completely outplayed the Cubs in every facet of the game, and even changed their personality a bit to address a weakness the Cubs had (the running game). After watching that series, there is very little doubt who the better team was.
The Mets were the better team IN THAT SERIES. That's it.
-
The "best team" v. "champion" argument is one of the most frustrating in sports. The goal isn't to be the "best team," but the goal is to be the champion. In American sports, the only purpose of the regular season is to determine qualification and seeding for the playoffs. Period. The champion is determined by whomever performs best in those playoffs.
-
The Mets were the better team IN THAT SERIES. That's it.
Yeah you're right. If this series was played starting today rather than starting last week the Cubs sweep.
::)
The Mets are far and away the better baseball team. It's really that simple. You don't sweep a team in the Playoffs by getting lucky.
-
The "best team" v. "champion" argument is one of the most frustrating in sports. The goal isn't to be the "best team," but the goal is to be the champion. In American sports, the only purpose of the regular season is to determine qualification and seeding for the playoffs. Period. The champion is determined by whomever performs best in those playoffs.
Agreed. The best team doesn't always win the Championship. But it's far more likely the best team wins the Championship when it's a series of games that determines a winner as opposed to a 1 and done situation.
-
The Mets were the better team IN THAT SERIES. That's it.
So you would say the same in terms of the Cubs Cards series right? And that the Cubs were better than the Pirates in that one game?
The Mets were a better deeper team. The Cubs have 2 pitchers. The Mets have 4-5 or even 6. The Mets have a lineup that, while not as deep as the Cubs was more versatile. They didn't have the exploitable weakness the Cubs did.
If you take off your Cub glasses, the Mets were clearly better. Or at least explain how the Cubs were better.
-
Yeah you're right. If this series was played starting today rather than starting last week the Cubs sweep.
::)
The Mets are far and away the better baseball team. It's really that simple. You don't sweep a team in the Playoffs by getting lucky.
I didn't say that they got lucky. I didn't say the Cubs would sweep them if they played again. I've stated more than a few times the Cubs were outplayed in every phase. Anything else you'd like to add that I didn't say?
And if the teams played again the series could absolutely turn out the other way. It's not like the Cubs didn't beat Harvey, Syndergaard, or DeGrom (twice) this year. And I realize that is when both teams were far less than their best offensively.
-
So you would say the same in terms of the Cubs Cards series right? And that the Cubs were better than the Pirates in that one game?
The Mets were a better deeper team. The Cubs have 2 pitchers. The Mets have 4-5 or even 6. The Mets have a lineup that, while not as deep as the Cubs was more versatile. They didn't have the exploitable weakness the Cubs did.
If you take off your Cub glasses, the Mets were clearly better. Or at least explain how the Cubs were better.
The Cubs were better than the Pirates in one game. Overall, I think they were both very evenly matched teams and a 5 or 7 games series could have gone either way. The Cubs scored some runs and had Arrieta at his best that night. I would have no problem if a Pirates fan thought the Pirates were the better team.
As for the Cards series, the Cubs were better in that series. I felt better about a match up against St. Louis in a series than Pittsburgh as the Cubs had handled St. Louis in two recent series. I wouldn't hold it against a Cardinals fan who thought they were the better team, although I think at the end of the season the Cubs were playing better.
I don't have my Cub glasses on. The Mets were clearly better in the series. They absolutely have a deeper rotation, which is why I had a slight preference to play the Dodgers. However, if the teams could hypothetically play again why couldn't Cubs get dominant outings from Arrieta and Lester in the first two games, put a few runs on the board and go up 2-0 heading back to Chicago? Maybe Anthony Rizzo, a much better player than Daniel Murphy, would be on fire and the Mets offense stone cold. Anyone who thinks that isn't possible is deluding themselves.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter as it is all hypothetical. The Mets played great. The Cubs played like ass and got swept when it counted. There's no debating that. However, anyone who fails to accept that their could be a different outcome if the teams played again doesn't know much about baseball.
-
I love that you used Clement's W/L record. Did you know that Kerry Wood's best record ever was 14-11. Why do Cub fans not consider him a bottom of the rotation starter I wonder? Clement threw over 200 innings that year (third time in his career, Hammel has done it well, never). He was never a top rotation guy, but in my opion he was better and more valuable than Hammel. But maybe not.
And here is his line from his wasn't great game. 7.2 innings, 5 hits 2 BB, 3 K 3 runs. Maybe not great, not far from it. Anytime your starter is getting you into the 8th, that guy deserves a lot of credit. Especially when you are comparing him to a guy that can't get out of the 2nd.
Cause I was trying to show he was average that year. He had an ERA over 4, other stats weren't great. And I wasn't saying it wasn't a good start, you just said you remembered him being great and I told you he had one bad start and the other was steady but unspectacular. That all. I'm not saying he and Hammel are the same talent, just that neither are studs to get "excited" for the future about that take up lower rotation spots.
-
Any situation where it's "one and done" compared to a series of games....
My point is that in baseball the random nature of the sport makes it less predictable. The breaks do not necessarily balance out over even a 7 game series. Nobody in the history of baseball has pitched as well as Jake Arrieta over the past 4 months. No reason to expect him to lose, but he did.
I am confident that, once the regular season ends and before the playoffs begin, "experts" and computer models pick the Super Bowl winner correctly more often than they pick the World Series winner correctly. And they pick the NBA winner much more often than the Super Bowl winner. That to me, means the best team wins less often in baseball than in other sports.
-
Cause I was trying to show he was average that year. He had an ERA over 4, other stats weren't great. And I wasn't saying it wasn't a good start, you just said you remembered him being great and I told you he had one bad start and the other was steady but unspectacular. That all. I'm not saying he and Hammel are the same talent, just that neither are studs to get "excited" for the future about that take up lower rotation spots.
Gotta remember though, that a 4.00 ERA then is not the same a a 4.00 ERA now. Different era - different game.
-
The Cubs were better than the Pirates in one game. Overall, I think they were both very evenly matched teams and a 5 or 7 games series could have gone either way. The Cubs scored some runs and had Arrieta at his best that night. I would have no problem if a Pirates fan thought the Pirates were the better team.
As for the Cards series, the Cubs were better in that series. I felt better about a match up against St. Louis in a series than Pittsburgh as the Cubs had handled St. Louis in two recent series. I wouldn't hold it against a Cardinals fan who thought they were the better team, although I think at the end of the season the Cubs were playing better.
I don't have my Cub glasses on. The Mets were clearly better in the series. They absolutely have a deeper rotation, which is why I had a slight preference to play the Dodgers. However, if the teams could hypothetically play again why couldn't Cubs get dominant outings from Arrieta and Lester in the first two games, put a few runs on the board and go up 2-0 heading back to Chicago? Maybe Anthony Rizzo, a much better player than Daniel Murphy, would be on fire and the Mets offense stone cold. Anyone who thinks that isn't possible is deluding themselves.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter as it is all hypothetical. The Mets played great. The Cubs played like ass and got swept when it counted. There's no debating that. However, anyone who fails to accept that their could be a different outcome if the teams played again doesn't know much about baseball.
Sure, and Marquette University High School's JV team could in theory win a series against the Chicago Cubs. That doesn't mean that if the Cubs and MUHS's JV team played a 7 game series at Merrill Park and MUHS totaled 0 hits, that you can only come to the conclusion that the Cubs were better just for that particular set of 4 games.
-
The Cubs never held a lead in the entire 4 game sweep. The score wasn't even tied from the 5th inning on in any of the 4 games. In fact, the only time they were even tied at any point beyond the 1st inning was game 3.
They were completely Big Boyed by the Mets. But if you want to believe that the Cubs are the better team and they just played them the wrong 4 days it's pretty evident nobody's going to stop you. I would, however, suggest you stop telling people that they don't know anything about baseball if you're going to preach that the Cubs might be the better team, because it looks pretty silly.
-
Sure, and Marquette University High School's JV team could in theory win a series against the Chicago Cubs. That doesn't mean that if the Cubs and MUHS's JV team played a 7 game series at Merrill Park and MUHS totaled 0 hits, that you can only come to the conclusion that the Cubs were better just for that particular set of 4 games.
Wade's...I'm gonna ask you one question, and then stay out of this thread. When the Cubs went 7-0 against the Mets in the regular season, would you say the Mets were far and away the better baseball team? By they way you're arguing, I'd think you have to.
I ask as a Cubs fan that knows that the postseason Mets were different than when the Cubs played them earlier.
-
Wade's...I'm gonna ask you one question, and then stay out of this thread. When the Cubs went 7-0 against the Mets in the regular season, would you say the Mets were far and away the better baseball team? By they way you're arguing, I'd think you have to.
I ask as a Cubs fan that knows that the postseason Mets were different than when the Cubs played them earlier.
I could be wrong here, I don't believe the Cubs faced a Met lineup featuring any of Yoenis Cespedes, Travis D'Arnaud or Michael Conforto.
-
Wade's...I'm gonna ask you one question, and then stay out of this thread. When the Cubs went 7-0 against the Mets in the regular season, would you say the Mets were far and away the better baseball team? By they way you're arguing, I'd think you have to.
I ask as a Cubs fan that knows that the postseason Mets were different than when the Cubs played them earlier.
You realize not 1 of those games came after the Cespedes trade, right?
Seriously, the series wasn't even close. The Cubs didn't even threaten to take one of the 4 games. I really don't understand how you can argue that the Mets aren't the better team. I work with a diehard Cubs fan who said first thing the day after game 4, "The Mets are the better team and are going to win the WS." I don't get how anybody who watched that series can reasonably think that the Cubs are a better team than the Mets. Just like back in 2011 when the Brewers won the Central, I don't see how anybody could argue that the Brewers were better than the Cardinals after the NLCS (a series in which the Brewers actually won 2 games).
-
I could be wrong here, I don't believe the Cubs faced a Met lineup featuring any of Yoenis Cespedes, Travis D'Arnaud or Michael Conforto.
You are not wrong.
And once again, those regular season games are completely different than post season games. That was my favorite talking point heading into the seasons. "The Cubs are 7-0 against the Mets this year." Yes, and not 1 of those 7 games mean a single thing. Completely different teams (both the Cubs and the Mets) by now.
-
You realize not 1 of those games came after the Cespedes trade, right?
Seriously, the series wasn't even close. The Cubs didn't even threaten to take one of the 4 games. I really don't understand how you can argue that the Mets aren't the better team. I work with a diehard Cubs fan who said first thing the day after game 4, "The Mets are the better team and are going to win the WS." I don't get how anybody who watched that series can reasonably think that the Cubs are a better team than the Mets. Just like back in 2011 when the Brewers won the Central, I don't see how anybody could argue that the Brewers were better than the Cardinals after the NLCS (a series in which the Brewers actually won 2 games).
Yes, I realize. Could you answer the question?
I don't think anybody has said the Mets weren't a better team during this series.
-
Yes, I realize. Could you answer the question?
I thought the Cubs were going to win a very close series going into the series. And that had absolutely nothing to do with any regular season head to head record. I thought the Cubs were the better team. The Mets proved me entirely wrong and I really don't know how it can be argued otherwise.
-
I could be wrong here, I don't believe the Cubs faced a Met lineup featuring any of Yoenis Cespedes, Travis D'Arnaud or Michael Conforto.
You are correct. Of course the Mets also faced Cubs lineups that included Mike Baxter, Jonathan Herrera, Matt Szczur, and Chris Denorfia. Neither was the same team.
-
I thought the Cubs were going to win a very close series going into the series. And that had absolutely nothing to do with any regular season head to head record. I thought the Cubs were the better team. The Mets proved me entirely wrong and I really don't know how it can be argued otherwise.
And I don't understand why it is so difficult for you to accept that if the teams hypothetically played again that the outcome could be different. If you think the Mets would dominate again you have every right to but that doesn't make it so.
As a Cubs fan, I could certainly accept that argument that if the Cubs played St. Louis again the result might not have been the same.
When St. Louis won the World Series as an 83 win wild card team in 2006, beating the 97 win Mets to get there, I'd have a real hard time saying St. Louis was the better team. Instead they got really hot at the right time behind Jeff Suppan, who you should be familiar with. All the teams in the playoffs are good but getting hot at the right time can be more important.
-
And I don't understand why it is so difficult for you to accept that if the teams hypothetically played again that the outcome could be different. If you think the Mets would dominate again you have every right to but that doesn't make it so.
As a Cubs fan, I could certainly accept that argument that if the Cubs played St. Louis again the result might not have been the same.
When St. Louis won the World Series as an 83 win wild card team in 2006, beating the 97 win Mets to get there, I'd have a real hard time saying St. Louis was the better team. Instead they got really hot at the right time behind Jeff Suppan, who you should be familiar with. All the teams in the playoffs are good but getting hot at the right time can be more important.
I think it was a bad matchup for the Cubs and the mets would win again.... but one rule to remember is that no team is as good as it looks when it's on a hot streak and no team is as bad as it looks when it is cold.
-
You are correct. Of course the Mets also faced Cubs lineups that included Mike Baxter, Jonathan Herrera, Matt Szczur, and Chris Denorfia. Neither was the same team.
OK, but who did the Cubs add to the mix to make their team better after that point. Schwarber? He is the only one right?
The Mets made a huge move to get much better since that point. The Cubs didn't.
I think we can all agree, those 7 games, by the time the playoffs rolled around, meant nothing.
-
I think we can all agree, those 7 games, by the time the playoffs rolled around, meant nothing.
Well, they did mean 97 wins instead of 90....but...I only brought them up as an example of using a single winning streak to prove which team is better - which is a stupid argument. That said, I probably should have used some other streak, but it's what I wrote.
-
And I don't understand why it is so difficult for you to accept that if the teams hypothetically played again that the outcome could be different. If you think the Mets would dominate again you have every right to but that doesn't make it so.
As a Cubs fan, I could certainly accept that argument that if the Cubs played St. Louis again the result might not have been the same.
When St. Louis won the World Series as an 83 win wild card team in 2006, beating the 97 win Mets to get there, I'd have a real hard time saying St. Louis was the better team. Instead they got really hot at the right time behind Jeff Suppan, who you should be familiar with. All the teams in the playoffs are good but getting hot at the right time can be more important.
I understand the point that you're trying to make and, sure, in a 7 or even 6-game MLB series, it's possible that the better team gets a couple unfortunate breaks and loses. However, when a team gets swept and completely dominated like the Cubs just did, it's nearly impossible to claim that had they played again, the series outcome would be different.
I truly believe that the Cubs were better than the Marlins in 2003 but, in the most important situation in the series, the Cubs came unraveled and the Marlins didn't. As a result, the Marlins have a WS ring and the Cubs still haven't won a pennant in 70 years. Being the "better team" doesn't mean a thing if you don't win.
-
I think it was a bad matchup for the Cubs and the mets would win again.... but one rule to remember is that no team is as good as it looks when it's on a hot streak and no team is as bad as it looks when it is cold.
And I completely respect that opinion, even if I don't necessarily agree with it. I think what we saw this series was the Mets playing as well as they could and the Cubs playing about as poorly as they could, although the Mets pitching did dictate some of that.
-
OK, but who did the Cubs add to the mix to make their team better after that point. Schwarber? He is the only one right?
The Mets made a huge move to get much better since that point. The Cubs didn't.
I think we can all agree, those 7 games, by the time the playoffs rolled around, meant nothing.
Schwarber was the main difference but if you look at the overall lineup composition and how the Cubs performed once he became a regular the last two months of the season the offensive performance was night and day. The Cubs were fairly mediocre offensively through July.
And I knew going into the series that those 7 games meant nothing.
-
I understand the point that you're trying to make and, sure, in a 7 or even 6-game MLB series, it's possible that the better team gets a couple unfortunate breaks and loses. However, when a team gets swept and completely dominated like the Cubs just did, it's nearly impossible to claim that had they played again, the series outcome would be different.
I truly believe that the Cubs were better than the Marlins in 2003 but, in the most important situation in the series, the Cubs came unraveled and the Marlins didn't. As a result, the Marlins have a WS ring and the Cubs still haven't won a pennant in 70 years. Being the "better team" doesn't mean a thing if you don't win.
I understand what you're saying with your first point. We can agree to disagree there. The Mets showed up and the Cubs didn't and that's ultimately what matters.
-
As a lifelong Twins fan and a Royals fan for the last 7, I can't tell you how much I enjoy watching Cubs and Sox fans go after each other.
-
And I don't understand why it is so difficult for you to accept that if the teams hypothetically played again that the outcome could be different. If you think the Mets would dominate again you have every right to but that doesn't make it so.
As a Cubs fan, I could certainly accept that argument that if the Cubs played St. Louis again the result might not have been the same.
When St. Louis won the World Series as an 83 win wild card team in 2006, beating the 97 win Mets to get there, I'd have a real hard time saying St. Louis was the better team. Instead they got really hot at the right time behind Jeff Suppan, who you should be familiar with. All the teams in the playoffs are good but getting hot at the right time can be more important.
When you lose 4 straight games, never hold a lead in those 4 games, and only keep the score tied beyond the 1st inning in 1 of those 4 games and never beyond the 4th inning, I have a hard time believing that the result would be significantly different if you play another 7 game series.
The Mets proved to be the fart better team, completely dominating the Cubs from start to finish of the series.
Edit: I didn't get to the last page of the thread before my response. Merritt's pretty much said what I was thinking.
The Cubs' future is (unfortunately) very bright and they were very good this season. But the Mets, by the end of the year, were a better baseball team, and they proved it on the field.
-
What a game.
-
What a game.
Ex brewers galore in that series.
-
Ex brewers galore in that series.
The last two ALCS MVP's - Cain and Escobar - came from the Brewers via the Greinke trade. So speaking for all of KC...'thank you!'
I love reading that the decision to send Cain from 1st to home on a single wasn't a big risk because Bautista is so predictable in his fielding and always throws to second regardless of who's on first. Couldn't happen to a better person.
-
The last two ALCS MVP's - Cain and Escobar - came from the Brewers via the Greinke trade. So speaking for all of KC...'thank you!'
I love reading that the decision to send Cain from 1st to home on a single wasn't a big risk because Bautista is so predictable in his fielding and always throws to second regardless of who's on first. Couldn't happen to a better person.
Cain, Brantley, Cruz.... we shipped out some decent OFs.
-
Wasnt Yost despised by brewer fans as well?
-
Wasnt Yost despised by brewer fans as well?
Despised is a strong word. Yost seems like one of those managers who is a great locker room guy, but his game management skills are a little weak. He clearly was losing it down the stretch in 2008 and needed to be replaced, but there was no reason to dislike the guy.
-
Despised is a strong word. Yost seems like one of those managers who is a great locker room guy, but his game management skills are a little weak. He clearly was losing it down the stretch in 2008 and needed to be replaced, but there was no reason to dislike the guy.
Not that I would know, but I have yet to hear any person in the media who thought he was even close to a pleasant guy to be around or to interview. But hey, maybe he was just pissed off that the media people were allowed in his locker room but not allowed in women's softball teams' locker rooms.
-
Despised is a strong word. Yost seems like one of those managers who is a great locker room guy, but his game management skills are a little weak. He clearly was losing it down the stretch in 2008 and needed to be replaced, but there was no reason to dislike the guy.
Prior to last years run there was a saying in KC when an odd decision was made that the game was "Yosted". Last night when Davis didn't get the call to face Bautista my buddy turned to me and said "we're being Yosted".
Even on the eve of a second consecutive WS he can't shake the bad image. It's a shame because, with the enormous help of the front office, he's kept the lightning in the bottle for two years....an amazing accomplishment in this market.
My opinion is that every genius needs the right situation and this clubhouse is Ned's right place.
-
I think I heard that Ned has the highest Playoff winning percentage of any manager in MLB history. That might be wrong though.
-
I think I heard that Ned has the highest Playoff winning percentage of any manager in MLB history. That might be wrong though.
Maybe with a minimum of 25 games? If you're just looking at percentage, Yost doesn't even have the highest in this World Series, (Terry Collins is 7-2/.778; Yost is 18-8/.692). Future Hall of Fame manager Ozzie Guillen 12-4/.750.
-
Maybe with a minimum of 25 games? If you're just looking at percentage, Yost doesn't even have the highest in this World Series, (Terry Collins is 7-2/.778; Yost is 18-8/.692). Future Hall of Fame manager Ozzie Guillen 12-4/.750.
I think MLB allows Yost not to count games in which Bumgarner pitched so he's in the record books at 18-4/.818
-
Maybe with a minimum of 25 games? If you're just looking at percentage, Yost doesn't even have the highest in this World Series, (Terry Collins is 7-2/.778; Yost is 18-8/.692). Future Hall of Fame manager Ozzie Guillen 12-4/.750.
Yeah there must be a minimum number of games to qualify.
-
I thought the Cubs were going to win a very close series going into the series. And that had absolutely nothing to do with any regular season head to head record. I thought the Cubs were the better team. The Mets proved me entirely wrong and I really don't know how it can be argued otherwise.
Wades, I think there is consensus that the Mets were the better team in that series. What I don't understand is how you reconcile your own thought above (I thought the Cubs were going to win a very close series) with the idea that the Mets are clearly the better team. You thought the Cubs were the better team (your words), but now that they were swept in impressive fashion it is clear the Mets are the better team?
What if the Royals beat up the Mets pitchers? Are the Royals that much better than the Cubs, or is it possible that the Mets got hot at the right time, but cooled off before the WS?
-
Maybe with a minimum of 25 games? If you're just looking at percentage, Yost doesn't even have the highest in this World Series, (Terry Collins is 7-2/.778; Yost is 18-8/.692). Future Hall of Fame manager Ozzie Guillen 12-4/.750.
I was really confused as to why Ozzie had an extra win and 3 losses but I completely forgot about that Rays series in 08.
-
Wades, I think there is consensus that the Mets were the better team in that series. What I don't understand is how you reconcile your own thought above (I thought the Cubs were going to win a very close series) with the idea that the Mets are clearly the better team. You thought the Cubs were the better team (your words), but now that they were swept in impressive fashion it is clear the Mets are the better team?
What if the Royals beat up the Mets pitchers? Are the Royals that much better than the Cubs, or is it possible that the Mets got hot at the right time, but cooled off before the WS?
Not worth your time or frustration to discuss.
-
Wades, I think there is consensus that the Mets were the better team in that series. What I don't understand is how you reconcile your own thought above (I thought the Cubs were going to win a very close series) with the idea that the Mets are clearly the better team. You thought the Cubs were the better team (your words), but now that they were swept in impressive fashion it is clear the Mets are the better team?
What if the Royals beat up the Mets pitchers? Are the Royals that much better than the Cubs, or is it possible that the Mets got hot at the right time, but cooled off before the WS?
Because I hadn't watched much of either team at all. In fact, I'm not sure I watched a single inning of the Mets prior to the post season. The Mets didn't get hot at "the right time..." the Mets got hot...for the entire 2nd half of the season. It's pretty evident to anyone who watched the Post Season that the 2 best teams in baseball are still playing.
The Cubs right now are built like the 2011 Brewers. One stud ace (Arietta/Greinke), one overrated "ace" (Lester/Gallardo - relax, I know Lester is better than Gallardo, but he's still not a true shut down ace like the Mets #2, or #3), and then not a lot beyond that. Offensively they like to hit home runs and hit more home runs. That is great for the regular season and a very fun brand of baseball, but when it gets down to the cold weather of October and going up against real aces every night (like the Brewers did in the 2011 NLCS and the Cubs did in the 2015 NLCS) it's not a winning brand of baseball.
Once the Postseason begins, it comes down to whose starting pitchers can shorten the bullpen and whose bullpen can close out the game, not whose offense can mash. It's why you saw the Blue Jays and the Cubs both lose to the Mets and the Royals. Would anybody argue that the Royals could put up bigger offensive numbers than the Blue Jays or that the Mets could put up bigger offensive numbers than the Cubs? Nope. But those 2 teams can shut down offenses while the Cubs and the Jays couldn't.
Again, the Cubs never led in the series. The Cubs were only even tied one time past the 1st inning, and not once after the 4th inning. If people really think that the Mets just happened to "get hot" so be it. But the Mets are playing in the World Series and had a few extra days to rest up thanks to big boy-ing the Cubs.
-
Because I hadn't watched much of either team at all. In fact, I'm not sure I watched a single inning of the Mets prior to the post season. The Mets didn't get hot at "the right time..." the Mets got hot...for the entire 2nd half of the season. It's pretty evident to anyone who watched the Post Season that the 2 best teams in baseball are still playing.
The Cubs right now are built like the 2011 Brewers. One stud ace (Arietta/Greinke), one overrated "ace" (Lester/Gallardo - relax, I know Lester is better than Gallardo, but he's still not a true shut down ace like the Mets #2, or #3), and then not a lot beyond that. Offensively they like to hit home runs and hit more home runs. That is great for the regular season and a very fun brand of baseball, but when it gets down to the cold weather of October and going up against real aces every night (like the Brewers did in the 2011 NLCS and the Cubs did in the 2015 NLCS) it's not a winning brand of baseball.
Once the Postseason begins, it comes down to whose starting pitchers can shorten the bullpen and whose bullpen can close out the game, not whose offense can mash. It's why you saw the Blue Jays and the Cubs both lose to the Mets and the Royals. Would anybody argue that the Royals could put up bigger offensive numbers than the Blue Jays or that the Mets could put up bigger offensive numbers than the Cubs? Nope. But those 2 teams can shut down offenses while the Cubs and the Jays couldn't.
Again, the Cubs never led in the series. The Cubs were only even tied one time past the 1st inning, and not once after the 4th inning. If people really think that the Mets just happened to "get hot" so be it. But the Mets are playing in the World Series and had a few extra days to rest up thanks to big boy-ing the Cubs.
Since the trade deadline the Mets were 37-22 and the Cubs were 42-18, so if the Mets got "hot for the entire second half of the season" what were the Cubs?
Listen, the Mets were by far the better team for those 5 days. Murphy was unstoppable and their pitching was dominant. I'm confident if they played another seven game series, the Mets would likely win. But, if you are going to say that the Mets are by far the better team, thank you for acknowledging it is based solely on watching that series since you hadn't watched much of either team before that.
-
Following the paradigm, look for the team with the shorter lay-off to win the world series.
-
Since the trade deadline the Mets were 37-22 and the Cubs were 42-18, so if the Mets got "hot for the entire second half of the season" what were the Cubs?
Listen, the Mets were by far the better team for those 5 days. Murphy was unstoppable and their pitching was dominant. I'm confident if they played another seven game series, the Mets would likely win. But, if you are going to say that the Mets are by far the better team, thank you for acknowledging it is based solely on watching that series since you hadn't watched much of either team before that.
Yes, the Cubs were hot. Which is exactly why I thought they would win a close series. In October, it's the team with the most momentum that typically wins. By the Championship Series, you have 2 hot teams, so it comes down to who is better. Again, the Cubs are built for August success, the Mets are built for October success. If these 2 teams played each other 7 more times in August, maybe the Cubs miss deGrom and Syndegaard and maybe Harvey is shut down and Matz is still in the minors, so maybe they go 7-0 again. But if they play 7 more best of 7 series in October, I'd put money on the Mets to win at least 6 of those 7 series.
Just my personal opinion. Wasn't hard to see given that the Mets swept them in convincing fashion and never trailed for a single pitch in the series.
-
The Mets were clearly a better team, if for no other reason than rotation depth. It's everything. Beyond that though, they have a better constructed, and more complete roster overall. That manifested itself in every aspect of the game (pitching, defense, and offense). it was about much more than getting hot. they were nowhere near a finished product this year. That was obvious to anyone not blinded by cub love all season long (Arrieta's year, and good offense can mask a lot of warts in the regular season. Fewer places to hide come playoff time).
Theo knows it, talked about it, and and has the offseason to continue the process they've been following and address it. It's been the plan all along and nothing should change. If it was simply about getting hot, there obviously wouldn't be much reason go out and make the (significant) moves Theo has talked about, that they are clearly going to be making this offseason.
-
Schwarber was the main difference but if you look at the overall lineup composition and how the Cubs performed once he became a regular the last two months of the season the offensive performance was night and day. The Cubs were fairly mediocre offensively through July.
And I knew going into the series that those 7 games meant nothing.
Was Schwarber really the difference or did the team, as a whole, just get hot down the stretch and he happened to be on the roster?
On July 21-22, Schwarber had 6 hits over 2 games to raise his average to .429. From that point on, his splits were .205/.333/.432. He hit 13 HRs and he struck out 65 times in 190 ABs. Those are Adam Dunn-like numbers.
Don't get me wrong, I think he's going to be a stud hitter but lost in the hot start and long HRs was the fact that his numbers were pretty ugly for an extended period down the stretch.
-
Yes, the Cubs were hot. Which is exactly why I thought they would win a close series. In October, it's the team with the most momentum that typically wins. By the Championship Series, you have 2 hot teams, so it comes down to who is better. Again, the Cubs are built for August success, the Mets are built for October success. If these 2 teams played each other 7 more times in August, maybe the Cubs miss deGrom and Syndegaard and maybe Harvey is shut down and Matz is still in the minors, so maybe they go 7-0 again. But if they play 7 more best of 7 series in October, I'd put money on the Mets to win at least 6 of those 7 series.
Just my personal opinion. Wasn't hard to see given that the Mets swept them in convincing fashion and never trailed for a single pitch in the series.
It is your personal opinion and we aren't going to agree so I'm not looking to restart the discussion but the Cubs beat DeGrom twice this year, Syndergaard once (granted his first start), as well as a game Harvey started. Arrieta and Lester did not pitch well in the two games they started and thus the lack of rotation depth couldn't get the ball back in their hands for games 5 and 6. To say if the teams played again that the Cubs could not have won games 1 and/or two behind Lester and Arrieta is silly.
-
Was Schwarber really the difference or did the team, as a whole, just get hot down the stretch and he happened to be on the roster?
On July 21-22, Schwarber had 6 hits over 2 games to raise his average to .429. From that point on, his splits were .205/.333/.432. He hit 13 HRs and he struck out 65 times in 190 ABs. Those are Adam Dunn-like numbers.
Don't get me wrong, I think he's going to be a stud hitter but lost in the hot start and long HRs was the fact that his numbers were pretty ugly for an extended period down the stretch.
It's true that Schwarber went through a prolonged slump like most rookies do, although you can see that the OBP and slugging percentage were still solid during that period. Overall he lengthened the lineup and when September came Maddon had even more options to use with that extended roster. Maybe he wasn't the main factor in the offensive improvement (Bryant and Fowler were on fire the last two months, Castro was unreal in September, Russell improved, etc.) but he definitely had a significant impact.
-
Fantastic game last night. Stuck with it through the end though it meant just 4 hours sleep last night. Inside the park homer was an obvious error on a fairly routine play. Gordon's homer was as clutch a clutch gets. I think this series is going to go 6 or 7 and be a great one. I thought I didn't have much rooting interest, but it turns out I still remember 1986 and want the Mets to lose and suffer every chance they get.
-
Fantastic game last night. Stuck with it through the end though it meant just 4 hours sleep last night. Inside the park homer was an obvious error on a fairly routine play. Gordon's homer was as clutch a clutch gets. I think this series is going to go 6 or 7 and be a great one. I thought I didn't have much rooting interest, but it turns out I still remember 1986 and want the Mets to lose and suffer every chance they get.
Last night's game was spectacular. It's going to be a great WS.
-
Fox's production abilities..... yeeeeesh.
-
Fox's production abilities..... yeeeeesh.
I assume you're referencing the TV outage(s). Fox delivery is bad for a number of reasons but I don't think the outage was their doing. Both Time Warner and Google Fiber went out (IP and cable) in a pretty large footprint from downtown through 6 miles south (my house), if not the market, during the National Anthem and didn't come back on until the end of the 1st.
MASS panic in KC - as i was frantically trying to find an AM radio my neighbor across the street was on his front porch yelling "Finigan, are you down too?"
-
Baseball at its finest. This is going to be a great series. Two teams that play the game how it was meant to be played. Build around pitching, play solid defense, put the ball in play.
I used to not like the Mets at all, but they are really fun to watch. And other than Yost, I really like KC. Whoever wins, this is a win in my book.
-
Yeah, just a great game to watch. Really fun. Should be a great series. Hopefully this keeps up, and as someone with no rooting interest, I hope it goes 7.
-
One of the people I live with is from New York and a huge mets fan. Thought I may have had to hide the knives after last night.
-
Baseball at its finest. This is going to be a great series. Two teams that play the game how it was meant to be played. Build around pitching, play solid defense, put the ball in play.
Didn't realize you were a Cardinals fan
-
Didn't realize you were a Cardinals fan
Hah. I don't care if a player drops an F bomb when he strikes out or pimps a home run (because Albert Pooholes never did that ::) ), I mean the actual execution of the game. Very few errors (although both teams did have key defensive lapses last night), very few strike outs, very good pitching.
-
deGrom, Syndergaard, Harvey, Matz, Wheeler starting 5 next year. Way too early to say, but if they stay healthy and stay together that could be the best pitching rotation ever.
-
deGrom, Syndergaard, Harvey, Matz, Wheeler starting 5 next year. Way too early to say, but if they stay healthy and stay together that could be the best pitching rotation ever.
The Braves started three Hall of Famers for a number of years.
-
The Braves started three Hall of Famers for a number of years.
Yup. It's way too early but (huge) if these guys stay healthy there could definitely be 3 of them in the HOF when it's all said and done and the 4 and 5 starters will be better than what the Braves had.
But if these guys do all pan out that means they're all $20+M/year guys so that means they don't all stay with the Mets. Just really dang impressive what they have right now.
-
deGrom, Syndergaard, Harvey, Matz, Wheeler starting 5 next year. Way too early to say, but if they stay healthy and stay together that could be the best pitching rotation ever.
Maybe. But i think we're seeing that with too many innings, a mediocre D, streaky hitting and a very unreliable bullpen that HOF lineup can only get you so far.
If they don't fix the above they aren't going to return to the playoffs next year then free agency (admittedly I don't know their contract specifics), and the unfortunate injury or two, and "best ever" turns to "if only..."
-
Fox's production abilities..... yeeeeesh.
Fox is one of the best at sports, if not the best. Power outages beyond their control
-
Fox is one of the best at sports, if not the best. Power outages beyond their control
I was impressed with how they handled the news about Volquez's father passing away. It's always good to see the right thing done.
-
Well, the fact that both Harvey and Matz have both already recovered from TJ (and they will get Wheeler back from TJ next season) may skew that in the Mets favor. They have already endured the injuries. Doesn't mean it won't happen again, but they've already gotten through it.
deGrom also has already had Tommy John surgery. Syndergaard is the only pitcher in that rotation who has not had it.
I think the biggest issue the Mets have is their bullpen hasn't been great. Their starting pitchers are clearly the better starters in this series, but when you get into the 8th inning with the lead you have to close the game out in the World Series. The Mets have failed to do so twice, and instead of being up 3-1 they are down 3-1 as a result.
The Royals just put pressure on you by putting the ball in play. While everyone else in the Playoffs has struck out a ton against the Mets, the Royals have been able to put the ball on the infield and have made the Mets pay for a couple of key defensive miscues. They did it to the Jays, too.
If anybody is built to run off 3 straight it's the Mets with Harvey, deGrom, and Syndergaard. Whatever happens it's been a fun October.
-
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/13270849/john-smoltz-says-new-york-mets-rotation-way-better-atlanta-braves-1990s
-
Harvey showing up big tonight.
-
So CITI has plexiglass installed............where is the outrage? I'm guessing it's because they extended the boxes for the playoffs? The rich in NY are more important? The Pussification of America starts at the coasts and works it's way to the middle? The NL is the worst?
If other parks have this I've not seen it....
-
Harvey showing up big tonight.
Whoops.
-
Whoops.
at our KC watch party we all said "welp, got'em" when they left him in.
-
Whoops.
Collins says he'll second-guess Harvey decision 'for a long time'
Dan TomanNov 2 2015, 12:48 AM
When Matt Harvey talked Terry Collins into sending him out for the ninth inning of Game 5 on Sunday, it made for one of the most compelling moments of the postseason.
After watching the Kansas City Royals rally for two runs in the inning en route to their second World Series title in franchise history, Collins' decision to stick with his starter could haunt him for years to come.
"I'm going to second-guess myself for a long time, but I truly believe you've got to support your players once in a while and that kind of heart and that kind of desire is hard to find," the New York Mets manager told Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports after his team's season ended with a 7-2 loss . "I'd have taken him out and we’d allow the runs and it would have been the wrong decision anyway."
Collins, who replaced his ace with Jeurys Familia after the first two batters of the inning reached base, said it was impossible to say no Harvey after all the right-hander had been through this season.
-
During the last couple months of the season, Harvey's handlers had insisted that he be on a strict pitch count and questioned whether he should even be allowed to pitch in the postseason with his surgically repaired elbow.
So it's kind of ironic that Harvey was able to talk his way into staying on the mound for his 212th inning this season despite having thrown more than 100 pitches already.
This isn't second-guessing. I first-guessed. I'm proud to say that I texted my son before the inning that leaving Harvey in was the wrong thing to do.
Of course, for Collins it was a difficult situation. Familia had hardly looked unhittable against the Royals. Had he blown the game, millions would have second-guessed Collins for not leaving his dominant stud in the game. Harvey would have said he begged to stay in, said he felt great, etc.
At 66 years old, Collins learned something important (or, more likely, had something reinforced): It's the manager's job to put each player on his team in the best position to succeed. Harvey rarely threw anywhere near 100 pitches this season. Letting him go on in such an emotion-charged atmosphere was foolhardy.
-
If Collins pulls Harvey and the reliever gives up the run, Collins gets second guessed. Basically, because the run scored, Collins was wrong. The curse of being the manager. Well done, Royals.
-
If Collins pulls Harvey and the reliever gives up the run, Collins gets second guessed. Basically, because the run scored, Collins was wrong. The curse of being the manager. Well done, Royals.
This is the reason that pitchers don't bat eighth more often... the manager is going to get questioned either way, and oft times when it works, the players get all of the credit. IOW, there's no upside to either decision be it batting order or playing/pulling your starter.
-
If Collins pulls Harvey and the reliever gives up the run, Collins gets second guessed. Basically, because the run scored, Collins was wrong. The curse of being the manager. Well done, Royals.
When you
a - let a player talk you out of what you wanted to do, and
b - that which you wanted to do has been successful all year, and
c - that player's plan costs you the game, then
d - you are going to get rightfully second-guessed.
I was watching with my wife and said, "if it were me, I'd bring Familia in here" before the top of the ninth, but truthfully, I figured the Mets would win either way (Harvey or Familia) so I guess I don't blame Collins too much. In the end, the players have to make plays.
Since Morris in 91, you've seen pitchers talk themselves into staying in games in the postseason and it seems like it doesn't work.
I think Collins never should have brought in Familia with the big lead in game 3, either. In my mind, you try to keep guys in the roles they've been in all year. Familia is used to closing out close games.
-
If Duda makes a somewhat routine throw, there's not much controversy.
-
If Duda makes a somewhat routine throw, there's not much controversy.
There is a picture of the ball at the point where it came level with D'Arnaud's glove and Hosmer hadn't even begun his slide. Basically if Duda had hit the glove, even way on the wrong side of the plate, D'Arnaud pivots and still has Hosmer out easily.
-
Yup, bad throw by Duda.
Collins is at fault for leaving Harvey in 1 batter too long. There was nothing wrong with sending him back out to start the 9th, but the discussion should've been, "you have until 1 batter reaches base." Innings, pitch counts, etc. go out the window when it's your last possible start of the season in the WS. He was still throwing 98 MPH, he had a shutout, and he had dominated the Royals up until then. Once the leadoff hitter got on base, a warmed up Familia should've come in.
-
That was my thought. When they got the leadoff double and they didn't bring in Familia right away, I was really puzzled. You could tell even Harvey wasn't completely sure he was going to stay in. A single or a walk, maybe, but a lined double? Ridiculous to not go to a great closer there.
-
Yup, bad throw by Duda.
Collins is at fault for leaving Harvey in 1 batter too long. There was nothing wrong with sending him back out to start the 9th, but the discussion should've been, "you have until 1 batter reaches base." Innings, pitch counts, etc. go out the window when it's your last possible start of the season in the WS. He was still throwing 98 MPH, he had a shutout, and he had dominated the Royals up until then. Once the leadoff hitter got on base, a warmed up Familia should've come in.
I agree with this although I also think it depends on Familia's mindset. Is he a guy who works best when he starts an inning fresh? Is he a guy who works well with the pressure of guys on base? Does it even matter to him? Typically, his role is to start clean and end the game. In this case, he was cleaning up Harvey's mess. Is that the best position for him or are there even other relievers who deal with those situations more often? Familia is not as big a strikeout guy as some relievers so he seems like he might not be a prototypical "get out of a jam" pitcher.
Admittedly, I don't follow the Mets close enough to know these answers so it could be a moot point and Familia might not care, but the top priority of a manager is to put his players in the best possible situation to succeed and I'm not convinced that Collins did that last night.
-
That was my thought. When they got the leadoff double and they didn't bring in Familia right away, I was really puzzled. You could tell even Harvey wasn't completely sure he was going to stay in. A single or a walk, maybe, but a lined double? Ridiculous to not go to a great closer there.
It was a walk followed by a stolen base. The double scored a run and chased Harvey.
-
Harvey pitched great for 8 innings. My thought in his AB to Cain, was why on Earth would you throw a 3-2 slider. He argued his way into the game. He had dominated with his fastball the entire game. Challenge him. Don't try to trick him. Kind of maddening.
Great game and great series by the Royals. Just amazing how that team can create runs out of basically nothing. They are quite the team. The quantity of comebacks is astounding.
-
The royals also played very un royal like. Some bad misplays from Hosmer in the series.
-
The royals also played very un royal like. Some bad misplays from Hosmer in the series.
2 misplays. They played very Royal-like in my opinion. Guys make mistakes. They didn't let the mistakes get to them, kept the pressure on, ground out every AB, and dominated with their bullpen. That has been what they've excelled at the last 2 years. Hosmer is probably their least important player, defensively speaking.
Their defense was mostly great, Cain and Gordon making every play in the OF, Moose and Escobar making every play on the left side, Perez shutting everything down. The two flubbed grounders were out of character for sure, but how they played overall and how they responded to the mistakes was very typical of them.
-
I agree with this although I also think it depends on Familia's mindset. Is he a guy who works best when he starts an inning fresh? Is he a guy who works well with the pressure of guys on base? Does it even matter to him? Typically, his role is to start clean and end the game. In this case, he was cleaning up Harvey's mess. Is that the best position for him or are there even other relievers who deal with those situations more often? Familia is not as big a strikeout guy as some relievers so he seems like he might not be a prototypical "get out of a jam" pitcher.
Admittedly, I don't follow the Mets close enough to know these answers so it could be a moot point and Familia might not care, but the top priority of a manager is to put his players in the best possible situation to succeed and I'm not convinced that Collins did that last night.
Letting my kids watch the DVR'ed 8th inning on because they fell asleep last night and Verducci* talked about the preference of closers to have a 'clean' inning to work with when they pulled Harvey. So you are correct that it's not the ideal situation for Familia to work with.
edit - where the H was Pete Rose last night? I really like his role as the antagonist on the panel.
*Verducci did yeoman's work this series. His SI articles were incredibly detailed and insightful. On the back of prepping for the live broadcast he (and his team) had a heck of a week.
-
Letting my kids watch the DVR'ed 8th inning on because they fell asleep last night and Verducci* talked about the preference of closers to have a 'clean' inning to work with when they pulled Harvey. So you are correct that it's not the ideal situation for Familia to work with.
edit - where the H was Pete Rose last night? I really like his role as the antagonist on the panel.
*Verducci did yeoman's work this series. His SI articles were incredibly detailed and insightful. On the back of prepping for the live broadcast he (and his team) had a heck of a week.
He left to do an autograph signing in vegas. That is real, not a smarmy joke.
-
He left to do an autograph signing in vegas. That is real, not a smarmy joke.
that's perfect. it completes his transition to a character of himself.
-
http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/65936/the-way-too-early-2016-power-rankings (http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/65936/the-way-too-early-2016-power-rankings)
Looks like I'll be having some spirited interactions in 11 months from now. I hope they sign Price and exposing his 'tip' on his change up isn't an issue in 16. 8-)
-
http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/65936/the-way-too-early-2016-power-rankings (http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/65936/the-way-too-early-2016-power-rankings)
Looks like I'll be having some spirited interactions in 11 months from now. I hope they sign Price and exposing his 'tip' on his change up isn't an issue in 16. 8-)
I think a lot of teams will be in on Price and Grienke. Many teams with deep pockets are looking for pitching this winter. I would love to be their agents about now.
-
I think a lot of teams will be in on Price and Grienke. Many teams with deep pockets are looking for pitching this winter. I would love to be their agents about now.
I don't think the Cubs will be in on Price at his expected rate, especially one year after signing Lester and with the possibility of an Arrieta extension on the horizon. I see a trade for a cost-controlled younger pitcher as more likely combined with signing more of a mid-tier SP.
-
I don't think the Cubs will be in on Price at his expected rate, especially one year after signing Lester and with the possibility of an Arrieta extension on the horizon. I see a trade for a cost-controlled younger pitcher as more likely combined with signing more of a mid-tier SP.
It'll be interesting. I think getting one of those guys is something that would be great for the cubs. The catch, though, is trading guys that are going to hurt. Theo has seemed unwilling to do that, they had several opportunities to trade for Hamels, and wouldn't do it. I wouldn't think Castro will get you someone like Sonny Gray, Jose Quintana, Chris Archer, or even Tyson Ross. Are they going to be willing to part with Schwarber, Baez, Soler, Torres, Contreras or McKinney. Other than Schwarber, I don't think any of these guys alone net them the pitcher they'd want.
It took Jason Heyward to get Shelby Miller.
-
It'll be interesting. I think getting one of those guys is something that would be great for the cubs. The catch, though, is trading guys that are going to hurt. Theo has seemed unwilling to do that, they had several opportunities to trade for Hamels, and wouldn't do it. I wouldn't think Castro will get you someone like Sonny Gray, Jose Quintana, Chris Archer, or even Tyson Ross. Are they going to be willing to part with Schwarber, Baez, Soler, Torres, Contreras or McKinney. Other than Schwarber, I don't think any of these guys alone net them the pitcher they'd want.
It took Jason Heyward to get Shelby Miller.
I honestly think they should trade Baez. Castro is fine at 2nd and he's still only going to be 26 next season.
-
It'll be interesting. I think getting one of those guys is something that would be great for the cubs. The catch, though, is trading guys that are going to hurt. Theo has seemed unwilling to do that, they had several opportunities to trade for Hamels, and wouldn't do it. I wouldn't think Castro will get you someone like Sonny Gray, Jose Quintana, Chris Archer, or even Tyson Ross. Are they going to be willing to part with Schwarber, Baez, Soler, Torres, Contreras or McKinney. Other than Schwarber, I don't think any of these guys alone net them the pitcher they'd want.
It took Jason Heyward to get Shelby Miller.
I agree that getting someone like Price would be fantastic. However, some of Theo's comments just make me feel it is unlikely that he'd give out two huge deals two years in a row to pitchers at 30-31 years old. I'm intrigued to see how it plays out because they have to add at least once #2/3 starter at a minimum.
The value of Castro and Baez is a mystery. Baez's upside is immense and he made progress this year in terms of discipline and making contact but he still has a ways to go in that area. Castro's last two months restored some of his value but I'm not sure how much. He's still so young and signed to a reasonable deal if you believe his first half was an aberration. Personally, I think the adjustments he made to his stance made a huge difference and that he'll be good offensively moving forward.
I don't see the Cubs trading Schwarber or Contreras at this point. Contreras looks like the real deal behind the plate and I could see him as the everyday catcher in 2017 with Schwarber potentially catching a couple of days a week and playing LF the other days. I can see them trading one or maybe two of Soler, Castro, Baez, Torres or McKinney, depending on the return and who they might sign in free agency. Overall thought they are in a good spot in terms of talent on the team, talent in the minors, and some money to spend.
I was surprised to see the Sox decline Ramirez's option - thought they'd retain him for one more year as a placeholder. The rotation is obviously impressive but aside from Abreu and Eaton it seems they need some help on offense. I don't follow them closely enough to know what is expected out of Garcia. Would they trade a Quintana for a bat?
-
I honestly think they should trade Baez. Castro is fine at 2nd and he's still only going to be 26 next season.
I would have no problem with this scenario, depending on what the return for Baez would be.
-
I was surprised to see the Sox decline Ramirez's option - thought they'd retain him for one more year as a placeholder. The rotation is obviously impressive but aside from Abreu and Eaton it seems they need some help on offense. I don't follow them closely enough to know what is expected out of Garcia. Would they trade a Quintana for a bat?
I was too. It is a pretty reasonable price for a decent 2 way SS, and their top prospect is a SS who is at least a year away, so Alexei seemed like an ideal fit. And even if the Sox were bad again next year, they could have traded him away midseason if he rebounded at all.
I think the Sox would trade Quintana, but the return would have to be immense. Not Sale, immense, but very strong. My guess is the Sox trade from minor league pitching depth unless they are floored on a deal for Quintana.
-
I was too. It is a pretty reasonable price for a decent 2 way SS, and their top prospect is a SS who is at least a year away, so Alexei seemed like an ideal fit. And even if the Sox were bad again next year, they could have traded him away midseason if he rebounded at all.
I think the Sox would trade Quintana, but the return would have to be immense. Not Sale, immense, but very strong. My guess is the Sox trade from minor league pitching depth unless they are floored on a deal for Quintana.
The Central looks loaded at the top next year with KC, Cleveland and (maybe) Minnesota. Without wholesale changes there isn't a strong likelihood the Sox are going to compete next year. Aren't you better off restocking for 3(ish) years from now when the other teams young talent hits contract negotiation? It's what Detroit realized in July.
Is there really an opportunity for them to make a run next year?
-
The Central looks loaded at the top next year with KC, Cleveland and (maybe) Minnesota. Without wholesale changes there isn't a strong likelihood the Sox are going to compete next year. Aren't you better off restocking for 3(ish) years from now when the other teams young talent hits contract negotiation? It's what Detroit realized in July.
Is there really an opportunity for them to make a run next year?
They had their chance in Venturas first year. They really should have traded Alexi at the trade deadline in 2014 when his trade value was sky high and he was hitting the cover off the ball.
I don't know what it is with Reinsdorf owned teams but they refuse to do full rebuilds and if they do its usually two years to late.
-
He's loyal to a fault.
-
The Central looks loaded at the top next year with KC, Cleveland and (maybe) Minnesota. Without wholesale changes there isn't a strong likelihood the Sox are going to compete next year. Aren't you better off restocking for 3(ish) years from now when the other teams young talent hits contract negotiation? It's what Detroit realized in July.
Is there really an opportunity for them to make a run next year?
Well, in all likelihood no, they won't be competitive, but they have pitching so who knows. The quick way for the Sox to restock the farm would be to trade Sale and Quintana, but where does that get you exactly. The Royals have won without dominant pitching, but both Sale and Q are under control until I think 2020. They have Rodon, Erik Johnson was IL pitcher of the year, last years number 8 pick Carson Fulmer, (along with some other highly regarded young arms, some advanced, some a bit yonger) so they have pitching. Young controllable pitching.
They have some decent hitting prospects (and a ton of speed), but they are at least another season away, probably more. Their roster has some guys that are just entrenched. They have good pieces in Abreu and Eaton. Cabrera probably falls in there as well. Third is a total question. Now SS is too (this is where their top hitting prospect plays, but again, he probably isn't ready for next year), they have a couple good prospects at 2B, but they didn't standout in their rookie try. LaRoche is bad and untradeable. Flowers is well, terrible, but there aren't really other catchers to acquire. The biggest question is Avi Garcia. He is young, was a highly touted prospect, has 1 full season under his belt, but it left lots of room for growth (to be ever so polite) with his performance this last season. Trayce Thompson is an interesting prospect that looked very good last season, he is an ace with the glove, good power, good speed, but hasn't made a ton of contact in the minors.
So, there is my organizational report on the Sox, basically they can upgrade at 3B, but would basically have to do so through trade. They are looking for a place holder at SS, Tyler Saladino probably. They have questionable toolsy (one that is great defensively and the other that can hit and really run) young players at 2B, so probably won't go for an established player there. They need an upgrade at C, but the pitchers like Flowers, and the only option on the market is Weiters. They have LF and CF covered, and 2 internal options in RF, but both have questions. They are completely stuck at DH and need a rebound year from LaRoche.
Maybe they'd be better off, but it doesn't seem likely, and who knows, the Royals could lose a lot of talent this off season (Gordon, Zobrist, Cueto, Holland, Madsen). Their starting pitching is suspect, so who knows. The Twins have great young talent, but haven't pitched well the last 5 or 6 years. The Indians are a mystery and seem to under-preform every year. Who knows with the Tigers. I wouldn't think a slow rebuild is in their future with an old owner and aging super stars.
So the Sox will have a tough go of it, probably not do much in free agency but may look at adding some young hitters by trading some young pitchers.
Sorry, that got a bit wordy.
-
Sorry, that got a bit wordyimpressive.
WAY better than i bargained for! Great insight.
From a Royals POV i think the fact that they didn't option Rios or Guthrie the day after the parade is a sign they want to get better next year. I like Rios and i think he was stuck in a situation where he was a good outfielder being compared to great outfielders. Gordon not going with the player option was also expected......hopefully the KC good will can get him to give us a discount but everyone thinks he'll Torri Hunter - get what he can then come back in 6 years and retire a Royal. Not ideal for the Royals but both sides understand.
Madsen and Cueto are gone. Holland and Davis are here for sure. Zobrist is phenomenal! I hope we can keep him. I feel better about the outfield farm than the infield, but what do i know. either way Zobrist was exactly what KC needs at the bat, the base and the clubhouse.
-
WAY better than i bargained for! Great insight.
From a Royals POV i think the fact that they didn't option Rios or Guthrie the day after the parade is a sign they want to get better next year. I like Rios and i think he was stuck in a situation where he was a good outfielder being compared to great outfielders. Gordon not going with the player option was also expected......hopefully the KC good will can get him to give us a discount but everyone thinks he'll Torri Hunter - get what he can then come back in 6 years and retire a Royal. Not ideal for the Royals but both sides understand.
Madsen and Cueto are gone. Holland and Davis are here for sure. Zobrist is phenomenal! I hope we can keep him. I feel better about the outfield farm than the infield, but what do i know. either way Zobrist was exactly what KC needs at the bat, the base and the clubhouse.
You know who is also a bug Zobrist guy, Joe Maddon. He was playing everywhere for the 2008 rays. Was their cleanup hitter for most of that year.
-
You know who is also a bug Zobrist guy, Joe Maddon. He was playing everywhere for the 2008 rays. Was their cleanup hitter for most of that year.
Joe Maddon LOVES switchables.
He's loyal to a fault.
+1
In recent years both the Bulls and Sox have been guilty of hanging on to "their guys" for a year or two too long.