DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Bleacher Bums Forum
HTML https://bbf.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Archives
*****************************************************
#Post#: 113780--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '13
By: JR Date: January 15, 2013, 8:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I still wouldn't be surprised about Garza, though. A team
trading for him before the season starts can make a qualifying
offer on him, so his trade value takes a hit the moment the
regular season starts. There's a decent amount of incentive to
make a deal during spring training if he looks healthy.
Plus, we have six other starting pitchers on the roster as it
is, and I'm sure part of the reason for that is we're
anticipating a Garza trade at some point. If we get a deal done
during the spring, we're still relatively deep in starting
pitching.
#Post#: 113781--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '13
By: Ron Date: January 15, 2013, 9:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Sound comments by JR on both Soriano and Garza, I think.
#Post#: 113784--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '13
By: Jes Beard Date: January 15, 2013, 10:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=JR link=topic=90.msg113780#msg113780
date=1358305044]
I still wouldn't be surprised about Garza, though. A team
trading for him before the season starts can make a qualifying
offer on him, so his trade value takes a hit the moment the
regular season starts. There's a decent amount of incentive to
make a deal during spring training if he looks healthy.
[/quote]
Three inning spring training outings are not particularly
helpful in establishing the soundness of a pitcher coming of
real arm problems shutting him down for close to half a season
and without pitching in a regular season game since.
There had earlier been talk of the Cubs possibly signing Garza
to an extension, but no such rumors since he went to the DL.
Most likely that is because the Cubs have the same reservations
about him and his health and his value as other teams do,
meaning that his value is far more likely to rise after he
proves himself in April and May than before he even reaches
three innings in his last couple of pre-season outings.
#Post#: 113785--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '13
By: Jes Beard Date: January 15, 2013, 10:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=brjones link=topic=90.msg113772#msg113772
date=1358300016]
I'm starting to think it's unlikely that Soriano or Garza gets
traded before the season starts unless the Cubs are completely
blown away. They've added enough pitching that I think it's
clear that they're not giving up on this season, no matter how
much some Cubs fans are invested in the team sucking for 3-4
years. I don't think they're expecting to win...but I bet they
feel like they're close enough to .500 at this point that a
little luck could make it an interesting season.
[/quote]
Enough pitching....
As I believe it was Hoyer who was quoted as saying they would
pursue, they acquired a good number of arms, but not a number of
good arms.
This team could easily lose more games than they did in 2012,
and is unlikely to finish the season close to .500.
#Post#: 113789--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '13
By: CUBluejays Date: January 15, 2013, 10:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It is really hard to lose 100 games and unless the Cubs dump a
ton of players at the trade deadline I think they will be well
ahead of the Astros and Marlins.
#Post#: 113790--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '13
By: davep Date: January 15, 2013, 10:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I can't imagine that too many people would agree with your
interpretation of Hoyer's comment. Anyone with a lick of sense
would know that he meant they would pursue a number of good
arms. They already had more than 75 "arms" in their system,
which most anyone would think was a good number.
If we were to take your deconstruction to it's limit, perhaps he
was saying that he would pursue zero good arms, since zero is a
number, and some people probably would consider it a good
number.
#Post#: 113820--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '13
By: Playtwo Date: January 16, 2013, 6:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://sports.yahoo.com/news/no--21-cubs--in-full-rebuilding-mode--chicago-won-t-be-much-better--ndash--but-it-does-have-anthony-rizzo-224157769.html
#Post#: 113889--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '13
By: Jes Beard Date: January 16, 2013, 1:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=davep link=topic=90.msg113790#msg113790
date=1358312244]
I can't imagine that too many people would agree with your
interpretation of Hoyer's comment. Anyone with a lick of sense
would know that he meant they would pursue a number of good
arms.
[/quote]
Really? So was he just pursuing them without any concern with
acquiring them?
Which pitching additions qualify as that "number of good arms"?
I'm serious, because perhaps I have missed them.
I'll spot you Jackson.
But that really seems to be about it.
#Post#: 113904--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '13
By: Jes Beard Date: January 16, 2013, 1:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=CUBluejays link=topic=90.msg113789#msg113789
date=1358312125]
It is really hard to lose 100 games and unless the Cubs dump a
ton of players at the trade deadline I think they will be well
ahead of the Astros and Marlins.
[/quote]
But the Cubs had no difficulty doing so in 2012, and would have
traded their best hitter in July if he had not vetoed the trade,
meaning they could easily have lost quite a few more games.
If they are serious about being a true contending team in 2015,
we may well see extended playing time for more players in the
2nd half of 2013 who are essentially trying to figure out the
majors -- not necessarily as bad as Vitters and Jackson were in
2012, but a long, long way from resembling positive
contributors.
''I tell the players, 'Right now, we're called 'loveable losers.
What do you want to stand for?''' Epstein said. ''I guarantee
you if you ask the guys, they don't want to be known as loveable
losers three or four years from now.''
HTML http://sports.yahoo.com/news/epstein-no-more-lovable-losers-012419075--mlb.html
I don't see the Theocracy concerned about the record in 2013,
and that is as it should be. Players who are doing well by
mid-season, who can in trade bring value for later years greater
than the value they can be expected to provide the Cubs
themselves in 2015 and beyond are likely to be moved. That is
not a way to win games for 2013, but it is the way to build a
long term winner and turn this sad sack franchise around.
#Post#: 113908--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '13
By: Cubsin Date: January 16, 2013, 1:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Career ERA+ for the seven potential Cubs' starters: Garza 108,
Baker 102, Villanueva 100, Samardzija 99, Jackson 98, Feldman
95, Wood 94. Tell me again why we're shopping Garza.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page