The official around the MLB thread!

Parade_Rain

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 23, 2012
Posts:
9,995
Liked Posts:
3,630
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Illinois Fighting Illini
SilenceS said:
I will tell you this. He can not be any worse than Matt Williams. He was the worst in game coach last year. His decisions were mind boggling and he had no idea how to use a bullpen. He was like a robot that had no idea which string to pull.
Click to expand...
Yes. If you dig deeper, he also didn't handle locker room situations well.
 

TC in Mississippi

CCS Staff
Joined:
Oct 22, 2014
Posts:
5,305
Liked Posts:
1,815
SilenceS said:
I will tell you this. He can not be any worse than Matt Williams. He was the worst in game coach last year. His decisions were mind boggling and he had no idea how to use a bullpen. He was like a robot that had no idea which string to pull.
Click to expand...

Oh I have no doubt that he's an improvement over Williams. That guy was bad on and off the field. Plus getting one of the four or five best pitching coaches in the game is not going to hurt. Pecota will project them to win 95 games again easily. They'll likely be favored over the Mets if NY doesn't spend some money on offense.
 

Parade_Rain

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 23, 2012
Posts:
9,995
Liked Posts:
3,630
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Illinois Fighting Illini
brett05 said:
I agree with SilenceS
Click to expand...
Except SilenceS doesn't use the term "great" when it comes to Baker either. See. That's our sticking point. He isn't great. He's above average. And he still needs to win a WS.
 

brett05

867-5309
Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
Posts:
27,226
Liked Posts:
-1,272
Location:
Hell
Parade_Rain said:
Except SilenceS doesn't use the term "great" when it comes to Baker either. See. That's our sticking point. He isn't great. He's above average. And he still needs to win a WS.
Click to expand...

Everyone has their own definition of great. Those that get paid would call Dusty great. Your definition is more selective.
 

jooo83

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 16, 2013
Posts:
2,893
Liked Posts:
1,373
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. DePaul Blue Demons
Parade_Rain said:
Were you even 10 when Baker managed the Cubs? Trust me. He wasn't a "very good manager".

Well, since I'm on record in this very forum defending Baker against the excuses of overuse and instead mentioning the mechanical flaws, this comment wouldn't sway me in the least. I already know he didn't ruin any pitchers.
So, IOW, this information is contradictary to your statement that he is a "very good manager".

He takes heat from mature Cubs fans because of not being aware enough of the game to get a timeout and reset the game and minds after the Bartman ball. They were in control. His game management leaves a lot to be desired and some of the stuff that came out of his mouth during his tenure was quite humorous.

I think he is somewhat above average. Brett05 is calling him "great". No offense, but I've never concerned myself with what the fans/media/managers all think of themselves, whether they hate each other or want to dry hump each other, when it comes to my opinion of a manager.
Click to expand...

I don't understand how anyone could have watched Baker's Cubs' teams and called him a 'very good manager' or 'great.' It's so far from reality it's difficult to understand why anyone would claim it. These people either didn't watch or are electing to rewrite history.
 

brett05

867-5309
Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
Posts:
27,226
Liked Posts:
-1,272
Location:
Hell
jooo83 said:
I don't understand how anyone could have watched Baker's Cubs' teams and called him a 'very good manager' or 'great.' It's so far from reality it's difficult to understand why anyone would claim it. These people either didn't watch or are electing to rewrite history.
Click to expand...

three time manager of the year, three time runner up for manager of the year. 16th all time in wins. Top three in wins for the Giants and Reds all time. Perhaps you should follow another sport.
 

TC in Mississippi

CCS Staff
Joined:
Oct 22, 2014
Posts:
5,305
Liked Posts:
1,815
Moving on, will the White Sox make Samardzija a QO? There still seems to be some speculation that they won't. That would be foolish.

Also there's new speculation in the Washington media that the Nats will make a QO to Denard Span which they hadn't been expected to do. That almost certainly bumps him off the Cubs radar.
 

brett05

867-5309
Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
Posts:
27,226
Liked Posts:
-1,272
Location:
Hell
TC in Mississippi said:
Moving on, will the White Sox make Samardzija a QO? There still seems to be some speculation that they won't. That would be foolish.

Also there's new speculation in the Washington media that the Nats will make a QO to Denard Span which they hadn't been expected to do. That almost certainly bumps him off the Cubs radar.
Click to expand...

Everything I have been reading is that the Nats have all along been wanting to offer the QO to Span. Same goes for Shark from the White Sox. Leadoff men and starting pitchers are in such high demand around the league that even with a lot of quality starting pitchers Shark will most certainly get at least a two year offer. I think Span gets a 4 year deal and perhaps a five year deal.
 

TC in Mississippi

CCS Staff
Joined:
Oct 22, 2014
Posts:
5,305
Liked Posts:
1,815
brett05 said:
Everything I have been reading is that the Nats have all along been wanting to offer the QO to Span. Same goes for Shark from the White Sox. Leadoff men and starting pitchers are in such high demand around the league that even with a lot of quality starting pitchers Shark will most certainly get at least a two year offer. I think Span gets a 4 year deal and perhaps a five year deal.
Click to expand...

Fowler is likely going to get a bigger deal with Span coming off the injury even though Span is a marginally better player. Most outlets that I've read/hear have thought that Span might need to sign a 1 year value rebuild but that won't be an option if he's offered the QO which the Washington media has insisted all along he wouldn't be. They've also been sure Ian Desmond wouldn't be offered one either and it looks like both could now. I guess things change.
 

TC in Mississippi

CCS Staff
Joined:
Oct 22, 2014
Posts:
5,305
Liked Posts:
1,815
Samardzija gets the QO. You were correct Brett. He may have to wait a while to get signed.
 

TL1961

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 24, 2013
Posts:
32,584
Liked Posts:
18,978
JA Happ got 3 yrs $36 million to return to Toronto.

Shark is smiling.
 

TC in Mississippi

CCS Staff
Joined:
Oct 22, 2014
Posts:
5,305
Liked Posts:
1,815
TL1961 said:
JA Happ got 3 yrs $36 million to return to Toronto.

Shark is smiling.
Click to expand...

Hard to figure this one. Happ has been over 1 fWAR 3 times in his career each 3 years apart, 2009, 2012 & 2016 and yet he's just been paid as if he'll accumulate 6 WAR IN 3 years. You would have to figure that this guarantees Lackey about 3/$45 mil and Samardzija his $17 mil AAV although term could still be a question.
 

beckdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 31, 2012
Posts:
11,723
Liked Posts:
3,723
TC in Mississippi said:
Hard to figure this one. Happ has been over 1 fWAR 3 times in his career each 3 years apart, 2009, 2012 & 2016 and yet he's just been paid as if he'll accumulate 6 WAR IN 3 years. You would have to figure that this guarantees Lackey about 3/$45 mil and Samardzija his $17 mil AAV although term could still be a question.
Click to expand...

Don't think you can really do math that way. The thing with contracts is unless you're top of the line the longer you wait the less you tend to get. My take on this is Toronto wanted to do a quick deal to be done with pitching in FA and focus else where. So, they probably over paid on a guy they had before and like. The thing is, if Lackey hasn't signed by January most of the teams after him will be gone and he will have to settle for what he can get. For example, most thought Shields would get more last offseason but by the time he had signed a lot of teams had spent any remaining money they had in their budget.

In the case of Lackey and Shark, both have QO's tied to them and if I'm not mistaken, Happ wasn't offered one. So, in that regard, you can also look at his contract as non-draft pick tax. Additionally, Happ had a big uptick in performance under Searage who many think is a god among pitching coaches similar to how most cubs fans view Bosio. So, there's reason to believe in him $12 mil isn't really that much if you're wrong. I mean look at where the cubs are with Hammel. He's making I believe $9 mil.

With that being said, I figured Lackey would get $15 mil regardless unless no one went after him because if he thought he'd get less you would just take the QO.
 

TC in Mississippi

CCS Staff
Joined:
Oct 22, 2014
Posts:
5,305
Liked Posts:
1,815
beckdawg said:
Don't think you can really do math that way. The thing with contracts is unless you're top of the line the longer you wait the less you tend to get. My take on this is Toronto wanted to do a quick deal to be done with pitching in FA and focus else where. So, they probably over paid on a guy they had before and like. The thing is, if Lackey hasn't signed by January most of the teams after him will be gone and he will have to settle for what he can get. For example, most thought Shields would get more last offseason but by the time he had signed a lot of teams had spent any remaining money they had in their budget.

In the case of Lackey and Shark, both have QO's tied to them and if I'm not mistaken, Happ wasn't offered one. So, in that regard, you can also look at his contract as non-draft pick tax. Additionally, Happ had a big uptick in performance under Searage who many think is a god among pitching coaches similar to how most cubs fans view Bosio. So, there's reason to believe in him $12 mil isn't really that much if you're wrong. I mean look at where the cubs are with Hammel. He's making I believe $9 mil.

With that being said, I figured Lackey would get $15 mil regardless unless no one went after him because if he thought he'd get less you would just take the QO.
Click to expand...

Happ didn't have a QO because he was traded from Seattle to Pittsburgh, but yes that has an influence on value but that deal seems crazy for a 33 year old pitcher with a large sample size. As far as Lackey the likely reason he turned down the QO was years. At 37 someone might still give him 2-3 years, if he has a poor year in 2016 as he turns 38 he could be done or get minimal offers.

Hammel is actually underpaid at $9 mil. This is why it wouldn't surprise me to see him moved if the Cubs sign a FA pitcher and trade for another. He was a 2.4 fWAR in 2015 and the average $/WAR for a pitcher is around $6-$7 mil. At 2.4 Hammel should be around $14 mil.
 

brett05

867-5309
Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
Posts:
27,226
Liked Posts:
-1,272
Location:
Hell
The Giants and the Cubs are going to be two fun teams to watch. The Giants are said to be looking to add an OF. If they sign Cespedes, they become the overwhelming favorites for me to be the WS Champs in 2016. I think also tho that they are most likely to suffer an injury or two to that pitching staff.
 

JimJohnson

Well-known member
Joined:
May 31, 2014
Posts:
5,190
Liked Posts:
884
brett05 said:
...they become the overwhelming favorites for me to be the WS Champs in 2016.
Click to expand...

hardly.. they will be a contender for sure but I like the Cubs right now.. if Cubs get are able to trade Soler or Baez for a top young arm, Cubs are the overwhelming favorites.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

10,881members
93,074threads
4,375,212posts
701online users

Members online NOW

  • Member
  • Admin
  • Mod
  • Donor
  • HOF
Total: 701 (members: 45, guests: 656)

Staff online NOW

Top