Close
Page 3 of 100 FirstFirst 123451353 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 1989
  1. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    6,494

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by beckdawg View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Hammel is 34 and while he pitched well in the first half of the past several seasons he's often faded. I see no reason people would be upset over him being dealt. Fact of the matter is if you want to give anyone else a shot at the rotation he's gotta go and the cubs obviously want some younger arms to have a shot. He's simply worth more in trade than what they need out of a 5th starter and they have other intriguing options such as Montgomery and Zastryzny.

    As for Arrieta, I'm not saying I would 100% deal him but I think it makes a lot of sense to listen. For one thing you have him under control for 1 more year. If they can't hammer out a contract you can't let him walk and get nothing. He's too valuable. We'll see what the market looks like at the winter meetings but if someone like LA would offer you Urias and parts for Arrieta you have to consider that. Urias is 19 and fits in far better with the cubs young hitters than Arrieta who'll be 31 to start next season. That might hurt the 2017 cubs' chances but you're playing for the next 5-10 years not singularly the 2017 season.

    At the end of the day, the cubs need younger pitching. Lackey is 38. Arrieta will be 31. Hammel is 34. Lester will be 33. Age peaks usually range in the 27-31 range. Arms like Dylan Cease, Trevor Clifton and Oscar De La Cruz are interesting but they really aren't super close to the majors and pitching is a crap shoot in general. As seen with the Chapman trade, pitching prices are insane and the only way teams are trading young arms these days is to acquire an established player.
    There is absolutely no way the Dodgers are trading Urias and parts for one year of control of a 31 year old Jake Arrieta.That's just insane. Like R.A. Dickey/Shelby Miller trade insane.

  2. A message from our sponsors.


    Please Register(it's free!) and Login to get rid of this advertisement.


  3. #42
    Senior Member chibears55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    8,112
    Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by beckdawg View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    From the numbers I've seen Kyle's framing was fine. His issue was blocking pitches(because his body is huge) and his arm while strong was inaccurate. Least that was the scouting report on him this time last year. Also you're right about the gaming calling aspect.
    Sorry, but there is no way I see Schwarber being considered as a starter in any games or even back up catcher...

    I see him only used as an emergency or in extra innings if they have to use up both catchers..

    Contreras will be the no.1 guy
    Montero if he stays or another vet will be the back up

    Sent from my LG-V495 using Tapatalk

  4. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    7,441

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greg23 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    All great in theory but get rid or Hammel and arrieta and replace with what? Montgomery and Urias (who I don't care for nor do I think the dodgers would give up for 1 year of arrieta)

    The initial proposal was to trade him for prospect arms.....the WS contender shouldn't be thinking that way unless there is a stud fa starter they're signing at the same time....but there are none in f/a

    How about they just keep him, try to resign him and go for it again in 2017?
    In terms of Hammel... he's not really a loss. His first half ERA was decent at 3.46 but his second half was pretty bad at 4.35. Zastryzny had a 1.13 ERA over 16 innings and looked quite good. His 2.15 FIP supports that. Montgomery had a 2.52/3.79 ERA/FIP over 100 innings last season. Worst case, I think that's a wash but both have more upside than a 34 year old.

    As for Arrieta, he simply wasn't the same pitcher he was in 2015. He was decent but he wasn't other worldly dominant. He was worth 3.8 fWAR last season over nearly 200 IP. Urias was worth 1.8 over 77 IP. Given similar time you'd expect similar production. Arrieta's 2015 shows he perhaps has more upside for 2017 but Uriase is a far better long term play. Now whether or not the dodgers would deal Urias is another story. If I were them I wouldn't however given the age of their better players, think they are more a win today team rather than a win in 3-4 years when Urias is at his peak team. If we use David Price as a recent template who was dealt mid season rather than between seasons, he netted Jairo Labourt (minors), Matt Boyd and Daniel Norris. Norris is 23 and over 69 innings last year put up 3.38/3.93 ERA/FIP. Boyd is 25 and didn't have an amazing year with detroit but there is some upside there. Think you can argue Arrieta is worth more than Price was given another half year of use.

    So, the argument basically comes down to this. Arrieta might be worth more than whomever the cubs get in return in 2017 but you get that player for 4-5 years vs the one year of Arrieta. Simply put, I'd easily take a Norris level player plus some additional parts for Arrieta because Norris wasn't far off Arrieta's production.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to beckdawg For This Useful Post:


  6. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    7,441

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fatbeard View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    There is absolutely no way the Dodgers are trading Urias and parts for one year of control of a 31 year old Jake Arrieta.That's just insane. Like R.A. Dickey/Shelby Miller trade insane.
    Agree that I wouldn't do it but was sort of using Urias as a place holder for a top 25ish pitching prospect. The major places have yet to do their rerannks and the dodgers were just the first team that came to mind as needing pitching and Urias obviously was their best prospect in that regard. If you'd rather sub in De Leon then fine but like I said wasn't specifically saying the cubs would get Urias just something near that quality.

  7. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    7,441

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chibears55 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Sorry, but there is no way I see Schwarber being considered as a starter in any games or even back up catcher...

    I see him only used as an emergency or in extra innings if they have to use up both catchers..

    Contreras will be the no.1 guy
    Montero if he stays or another vet will be the back up

    Sent from my LG-V495 using Tapatalk
    Never said I saw Schwarber being the starter at C. I just view him more as a rotational piece they can use as the third C so joe can be more liberal about using his bench.

  8. #46
    Senior Member chibears55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    8,112
    Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by beckdawg View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Never said I saw Schwarber being the starter at C. I just view him more as a rotational piece they can use as the third C so joe can be more liberal about using his bench.
    Sorry that was suppose to go to CSF response as he wanted to match him up with Lester...

    I personally don't see Schwarber starting any games at Catcher and only used there in an emergency situation.

    Sent from my LG-V495 using Tapatalk

  9. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    6,494

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by beckdawg View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    In terms of Hammel... he's not really a loss. His first half ERA was decent at 3.46 but his second half was pretty bad at 4.35. Zastryzny had a 1.13 ERA over 16 innings and looked quite good. His 2.15 FIP supports that. Montgomery had a 2.52/3.79 ERA/FIP over 100 innings last season. Worst case, I think that's a wash but both have more upside than a 34 year old.

    As for Arrieta, he simply wasn't the same pitcher he was in 2015. He was decent but he wasn't other worldly dominant. He was worth 3.8 fWAR last season over nearly 200 IP. Urias was worth 1.8 over 77 IP. Given similar time you'd expect similar production. Arrieta's 2015 shows he perhaps has more upside for 2017 but Uriase is a far better long term play. Now whether or not the dodgers would deal Urias is another story. If I were them I wouldn't however given the age of their better players, think they are more a win today team rather than a win in 3-4 years when Urias is at his peak team. If we use David Price as a recent template who was dealt mid season rather than between seasons, he netted Jairo Labourt (minors), Matt Boyd and Daniel Norris. Norris is 23 and over 69 innings last year put up 3.38/3.93 ERA/FIP. Boyd is 25 and didn't have an amazing year with detroit but there is some upside there. Think you can argue Arrieta is worth more than Price was given another half year of use.

    So, the argument basically comes down to this. Arrieta might be worth more than whomever the cubs get in return in 2017 but you get that player for 4-5 years vs the one year of Arrieta. Simply put, I'd easily take a Norris level player plus some additional parts for Arrieta because Norris wasn't far off Arrieta's production.
    Arrieta has been mechanically off for most of the year. Fangraphs ID'd the problem in his delivery and Hoyer confirmed the Cubs had been tracking it but it was proving difficult to fix in the middle of the season. Hendricks also had mechanical issues last year, fixed it this year and he certainly rebounded. There were games where Arrieta look like his 2015 self (his final start against St. Louis comes to mind), and given that upside I just don't see how the Cubs could get an equitable return.

  10. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    13,935

    Default

    Lackey has a contract for next year

  11. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    6,494

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Omeletpants View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Lackey has a contract for next year
    Your fascinating insights never cease to enlighten.

  12. #50
    Senior Member CSF77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    7,333
    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greg23 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think some of you are nuts.

    Replacing 40% of the rotation from a 103 win ws winner who will be the prohibitive favorites next season?

    No chance.

    I could see Montgomery in the rotation but he's best served next year as a 6th starter/swing man out of the pen.

    The two areas of work will be:

    figuring out cf.....internally with almora/heyward platoon (and hap in the wings) or go outside and try bringing back Fowler or another defensive minded leadoff Hitter type (span)

    Bullpen....closer is up in air as rondon looked awful last 2 months and is Edwards really closer material?
    Beyond that they need to figure out who fits where because maddon had no confidence in any of them come october.

    Personally....my thoughts:

    A pen with chapman/jansen at end really helps esp if we can have edwards/strop/montgomery/rondon in front of them with 1 lefty and 1 righty added
    Montgomery would be a upgrade to Hammel. We have seen who was more trust worthy.

    CF: I'm not sure what they do but with Schwarber's limited range in left it makes more sense to extend CF and RF with Almora and Heyward. Soler is not exactly a + defender either so having Almora in CF makes the most sense until Happ is ready. Happ leading off and Baez at 2B should be the long term goal but they need to get there first.

    Closer: I did not want to go there. I do not believe that Chapman is worth his potential deal. Rondon fell off the table. IDK to be honest here.

  13. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    13,935

    Default

    Here is my thoughts on Chapman: he wants 5 years for $100M. The first 2 years he will be worth his salary as he speed will still be 100+ MPH. But I think years 3, 4 and 5 he is closer to 97 mph. The guy has zero movement on the ball and every MLB player can hit a fastball. If it's me I'm not investing $100M on that. I think Kenley Jensen is a better alternative long term

  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Omeletpants For This Useful Post:


  15. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    7,441

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fatbeard View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Arrieta has been mechanically off for most of the year. Fangraphs ID'd the problem in his delivery and Hoyer confirmed the Cubs had been tracking it but it was proving difficult to fix in the middle of the season. Hendricks also had mechanical issues last year, fixed it this year and he certainly rebounded. There were games where Arrieta look like his 2015 self (his final start against St. Louis comes to mind), and given that upside I just don't see how the Cubs could get an equitable return.
    You usually don't get equitable returns in trades. But I guess for me as long as you get someone who can pitch as a #3 right now and has some upside I'd be good with the trade. Someone like Norris(but not necessarily him) I feel is a great example. He might not be what Arrieta would be in 2017 but as mentioned I'm taking the length over the one year there. I mean sure ideally you re-sign him but I don't see any realistic world in which the cubs and him agree on what's right. Because he's 31 the cubs have to limit it to a 4-5 year deal. They can't go 6-7 years. Then there's the obvious issue of performance. Cubs will want to pay him as though he's a 2016 pitcher. Arrieta will want 2015 money.

    And honestly, while it's not a guarantee to happen you should never underestimate a team going stupid. Maybe the Miller type trade isn't out there for Arrieta this offseason but then maybe it is. Right now it's too hard for me to say what teams will be buyers vs sellers. But who's to say someone like Jeff Luhnow isn't on the hotseat and because of that makes a rash move. Or Maybe Dumbrowski does the Dumbrowski thing and empties the farm system to trade for that starter he needed last year. There's a lot of teams that need starters obviously. With Hendricks emerging and the cubs obviously looking for younger arms they have a lot of options. At this point I'm very comfortable with Lester and Hendricks as the cubs 1/2. If they were to replace Arrieta with a quality #3 or preferably a #2ish starter who's young I'd be good with that.

    I also think this front office has been very smart about identifying problems with pitchers. Just as a for example, I could see them trying to acquire Clay Buchholtz from the Red Sox and fixing him. Front office obviously knows him on a personal level and if they got him back to 2015 or 2013 levels, the loss of Arrieta for whatever return is lessened.

  16. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    6,494

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Omeletpants View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Here is my thoughts on Chapman: he wants 5 years for $100M. The first 2 years he will be worth his salary as he speed will still be 100+ MPH. But I think years 3, 4 and 5 he is closer to 97 mph. The guy has zero movement on the ball and every MLB player can hit a fastball. If it's me I'm not investing $100M on that. I think Kenley Jensen is a better alternative long term
    Chapman has been effective in the past even on nights when his velocity was 98-99. The key is he needs to work up in the zone where hitters can't catch up. In Game 7 he was gassed and was overthrowing his FB trying to maintain 97-98, resulting in the ball ending up down and over the plate. And hitter can catch up to it there. As long as he keeps working on his slider he should remain an effective pitcher as he ages even as his velocity dips.

  17. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    13,935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fatbeard View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Chapman has been effective in the past even on nights when his velocity was 98-99. The key is he needs to work up in the zone where hitters can't catch up. In Game 7 he was gassed and was overthrowing his FB trying to maintain 97-98, resulting in the ball ending up down and over the plate. And hitter can catch up to it there. As long as he keeps working on his slider he should remain an effective pitcher as he ages even as his velocity dips.
    Well, we just saw what happens when he drops to 97-98. He has zero movement. When his speed drops to that range he will get crushed and the Cubs will still be paying the guy for 3 years

  18. #55
    Senior Member CSF77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    7,333
    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default

    Bleacher report feels the Cubs will resign Chappy as they have no pressing needs in F/A. You could see Edwards becoming his set up. It seemed Maddon was going to him anyways so n those high pressure situations as his stuff was that good.

    It has the makings of a solid pen. You figure Chapman in the 9th Edwards in the 8th with Strop in the 7th. Rob Z in as a 1 inning guy with Rosscup battling Coception for the LOOGY role. Grimm in for MR. Rondon is making some coin. Not sure if they want to pay him after his fall off.

    As far as long term worth. His BB/9 hit a all time low this year so he got better. We can worry about a drop off when it happens.

  19. #56
    Senior Member DanTown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by beckdawg View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Hammel is 34 and while he pitched well in the first half of the past several seasons he's often faded. I see no reason people would be upset over him being dealt. Fact of the matter is if you want to give anyone else a shot at the rotation he's gotta go and the cubs obviously want some younger arms to have a shot. He's simply worth more in trade than what they need out of a 5th starter and they have other intriguing options such as Montgomery and Zastryzny.

    As for Arrieta, I'm not saying I would 100% deal him but I think it makes a lot of sense to listen. For one thing you have him under control for 1 more year. If they can't hammer out a contract you can't let him walk and get nothing. He's too valuable. We'll see what the market looks like at the winter meetings but if someone like LA would offer you Urias and parts for Arrieta you have to consider that. Urias is 19 and fits in far better with the cubs young hitters than Arrieta who'll be 31 to start next season. That might hurt the 2017 cubs' chances but you're playing for the next 5-10 years not singularly the 2017 season.

    At the end of the day, the cubs need younger pitching. Lackey is 38. Arrieta will be 31. Hammel is 34. Lester will be 33. Age peaks usually range in the 27-31 range. Arms like Dylan Cease, Trevor Clifton and Oscar De La Cruz are interesting but they really aren't super close to the majors and pitching is a crap shoot in general. As seen with the Chapman trade, pitching prices are insane and the only way teams are trading young arms these days is to acquire an established player.
    Montgomery is fine but Zastryzny is no where close to a MLB rotation arm. Maybe he's the last guy in your bullpen but he's certainly no where close to be a starting pitcher.

    Arrieta for Urias is a non-starter from a very smart Dodger front office. I tell people this all the time and they refuse to listen: no one is giving up a MLB ready cost controlled starter in this market for one year of a pitcher. Maybe you get a TOR who is a year or two away but definitely nothing close to MLB ready.

  20. #57
    Senior Member DanTown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    One of the great things about having the best defensive team in a generation is that you simply do not need to have a ton of high priced, high end arms. If you have a team that is going to generate outs, you simply want pitchers who are going to not walk guys and guys who induce ground balls. The fear for me with Montogmery is that he doesn't have enough command of multiple pitches to efficiently get outs for six innings. Hammel did all I want out of a fifth starter: 30 starts, 180 innings.

    The problem that trading Jake has is that you simply don't have the way to replace him in the rotation with home grown guys for at least two years and you're highly unlikely to get a guy who can replace him in the rotation. If the Cubs had gone out last winter and signed a Cueto so that they had a top 3 guy, I'd be fine trading Jake but as you saw in the playoffs in literally every series, you really hurt your chances of winning series against elite teams when you're throwing out subpar starters. If you want to talk about TOR arms for the future, you have to deal valuable assets and that would mean guys like Schwarber, Russell, Baez+others; not Jake.

    Note I'm not saying to do that type of deal but I'm saying that's the realistic discussion to have. Trading equal value for equal value.

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to DanTown For This Useful Post:


  22. #58
    Senior Member CSF77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    7,333
    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanTown View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    One of the great things about having the best defensive team in a generation is that you simply do not need to have a ton of high priced, high end arms. If you have a team that is going to generate outs, you simply want pitchers who are going to not walk guys and guys who induce ground balls. The fear for me with Montogmery is that he doesn't have enough command of multiple pitches to efficiently get outs for six innings. Hammel did all I want out of a fifth starter: 30 starts, 180 innings.

    The problem that trading Jake has is that you simply don't have the way to replace him in the rotation with home grown guys for at least two years and you're highly unlikely to get a guy who can replace him in the rotation. If the Cubs had gone out last winter and signed a Cueto so that they had a top 3 guy, I'd be fine trading Jake but as you saw in the playoffs in literally every series, you really hurt your chances of winning series against elite teams when you're throwing out subpar starters. If you want to talk about TOR arms for the future, you have to deal valuable assets and that would mean guys like Schwarber, Russell, Baez+others; not Jake.

    Note I'm not saying to do that type of deal but I'm saying that's the realistic discussion to have. Trading equal value for equal value.
    I agree with that for the most part. If they put Baez on the table teams would come calling after what he did last play offs. Just the gush fest Smoltz was giving him upped his value.

  23. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    3,981

    Default

    Because of the lack of FA pitchers this year I think you will see some movement of starting pitchers via trade. Matt Harvey could be dealt but that's risky with the injury and the Mets might hang on because his arb number will be a lot lower than they had expected. Shelby Miller will be dealt, Chris Archer will be available at the right price and I'd assume one of Sale or Quintana to be moved. Of those guys only Archer seems realistic for the Cubs and because of the absolute dearth of FA arms all of them will have huge price tags, well except for Miller. I've wanted to see a young arm for two years but now, looking at the landscape, I don't think this is the time. Archer would probably cost something like Baez, Soler and one of the young arms like Dylan Cease. I don't see that happening but Theo and company have surprised me before.

  24. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    7,441

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanTown View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    no one is giving up a MLB ready cost controlled starter in this market for one year of a pitcher.
    Two teams did this for Price with Drew Smyly and Norris.

  25. A message from our sponsors.
    Please Register(it's free!) and Login to get rid of this advertisement.



    Do you want to advertise with ChiCitySports?
    Ranked #1 Chicagoland sports news and message board online.
    A great opportunity for advertising and exposure, with an active base of fresh consumers always looking for sports-related items and miscellaneous "guy stuff".
    Please go here if you are interested in a multitude of placements on this site.
Page 3 of 100 FirstFirst 123451353 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •