Red Mosquito

Fuck You Jobu wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

pnjguy wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:I can't hide the fact that I'm giddy. And want to believe that Theo Epstein and Jed Hoyer did everything right, and that Lester picked the Cubs over the Red Sox. But I'm also a realist, and can't ignore the fact that the Red Sox blew it. Lester basically picked the Cubs because of the way the Red Sox played this.

Nevertheless, if the Cubs can go out and get someone like Brandon McCarthy as a solid 2/3 starter, and perhaps add a bat, they may sneak up on teams next year and be one of those dark-horse contenders that no one sees coming in the spring.

I think people DO see them coming at this point, though. They have an established star in the middle of the lineup surrounded by some amazingly talented young position players and they now have an ace to anchor their rotation. Not all of those prospects are going to pan out, but they don't all have to to make that lineup look good. Just hitting on a couple of them can turn things around. They could get really good, really fast.

Yeah, I guess I more meant seeing them sneak up as early as next year. Most people see them coming. But I think the consensus is that they're still 2 years away at the earliest.

Despite losing out on Russell Martin, their offseason still has been pretty solid. They got Maddon, his bench coach Martinez, re-signed Jason Hammel, traded low-level prospects for Montero, and now signed Lester. Not bad.

We both know Cub fans in this town are going to go batshit crazy if they're not contending for at least that second wild-card spot.

I don't know. I think people have bought into the re-building philosophy, and the Cubs have made no secret about their own realistic expectations of competing starting in 2016 despite signing Lester. I mean, at most, Lester is worth about 4-5 wins, and Montero 1-2. That still doesn't put them anywhere near a playoff spot.

If this is the case, that puts the Cubs @ about 81 wins. Figure a couple more for Hammels and Maddon. Plus the youngsters should play better this year. I think WC #2 is conceivable.

That's obviously the key to the whole thing. Chances are they'll have a great lineup in a few years, but how many of them break out in 2015 will determine how quickly they can accelerate the process.

I can't see them catching the Cards, but I don't think anyone else in the division is clearly better than the Cubs right now.

philpritchard wrote:That's obviously the key to the whole thing. Chances are they'll have a great lineup in a few years, but how many of them break out in 2015 will determine how quickly they can accelerate the process.

I can't see them catching the Cards, but I don't think anyone else in the division is clearly better than the Cubs right now.

I don't see them catching them either. I think a WC is "possible". But even a 80-85 win season will be a "good" season - esp if the youngsters start putting up better stats...

But then again... http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-l ... 35047.html

philpritchard wrote:

numbers wrote:If Zimmerman is available, the Sox should go for him. I wouldn't be opposed to seeing if the Phillies would throw Cliff Lee into a Hamels trade. It gives you a year to figure things out.

I still think the Phillies' asking price for Hamels is going to stay high enough that they don't trade him.

Do they have any kind of payroll limit? They're already up over $160 million for this year.

Henry has said this offseason that they are willing to go past the luxury tax threshold.

If the Phillies have decided they want to move Hamels, I can see that getting done with the Red Sox. If it's more of a "we have to be blown" away thing, then I can see the Sox balking at the price.

numbers wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

numbers wrote:If Zimmerman is available, the Sox should go for him. I wouldn't be opposed to seeing if the Phillies would throw Cliff Lee into a Hamels trade. It gives you a year to figure things out.

I still think the Phillies' asking price for Hamels is going to stay high enough that they don't trade him.

Do they have any kind of payroll limit? They're already up over $160 million for this year.

Henry has said this offseason that they are willing to go past the luxury tax threshold.

If the Phillies have decided they want to move Hamels, I can see that getting done with the Red Sox. If it's more of a "we have to be blown" away thing, then I can see the Sox balking at the price.

The Phillies are weird. I know when you're bargaining you want to start the bidding high, but the rumours are that they really want to move him and they're asking for big-time prospects in return without taking on any of his contract. That's just not going to happen. At his current price tag, he would probably get a couple decent-but-unspectacular prospects in return. The more money they're willing to eat, the better the package.

If they want a guy like Betts in return, they probably have to absorb nearly the entire contract.

philpritchard wrote:

Fuck You Jobu wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

pnjguy wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:I can't hide the fact that I'm giddy. And want to believe that Theo Epstein and Jed Hoyer did everything right, and that Lester picked the Cubs over the Red Sox. But I'm also a realist, and can't ignore the fact that the Red Sox blew it. Lester basically picked the Cubs because of the way the Red Sox played this.

Nevertheless, if the Cubs can go out and get someone like Brandon McCarthy as a solid 2/3 starter, and perhaps add a bat, they may sneak up on teams next year and be one of those dark-horse contenders that no one sees coming in the spring.

I think people DO see them coming at this point, though. They have an established star in the middle of the lineup surrounded by some amazingly talented young position players and they now have an ace to anchor their rotation. Not all of those prospects are going to pan out, but they don't all have to to make that lineup look good. Just hitting on a couple of them can turn things around. They could get really good, really fast.

Yeah, I guess I more meant seeing them sneak up as early as next year. Most people see them coming. But I think the consensus is that they're still 2 years away at the earliest.

Despite losing out on Russell Martin, their offseason still has been pretty solid. They got Maddon, his bench coach Martinez, re-signed Jason Hammel, traded low-level prospects for Montero, and now signed Lester. Not bad.

We both know Cub fans in this town are going to go batshit crazy if they're not contending for at least that second wild-card spot.

I don't know. I think people have bought into the re-building philosophy, and the Cubs have made no secret about their own realistic expectations of competing starting in 2016 despite signing Lester. I mean, at most, Lester is worth about 4-5 wins, and Montero 1-2. That still doesn't put them anywhere near a playoff spot.

If this is the case, that puts the Cubs @ about 81 wins. Figure a couple more for Hammels and Maddon. Plus the youngsters should play better this year. I think WC #2 is conceivable.

That's obviously the key to the whole thing. Chances are they'll have a great lineup in a few years, but how many of them break out in 2015 will determine how quickly they can accelerate the process.

I can't see them catching the Cards, but I don't think anyone else in the division is clearly better than the Cubs right now.

Well, I'll be . . .

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/yes-the- ... nders-now/

Chris_H_2 wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

Fuck You Jobu wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

pnjguy wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:I can't hide the fact that I'm giddy. And want to believe that Theo Epstein and Jed Hoyer did everything right, and that Lester picked the Cubs over the Red Sox. But I'm also a realist, and can't ignore the fact that the Red Sox blew it. Lester basically picked the Cubs because of the way the Red Sox played this.

Nevertheless, if the Cubs can go out and get someone like Brandon McCarthy as a solid 2/3 starter, and perhaps add a bat, they may sneak up on teams next year and be one of those dark-horse contenders that no one sees coming in the spring.

I think people DO see them coming at this point, though. They have an established star in the middle of the lineup surrounded by some amazingly talented young position players and they now have an ace to anchor their rotation. Not all of those prospects are going to pan out, but they don't all have to to make that lineup look good. Just hitting on a couple of them can turn things around. They could get really good, really fast.

Yeah, I guess I more meant seeing them sneak up as early as next year. Most people see them coming. But I think the consensus is that they're still 2 years away at the earliest.

Despite losing out on Russell Martin, their offseason still has been pretty solid. They got Maddon, his bench coach Martinez, re-signed Jason Hammel, traded low-level prospects for Montero, and now signed Lester. Not bad.

We both know Cub fans in this town are going to go batshit crazy if they're not contending for at least that second wild-card spot.

I don't know. I think people have bought into the re-building philosophy, and the Cubs have made no secret about their own realistic expectations of competing starting in 2016 despite signing Lester. I mean, at most, Lester is worth about 4-5 wins, and Montero 1-2. That still doesn't put them anywhere near a playoff spot.

If this is the case, that puts the Cubs @ about 81 wins. Figure a couple more for Hammels and Maddon. Plus the youngsters should play better this year. I think WC #2 is conceivable.

That's obviously the key to the whole thing. Chances are they'll have a great lineup in a few years, but how many of them break out in 2015 will determine how quickly they can accelerate the process.

I can't see them catching the Cards, but I don't think anyone else in the division is clearly better than the Cubs right now.

Well, I'll be . . .

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/yes-the- ... nders-now/

Can someone explain this to me?

he Cubs expected record in 2014, per BaseRuns? 79-83, six wins better than their actual record.

Yes, they were outscored by 93 runs, but their underlying performance suggests that with the sequencing noise stripped out, they were only outplayed by about 20 runs.

Fuck You Jobu wrote:Can someone explain this to me?

he Cubs expected record in 2014, per BaseRuns? 79-83, six wins better than their actual record.

Yes, they were outscored by 93 runs, but their underlying performance suggests that with the sequencing noise stripped out, they were only outplayed by about 20 runs.

A stat like Pythagorean Record strips out the distribution of runs between games to essentially take the "luck" factor out and determine what a team's record should be based on runs for and against. BaseRuns basically takes it a step further by stripping out the distribution of events within a single game.

For example:

Team A: homerun, double, walk, strikeout, single, ground out (double play)
Team B: ground out, single, double, walk, homerun, strikeout

Team A scores 1 run and the inning is over. Team B scores 4 runs and there are still only 2 out. But both teams had the same events, just in different order. Over the course of a season, this stuff tends to balance out. Sometimes, though, like the Cubs in 2014, it doesn't.

Sounds like it's the Red Sox getting Wade Miley unless something changes at the last second. That's not a bad start to fixing the rotation.

meh

Pretty much, but he's a solid back-of-the-rotation guy with the upside to be a bit better than that, and he comes with three years of control. Like I said, it's a start.

I don't disagree. I'm just not getting excited about the red sox making moves until I see how the front end of the rotation turns out. There are plenty of back end options I'd be happy with, and none of them matter until I know who's number 1 and 2.

cutuphalfdead wrote:I don't disagree. I'm just not getting excited about the red sox making moves until I see how the front end of the rotation turns out. There are plenty of back end options I'd be happy with, and none of them matter until I know who's number 1 and 2.

In my heart, I'm hoping we can just pencil in Buchholz and Miley for the 1-2 spots.

I love the baseball offseason so much.

3:40pm: The Red Sox are indeed nearing a deal to acquire Miley, Jon Morosi of FOX Sports reports on Twitter.

3:46pm: The Red Sox are actually not involved at all in discussions on Miley, Bob Nightengale of USA Today reports on Twitter.

philpritchard wrote:

Fuck You Jobu wrote:Can someone explain this to me?

he Cubs expected record in 2014, per BaseRuns? 79-83, six wins better than their actual record.

Yes, they were outscored by 93 runs, but their underlying performance suggests that with the sequencing noise stripped out, they were only outplayed by about 20 runs.

A stat like Pythagorean Record strips out the distribution of runs between games to essentially take the "luck" factor out and determine what a team's record should be based on runs for and against. BaseRuns basically takes it a step further by stripping out the distribution of events within a single game.

For example:

Team A: homerun, double, walk, strikeout, single, ground out (double play)
Team B: ground out, single, double, walk, homerun, strikeout

Team A scores 1 run and the inning is over. Team B scores 4 runs and there are still only 2 out. But both teams had the same events, just in different order. Over the course of a season, this stuff tends to balance out. Sometimes, though, like the Cubs in 2014, it doesn't.

I see what you're saying. I don't see how it's that relevent though. Esp since they weren't the same events (1 is a ground out, the other is a double play grounder - 2 diff situations). In the second situation, the guy that walked may have had a different approach, than the 1st walk because of a situation. Other variables come into play.

philpritchard wrote:

numbers wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

numbers wrote:If Zimmerman is available, the Sox should go for him. I wouldn't be opposed to seeing if the Phillies would throw Cliff Lee into a Hamels trade. It gives you a year to figure things out.

I still think the Phillies' asking price for Hamels is going to stay high enough that they don't trade him.

Do they have any kind of payroll limit? They're already up over $160 million for this year.

Henry has said this offseason that they are willing to go past the luxury tax threshold.

If the Phillies have decided they want to move Hamels, I can see that getting done with the Red Sox. If it's more of a "we have to be blown" away thing, then I can see the Sox balking at the price.

The Phillies are weird. I know when you're bargaining you want to start the bidding high, but the rumours are that they really want to move him and they're asking for big-time prospects in return without taking on any of his contract. That's just not going to happen. At his current price tag, he would probably get a couple decent-but-unspectacular prospects in return. The more money they're willing to eat, the better the package.

If they want a guy like Betts in return, they probably have to absorb nearly the entire contract.

I have no problem with the Red Sox eating all of the money as long as Betts and Owens aren't in the deal.

I would be so happy if they could get Hamels and Cueto without parting with Betts.

#SmearCampaign has made me proud to be a Red Sox fan.

Strasburg to the Sox, calling it now.

numbers wrote:Strasburg to the Sox, calling it now.

For whom?

Fuck You Jobu wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

Fuck You Jobu wrote:Can someone explain this to me?

he Cubs expected record in 2014, per BaseRuns? 79-83, six wins better than their actual record.

Yes, they were outscored by 93 runs, but their underlying performance suggests that with the sequencing noise stripped out, they were only outplayed by about 20 runs.

A stat like Pythagorean Record strips out the distribution of runs between games to essentially take the "luck" factor out and determine what a team's record should be based on runs for and against. BaseRuns basically takes it a step further by stripping out the distribution of events within a single game.

For example:

Team A: homerun, double, walk, strikeout, single, ground out (double play)
Team B: ground out, single, double, walk, homerun, strikeout

Team A scores 1 run and the inning is over. Team B scores 4 runs and there are still only 2 out. But both teams had the same events, just in different order. Over the course of a season, this stuff tends to balance out. Sometimes, though, like the Cubs in 2014, it doesn't.

I see what you're saying. I don't see how it's that relevent though. Esp since they weren't the same events (1 is a ground out, the other is a double play grounder - 2 diff situations). In the second situation, the guy that walked may have had a different approach, than the 1st walk because of a situation. Other variables come into play.

They were both the same play, but one was a double play because there was a runner on first.

I agree there are other variables in play, but like I said, statistically, this stuff tends to even out over the course of a season.