Author Topic: Cubs in '13 1/15/13 - 6/11/13  (Read 34530 times)

davep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15854
Re: Cubs in '13
« Reply #15 on: January 15, 2013, 10:57:24 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.


Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: Cubs in '13
« Reply #17 on: January 16, 2013, 01:07:45 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.

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.

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: Cubs in '13
« Reply #18 on: January 16, 2013, 01:28:03 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.

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.''     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.

Cubsin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1647
  • Location: O'Fallon, IL
Re: Cubs in '13
« Reply #19 on: January 16, 2013, 01:37:49 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.

davep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15854
Re: Cubs in '13
« Reply #20 on: January 16, 2013, 01:47:56 pm »
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.

Of course he used the term "pursue".  Only an idiot would declare that he was going to bring in X good arms without having any idea of the cost or avaliability of those arms.

And I suspect that Hoyer, as well as myself, would consider Jackson, Baker, Feldman, Fujikawa, Villanueva, and Rondon as "good arms".  and I would rate every one of them higher than I would Lopeez, Germano, Coleman, Berken and Hinshaw.

I think Hoyer thinks of 2013 as a wait and see year.  If, by July, Stewart, Valbuena and Jackson are doing badly, and the Cubs are 10 games below 500, I would expect a lot of trades similar to those we had last July.  If, on the other hand, Stewart is performing as he did three years ago, Brett Jackson is having a productive year and striking out at a 28% level, and the Cubs are a couple of games above 500, he would be much slower to gut what has become a team with a good foundation of young players.

However the Cubs perform in 2013, he is almost certain to do something about Garza, which could be extending his contract, trading him, or making a qualifying offer.  And I think that he would trade Soriano any time he thought he was getting a reasonable return.  And Marmol probably will go before the season start.  Beyond that will depend upon the performance of the team.

JR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13654
Re: Cubs in '13
« Reply #21 on: January 16, 2013, 02:32:19 pm »
Dale Sveum obviously does not have his priorities in order.  Theo better get with him soon and let him know that finishing above .500 would be a really bad thing for the rebuilding process.

1/16 Sveum: “.500 is not acceptable”

Dale Sveum says he feels more comfortable heading into his second season as the Cubs manager. Coming off a 101 loss season, he’s got high expectations.

“The one thing you hate doing is saying, ‘[finishin] .500 will be good,’ because it’s not good,” Sveum said Wednesday. “It’s not 101 losses, but .500 isn’t getting you to the playoffs. Just getting in the playoffs is satisfactory. … In a perfect world, if [Matt] Garza and [Scott] Baker are ready to go Opening Day, its not a bad staff to have [Jeff] Samardzija, Garza and [Edwin] Jackson at the top and the other guys in the four, five spots. Fujikawa would come in the eight inning, Marmol in the ninth, there’s so many things that are so much better going into this season than last year. [Finishing] .500 is, like I said, still not acceptable.”

Garza and Baker will both be ready to go in Spring Training but Sveum said the team may take a cautious approach with them to ease them into the regular season. Garza is coming off an elbow injury and Baker is coming back from Tommy John surgery.

The Cubs in the playoffs in 2013? That might be hard for some fans to consider but Sveum thinks they have enough firepower if Ian Stewart is healthy, and Nate Schierholtz produces.


“You can’t fall victim to, ‘Yeah, we are obviously in a transition in the organization, and we’re trying to get healthy and do all this,’ but don’t fall into the category that we can’t win right now,” Sveum said. “Baseball is a funny thing. Just last year, we close out some games in April and the start of the season is a lot different and you never know what happens after that. You might not have the exact same bullets as the guy actross the street, but all you need are guys to play up to their capabilities and have a starting staff and close out games, and you win a lot of games.”

http://muskat.mlblogs.com/2013/01/16/116-sveum-500-is-not-acceptable/
« Last Edit: January 16, 2013, 02:34:53 pm by JR »

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: Cubs in '13
« Reply #22 on: January 16, 2013, 02:37:38 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.

Why tell you again?  It has been explained well enough already.  If you don't already understand, you won't understand if it is explained again, and will likely be shocked and upset when it happens.  Some of us can't understand way anyone would think he will not or should not be shopped.

JR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13654
Re: Cubs in '13
« Reply #23 on: January 16, 2013, 02:38:35 pm »
By the way, there's some pretty interesting stuff in that blog entry.  We know now that Sveum is looking at Fujikawa for the 8th and Marmol for the 9th.  It also sounds like Schierholtz has more than a 4th outfielder role right now. 

It also sounds like the final two spots in the rotation are up in the air. 

davep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15854
Re: Cubs in '13
« Reply #24 on: January 16, 2013, 02:48:00 pm »
I think any manager has to make his plans based upon the team as it exists right now.  and right now, I think just about any manager would choose Marmol as the closer over Fujikawa, at least to start the year.

And just about everything I have read and hear indicates that the Cubs view Schierholtz as a full time right fielder.  I don't remember any talk coming out of the front office or manager that indicated anything else.  Of course, performance in the first part of the season, or even spring training, could change that.

Snotnosed brat - did you get my Email?

JR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13654
Re: Cubs in '13
« Reply #25 on: January 16, 2013, 03:09:44 pm »
Still haven't gotten any email yet, old fart.

JR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13654
Re: Cubs in '13
« Reply #26 on: January 16, 2013, 03:10:54 pm »
Quote
Scott Baker - S - Cubs

Cubs president Theo Epstein said Wednesday that Scott Baker (elbow) should be up to 75 pitches by the end of spring training.

Baker, who signed a one-year, $5.5 million contract with the Cubs in November, is currently nine months removed from Tommy John surgery. The Cubs aren't going to push him too soon, so he'll likely begin the season on the disabled list to continue to build up his workload. A return in the early part of the season still appears likely if all goes well, so he makes for a fine DL-stash in fantasy leagues.

davep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15854
Re: Cubs in '13
« Reply #27 on: January 16, 2013, 03:16:23 pm »
Still haven't gotten any email yet, old fart.

Send me an email at Daveapol@yahoo.com

davep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15854
Re: Cubs in '13
« Reply #28 on: January 16, 2013, 05:22:15 pm »
Hey brat - do you ever check your email?

Deeg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16926
Re: Cubs in '13
« Reply #29 on: January 16, 2013, 06:41:46 pm »
I like Sveum saying that - but what would you expect him to say?  It doesn't change the fact that as constructed, the Cubs are about a 70-win team and likely won't contend until 2015 at the earliest unless ownership decides to bag the rebuilding thing and spend like crazy on FAs.

Why are we shopping Garza?  Because our system is still woefully short on pitching, and he's the most marketable asset we have.  And one of two things will happen if we keep him to help us try and win 75 games this year: he'll have another injury-plagued year, or he'll have a rebound year and get a contract Ricketts may not want to match.