Jump to content

MLB discussion


rico

Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, FritzIam4IU said:

I would replace Bryce with Machado. I think that Russell is not going to be a Cub much longer and he would fit better than Harper. Although I am hoping the Cubs hold off on trading Russell until after his suspension is over and he maybe is playing well. Otherwise I fear the cubs will get a bag of peanuts in return.

Regarding 5, I would just exercise the option on Cole Hamels and try to find bullpen depth in free agency.

Hopefully Bryant is back 100% next season...as well as Darvish, Morrow, Smyly, etc.

I want Harper. We already have the best defensive SS in baseball in Baez. Bryant at 3rd, Baez SS, Zobrist/Bote at 2nd, Rizzo 1B...along with Harper, Almora, and make a decision in LF. I'm still partial to Schwarber but only if they are going to play him...but I also know what I just typed seems a bit easy. I expect some major overhauls on this team. As many as 7-8 guys gone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
2 minutes ago, Seeking6 said:

I was going to add that but didn't feel like debating. Eat the $ and say adios to him. Corner positions have to play great defense (he does) and produce the plate (he doesn't). See what you can get trade wise and eat half the remaining $.

Debate is good for the mind.  But yeah, Heyward is an albatross.  Salary wise and offensive production.  He left 4 guys OB last night.  Trade him and see what you can get and swallow money absolutely.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Seeking6 said:

I want Harper. We already have the best defensive SS in baseball in Baez. Bryant at 3rd, Baez SS, Zobrist/Bote at 2nd, Rizzo 1B...along with Harper, Almora, and make a decision in LF. I'm still partial to Schwarber but only if they are going to play him...but I also know what I just typed seems a bit easy. I expect some major overhauls on this team. As many as 7-8 guys gone. 

You can have Jacoby Ellsbury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Seeking6 said:

I want Harper. We already have the best defensive SS in baseball in Baez. Bryant at 3rd, Baez SS, Zobrist/Bote at 2nd, Rizzo 1B...along with Harper, Almora, and make a decision in LF. I'm still partial to Schwarber but only if they are going to play him...but I also know what I just typed seems a bit easy. I expect some major overhauls on this team. As many as 7-8 guys gone. 

I wouldn't be mad if the cubs sign Harper by any means, but I would rather see Machado...especially since Russell will likely be moved at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, FritzIam4IU said:

I wouldn't be mad if the cubs sign Harper by any means, but I would rather see Machado...especially since Russell will likely be moved at some point.

But the Cubs don't need a SS or a third baseman?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theo is such a breath of fresh air. Total transparency and open talk. Said the players lacked the sense of urgency in June. Didn't lose division last week lost it earlier in season. Also said him signing Morrow, Darvish, and Chatwood weren't obviously good moves. Said that's on him. No question Joe is back and he absolutely wants Hamels back as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Seeking6 said:

Theo is such a breath of fresh air. Total transparency and open talk. Said the players lacked the sense of urgency in June. Didn't lose division last week lost it earlier in season. Also said him signing Morrow, Darvish, and Chatwood weren't obviously good moves. Said that's on him. No question Joe is back and he absolutely wants Hamels back as well.

I think Theo is in a good position and he does his job extremely well.  He also has quite the bank roll at his disposal.  Several times I have said the Cubs reminded me of the "Big Red Machine"..........then lately I have changed my mind to their more like the "Big Blue Wrecking Crew"(LA of the 70's).  They got 3 of the best position players in the league.....Rizzo, Bryant, and Baez.  And one could add Contreras to the list considering the position he plays.  They have a bona fide ace in Lester.  Hendricks is damn good #2.  Throw Hamels into the mix and a healthy Darvish see no problems there.  Great bench full of guys that would probably start on most teams.  What do they need?  Nothing in my opinion.......but what do I know, I am a Reds fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, FritzIam4IU said:

Hearing they might get rid of Russell soon. Also, Bryant can play outfield as well...or Baez second.

If we get Harper we don't get Machado (I support this approach) you have Baez at SS, Zobrist/Bote at 2nd. Having watched and listened to almost every single one of Theo's pressers since that glorious day in October 2011 when he was hired I can tell you that what I saw today....Addison Russell won't be a Cub. They'll trade for whatever they think they can get....but I think he's eligible for salary arbitration. They might sign and trade or just let him walk. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Seeking6 said:

If we get Harper we don't get Machado (I support this approach) you have Baez at SS, Zobrist/Bote at 2nd. Having watched and listened to almost every single one of Theo's pressers since that glorious day in October 2011 when he was hired I can tell you that what I saw today....Addison Russell won't be a Cub. They'll trade for whatever they think they can get....but I think he's eligible for salary arbitration. They might sign and trade or just let him walk. 

I would be fine with Harper...but like I have stated I just prefer Machado. Especially with the Russell situation and this will probably be Zobrist last season with club. My personal preference is Machado at short and Baez at second.

I do think it would be a mistake to just let Russell walk away or trade him right now without getting anything decent in return. I get the moral reasoning behind it, but where was all that morality when they traded a top prospect to the Yankees for Chapman and his past? I'm all for trading Russell, but I just think it would make more sense letting him serve his suspension first, then letting him reestablish himself so you can actually get something of value for him in return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, FritzIam4IU said:

I would be fine with Harper...but like I have stated I just prefer Machado. Especially with the Russell situation and this will probably be Zobrist last season with club. My personal preference is Machado at short and Baez at second.

I do think it would be a mistake to just let Russell walk away or trade him right now without getting anything decent in return. I get the moral reasoning behind it, but where was all that morality when they traded a top prospect to the Yankees for Chapman and his past? I'm all for trading Russell, but I just think it would make more sense letting him serve his suspension first, then letting him reestablish himself so you can actually get something of value for him in return.

The Chapman trade won them a WS.  When the window is there you go for it.  But that is for another day.  The Cubs have a dynasty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, rico said:

The Chapman trade won them a WS.  When the window is there you go for it.  But that is for another day.  The Cubs have a dynasty.

Agreed. I'm just speaking about how the Cubs are rumored to be dumping Addison Russell due to his issues while they were fine acquiring Chapman despite his similar baggage. If the front office is claiming that they have to jettison Russell ASAP then I just think that is a little hypocritical. Look what the Reds got in return for Chapman from the Yankees vs. what the Yankees got from the Cubs. My only point is that from a baseball trade value standpoint...the Cubs would be better off letting Russell serve his suspension (40 games by the way)...then trading him at some point after.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, rico said:

The Chapman trade won them a WS.  When the window is there you go for it.  But that is for another day.  The Cubs have a dynasty.

Sorry, RICO. Like a lot of your opinions but in no way are the Cubs a dynasty.

Yankees multiple times. Oakland in the early 70's. The Giants early this decade. Those are dynasties.

In the last 5 years the Cubs have been decent... finished over .500 every year. But they only finished above.600 once, the year that they won the Series. 

Being a Cub fan is similar to being part of a religion... born into it for many with no other options accepted. But the Cubs are only currently relevant. Lots of other teams that have as much, or more allure to high level players like Harper, Machado, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, FritzIam4IU said:

Agreed. I'm just speaking about how the Cubs are rumored to be dumping Addison Russell due to his issues while they were fine acquiring Chapman despite his similar baggage. If the front office is claiming that they have to jettison Russell ASAP then I just think that is a little hypocritical. Look what the Reds got in return for Chapman from the Yankees vs. what the Yankees got from the Cubs. My only point is that from a baseball trade value standpoint...the Cubs would be better off letting Russell serve his suspension (40 games by the way)...then trading him at some point after.

I understand.  But right here, right now Russell is taking up a roster spot.  You can only protect so many players.  But I have no idea who is on their 40-man roster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Steubenhoosier said:

Sorry, RICO. Like a lot of your opinions but in no way are the Cubs a dynasty.

Yankees multiple times. Oakland in the early 70's. The Giants early this decade. Those are dynasties.

In the last 5 years the Cubs have been decent... finished over .500 every year. But they only finished above.600 once, the year that they won the Series. 

Being a Cub fan is similar to being part of a religion... born into it for many with no other options accepted. But the Cubs are only currently relevant. Lots of other teams that have as much, or more allure to high level players like Harper, Machado, etc.

What is your definition of a dynasty in baseball?  And leave the Yankees out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, rico said:

What is your definition of a dynasty in baseball?  And leave the Yankees out of it.

Excellence over an extended period of time and with multiple HOF or potential HOF players.

Of the teams I mentioned, the Giants won 3 World Series in 5 years. Potential for Posey and Baumgartner to make the HOF.

Oakland won their division 5 years in a row and 2 World Series. Catfish Hunter, Reggie Jackson, Rollie Fingers all in the HOF. Several other excellent players--Vida Blue, Bert Campaneris, Sal Bando, Ken Holtzman.

Dynasties are more than a team winning one World Series and being in contention a few more years. The Cubs have some good young players who may, someday create a dynasty, and may someday play at a level, for an extended period, to be considered HOF worthy . In today's game, keeping them together long enough to attain all that is as much of a challenge as actually doing it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Steubenhoosier said:

Excellence over an extended period of time and with multiple HOF or potential HOF players.

Of the teams I mentioned, the Giants won 3 World Series in 5 years. Potential for Posey and Baumgartner to make the HOF.

Oakland won their division 5 years in a row and 2 World Series. Catfish Hunter, Reggie Jackson, Rollie Fingers all in the HOF. Several other excellent players--Vida Blue, Bert Campaneris, Sal Bando, Ken Holtzman.

Dynasties are more than a team winning one World Series and being in contention a few more years. The Cubs have some good young players who may, someday create a dynasty, and may someday play at a level, for an extended period, to be considered HOF worthy . In today's game, keeping them together long enough to attain all that is as much of a challenge as actually doing it.

 

 

Were the Braves a dynasty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, rico said:

Gonna have to respectfully disagree with ya there.  The Braves were like nothing I had ever seen in my lifetime.

Tough one.

The Braves were very good during the time frame you are referring to.

Unfortunately, that time frame overlapped with the Yankees winning 4 World Series in 5 years.

 By definition, I don't think 2 dynasties can exist at the same time 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Steubenhoosier said:

Tough one.

The Braves were very good during the time frame you are referring to.

Unfortunately, that time frame overlapped with the Yankees winning 4 World Series in 5 years.

 By definition, I don't think 2 dynasties can exist at the same time 

Hmmmm.  I grew up in the 70's.  My Reds won division titles in '70, '72, '73, '75, '76, and '79.  6 in 10 years is pretty impressive.   2 titles and 2 other appearances in the WS.  To me that is a dynasty that just happened to have some other NL teams in the discussion.  The Pirates and Dodgers.  Now let's look at the Braves.......throw out the strike year , throw out the wild card.  They finished 1st in their division for 14 straight years.  14!!!!!  Ummm they were a dynasty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...