|
|
Post by batman66 on Oct 24, 2024 10:37:34 GMT -5
No, no no no no you got that all wrong. It's not that I wouldn't. It's that the Cubs would not trade him during the season if they are winning , teams don't usually trade a starting player off a winning team to make room for a rookie during a season if they are winning. And I'm not trading him because he's getting more expensive, I'm trading him because I think Shaw can give them more with the bat and his trade value to another team is more because they can have him for 2 years . They have many guys capable of playing 2b. Starting pitching depth , don't mess with it , the guy became what they were hoping for when they signed him , so do you think they trade him now ? Who steps into his spot as a solid #3 or 4 type if they sign Burnes and trade Taillon? Brown ? Maybe , but we still have not heard about this "neck" thing and why it kept him out so long. Assad ? He didn't have a great second half and was pretty damn lucky to have the ERA he did the first half with all the traffic he allows and he's kind of a long shot to give you more than 5 innings . Wicks? I still like him , but the injury thing got a little worrisome last season. Horton? Don't know where he is at with his progress from the shoulder issue. Birdsell ? maybe The Cubs have so many options it makes the conversations fun. It’s a flawed but solid and pretty complete team with a deep farm system Agree 100% , and we have no clue what direction they are going to take to get better ........I just hope they do ! |
|
|
|
Post by kfidd on Oct 24, 2024 10:38:54 GMT -5
Nobody's opinion is right or wrong, in the end we're a bunch of message board fans giving our opinions that mean nothing to the organization. So, my opinion, is that the Cubs biggest mistake was not trading Tallion at the deadline. You all know how much I wanted the Cubs to move off that contract and they would not have gone over the tax with Paredes. They were fooled again but a team that got hot a couple weeks before the deadline thinking they were worthy of faith that they could compete. This staved off selling the spare parts, Taillon included and I’d add guys like Hoerner, Tauchman, Wisdom, Merryweather, etc to that list, which continued the theme of roster road blocks that disallowed the promotion of prospects for their first exposure to MLB pitching down the stretch of a non-competitive season. All this talk about Shaw and Caissie and not having an inkling of who they are and how they can contribute. Wouldn’t it be a good thing to have gotten them some crucial development at bats in September at bare minimum to get a leg up for the offseason and next spring? Continuity. It’s the favorite word of this regime. Play it safe, stay in the middle. Hope for breakout years. It’s being repeated in this idea of depth being our biggest issue last season. Bullshit. The current Cubs of these last two seasons have had high floors. It’s a sentiment that has been shared entering each of the last two seasons in the predictions thread. “The Cubs are at bare minimum a .500ish team. If career years happen? Look out.” The Cubs were not an 83 win last season because of poor depth. For all the excusing some like to do for the offense regarding injuries, people forget that injury depth is unlikely to equate to above average replacement production. In fact, the likely only time you’ll ever find that is if you promote a prospect for their chance to fill in and their talent takes over (remember the two separate occasions Hoerner was injured for over a week yet they kept him on the roster, eating up a bench spot, rather than promoting a young fill-in? Cubs baseball). Tauchman had a 111 wRC+ this season. Wisdom had a 95 wRC+ in the first half where we dealt with the injuries to Suzuki, Happ, and Bellinger. The bench was fine and pointing at them as the primary issue on offense this season is both placing unrealistic expectations on what kind of players your bench can support while also providing a cop out for the weakness of veterans to step up when needed. Hoerner and Swanson were awful in the first half. Bellinger, our big offensive “addition” last offseason, had a 108 wRC+ through June. Happ and Suzuki were for the most part who you’d expect them to be (Happ 129, Suzuki 127). The problem was the lack of oomph talent to take over and carry them. But, as we always indicate, the problem is roster construction. You have good offensive players at the outfield corners (that everyone wants to trade for some reason). You have an expensive Bellinger that had every indicating sign pointing to him taking a big dip offensively to being an above average but far from great player. We have a middle infield that is extremely glove first, which normally isn’t a bad thing but the construction of this roster says otherwise. This becomes further embodied by the addition of a multi year commitment downward spiral hitter in Paredes. Can he make the adjustments? He better be able to, but anyone just believing they can because he was good in 2023 and for 1 month in 2024 being an effective but extremely one dimensional player is fooling themselves. This is the Cubs way of recent years. Good but not great. Hope for breakout rather than proven consistency. Jed’s version of “smart” baseball. The Cubs did not win just 83 games in back to back seasons because of a perceived lack of capable depth. They have now won 83 games in back to back seasons because their everyday players simply haven’t been good enough. A bench is important but doesn’t supersede the need for Bellinger to be better or our 35+ million dollar middle infield to give better than a combined .640 OPS in the first half. And if the response is that they were injured? I can buy that. But playing them through injury delaying any hope for recovery while letting young players like Vazquez, Shaw, Triantos, etc sit in AA-AAA when we are already 5+ games under .500 becomes the next talking point. Poor roster construction, poor handling of injuries. |
|
|
|
Post by kfidd on Oct 24, 2024 10:46:01 GMT -5
The Cubs have so many options it makes the conversations fun. It’s a flawed but solid and pretty complete team with a deep farm system Agree 100% , and we have no clue what direction they are going to take to get better ........I just hope they do ! The key there is your last sentiment. “I just hope they do.” You and all of us. But the reason we are even having any of this discussion is because this front office hasn’t given any supporting evidence for that hope with their play it safe, play their version of smart baseball approach. That mentality is what leads to statements that have been made like “the lineup is actually really freaking good” or that the 2024 Cubs biggest demise was poor depth off the bench and not poor production from the expensive veteran regulars. It continues to ignore the piss poor offensive production for over 80 games that we all witnessed. The Cubs should be in a good position to build a winner. We all said the same thing this time last offseason when they had a stronger second half, a top 5 rated farm system, and being in the third largest sports market in this country. They went out and won the exact same number of games: 83, while failing to sign Ohtani. The same will likely happen with Soto this offseason. The only hope is that they create some avenues for the youth influx that needed to happen yesterday and the most realistic way for that to happen is with the trading of Hoerner (whose return could help shore up another weakness like C, 3B, CL, etc) and addition by subtraction with owning the Paredes mistake and moving on. I’ll believe it when I see it. |
|
|
|
Post by batman66 on Oct 24, 2024 10:49:46 GMT -5
No , uh 2b was going to be Betts position remember Mookie was moved there during the 2023 season and then they signed a guy named Freeman which moved Muncy back to 3b, he wasn't going to beat any of those guys out of job, so it was looking like DH for him , and then they signed some guy named Ohtani , thats why he was traded to the Cubs. They also had Vargas who was rated ahead of him in their system . He came with the stigma of being a poor fielder because he was moved around , but in reality it was more about a path to the majors being blocked as to why he was changing positions because we saw how well he ended up being as a 1b after being given a chance and some time to adapt. From a scouting report .Defensively, Busch does not have a strong arm, and he grades as major league average as both a second baseman and first baseman. He likely won’t win a Gold Glove on defense. I appreciate your optimism but that isn’t true. First, Betts was playing shortstop to start the year, not second base. So your initial argument is invalid. Second, the Dodgers thought because they were able to deploy a sloth like Muncy at second some, Busch, who was more athletic, could possibly be moved there. He was so bad he was moved across the diamond, where he was equally bad. He was also equally bad in the outfield. It’s fun to think otherwise but it’s simply not true. Now, it certainly is possible to improve defense, Busch proved that at first base but there is a very valid reason he played first base in college and was given a 30 grade on defense. You can quote the google recommendation all you like but it won’t make it true. I mentioned Vargas , he was playing 2b before Betts moved over , and Vargas was rated #3 above Shaw #4 in their pipeline ratings for 2023 . At the time of the Busch trade I read a lot of Dodgers stuff and he was moved around to try to find a path to the majors not because he was failing at positions, you can think that if you want , but to use your own words, it's simply not true. I'm not saying he was good at them , but it was more about a path and not him not being able to handle the position. |
|
|
|
Post by batman66 on Oct 24, 2024 10:59:37 GMT -5
Agree 100% , and we have no clue what direction they are going to take to get better ........I just hope they do ! The key there is your last sentiment. “I just hope they do.” You and all of us. But the reason we are even having any of this discussion is because this front office hasn’t given any supporting evidence for that hope with their play it safe, play their version of smart baseball approach. That mentality is what leads to statements that have been made like “the lineup is actually really freaking good” or that the 2024 Cubs biggest demise was poor depth off the bench and not poor production from the expensive veteran regulars. It continues to ignore the piss poor offensive production for over 80 games that we all witnessed. The Cubs should be in a good position to build a winner. We all said the same thing this time last offseason when they had a stronger second half, a top 5 rated farm system, and being in the third largest sports market in this country. They went out and won the exact same number of games: 83, while failing to sign Ohtani. The same will likely happen with Soto this offseason. The only hope is that they create some avenues for the youth influx that needed to happen yesterday and the most realistic way for that to happen is with the trading of Hoerner (whose return could help shore up another weakness like C, 3B, CL, etc) and addition by subtraction with owning the Paredes mistake and moving on. I’ll believe it when I see it. I don't think anybody is really wrong here, they could have been a playoff team had players played up to what they expected of them and I'm not pointing fingers at one guy intentionally , but rather using him as an example because there was a lot that contributed to why they didn't make the playoffs but Swanson is one guy , he was giving them nothing for long period of time when he's a guy they look at as a key player. BUT that mentality that we can be a playoff team if players play up to expectations isn't good enough and should NOT be how they think. And I point to Counsell's comment about them needing to build a 90+ win team. In todays game you can't count on all players to meet expectations, you build a roster to be as strong as possible knowing things will go wrong. Look at the Dodgers, they are in the WS and spent 350 million and don't have 3 healthy starting pitchers to start playoff games but are strong enough as a team to overcome that. |
|
|
|
Post by happy on Oct 24, 2024 11:06:29 GMT -5
Ah, so you are unwilling to trade from starting pitching depth after I said we should sign Burnes (which is the answer to “who replaces Taillon”) but are willing to trade from our position player depth even though the Cubs biggest weakness last season was position depth/bench… If Shaw was playing well enough, proving he belongs at the big league level by hitting and playing defense at the big league level then the majority of teams would move a veteran to make room for him, regardless of standings. The issue I have, with your philosophy, is being unwilling to put an unknown at the bottom of the rotation, even though we have more options with ML track record but are more than willing to put an unknown on the field that has zero experience at the big league level. The Cubs issue was not pitching, Burnes to replace Taillon is an upgrade, anyone to replace Hendricks is also a huge upgrade. The issue was positional depth. When the Cubs were banged up, we didn’t have the positional depth to win. Replacing Hoerner with Shaw does not remotely fix that issue, it makes it worse. Shaw certainly has more power upside than Nico, but Nico is a steady 4 WAR player and provides above league average offense and elite defense. If the benchmark for the offense was last season, we need to raise the ceiling WITHOUT lowering the floor. We have a slightly higher floor with Paredes at third to start the season vs Morel but replacing Hoerner for Shaw significantly lowers the floor. We know Nico can play at a high level in the majors and we all saw the dynamic him and PCA can produce batting close to each other. Shaw’s a complete unknown. So if we raise the floor and ceiling, that’s going to cost, unless the Cubs can trade for a guy like OHoppe. Vlad is over 30 million, Soto is going to be 45+ million and the Cubs have a finite amount of financial resources with even more roster tweaking to do. If you sign Burnes and do not trade Taillon, you’re stuck with the same offense as last season and potentially cannot improve the bench via free agency or bullpen. If you add a big bat, you pretty much have to move Hoerner because of the same reasonings. Assuming, of course, Bellinger stays and eats up 30 million. If he opts out, you can add a big bat, keep Taillon and sign Fried or someone similar. oK, we can go round and round with this forever. The ENTIRE premise of me thinking NOW would be the best time to trade Nico is about the probably fact he's not going to be here beyond 2026 with the amount of middle infield talent they have in the system. So the entire thing is WHEN do you part ways with him? So , do you #1 keep him and let him play 2b for the next 2 seasons and try to find Shaw and whoever else is ready at bats and then let him walk in free agency possibly with no compensation because I'm not sure they slap a QO on him because who knows if he'd take the QO which is going to be higher than any AAV he'd probably get in free agency. They are not going to sign him to another extension , it would make no sense at all with all the infield prospects they have, so again it's all about when do you part ways with him? #2 start the season with him and if Shaw is killing it in AAA decide to trade Nico during the season. This I'd actually maybe be in favor of this one , but again I don't think the Cubs would trade him if the season is going well during the season , The only way I see them trading him during the season is if they are not contending , #3 trade him now when he has 2 full years value to a team he's going to which likely gets you a better return and run with Shaw or Triantos. We don't know what Shaw is going to do in the majors, but when you have a top 25 prospect who's minor league career numbers are .303 avg .384 obp .522 slg .906 ops and has shown no real red flags anywhere I don't think it's a huge gamble to chance he takes off with the job and you also have Triantos as another option. And Taillon , all I'm going to say is if it comes down to having to move him and his contract to fit Burnes or another better starter in, it's a no thought move, trade him. If they aren't signing Burnes, sure there are others out there, Snell, and Fried might be worth trading Taillon away to be able to sign, but not guys like Flaherty and some others. My opinion is keep Nico, unless something bigger happens that justifies it, play Shaw as a utility player since we lack depth and have a huge question mark at third base in Paredes (maybe not a huge question mark but a concern). If/when Shaw plays well enough to justify a trade of either Hoerner or Paredes, then do it. If that is mid-season or next season or not at all. Cubs only need to move Taillon if they add a 30+ million dollar starter. I’m not saying to trade him to trade him but if you can improve the starting staff with a bonafide ace, you’re going to have to move Taillon. The Cubs have options for the back of the rotation, Brown, Pearson, Horton, Wesneski, Wicks, Birdsell etc. The fifth starter is a development position and easily covered with DFA or minor trades if absolutely need be. Not so easy if you swing and miss with Shaw at second. Circling back to a mid-season trade if Hoerner or Paredes, it makes sense if it makes sense. If it doesn’t make sense, then you don’t trade anyone. If it does, you do. There is always an option and neither are free agents at the end of the year. Maximizing value in trade only makes since if it doesn’t minimize the MLB teams potential. Lastly, I think you need to have Nico as a back up shortstop and you have to continue to let Shaw play all over the diamond. The ideal progression would be Shaw taking over second and Cam Smith taking over third but that isn’t a given. If the Cubs keep Triantos, odds are he will need to play second so I think the best idea is to keep Shaw as a utility player and maintain his versatility |
|
|
|
Post by kfidd on Oct 24, 2024 11:07:57 GMT -5
Anyone hoping for improvement from the regular lineup needs to examine the facts. Eventually you have to accept who they are. That doesn’t mean they can’t experience an uptick in production but most of these guys are in their late 20s now. We know who they are and if anything their consistent injury issues suggest more of that in the future meaning more missed time and likely more subpar performance.
But let’s take out all nuance and just look at the simple, hard numbers of our veteran players and their three year run.
Player, age
(games played, OPS)
Bellinger, 29.30
2022: 144, .654
2023: 130, .881
2024: 130, .751
Average: 134, .762
Hoerner, 27.45
2022: 135, .737
2023: 150, .729
2024: 151, .708
Average: 145, .724
Swanson, 30.75
2022: 162, .776
2023: 147, .744
2024: 149, .702
Average: 152, .740
Happ, 30.20
2022: 158, .782
2023: 158, .791
2024: 153, .782
Average: 156, .785
Suzuki, 30.20
2022: 111, .769
2023: 138, .842
2024: 132, .848
Average: 127, .819
Paredes 25.75
2022: 111, .739
2023: 143, .840
2024: 153, .739
Average: 135, .772
No nuance there. It’s unlikely to expect seeing an increase in any of these performances for next season (barring the addition of an elite hitter who could add huge length to the lineup). Paredes is the youngest at 25.75 and he experienced a .101 drop in OPS at that age almost entirely in slugging alone (.095). Take those average figures of games played and OPS. If they were to provide that in 2025 we’d all take it, but not because it makes a great lineup (rather it makes a good set of six individual performances where the other three spots are likely filled at catcher and from young inexperienced players). We’d take it because that’s who they’ve shown themselves to be at their pretty much best.
Time is unavoidable. Most of these guys are more likely to start going the opposite direction sooner rather than later. For most of them their peak was never high enough to hope on to begin with. The problem is the regular lineup, not a perceived lack of depth.
|
|
|
|
Post by happy on Oct 24, 2024 11:14:55 GMT -5
I appreciate your optimism but that isn’t true. First, Betts was playing shortstop to start the year, not second base. So your initial argument is invalid. Second, the Dodgers thought because they were able to deploy a sloth like Muncy at second some, Busch, who was more athletic, could possibly be moved there. He was so bad he was moved across the diamond, where he was equally bad. He was also equally bad in the outfield. It’s fun to think otherwise but it’s simply not true. Now, it certainly is possible to improve defense, Busch proved that at first base but there is a very valid reason he played first base in college and was given a 30 grade on defense. You can quote the google recommendation all you like but it won’t make it true. I mentioned Vargas , he was playing 2b before Betts moved over , and Vargas was rated #3 above Shaw #4 in their pipeline ratings for 2023 . At the time of the Busch trade I read a lot of Dodgers stuff and he was moved around to try to find a path to the majors not because he was failing at positions, you can think that if you want , but to use your own words, it's simply not true. I'm not saying he was good at them , but it was more about a path and not him not being able to handle the position. Oh we are back tracking now. Cool cool. If Busch, now hear me out, if Busch was a viable option at second base, they would NOT have re-signed Heyward to play right and move their gold glove MVP player to shortstop would they? Mind blown? Vargas was playing second because the idea was Lux was a question mark. If Busch was a viable option to play second, he had a clear path to at the very least start the season but he wasn’t. He was such a non-option they moved Betts to short and re-signed Heyward. |
|
|
|
Post by batman66 on Oct 24, 2024 11:17:59 GMT -5
oK, we can go round and round with this forever. The ENTIRE premise of me thinking NOW would be the best time to trade Nico is about the probably fact he's not going to be here beyond 2026 with the amount of middle infield talent they have in the system. So the entire thing is WHEN do you part ways with him? So , do you #1 keep him and let him play 2b for the next 2 seasons and try to find Shaw and whoever else is ready at bats and then let him walk in free agency possibly with no compensation because I'm not sure they slap a QO on him because who knows if he'd take the QO which is going to be higher than any AAV he'd probably get in free agency. They are not going to sign him to another extension , it would make no sense at all with all the infield prospects they have, so again it's all about when do you part ways with him? #2 start the season with him and if Shaw is killing it in AAA decide to trade Nico during the season. This I'd actually maybe be in favor of this one , but again I don't think the Cubs would trade him if the season is going well during the season , The only way I see them trading him during the season is if they are not contending , #3 trade him now when he has 2 full years value to a team he's going to which likely gets you a better return and run with Shaw or Triantos. We don't know what Shaw is going to do in the majors, but when you have a top 25 prospect who's minor league career numbers are .303 avg .384 obp .522 slg .906 ops and has shown no real red flags anywhere I don't think it's a huge gamble to chance he takes off with the job and you also have Triantos as another option. And Taillon , all I'm going to say is if it comes down to having to move him and his contract to fit Burnes or another better starter in, it's a no thought move, trade him. If they aren't signing Burnes, sure there are others out there, Snell, and Fried might be worth trading Taillon away to be able to sign, but not guys like Flaherty and some others. My opinion is keep Nico, unless something bigger happens that justifies it, play Shaw as a utility player since we lack depth and have a huge question mark at third base in Paredes (maybe not a huge question mark but a concern). If/when Shaw plays well enough to justify a trade of either Hoerner or Paredes, then do it. If that is mid-season or next season or not at all. Cubs only need to move Taillon if they add a 30+ million dollar starter. I’m not saying to trade him to trade him but if you can improve the starting staff with a bonafide ace, you’re going to have to move Taillon. The Cubs have options for the back of the rotation, Brown, Pearson, Horton, Wesneski, Wicks, Birdsell etc. The fifth starter is a development position and easily covered with DFA or minor trades if absolutely need be. Not so easy if you swing and miss with Shaw at second. Circling back to a mid-season trade if Hoerner or Paredes, it makes sense if it makes sense. If it doesn’t make sense, then you don’t trade anyone. If it does, you do. There is always an option and neither are free agents at the end of the year. Maximizing value in trade only makes since if it doesn’t minimize the MLB teams potential. Lastly, I think you need to have Nico as a back up shortstop and you have to continue to let Shaw play all over the diamond. The ideal progression would be Shaw taking over second and Cam Smith taking over third but that isn’t a given. If the Cubs keep Triantos, odds are he will need to play second so I think the best idea is to keep Shaw as a utility player and maintain his versatility I don't hate that , it's the safest route. I just think Shaw and Smith are the future and not Nico or Parades and Shaw is ready now. My problem with having Shaw as a utility guy is it's tougher to get him regular at bats which he needs , Counsell seems to be a guy who likes to run out set line ups and not change them up all the time and he also might be more at ease knowing he's playing and playing one position and not multiple positions to worry about on any given day. |
|
|
|
Post by kfidd on Oct 24, 2024 11:21:33 GMT -5
The key there is your last sentiment. “I just hope they do.” You and all of us. But the reason we are even having any of this discussion is because this front office hasn’t given any supporting evidence for that hope with their play it safe, play their version of smart baseball approach. That mentality is what leads to statements that have been made like “the lineup is actually really freaking good” or that the 2024 Cubs biggest demise was poor depth off the bench and not poor production from the expensive veteran regulars. It continues to ignore the piss poor offensive production for over 80 games that we all witnessed. The Cubs should be in a good position to build a winner. We all said the same thing this time last offseason when they had a stronger second half, a top 5 rated farm system, and being in the third largest sports market in this country. They went out and won the exact same number of games: 83, while failing to sign Ohtani. The same will likely happen with Soto this offseason. The only hope is that they create some avenues for the youth influx that needed to happen yesterday and the most realistic way for that to happen is with the trading of Hoerner (whose return could help shore up another weakness like C, 3B, CL, etc) and addition by subtraction with owning the Paredes mistake and moving on. I’ll believe it when I see it. I don't think anybody is really wrong here, they could have been a playoff team had players played up to what they expected of them and I'm not pointing fingers at one guy intentionally , but rather using him as an example because there was a lot that contributed to why they didn't make the playoffs but Swanson is one guy , he was giving them nothing for long period of time when he's a guy they look at as a key player. BUT that mentality that we can be a playoff team if players play up to expectations isn't good enough and should NOT be how they think. And I point to Counsell's comment about them needing to build a 90+ win team. In todays game you can't count on all players to meet expectations, you build a roster to be as strong as possible knowing things will go wrong. Look at the Dodgers, they are in the WS and spent 350 million and don't have 3 healthy starting pitchers to start playoff games but are strong enough as a team to overcome that. Bingo. If the Cubs enter 2025 hoping that Paredes learns how to slug to any other field than dead pull and relying on big upticks in production form Swanson, Hoerner, and Bellinger when they’ve shown who they are? The roster construction failure strikes again and the season will likely end in the exact same fashion the previous two did: a borderline .500 record. You can’t burn two months of the season hoping for things to play out when it comes to your offense. A bullpen? Yes. Identify and establish roles early based on performance (the Cubs couldn’t not do this in 2024 because they entered the season with exactly one option-able pen arm. Roster construction). But if you burn two months observing Paredes and Hoerner and they continue to be the same player, the the response of promoting a Shaw/top prospect ready to go and then relying on them to immediately give more is nonsense. Most prospects are going to be extremely inconsistent. They come up and should still be considered as developing. Look at PCA and his track to success (which everyone should absolutely by ready to experience ups and downs with next season as well). You run big risk burning two months on poor production (specifically from third base) then promoting an unproven prospect who is likely to go through growing pains. This thought process has done our talented minor league system zero good. It’s why we have all bitched and moaned about the failure for consecutive seasons now to promote those ready prospects in the second half and give them an extensive look at what they need to work on over the offseason alongside the coaching staff. Two seasons in a row we’ve had dreadful first halves offensively and yet there is still conversation of doing this again. Pick. A. Lane. The obvious lanes are to improve with proven and consistent offensive played via trade and free agency or to turn the ball over to our supposed prized youth. Both of these lanes include shedding dead weight (Paredes) and the overvalued Hoerner. |
|
|
|
Post by happy on Oct 24, 2024 11:23:54 GMT -5
Nobody's opinion is right or wrong, in the end we're a bunch of message board fans giving our opinions that mean nothing to the organization. So, my opinion, is that the Cubs biggest mistake was not trading Tallion at the deadline. You all know how much I wanted the Cubs to move off that contract and they would not have gone over the tax with Paredes. They were fooled again but a team that got hot a couple weeks before the deadline thinking they were worthy of faith that they could compete. This staved off selling the spare parts, Taillon included and I’d add guys like Hoerner, Tauchman, Wisdom, Merryweather, etc to that list, which continued the theme of roster road blocks that disallowed the promotion of prospects for their first exposure to MLB pitching down the stretch of a non-competitive season. All this talk about Shaw and Caissie and not having an inkling of who they are and how they can contribute. Wouldn’t it be a good thing to have gotten them some crucial development at bats in September at bare minimum to get a leg up for the offseason and next spring? Continuity. It’s the favorite word of this regime. Play it safe, stay in the middle. Hope for breakout years. It’s being repeated in this idea of depth being our biggest issue last season. Bullshit. The current Cubs of these last two seasons have had high floors. It’s a sentiment that has been shared entering each of the last two seasons in the predictions thread. “The Cubs are at bare minimum a .500ish team. If career years happen? Look out.” The Cubs were not an 83 win last season because of poor depth. For all the excusing some like to do for the offense regarding injuries, people forget that injury depth is unlikely to equate to above average replacement production. In fact, the likely only time you’ll ever find that is if you promote a prospect for their chance to fill in and their talent takes over (remember the two separate occasions Hoerner was injured for over a week yet they kept him on the roster, eating up a bench spot, rather than promoting a young fill-in? Cubs baseball). Tauchman had a 111 wRC+ this season. Wisdom had a 95 wRC+ in the first half where we dealt with the injuries to Suzuki, Happ, and Bellinger. The bench was fine and pointing at them as the primary issue on offense this season is both placing unrealistic expectations on what kind of players your bench can support while also providing a cop out for the weakness of veterans to step up when needed. Hoerner and Swanson were awful in the first half. Bellinger, our big offensive “addition” last offseason, had a 108 wRC+ through June. Happ and Suzuki were for the most part who you’d expect them to be (Happ 129, Suzuki 127). The problem was the lack of oomph talent to take over and carry them. But, as we always indicate, the problem is roster construction. You have good offensive players at the outfield corners (that everyone wants to trade for some reason). You have an expensive Bellinger that had every indicating sign pointing to him taking a big dip offensively to being an above average but far from great player. We have a middle infield that is extremely glove first, which normally isn’t a bad thing but the construction of this roster says otherwise. This becomes further embodied by the addition of a multi year commitment downward spiral hitter in Paredes. Can he make the adjustments? He better be able to, but anyone just believing they can because he was good in 2023 and for 1 month in 2024 being an effective but extremely one dimensional player is fooling themselves. This is the Cubs way of recent years. Good but not great. Hope for breakout rather than proven consistency. Jed’s version of “smart” baseball. The Cubs did not win just 83 games in back to back seasons because of a perceived lack of capable depth. They have now won 83 games in back to back seasons because their everyday players simply haven’t been good enough. A bench is important but doesn’t supersede the need for Bellinger to be better or our 35+ million dollar middle infield to give better than a combined .640 OPS in the first half. And if the response is that they were injured? I can buy that. But playing them through injury delaying any hope for recovery while letting young players like Vazquez, Shaw, Triantos, etc sit in AA-AAA when we are already 5+ games under .500 becomes the next talking point. Poor roster construction, poor handling of injuries. I’m just going to comment on your last paragraph and hammer home depth. The reason Shaw and Triantos were never consider, same as Caissie, is because they were NOT on the 40 man and due to our poor depth we were wasting 40 man spots. (Also they didn’t want to lose any option years). The Cubs will be in better shape because (I believe) Caissie, Shaw, Triantos, Alcántara will all be on the 40 man. Alcántara has been but hasn’t been remotely ready. Cubs likely will non-tender Wisdom, Madrigal, probably Mastrobuoni, Davis and Mervis |
|
|
|
Post by batman66 on Oct 24, 2024 11:27:17 GMT -5
I mentioned Vargas , he was playing 2b before Betts moved over , and Vargas was rated #3 above Shaw #4 in their pipeline ratings for 2023 . At the time of the Busch trade I read a lot of Dodgers stuff and he was moved around to try to find a path to the majors not because he was failing at positions, you can think that if you want , but to use your own words, it's simply not true. I'm not saying he was good at them , but it was more about a path and not him not being able to handle the position. Oh we are back tracking now. Cool cool. If Busch, now hear me out, if Busch was a viable option at second base, they would NOT have re-signed Heyward to play right and move their gold glove MVP player to shortstop would they? Mind blown? Vargas was playing second because the idea was Lux was a question mark. If Busch was a viable option to play second, he had a clear path to at the very least start the season but he wasn’t. He was such a non-option they moved Betts to short and re-signed Heyward. I did mention Vargas after I talked about Betts being the 2b , I forgot who started where .Vargas was ranked higher in their system is younger and a better fielder and like you mentioned they still had Lux coming back from injury at some point I'm going to stick with what I read coming from Dodgers fans and publications about why he was moved around. |
|
|
|
Post by happy on Oct 24, 2024 11:31:29 GMT -5
Oh we are back tracking now. Cool cool. If Busch, now hear me out, if Busch was a viable option at second base, they would NOT have re-signed Heyward to play right and move their gold glove MVP player to shortstop would they? Mind blown? Vargas was playing second because the idea was Lux was a question mark. If Busch was a viable option to play second, he had a clear path to at the very least start the season but he wasn’t. He was such a non-option they moved Betts to short and re-signed Heyward. I did mention Vargas after I talked about Betts being the 2b , I forgot who started where .Vargas was ranked higher in their system is younger and a better fielder and like you mentioned they still had Lux coming back from injury at some point I'm going to stick with what I read coming from Dodgers fans and publications about why he was moved around. I’ll stick with he is a 30/30 fielder with a poor arm and every dodger fan I ever saw mention Busch said he was a butcher at second and third. |
|
|
|
Post by kfidd on Oct 24, 2024 11:36:49 GMT -5
They were fooled again but a team that got hot a couple weeks before the deadline thinking they were worthy of faith that they could compete. This staved off selling the spare parts, Taillon included and I’d add guys like Hoerner, Tauchman, Wisdom, Merryweather, etc to that list, which continued the theme of roster road blocks that disallowed the promotion of prospects for their first exposure to MLB pitching down the stretch of a non-competitive season. All this talk about Shaw and Caissie and not having an inkling of who they are and how they can contribute. Wouldn’t it be a good thing to have gotten them some crucial development at bats in September at bare minimum to get a leg up for the offseason and next spring? Continuity. It’s the favorite word of this regime. Play it safe, stay in the middle. Hope for breakout years. It’s being repeated in this idea of depth being our biggest issue last season. Bullshit. The current Cubs of these last two seasons have had high floors. It’s a sentiment that has been shared entering each of the last two seasons in the predictions thread. “The Cubs are at bare minimum a .500ish team. If career years happen? Look out.” The Cubs were not an 83 win last season because of poor depth. For all the excusing some like to do for the offense regarding injuries, people forget that injury depth is unlikely to equate to above average replacement production. In fact, the likely only time you’ll ever find that is if you promote a prospect for their chance to fill in and their talent takes over (remember the two separate occasions Hoerner was injured for over a week yet they kept him on the roster, eating up a bench spot, rather than promoting a young fill-in? Cubs baseball). Tauchman had a 111 wRC+ this season. Wisdom had a 95 wRC+ in the first half where we dealt with the injuries to Suzuki, Happ, and Bellinger. The bench was fine and pointing at them as the primary issue on offense this season is both placing unrealistic expectations on what kind of players your bench can support while also providing a cop out for the weakness of veterans to step up when needed. Hoerner and Swanson were awful in the first half. Bellinger, our big offensive “addition” last offseason, had a 108 wRC+ through June. Happ and Suzuki were for the most part who you’d expect them to be (Happ 129, Suzuki 127). The problem was the lack of oomph talent to take over and carry them. But, as we always indicate, the problem is roster construction. You have good offensive players at the outfield corners (that everyone wants to trade for some reason). You have an expensive Bellinger that had every indicating sign pointing to him taking a big dip offensively to being an above average but far from great player. We have a middle infield that is extremely glove first, which normally isn’t a bad thing but the construction of this roster says otherwise. This becomes further embodied by the addition of a multi year commitment downward spiral hitter in Paredes. Can he make the adjustments? He better be able to, but anyone just believing they can because he was good in 2023 and for 1 month in 2024 being an effective but extremely one dimensional player is fooling themselves. This is the Cubs way of recent years. Good but not great. Hope for breakout rather than proven consistency. Jed’s version of “smart” baseball. The Cubs did not win just 83 games in back to back seasons because of a perceived lack of capable depth. They have now won 83 games in back to back seasons because their everyday players simply haven’t been good enough. A bench is important but doesn’t supersede the need for Bellinger to be better or our 35+ million dollar middle infield to give better than a combined .640 OPS in the first half. And if the response is that they were injured? I can buy that. But playing them through injury delaying any hope for recovery while letting young players like Vazquez, Shaw, Triantos, etc sit in AA-AAA when we are already 5+ games under .500 becomes the next talking point. Poor roster construction, poor handling of injuries. I’m just going to comment on your last paragraph and hammer home depth. The reason Shaw and Triantos were never consider, same as Caissie, is because they were NOT on the 40 man and due to our poor depth we were wasting 40 man spots. (Also they didn’t want to lose any option years). The Cubs will be in better shape because (I believe) Caissie, Shaw, Triantos, Alcántara will all be on the 40 man. Alcántara has been but hasn’t been remotely ready. Cubs likely will non-tender Wisdom, Madrigal, probably Mastrobuoni, Davis and Mervis The conversation is about the biggest issue in 2024 which you said was lack of quality depth. I disagree. But even if we but that idea it goes right back to the other thing I’ve said upteenth times and yet get people all feisty over and that’s poor roster construction. The front office had every chance at the trade deadline and in the second half to make roster wiggle room at they didn’t. But even beyond that! There is a difference between guys being on the 40man in the minors and guys being on the 40man and on the bench. Young talented hitting prospects should not be riding the bench. They need to be playing everyday, whether that be at the big league level or the minor leagues. So that’s fine that we should have a more capable bunch of youth talented hitters on the 40man but those guys also shouldn’t be on the bench that you are criticizing as too thin. The bench would be comprised of niche role players like every other bench in baseball is. Versatile defenders, long ball threat, speed demon, etc. Regarding 2024 though, we had young players on the 40man that should have gotten their chance when guys like Hoerner, Swanson, and Suzuki went down. Canario got 24 at bats this season and performed quite well in those opportunities. He would rarely be seen after April. Vazquez got 12 sporadic at bats over the course of multiple months on the roster and had practically no opportunity to play and develop any consistency. Counsell burned over 10 games this season with Hoerner eating up a roster spot rather than IL him for god knows what reason. At ANY time the Cubs could have traded or cut ways with so many of these ineffective role players we are discussing, but they didn’t. Why is that? You can’t have it both ways. The bench is too thin but will be better next season (in theory) when those young players find themselves on the 40man? If they are on the bench they will likely be just as ineffective if not more so that veteran players who have been there and done that. Because bench players fill specialized roles in today’s game. If the everyday regulars aren’t cutting it to the point of needing to be platooned as part time players? A good organization intending to compete upgrades those positions, not bandaids them. |
|
|
|
Post by kfidd on Oct 24, 2024 11:44:22 GMT -5
I did mention Vargas after I talked about Betts being the 2b , I forgot who started where .Vargas was ranked higher in their system is younger and a better fielder and like you mentioned they still had Lux coming back from injury at some point I'm going to stick with what I read coming from Dodgers fans and publications about why he was moved around. I’ll stick with he is a 30/30 fielder with a poor arm and every dodger fan I ever saw mention Busch said he was a butcher at second and third. Everyone said he was a butcher at first base as well yet he was quite excellent there this season. The truth is that very few people ever saw Busch field a position in the minors and that includes every Dodger buddy of yours who reads the same publications and news feeds as we all do. Busch proven himself a capable and athletic fielder this season. As far as his time in LA? The Dodgers don’t fuck around like the Cubs do. If they have a chance to grab Freeman and Ohtani? They are going to do it. Lux was hyped beyond words at one point as their next tremendous hitting talent and was going to get everyday opportunity to exceed at second base. Vargas was a more well regarded prospect than Busch was and deserving of opportunities too. Muncy averaged 32 home runs annually from 2018-2023 and was always going to have a home somewhere. And Betts made it known he is versatile and capable and that gave the Dodgers huge flexibility in optimizing their roster. But maybe the biggest talking point in all of this is one that isn’t being discussed at all, and that’s the Dodgers offense. They already built an incredible core group of offensive weapons. They have the luxury of prioritizing defense in their roster construction to help shore up their pitching weaknesses because their offense can already carry them. That’s why the rumors of their interest in Hoerner were everywhere at the last deadline. The Cubs don’t have that luxury to prioritize defense so heavily right now because their offense has been so lacking at times. When a Hoerner is barely scraping by as a 100 wRC+ player and posting a .710 OPS we need to consider other options. |
|
|
|
Post by batman66 on Oct 24, 2024 11:45:08 GMT -5
I did mention Vargas after I talked about Betts being the 2b , I forgot who started where .Vargas was ranked higher in their system is younger and a better fielder and like you mentioned they still had Lux coming back from injury at some point I'm going to stick with what I read coming from Dodgers fans and publications about why he was moved around. I’ll stick with he is a 30/30 fielder with a poor arm and every dodger fan I ever saw mention Busch said he was a butcher at second and third. according to pipeline he's a 45/40 and this Though Busch has fringy speed and arm strength, he has worked hard to improve his quickness and arm since turning pro. Evaluators inside and outside of the Dodgers organization were impressed at how he has transformed himself into an adequate defender at second base, though Los Angeles deployed him primarily at third base in 2023. The game speeds up on him at the hot corner, however, and he's still best suited for first base and capable of playing a passable left field |
|
|
|
Post by happy on Oct 24, 2024 11:50:48 GMT -5
I’m just going to comment on your last paragraph and hammer home depth. The reason Shaw and Triantos were never consider, same as Caissie, is because they were NOT on the 40 man and due to our poor depth we were wasting 40 man spots. (Also they didn’t want to lose any option years). The Cubs will be in better shape because (I believe) Caissie, Shaw, Triantos, Alcántara will all be on the 40 man. Alcántara has been but hasn’t been remotely ready. Cubs likely will non-tender Wisdom, Madrigal, probably Mastrobuoni, Davis and Mervis The conversation is about the biggest issue in 2024 which you said was lack of quality depth. I disagree. But even if we but that idea it goes right back to the other thing I’ve said upteenth times and yet get people all feisty over and that’s poor roster construction. The front office had every chance at the trade deadline and in the second half to make roster wiggle room at they didn’t. But even beyond that! There is a difference between guys being on the 40man in the minors and guys being on the 40man and on the bench. Young talented hitting prospects should not be riding the bench. They need to be playing everyday, whether that be at the big league level or the minor leagues. So that’s fine that we should have a more capable bunch of youth talented hitters on the 40man but those guys also shouldn’t be on the bench that you are criticizing as too thin. The bench would be comprised of niche role players like every other bench in baseball is. Versatile defenders, long ball threat, speed demon, etc. Regarding 2024 though, we had young players on the 40man that should have gotten their chance when guys like Hoerner, Swanson, and Suzuki went down. Canario got 24 at bats this season and performed quite well in those opportunities. He would rarely be seen after April. Vazquez got 12 sporadic at bats over the course of multiple months on the roster and had practically no opportunity to play and develop any consistency. Counsell burned over 10 games this season with Hoerner eating up a roster spot rather than IL him for god knows what reason. At ANY time the Cubs could have traded or cut ways with so many of these ineffective role players we are discussing, but they didn’t. Why is that? You can’t have it both ways. The bench is too thin but will be better next season (in theory) when those young players find themselves on the 40man? If they are on the bench they will likely be just as ineffective if not more so that veteran players who have been there and done that. Because bench players fill specialized roles in today’s game. If the everyday regulars aren’t cutting it to the point of needing to be platooned as part time players? A good organization intending to compete upgrades those positions, not bandaids them. Now, first, I will say it was inexcusable to continue to have Wisdom, Mastrobuoni on the roster period but you’re missing the bigger picture of 40 man construction. Canario was hurt which is why he was never called up later in the season. CC was also committed to PCA in center. I don’t know why the Cubs didn’t utilize Vazquez. The bench is emergency back up. We need a guy, like Shaw, you can fold in and get plenty of at bats. He can play multiple positions so it should be easy to get him regular at bats. Then, if Bellinger opts out, you have Tauchman as a 4th outfielder, you carry a catcher and a guy who is just a specialist. If someone gets hurt during the game you call on your Swiss Army knife or emergency back up. You tap the 40 man for Il replacements, get your high valued prospects regular playing time and a look in those situations. The Cubs didn’t have that 40 man option last season. The 40 man was primarily of guys who weren’t ready (Alcántara/Davis) and relievers because a lot of our relievers, especially early on, didn’t have option years left. You cannot have a pen that lacks multiple guys with options. |
|
|
|
Post by batman66 on Oct 24, 2024 11:57:36 GMT -5
I’ll stick with he is a 30/30 fielder with a poor arm and every dodger fan I ever saw mention Busch said he was a butcher at second and third. Everyone said he was a butcher at first base as well yet he was quite excellent there this season. The truth is that very few people ever saw Busch field a position in the minors and that includes every Dodger buddy of yours who reads the same publications and news feeds as we all do. Busch proven himself a capable and athletic fielder this season. As far as his time in LA? The Dodgers don’t fuck around like the Cubs do. If they have a chance to grab Freeman and Ohtani? They are going to do it. Lux was hyped beyond words at one point as their next tremendous hitting talent and was going to get everyday opportunity to exceed at second base. Vargas was a more well regarded prospect than Busch was and deserving of opportunities too. Muncy averaged 32 home runs annually from 2018-2023 and was always going to have a home somewhere. And Betts made it known he is versatile and capable and that gave the Dodgers huge flexibility in optimizing their roster. But maybe the biggest talking point in all of this is one that isn’t being discussed at all, and that’s the Dodgers offense. They already built an incredible core group of offensive weapons. They have the luxury of prioritizing defense in their roster construction to help shore up their pitching weaknesses because their offense can already carry them. That’s why the rumors of their interest in Hoerner were everywhere at the last deadline. The Cubs don’t have that luxury to prioritize defense so heavily right now because their offense has been so lacking at times. When a Hoerner is barely scraping by as a 100 wRC+ player and posting a .710 OPS we need to consider other options. <<But maybe the biggest talking point in all of this is one that isn’t being discussed at all, and that’s the Dodgers offense. They already built an incredible core group of offensive weapons. They have the luxury of prioritizing defense in their roster construction to help shore up their pitching weaknesses because their offense can already carry them>> BINGO !! They sure as hell didn't obtain Heyward for his offense . And that's why Vargas who was rated higher in their system got the 2b job to start the season , he was younger and a better defender and also another thing to consider when it comes to who to deal and who to keep is I'm sure Busch had a LOT more trade value as a prospect because of his bat than Vargas did. Dodgers got two pieces of their future for Busch. And I'm not saying Busch is a good fielder, my entire point is he was moved around more so because they were trying to find a path to the majors for him , had he been a better fielder they might have , but he also didn't hit in his brief time and they don't have the patience for that. I guess I started this all by saying he could be an option at 2b and Happy said he's not because he's brutal there , from everything I had read he was not brutal but nothing more than passable. Which was what they also thought about 1b and he showed great improvement there. |
|
|
|
Post by happy on Oct 24, 2024 12:12:01 GMT -5
Everyone said he was a butcher at first base as well yet he was quite excellent there this season. The truth is that very few people ever saw Busch field a position in the minors and that includes every Dodger buddy of yours who reads the same publications and news feeds as we all do. Busch proven himself a capable and athletic fielder this season. As far as his time in LA? The Dodgers don’t fuck around like the Cubs do. If they have a chance to grab Freeman and Ohtani? They are going to do it. Lux was hyped beyond words at one point as their next tremendous hitting talent and was going to get everyday opportunity to exceed at second base. Vargas was a more well regarded prospect than Busch was and deserving of opportunities too. Muncy averaged 32 home runs annually from 2018-2023 and was always going to have a home somewhere. And Betts made it known he is versatile and capable and that gave the Dodgers huge flexibility in optimizing their roster. But maybe the biggest talking point in all of this is one that isn’t being discussed at all, and that’s the Dodgers offense. They already built an incredible core group of offensive weapons. They have the luxury of prioritizing defense in their roster construction to help shore up their pitching weaknesses because their offense can already carry them. That’s why the rumors of their interest in Hoerner were everywhere at the last deadline. The Cubs don’t have that luxury to prioritize defense so heavily right now because their offense has been so lacking at times. When a Hoerner is barely scraping by as a 100 wRC+ player and posting a .710 OPS we need to consider other options. <<But maybe the biggest talking point in all of this is one that isn’t being discussed at all, and that’s the Dodgers offense. They already built an incredible core group of offensive weapons. They have the luxury of prioritizing defense in their roster construction to help shore up their pitching weaknesses because their offense can already carry them>> BINGO !! They sure as hell didn't obtain Heyward for his offense . And that's why Vargas who was rated higher in their system got the 2b job to start the season , he was younger and a better defender and also another thing to consider when it comes to who to deal and who to keep is I'm sure Busch had a LOT more trade value as a prospect because of his bat than Vargas did. Dodgers got two pieces of their future for Busch. And I'm not saying Busch is a good fielder, my entire point is he was moved around more so because they were trying to find a path to the majors for him , had he been a better fielder they might have , but he also didn't hit in his brief time and they don't have the patience for that. I guess I started this all by saying he could be an option at 2b and Happy said he's not because he's brutal there , from everything I had read he was not brutal but nothing more than passable. Which was what they also thought about 1b and he showed great improvement there. Bat, please look at Heyward’s stats in LA for 2023 before commenting. I’m positive a World Series aspiring team like LA took into considering “trade value” when determining who to keep. It definitely seems logical (note sarcasm). I guess all his college teams have better “prospects” playing second base too which is why he logged all of 15 games there. I guess Busch would be fine at second base. Much like Morel was fine at third base and Schwarber is fine in left. |
|
|
|
Post by batman66 on Oct 24, 2024 12:12:38 GMT -5
The conversation is about the biggest issue in 2024 which you said was lack of quality depth. I disagree. But even if we but that idea it goes right back to the other thing I’ve said upteenth times and yet get people all feisty over and that’s poor roster construction. The front office had every chance at the trade deadline and in the second half to make roster wiggle room at they didn’t. But even beyond that! There is a difference between guys being on the 40man in the minors and guys being on the 40man and on the bench. Young talented hitting prospects should not be riding the bench. They need to be playing everyday, whether that be at the big league level or the minor leagues. So that’s fine that we should have a more capable bunch of youth talented hitters on the 40man but those guys also shouldn’t be on the bench that you are criticizing as too thin. The bench would be comprised of niche role players like every other bench in baseball is. Versatile defenders, long ball threat, speed demon, etc. Regarding 2024 though, we had young players on the 40man that should have gotten their chance when guys like Hoerner, Swanson, and Suzuki went down. Canario got 24 at bats this season and performed quite well in those opportunities. He would rarely be seen after April. Vazquez got 12 sporadic at bats over the course of multiple months on the roster and had practically no opportunity to play and develop any consistency. Counsell burned over 10 games this season with Hoerner eating up a roster spot rather than IL him for god knows what reason. At ANY time the Cubs could have traded or cut ways with so many of these ineffective role players we are discussing, but they didn’t. Why is that? You can’t have it both ways. The bench is too thin but will be better next season (in theory) when those young players find themselves on the 40man? If they are on the bench they will likely be just as ineffective if not more so that veteran players who have been there and done that. Because bench players fill specialized roles in today’s game. If the everyday regulars aren’t cutting it to the point of needing to be platooned as part time players? A good organization intending to compete upgrades those positions, not bandaids them. Now, first, I will say it was inexcusable to continue to have Wisdom, Mastrobuoni on the roster period but you’re missing the bigger picture of 40 man construction. Canario was hurt which is why he was never called up later in the season. CC was also committed to PCA in center. I don’t know why the Cubs didn’t utilize Vazquez. The bench is emergency back up. We need a guy, like Shaw, you can fold in and get plenty of at bats. He can play multiple positions so it should be easy to get him regular at bats. Then, if Bellinger opts out, you have Tauchman as a 4th outfielder, you carry a catcher and a guy who is just a specialist. If someone gets hurt during the game you call on your Swiss Army knife or emergency back up. You tap the 40 man for Il replacements, get your high valued prospects regular playing time and a look in those situations. The Cubs didn’t have that 40 man option last season. The 40 man was primarily of guys who weren’t ready (Alcántara/Davis) and relievers because a lot of our relievers, especially early on, didn’t have option years left. You cannot have a pen that lacks multiple guys with options. I don't know what to think about the 2024 season anymore. I look back to 2023 and them being undecided and looking like they would sell at the deadline and the Swanson convincing Jed to add and not subtract because they thought they could make the playoffs.........I get that , you want to give a guy you just signed to your biggest contract some assurance you believe in him and his team in a season you were only really having an outside hope you'd be contending when 2024 was more their vision. 2024 they were a Jekyl and Hyde team and again bordering on contention for the playoffs and have the we just gotta get in anybody can win if you are vision. What should have been the vision is well everything would have to go right for this team to win in the playoffs so lets look more at 2025 and maybe get a look at two guys who are supposed to be major parts of the core Caissie and Shaw and that could have been done by letting go of Wisdom and not trading for Paredes. There were multiple injuries to OF's that could have warranted Caissie coming up and getting playing time and they could have put Shaw at 3b . It's not ideal throwing rookies into the fire, but it sure would probably give them a better idea about what they might be able to do for them in 2025 than it would having them stay in Iowa. Instead they clung to the hope of making a 3rd wild card spot and trotted out the same line up day after day and these kids could have gotten some valuable experience seeing major league pitching. |
|
