Series Thread: Cubs @ Brewers

trwi7 · Post #161 » by **trwi7** » Thu Apr 6, 2017 8:18 pm

What a shock. Rockies **** offense goes 1-2-3.

Post #162 » by **ReasonablySober** » Thu Apr 6, 2017 8:19 pm

trwi7 wrote:What a garbage offense the Rockies have that will look good because of Coors. **** Kirk too.

Guys playing well and increasing their trade value is worth more than going from the #9 to the #5 spot in the draft.

trwi7 · Post #163 » by **trwi7** » Thu Apr 6, 2017 8:26 pm

Is Bud Black trying to tank with these match up decisions or is he just (Please Use More Appropriate Word)?

trwi7 · Post #164 » by **trwi7** » Thu Apr 6, 2017 8:32 pm

Rockies announcers are so much better than ours.

wichmae · Post #165 » by **wichmae** » Thu Apr 6, 2017 8:34 pm

ReasonablySober wrote:
trwi7 wrote:What a garbage offense the Rockies have that will look good because of Coors. **** Kirk too.

Guys playing well and increasing their trade value is worth more than going from the #9 to the #5 spot in the draft.

Kirk isnt going to increase any trade value at this point. I can buy arguments for other players but a journeyman soon to be 30 year old Kirk isnt going to fetch anything no matter how hot he gets.

Iheartfootball · Post #166 » by **Iheartfootball** » Thu Apr 6, 2017 8:36 pm

Annnnnnd that oughta do it folks. Pitching sucks. Yuck.

wichmae · Post #167 » by **wichmae** » Thu Apr 6, 2017 8:39 pm

Yeah probably not a good idea to leave a fastball down the plate to Arenado no matter how hard you throw.

dbrodz7 · Post #168 » by **dbrodz7** » Thu Apr 6, 2017 8:53 pm

That was all-time bad Uecker call. Listening to the game in my cube: bottom of the 9th two outs, Braun at the plate "GET UP GET UP GET OUTTA HERE CAUGHT AT THE WALL!"

Thunder Muscle · Post #169 » by **Thunder Muscle** » Thu Apr 6, 2017 8:53 pm

wichmae wrote:Yeah probably not a good idea to leave a fastball down the plate to Arenado no matter how hard you throw.

Especially when its **** 0-2.

Uecker gets my hopes up on Braun hit. Get up, Get outta here....off the wall....caught! Haha, siiiiiiiiigh.

trwi7 · Post #170 » by **trwi7** » Thu Apr 6, 2017 8:55 pm

ReasonablySober wrote:
trwi7 wrote:What a garbage offense the Rockies have that will look good because of Coors. **** Kirk too.

Guys playing well and increasing their trade value is worth more than going from the #9 to the #5 spot in the draft.

I've asked before and never gotten an answer. What players do we have that are going to return prospects as good or better than being in the top 5 of the draft as well as the associated bonus pool money?

I don't really need an answer because I know it and the answer is none of our players are going to return that.

Post #171 » by **ReasonablySober** » Thu Apr 6, 2017 9:01 pm

trwi7 wrote:
ReasonablySober wrote:
trwi7 wrote:What a garbage offense the Rockies have that will look good because of Coors. **** Kirk too.

Guys playing well and increasing their trade value is worth more than going from the #9 to the #5 spot in the draft.

I've asked before and never gotten an answer. What players do we have that are going to return prospects as good or better than being in the top 5 of the draft as well as the associated bonus pool money?

I don't really need an answer because I know it and the answer is none of our players are going to return that.

It's not a top five pick vs what's returned via trade. It's top five vs a later pick and what we get in a trade. This isn't the NBA where you generally know who's gonna be great and who won't be.

trwi7 · Post #172 » by **trwi7** » Thu Apr 6, 2017 9:04 pm

Okay, so tell me what players we have, that would be available if they play well that will have the amazing trade value you seem to think they'll have.

wichmae · Post #173 » by **wichmae** » Thu Apr 6, 2017 9:06 pm

Yeah. You cant leave a pitch there to Arenado no matter the count.

Read on Twitter

El Duderino · Post #174 » by **El Duderino** » Thu Apr 6, 2017 9:07 pm

ReasonablySober wrote:
trwi7 wrote:What a garbage offense the Rockies have that will look good because of Coors. **** Kirk too.

Guys playing well and increasing their trade value is worth more than going from the #9 to the #5 spot in the draft.

He wants the team to suck, no point in trying to change his mind.

I want the mostly young players to do well and if that means not landing a top 5 pick, so be it. On the flip side, if the team does end up being really bad and we do get a top 5 pick, so be it.

trwi7 · Post #175 » by **trwi7** » Thu Apr 6, 2017 9:10 pm

El Duderino wrote:
ReasonablySober wrote:
trwi7 wrote:What a garbage offense the Rockies have that will look good because of Coors. **** Kirk too.

Guys playing well and increasing their trade value is worth more than going from the #9 to the #5 spot in the draft.

He wants the team to suck, no point in trying to change his mind.

I want the mostly young players to do well and if that means not landing a top 5 pick, so be it. On the flip side, if the team does end up being really bad and we do get a top 5 pick, so be it.

I'd like us to actually fully commit to rebuilding. Not letting a guy like Diaz go with a bunch of **** on our 40 man. Not signing 30+ year olds to 3 year contracts because they hit well in Korea. Not using one of our best reliever assets to pick up a 27 year old. Not signing 28-32 year old relievers.

wichmae · Post #176 » by **wichmae** » Thu Apr 6, 2017 9:11 pm

ReasonablySober wrote:
trwi7 wrote:
ReasonablySober wrote:
Guys playing well and increasing their trade value is worth more than going from the #9 to the #5 spot in the draft.

I've asked before and never gotten an answer. What players do we have that are going to return prospects as good or better than being in the top 5 of the draft as well as the associated bonus pool money?

I don't really need an answer because I know it and the answer is none of our players are going to return that.

It's not a top five pick vs what's returned via trade. It's top five vs a later pick and what we get in a trade. This isn't the NBA where you generally know who's gonna be great and who won't be.

You just really cant make this argument anymore. The fodder that is mostly on the MLB roster now isnt going to return a ton of value as most of them are what they are at this point. Only guys you could possibly make this argument for is Villar, Santana, Arcia, and Thames (I guess Aguilar to a lessor extent too). The first three probably wont be traded and none of those players if they were traded would net a return as significant as being a top 5 selection as well as having that bonus pool. The draft has come a long ways in terms of being less of a crap shoot. Next draft is also the Seth Beer draft. As Ive said over and over and over again the bonus pool money matters a ton in this scenario and now that most the really tradeable assets are gone you have to pivot and use all directions to rebuild. That should also include big spending internationally and embracing losses on the big club.

Post #177 » by **ReasonablySober** » Thu Apr 6, 2017 9:12 pm

It's hilarious to me that anyone would have a problem signing a guy like Thames or Feliz.

Post #178 » by **ReasonablySober** » Thu Apr 6, 2017 9:13 pm

wichmae wrote:
ReasonablySober wrote:
trwi7 wrote:
I've asked before and never gotten an answer. What players do we have that are going to return prospects as good or better than being in the top 5 of the draft as well as the associated bonus pool money?

I don't really need an answer because I know it and the answer is none of our players are going to return that.

It's not a top five pick vs what's returned via trade. It's top five vs a later pick and what we get in a trade. This isn't the NBA where you generally know who's gonna be great and who won't be.

You just really cant make this argument anymore. The fodder that is mostly on the MLB roster now isnt going to return a ton of value as most of them are what they are at this point. Only guys you could possibly make this argument for is Villar, Santana, Arcia, and Thames (I guess Aguilar to a lessor extent too). The first three probably wont be traded and none of those players if they were traded would net a return as significant as being a top 5 selection as well as having that bonus pool. The draft has come a long ways in terms of being less of a crap shoot. Next draft is also the Seth Beer draft. As Ive said over and over and over again the bonus pool money matters a ton in this scenario and now that most the really tradeable assets are gone you have to pivot and use all directions to rebuild. That should also include big spending internationally and embracing losses on the big club.

Nah, not really.

trwi7 · Post #179 » by **trwi7** » Thu Apr 6, 2017 9:16 pm

ReasonablySober wrote:It's hilarious to me that anyone would have a problem signing a guy like Thames or Feliz.

What purpose do either serve? Thames to maybe win us a couple extra games this year? He's going to be in his mid-30s with a year left on his contract by the time we're looking to compete again.

Feliz, same thing. Decent reliever. Only have him for one year which kills his trade value. So what's the point?

It seems that either Mark is telling Stearns to sign some of these veteran guys so the team doesn't lose 100 games, which isn't good or Stearns is doing this himself and not really into rebuilding which also isn't good.

Post #180 » by **ReasonablySober** » Thu Apr 6, 2017 9:18 pm

trwi7 wrote:
ReasonablySober wrote:It's hilarious to me that anyone would have a problem signing a guy like Thames or Feliz.

What purpose do either serve? Thames to maybe win us a couple extra games this year? He's going to be in his mid-30s with a year left on his contract by the time we're looking to compete again.

Feliz, same thing. Decent reliever. Only have him for one year which kills his trade value. So what's the point?

It seems that either Mark is telling Stearns to sign some of these veteran guys so the team doesn't lose 100 games, which isn't good or Stearns is doing this himself and not really into rebuilding which also isn't good.

If they're good enough to affect draft positioning, which you seem to believe, they obviously have value in trade.

You're not making any sense.