âšľ MLB Official Baseball Thread

Turk

Huggers’ #3 Idol
TCG Premium
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
IMO, Henderson is a top 5 player, maybe 3, of all time. People forget how good of an all around player he was. He had pop in his bat, he worked the pitcher and took a ton of walks which is insane because he’s the last guy you’d ever want to walk, and played great defense.

He’s 19th overall in WAR, a stat that heavily favors homers and pitchers and there’s nobody younger than him ahead of him other than known steroid abusers.

I love this short tribute video.


View: https://youtu.be/j0uYnMbkhec?si=0km7fmr-phV2aJO9
 

Shawn1112

TCG Elite Member
TCG Premium
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Location
Streamwood
IMO, Henderson is a top 5 player, maybe 3, of all time. People forget how good of an all around player he was. He had pop in his bat, he worked the pitcher and took a ton of walks which is insane because he’s the last guy you’d ever want to walk, and played great defense.

He’s 19th overall in WAR, a stat that heavily favors homers and pitchers and there’s nobody younger than him ahead of him other than known steroid abusers.

I love this short tribute video.


View: https://youtu.be/j0uYnMbkhec?si=0km7fmr-phV2aJO9

I wouldn’t go that far, he was a GREAT player there is no denying that. But not top 5 if you’re counting pitchers on that list. I wouldn’t even call him a top 10 position player, top 30 sure. Only 1 MVP and 1 gold glove over 20+ years. WAR doesn’t favor HR at all, WAR is more so everything combined including defense and stolen bases. Stolen bases are the biggest reason he is 19th.
 

Turk

Huggers’ #3 Idol
TCG Premium
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
I wouldn’t go that far, he was a GREAT player there is no denying that. But not top 5 if you’re counting pitchers on that list. I wouldn’t even call him a top 10 position player, top 30 sure. Only 1 MVP and 1 gold glove over 20+ years. WAR doesn’t favor HR at all, WAR is more so everything combined including defense and stolen bases. Stolen bases are the biggest reason he is 19th.
Wouldn’t call him a top ten? He’s the greatest leadoff hitter of all time, nobody else is even close. Nobody performed better at their role than he did except Babe Ruth.
 

Shawn1112

TCG Elite Member
TCG Premium
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Location
Streamwood
Wouldn’t call him a top ten? He’s the greatest leadoff hitter of all time, nobody else is even close. Nobody performed better at their role than he did except Babe Ruth.
I don’t dispute him being the greatest leadoff hitter. That and the stolen bases don’t make someone top 10 all time. Your arguing due to your feelings because he was your favorite player of all time which is respectful.
 

Turk

Huggers’ #3 Idol
TCG Premium
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Too bad it didn’t help them in the playoffs 🧹. Pitching and defense win in the postseason
Sox had the best run differential in the AL that year. They ran into the team that would break the wins record the following year. It was bad luck.
 

Shawn1112

TCG Elite Member
TCG Premium
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Location
Streamwood
This Cub fan don’t make excuses, fuck everything you said. I don’t believe in any of it. If Alex Gonzalez makes the routine double play then Bartman isn’t even a conversation a year later. Anyone that blames Bartman is a fucking moron.
 

Dan00Hawk

TCG Elite Member
TCG Premium
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Location
Plainfield
Good move for Bergman to get paid. Good non-move for the Cubs to bow out and let the Red Sox overspend.
As much as folks complain about the Cubs being tight with the purse strings, this seems like an example of them realizing the value wasn't there.

I'm suspicious of the Cubs hitting the projected 90 wins (PECOTA). But if the drop off by the Brewers happens as predicted, then winning the division may finally be reality again. I'll remain cautiously optimistic though...
 

Shawn1112

TCG Elite Member
TCG Premium
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Location
Streamwood
Good move for Bergman to get paid. Good non-move for the Cubs to bow out and let the Red Sox overspend.
As much as folks complain about the Cubs being tight with the purse strings, this seems like an example of them realizing the value wasn't there.

I'm suspicious of the Cubs hitting the projected 90 wins (PECOTA). But if the drop off by the Brewers happens as predicted, then winning the division may finally be reality again. I'll remain cautiously optimistic though...
Bro, they should be winning the division damn near every year. They are competing against small market teams. The issue is the Cubs operate like a small market team as well. Not saying they should have gotten Bregman. Just overall, Rickets is a cheap cocksucker. No reason in hell they arent top 3-4 in spending year in and year out
 

Dan00Hawk

TCG Elite Member
TCG Premium
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Location
Plainfield
Bro, they should be winning the division damn near every year. They are competing against small market teams. The issue is the Cubs operate like a small market team as well. Not saying they should have gotten Bregman. Just overall, Rickets is a cheap cocksucker. No reason in hell they arent top 3-4 in spending year in and year out
I agree that I'd like to see the budget move up as it seems the Cubs are beyond the "rebuilding phase" of the last few years and should be back in the "win now" phase. Do the Cubs always need to spend like the Dodgers, Mets, and Yankees? Not all the time... Letting another team overspend isn't being cheap, but rather it's being smart about investing your money the right way and assigning value to a player appropriately. Although it'd be nice to just stay the fuck out of those rebuilding phases and stay competitive year in and year out for a change.
 

Shawn1112

TCG Elite Member
TCG Premium
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Location
Streamwood
I agree that I'd like to see the budget move up as it seems the Cubs are beyond the "rebuilding phase" of the last few years and should be back in the "win now" phase. Do the Cubs always need to spend like the Dodgers, Mets, and Yankees? Not all the time... Letting another team overspend isn't being cheap, but rather it's being smart about investing your money the right way and assigning value to a player appropriately. Although it'd be nice to just stay the fuck out of those rebuilding phases and stay competitive year in and year out for a change.
For them to not even put a competitive offer in for Soto was a complete slap in the face to the fans. Not that I would want them to pay what the Mets paid, but fuck, they could have made him a 10yr offer at $55m-$60m per and deferred some of the money. Even if he said no, which he would have, they at least tried. They dont have an Ace on the team, you got Steele who cant stay healthy, even when healthy he is a top end #2. Shota imo was helped by the way Wrigley played last year as he is a fly ball pitcher. Like Steele I think he is a solid #2. The way this team currently sits, they are not built for a deep playoff run, fuck winning the division, thats the easy part, they should be contenders year in and year out.
 

Dan00Hawk

TCG Elite Member
TCG Premium
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Location
Plainfield
So with these other teams landing the big free agents that the Cubs weren't competitive enough with in contract amounts, aren't those teams now more limited in who they can target as other big free agents inevitably come down the pipeline? The Dodgers, Mets, and Yankees can't ALWAYS offer more than everyone else, or will they continually just act like they don't have any budget restrictions?

I expect that at some point those teams will have to pass on other stars since they have so much tied up in other contracts. So are the Cubs being savvy or just cheap in taking this approach? Probably a bit of both...

I don't want to see another Jason Heyward situation again anytime soon, which is always a concern with any of the long term and big dollar contracts. Glad we aren't the Rockies with Kris Bryant or Tigers with Baez, for example.
 

Shawn1112

TCG Elite Member
TCG Premium
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Location
Streamwood
So with these other teams landing the big free agents that the Cubs weren't competitive enough with in contract amounts, aren't those teams now more limited in who they can target as other big free agents inevitably come down the pipeline? The Dodgers, Mets, and Yankees can't ALWAYS offer more than everyone else, or will they continually just act like they don't have any budget restrictions?

I expect that at some point those teams will have to pass on other stars since they have so much tied up in other contracts. So are the Cubs being savvy or just cheap in taking this approach? Probably a bit of both...

I don't want to see another Jason Heyward situation again anytime soon, which is always a concern with any of the long term and big dollar contracts. Glad we aren't the Rockies with Kris Bryant or Tigers with Baez, for example.
Fuck no they arent limited and the Cubs arent either. Yes as long as baseball has no salary cap, those teams can and will always offer more than anyone else. Contrary to what you hear, every single team is making money hand over fist, including the Rays, the A's, and the SUX. Again, no reason in hell why the Cubs arent top 3-4 in spending every year. Everyone blames Jed, but I honestly believe his hands are tied due to Rickets being a cheap prick. I'm not saying go spend wildly, spend wisely even if that means overpaying a couple of guys on the tail end of their contracts. Thats the price of playing poker.

The Cubs are 110% fucking cheap, there is no ifs, ands, or buts about it. They are banking on guys to outplay their career numbers at a bargain in terms of cost. No reason at all, they couldnt go get a true Ace of the staff and a bonafide closer. I'd take it a step further and say they should have traded Nico as he has no power at all, and outside of his defense he is an average player at best, same thing with Dansby. You trade away your #1 pick with a high ceiling from last year for a 1 yr rental of Tucker just to make the playoffs this year. Knowing damn well the team isnt built to go deep in the playoffs. They have zero intentions of signing Tucker long term, otherwise that deal would have been done already.

Jay Hey was the #1 free agent out there that year. Yeah his numbers werent there for what they paid him. But they dont win the WS without him imo, so money well spent.
 

Dan00Hawk

TCG Elite Member
TCG Premium
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Location
Plainfield
I get what you're saying, and it gets tiring seeing them appear to be cheap. But I feel like the advent of the "Moneyball age" and analytics has most teams devoted to finding the best bang for the buck. Try to find those guys that are poised to outperform their value, and don't overpay for guys on the backside of their career who are going to be a financial burden for the last few years of their contract when you can't unload them. That was more my point of the Heyward contract reference, acknowledging that he did help them win a ring in 2016, but beyond that was such a burden in many ways.

I don't totally agree that Ricketts is just a cheap prick on the lines of Reinsdorf, for example. At least Ricketts has been investing heavily in the Wrigley Field area. Since 2014, the Ricketts family has invested nearly $1 billion to restore and expand Wrigley Field and develop the surrounding area -- without taxpayer dollars.

Perhaps to the unfortunate detriment of talent on the field the last few years, the club was just more focused on creating every advantage possible to innovate, operate efficiently and grow its business to compete with the other 29 clubs trying to win a World Series trophy every year. So whether it's adding buildings, signs, new rows of seats, or launching their own TV network, those are all other aspects that focused on strengthening the club, appealing to fans and providing additional revenue to help finance the the team and, I hope, to eventually put all of those revenue generating resources back onto the field.

Hopefully this all allows the team to soon invest in the best talent, facilities, systems and technology moving forward, even though they have not yet been willing to write that blank check yet for the top tier talent. But if that long term revenue strategy plays out to get them past the point of being an inconsistent contender, then the drought of the last few years of mediocrity will have been worth it in my mind.

But we'll see how things play out this season and over the upcoming years when they have the opportunity to get other big fish, or if they stay with their method of trying to find value and not overspending and not deferring contract money.
 
Top Bottom