Comments on: Silva for Bradley

By: Bilbo

Bilbo — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 18:48:20 +0000

Oh Milton — now you’ve done it again.

By: lose inches not pounds

lose inches not pounds — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 18:39:16 +0000

I searched many websites and here I found what I was looking for, thanks for valuable post.

By: wobatus

wobatus — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 20:41:05 +0000

You didn’t estimate the odds of a negative WAR season from Bradley. And no one seemed to think much of the odds of Silva going back to 3 WAR or more. Dave kinda did.

Wow, process certainly didn’t mean results here. Although both teams were trying to spin gold from albatross feathers.

By: joser

joser — Sat, 08 May 2010 17:47:11 +0000

Yeah, the Cubs’ ranking was a bit off.

By: Steve-O

Steve-O — Sat, 08 May 2010 13:12:15 +0000

Genius, pure genius * rolls eyes* I can now see why you ranked this organization as high as you did.

By: vivaelpujols

vivaelpujols — Thu, 06 May 2010 22:07:23 +0000

Derp.

By: neuter_your_dogma

neuter_your_dogma — Thu, 06 May 2010 15:42:08 +0000

Sometimes people simply get in the way of their talent. Sad.

By: joser

joser — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:08:34 +0000

But they were going to get nothing back from that $24M. By throwing good money after bad — $6M of it — they turned an unproductive asset into a potentially valuable one. If they end up cutting Bradley before they get about a win and half out of him, it’s a bad deal. If they get more than a win and a half out of him (assuming Wins are still going for ~$4M) they are ahead — because they were going to get no wins out of Silva. That’s why people are using “sunk cost” though you could use other terms like “non-performing asset” or “inert maw into which you throw money.” In this case the Cubs acted a bit like the way the Troubled Asset Relief Program was supposed to work for bad bank loans — the M’s got off their books an inflated asset that was worth far less than its nominal face value and put themselves into a better position with a minimal outlay of additional capital.

By: joser

joser — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:56:17 +0000

At the time of his trade to Detroit, Dave noted that Washburn was sporting "an unsustainable 6.4% HR/FB rate." He's a flyball pitcher, and at Safeco he was pitching in a park suited to flyball lefties. He did improve some in '09, but a lot of his perceived improvement was just the better defense behind him (I recall a Fangraphs post with a wonderful "heat-graph" showing the outfield defense but I can't find it now). Give up a lot of flyballs and be lucky enough to have most of them stay in the park and have guys behind you who can catch the rest, and you'll look really good. Strand rate is LOB% in the Advanced section of the pitching stats. Washburn was sporting 75% in 2009 which was higher than his previous years with Seattle but by no means his career high.

By: Justin

Justin — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 07:14:27 +0000

The MB21 trade is just the beginning… I propose a complete firesale on the north side. Aramis to the M’s for prospects (this obvi makes them faves in the AL West) and trade Z, Lilly, Theriot and Lee for whatever you can get. Soto is interesting enough to hang onto and Soriano is absolutely untradeable (unless $75mil is sent with him). Hendry, of course, won’t do this because he still thinks the Cubs are close to the playoffs.

Anyone can shove $100 mill plus at someone and have them sign. Cubs are, at best, a 76-81 win team this yr. I don’t think I’m even going to bother buying tix this yr (and I’ve gone to 30 plus games a yr for the last 5 seasons)…