Jump to content

kj2018

Greene / Boyd Trade Options

Recommended Posts

The etymology of the term "lousy with" is based on our friends the Lice family...or in the singular the louse.  One generally deals with an infestation of lice..or louse...so the term "lousy with" means you've got a bunch of something.  Although I'm not sure the Cubs OF would be considered to be blood sucking parasites...Scott Boras might be

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I myself didn't expect it, but that is how David Chadd sold it to the media and the fans at the time. He may well have actually believed it, too, which might explain why they way overpaid on slot. I know this kind of thing is out of style here in 2019, but I was simply holding the guy accountable for his words.

lol.   So you would expect all GMs, scouts, etc to instead point out the flaws in the players they just drafted?   Please provide examples of other teams doing this to temper fan expectations.   Something along the lines of "Yeah, we drafted him in the 1st round because he can hit a little but he stinks in the field."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Lei Pong said:

The etymology of the term "lousy with" is based on our friends the Lice family...or in the singular the louse.  One generally deals with an infestation of lice..or louse...so the term "lousy with" means you've got a bunch of something.  Although I'm not sure the Cubs OF would be considered to be blood sucking parasites...Scott Boras might be

otherwise also known as having "Cooties" 

Way back in the day, I remember the VFW guys had a club that was a subset of the general membership called the "Cooties" and no joke they had these big emblems on the wall at the VFW post emblazoned with 2 1/2 foot diameter red lice!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LooseGoose said:

lol.   So you would expect all GMs, scouts, etc to instead point out the flaws in the players they just drafted?   Please provide examples of other teams doing this to temper fan expectations.   Something along the lines of "Yeah, we drafted him in the 1st round because he can hit a little but he stinks in the field."

You know,  I could almost hear Al doing that! He is one GM that probably talks more than he needs to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, LooseGoose said:

lol.   So you would expect all GMs, scouts, etc to instead point out the flaws in the players they just drafted?   Please provide examples of other teams doing this to temper fan expectations.   Something along the lines of "Yeah, we drafted him in the 1st round because he can hit a little but he stinks in the field."

You have a point, but to me, hyping Castellanos as a five-tool superstar in the making on both sides of the ball and comping him directly to Evan Longoria paints a pretty specific picture. Does it strike you as meaningless word soup applicable to every draftee?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, chasfh said:

You have a point, but to me, hyping Castellanos as a five-tool superstar in the making on both sides of the ball and comping him directly to Evan Longoria paints a pretty specific picture. Does it strike you as meaningless word soup applicable to every draftee?

I agree--definitely makes sense to pump up the fan base over a high draft pick, but to use a comp (Longoria), is unnecessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, chasfh said:

For a guy who’s not invested in the discussion, you sure barfed up a lot of words on it! 😂

To be “lousy with” is a colloquial way of saying to have a lot of something. You’re not as old as I, though, so you can be forgiven for never having heard it. 🤓

Yeah, the irony of a wordy response to something I’m not invested in isn’t lost on me. 

I was mostly compelled to respond because you appeared to ignore the qualifying statements I made in my earlier post where I mentioned the tigers eating salary and receiving very little in return. 

As for the cubs having a lot of outfielders, they apparently don’t have enough to fashion a right fielder that can outperform nick (according to fangraphs depth charts). I am more than happy to defer to your view on that, though. 

I really am fascinated by today’s particular Nick discussion. It seemed to come out of nowhere, and it was/is hard to discern exactly what people are arguing for/against. 

Everyone seems to agree he has little trade value. Everyone seems to agree he isn’t very good. Everyone seems to agree he won’t get a big contract next year. 

The only thing that seems up for debate is whether or not it could make strategic sense to give him a QO, and whether or not he would accept it. 

All of this could have been avoided if we had simply just non-tendered him like I suggested at the beginning of the offseason...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tiger337 said:

And that reflects on the manager.  I thought Gardenhire wasn't going to let those kinds of things happen

Gardy will let him dig his own hole. He doesn't like Nick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does Nick like Nick?  Often times people who are whiners have issues with self loathing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Tim Mitchell said:

Gardy will let him dig his own hole. He doesn't like Nick.

#OldSchool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lei Pong said:

Does Nick like Nick?  Often times people who are whiners have issues with self loathing

565040851_drkatz.gif.1459dd8a3e6ed2627927e48c9c20b601.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My HS football coach had a saying that I've repeated many times over the years:

"Work hard, Keep your mouth shut, and good things will happen" 

I think Nick should follow that advice.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, chasfh said:

You have a point, but to me, hyping Castellanos as a five-tool superstar in the making on both sides of the ball and comping him directly to Evan Longoria paints a pretty specific picture. Does it strike you as meaningless word soup applicable to every draftee?

Players being compared to stars is nothing new.  Happens literally every draft.  He picked Evan because Evan played 3rd base and could hit.  That was it.  Nick was never thought to be much with the glove when he was drafted.  I remember that much.

No GM says we drafted what we think is a rich man's Eric Munson or a poor man's Dean Palmer.

And that ignores the fact that it is really, really hard to accurately project where any 18 year old ends up in 5 years, let alone 10.  As an example, Mike Moustakas was thought to be a lot better than he actually became, yet he still is better than the typical #2 pick in the draft.  Maybe it was a perfectly reasonable thing to estimate Nick could hit like Evan at the time given the uncertainty of time / personal development.  How good of a hitter was Evan at 18?

In summary, for where he was selected and his bonus, Nick was very good pick despite Nick not being all that valuable a player.  I know that sounds counter-intuitive at best and contradictory at worst.  But the real problem has been so few Tigers picks have even sniffed regular playing time in the show, rather than Nick was paid over-slot or David Chadd talked him up as evidence he doesn't know what he is doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Lei Pong said:

Does Nick like Nick?  Often times people who are whiners have issues with self loathing

I think you may be on to something. I’m sure castellanos expected his career to have gone a bit better. And he probably thought he could put up even better numbers this year than last. 

Instead, he’s struggling on a bad team and can’t get traded because he has sucked. Much/all of this is his fault. If he were a better baseball player he would be gone.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Shelton said:

Yeah, the irony of a wordy response to something I’m not invested in isn’t lost on me. 

I was mostly compelled to respond because you appeared to ignore the qualifying statements I made in my earlier post where I mentioned the tigers eating salary and receiving very little in return. 

As for the cubs having a lot of outfielders, they apparently don’t have enough to fashion a right fielder that can outperform nick (according to fangraphs depth charts). I am more than happy to defer to your view on that, though. 

I really am fascinated by today’s particular Nick discussion. It seemed to come out of nowhere, and it was/is hard to discern exactly what people are arguing for/against. 

Everyone seems to agree he has little trade value. Everyone seems to agree he isn’t very good. Everyone seems to agree he won’t get a big contract next year. 

The only thing that seems up for debate is whether or not it could make strategic sense to give him a QO, and whether or not he would accept it. 

All of this could have been avoided if we had simply just non-tendered him like I suggested at the beginning of the offseason...

It's hard to respond to every brickbat everyone hurls at me, but in my view, even if we offered to eat Nick's entire salary in exchange for a legit prospect, I don't think any contender bites, because I doubt any contender regards Nick as valuable enough to help them win deep into October.

The Cubs' right fielder is Jason Heyward, who's locked up through 2023, so unless the Tigers are willing to take that off Theo's hands in exchange for Nick—which, hey, Theo could probably be talked into—I doubt the Tigers agree to anything like that.

And, just to make Biggs happy, I'll say this: there's a non-zero chance the Tigers simply allow Nick to walk out the door in November.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure what that last line has to do with me, but ok.

FWIW, I think there is virtually no chance the Tigers extend a QO, and if they do, I think it would either be idiotic or Nick somehow became Babe Ruth overnight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Players being compared to stars is nothing new.  Happens literally every draft.

No GM says we drafted what we think is a rich man's Eric Munson or a poor man's Dean Palmer.

Plus, well, it is really, really hard to accurately project where any 18 year old ends up in 10 years.  Mike Moustakas was thought to be a lot better than he actually became, yet he still is better than the typical #2 pick in the draft. 

For where he was selected and his bonus, Nick was very good pick.  The problem has been so few Tigers picks have even sniffed regular playing time in the show, not the Nick was paid over-slot or David Chadd talked him up.

Yup, that last one is definitely a problem, and I fear it will never get fixed under this ownership, let alone this administration.

But hey, as long as comparing draftees to stars is meaningless nonsense anyone would be foolish to pay attention to anyway, why stop at Evan Longoria? Why not just say when he was drafted that Nick hits like Eddie Matthews and fields like Brooks Robinson? I mean, as long as he's going there and it doesn't mean anything, shoot for the stars!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

I am not sure what that last line has to do with me, but ok.

FWIW, I think there is virtually no chance the Tigers extend a QO, and if they do, I think it would either be idiotic or Nick somehow became Babe Ruth overnight.

You’ve drilled me on using the term non-zero before. Just having fun with it. It’s all good, bruh. 🙌🏻

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

For a guy who works in advertising, you seem to put a lot more into PR than I would recommend.

:grin: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Buddha said:

of the 50 players taken in the 1st round plus the supplemental round that year, castellanos ranks 13th in war.

of the players who have more war, none of them were available when the tigers took castellanos.

in the next 13 rounds, 19 players drafted have more war than nick.

castellanos was a successful pick even if there were a few other players selected after him who have developed in better players.  the most concerning part is that of all the players drafted after nick who became more successful, only one (drew smyly) was taken by the tigers.

that's the larger problem.  nick was a successful pick.

Thank you for researching that.  I appreciate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly the biggest problem with Castellanos pick / development was that the Tigers committed to Nick and Jose on the left side of the IF, and dealt Suarez as a direct consequence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe if David Chadd regarded Eugenio Suarez as a five-tool player who comps to Derek Jeter when they signed him, they'd've kept Suarez instead. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool!

Welp, my work's done on this one. What's next on the agenda? :grin: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...