2015 Cubs Offseason: Building a Winner Around David Ross

[Eli]

Say what you want about BRett, but here's some good analysis on Cubs' exit velocities.

I think he's a good blogger and this is a good blog post.

[fire emoji]

[SKO]

Say what you want about BRett, but here's some good analysis on Cubs' exit velocities.

I think he's a good blogger and this is a good blog post.

[fire emoji]

I like Brett and while I used to get somewhat annoyed by his Pollyanna attitude and the weird personal info I know now that it irritates the living shit out of Sterling and therefore I approve

[PenFoe]

Say what you want about BRett, but here's some good analysis on Cubs' exit velocities.

I think he's a good blogger and this is a good blog post.

[fire emoji]

I like Brett and while I used to get somewhat annoyed by his Pollyanna attitude and the weird personal info I know now that it irritates the living shit out of Sterling and therefore I approve

This.

I've been a record a couple times on this at least, but I am generally pretty pro both Brett and Arguello (not that they're the same at all, but in terms of guys pumping out lots of Cubs info.)

And the fact that he pisses off Sterling is definitely one of the few things SKO and I can find common ground on.

[Slaky]

Say what you want about BRett, but here's some good analysis on Cubs' exit velocities.

I think he's a good blogger and this is a good blog post.

[fire emoji]

I like Brett and while I used to get somewhat annoyed by his Pollyanna attitude and the weird personal info I know now that it irritates the living shit out of Sterling and therefore I approve

This.

I've been a record a couple times on this at least, but I am generally pretty pro both Brett and Arguello (not that they're the same at all, but in terms of guys pumping out lots of Cubs info.)

And the fact that he pisses off Sterling is definitely one of the few things SKO and I can find common ground on.

They're both good. They've also made it so Al isn't a black hole of Cubs blogging - imagine if he was the only option? Horrible.

[Quality Start Machine]

Say what you want about BRett, but here's some good analysis on Cubs' exit velocities.

I think he's a good blogger and this is a good blog post.

[fire emoji]

I like Brett and while I used to get somewhat annoyed by his Pollyanna attitude and the weird personal info I know now that it irritates the living shit out of Sterling and therefore I approve

This.

I've been a record a couple times on this at least, but I am generally pretty pro both Brett and Arguello (not that they're the same at all, but in terms of guys pumping out lots of Cubs info.)

And the fact that he pisses off Sterling is definitely one of the few things SKO and I can find common ground on.

They're both good. They've also made it so Al isn't a black hole of Cubs blogging - imagine if he was the only option? Horrible.

Imagine if Andy or Kerm had blogs.

[SKO]

Say what you want about BRett, but here's some good analysis on Cubs' exit velocities.

I think he's a good blogger and this is a good blog post.

[fire emoji]

I like Brett and while I used to get somewhat annoyed by his Pollyanna attitude and the weird personal info I know now that it irritates the living shit out of Sterling and therefore I approve

This.

I've been a record a couple times on this at least, but I am generally pretty pro both Brett and Arguello (not that they're the same at all, but in terms of guys pumping out lots of Cubs info.)

And the fact that he pisses off Sterling is definitely one of the few things SKO and I can find common ground on.

They're both good. They've also made it so Al isn't a black hole of Cubs blogging - imagine if he was the only option? Horrible.

Imagine if Andy or Kerm had blogs.

Who the hell is Kerm

[Saul Goodman]

Say what you want about BRett, but here's some good analysis on Cubs' exit velocities.

I think he's a good blogger and this is a good blog post.

[fire emoji]

I like Brett and while I used to get somewhat annoyed by his Pollyanna attitude and the weird personal info I know now that it irritates the living shit out of Sterling and therefore I approve

This.

I've been a record a couple times on this at least, but I am generally pretty pro both Brett and Arguello (not that they're the same at all, but in terms of guys pumping out lots of Cubs info.)

And the fact that he pisses off Sterling is definitely one of the few things SKO and I can find common ground on.

Love you guys. Sterling is dead (acute tinnitus) and his opinions sucked anyway; long live Saul.

[Oleg]

Say what you want about BRett, but here's some good analysis on Cubs' exit velocities.

I think it would be good to know what the stats were for some of the more peak and valley weeks and if they are what one would expect.

For example, looking at Russell's chart, it seems he had a huge peak the week of August 30 (about 9 MPH harder hit than league average).  Looking at that week, he hit 3 of his home runs but his BABiP was .222.  That seems interesting.

[Canadouche]

Say what you want about BRett, but here's some good analysis on Cubs' exit velocities.

I think he's a good blogger and this is a good blog post.

[fire emoji]

I like Brett and while I used to get somewhat annoyed by his Pollyanna attitude and the weird personal info I know now that it irritates the living shit out of Sterling and therefore I approve

This.

I've been a record a couple times on this at least, but I am generally pretty pro both Brett and Arguello (not that they're the same at all, but in terms of guys pumping out lots of Cubs info.)

And the fact that he pisses off Sterling is definitely one of the few things SKO and I can find common ground on.

Love you guys. Sterling is dead (acute tinnitus) and his opinions sucked anyway; long live Saul.

Shut up, Saul. You're a douche.

[Saul Goodman]

Say what you want about BRett, but here's some good analysis on Cubs' exit velocities.

I think he's a good blogger and this is a good blog post.

[fire emoji]

I like Brett and while I used to get somewhat annoyed by his Pollyanna attitude and the weird personal info I know now that it irritates the living shit out of Sterling and therefore I approve

This.

I've been a record a couple times on this at least, but I am generally pretty pro both Brett and Arguello (not that they're the same at all, but in terms of guys pumping out lots of Cubs info.)

And the fact that he pisses off Sterling is definitely one of the few things SKO and I can find common ground on.

Love you guys. Sterling is dead (acute tinnitus) and his opinions sucked anyway; long live Saul.

Shut up, Saul. You're a douche.

Someone already did that, move to strike.

[Saul Goodman]

DPD. Joe Sheehan's latest argues the Angels are wasting Mike Trout's career, having failed to make the postseason in recent years despite his being a consistent 9-win player. The only team that could pull off such a trade (or at least not be laughed out of the room), in Joe's estimation, is the Cubs.

The idea of the Cubs trading for Trout is appealing because a center fielder is the one thing the Cubs neither have in the majors nor coming through he minors. The Cubs are one of the few teams that could make an offer for the best player in baseball that wouldn't be laughed out of the room, owing to their young talent at the MLB level and still-strong minor-league system. Trading for Trout, or maybe Andrew McCutchen, is the one big swing the Cubs have left in building an all-time great team.

Looking back, I am inclined to agree that the offer would be light, not because it's unreasonable, but because the value returned, or perhaps rather the shape of the value returned, wouldn't work for the Angels. The package above splits the baby; it includes players who can help the Angels in 2016, like Kyle Schwarber, Jorge Soler and Kyle Hendricks. Much of the value, though, is in others who won't be contributing for another few years, like Gleyber Torres and Ian Happ. If the Angels were to trade Mike Trout, they would probably need to pick a lane in doing so -- players, or prospects. I can defend the proposed package, in part because I think highly of Torres, but I can see where the Angels' fans -- and new GM Billy Eppler -- would say that it's not enough.

Despite all that the Angels, despite the overwhelming negative reaction to my idea, would have to take an offer like this seriously. They've played the last four seasons with Trout averaging nine bWAR a year, and they've yet to win a postseason series. They've made the playoffs once. Trout is surrounded by a team that without him would struggle to reach .500, that is mostly past prime, that seems to have maxed out its payroll, that has a farm system decimated by years of poor drafting, terrible international work and the desperate trading of their few real prospects in an effort to patch the major-league team's holes.

[Saul Goodman]

If Rodriguez and Griffey could be traded, Trout certainly can be. It's something the Angels should consider. Their current team isn't very good even with Trout, and it seems more likely to get worse than better. Trout is a superstar, but he's changing as a player just as his salary climbs. The Cubs are a natural trade partner bursting at the seams with talent. Maybe my initial suggestion was light, but I'm pretty sure the idea behind it -- the Angels should be looking to trade Mike Trout, and the Cubs are the right fit -- is correct.

[Canadouche]

Say what you want about BRett, but here's some good analysis on Cubs' exit velocities.

I think he's a good blogger and this is a good blog post.

[fire emoji]

I like Brett and while I used to get somewhat annoyed by his Pollyanna attitude and the weird personal info I know now that it irritates the living shit out of Sterling and therefore I approve

This.

I've been a record a couple times on this at least, but I am generally pretty pro both Brett and Arguello (not that they're the same at all, but in terms of guys pumping out lots of Cubs info.)

And the fact that he pisses off Sterling is definitely one of the few things SKO and I can find common ground on.

Love you guys. Sterling is dead (acute tinnitus) and his opinions sucked anyway; long live Saul.

Shut up, Saul. You're a douche.

Someone already did that, move to strike.

Motion granted.

[Shooter]

DPD. Joe Sheehan's latest argues the Angels are wasting Mike Trout's career, having failed to make the postseason in recent years despite his being a consistent 9-win player. The only team that could pull off such a trade (or at least not be laughed out of the room), in Joe's estimation, is the Cubs.

The idea of the Cubs trading for Trout is appealing because a center fielder is the one thing the Cubs neither have in the majors nor coming through he minors. The Cubs are one of the few teams that could make an offer for the best player in baseball that wouldn't be laughed out of the room, owing to their young talent at the MLB level and still-strong minor-league system. Trading for Trout, or maybe Andrew McCutchen, is the one big swing the Cubs have left in building an all-time great team.

Looking back, I am inclined to agree that the offer would be light, not because it's unreasonable, but because the value returned, or perhaps rather the shape of the value returned, wouldn't work for the Angels. The package above splits the baby; it includes players who can help the Angels in 2016, like Kyle Schwarber, Jorge Soler and Kyle Hendricks. Much of the value, though, is in others who won't be contributing for another few years, like Gleyber Torres and Ian Happ. If the Angels were to trade Mike Trout, they would probably need to pick a lane in doing so -- players, or prospects. I can defend the proposed package, in part because I think highly of Torres, but I can see where the Angels' fans -- and new GM Billy Eppler -- would say that it's not enough.

Despite all that the Angels, despite the overwhelming negative reaction to my idea, would have to take an offer like this seriously. They've played the last four seasons with Trout averaging nine bWAR a year, and they've yet to win a postseason series. They've made the playoffs once. Trout is surrounded by a team that without him would struggle to reach .500, that is mostly past prime, that seems to have maxed out its payroll, that has a farm system decimated by years of poor drafting, terrible international work and the desperate trading of their few real prospects in an effort to patch the major-league team's holes.

So is the proposed trade Kyle Schwarber, Jorge Soler, Kyle Hendricks, Gleyber Torres and Ian Happ for Trout? Lots of references to "the offer" but you omit the actual proposed offer.

If that's the offer, sign me up.

[Saul Goodman]

DPD. Joe Sheehan's latest argues the Angels are wasting Mike Trout's career, having failed to make the postseason in recent years despite his being a consistent 9-win player. The only team that could pull off such a trade (or at least not be laughed out of the room), in Joe's estimation, is the Cubs.

The idea of the Cubs trading for Trout is appealing because a center fielder is the one thing the Cubs neither have in the majors nor coming through he minors. The Cubs are one of the few teams that could make an offer for the best player in baseball that wouldn't be laughed out of the room, owing to their young talent at the MLB level and still-strong minor-league system. Trading for Trout, or maybe Andrew McCutchen, is the one big swing the Cubs have left in building an all-time great team.

Looking back, I am inclined to agree that the offer would be light, not because it's unreasonable, but because the value returned, or perhaps rather the shape of the value returned, wouldn't work for the Angels. The package above splits the baby; it includes players who can help the Angels in 2016, like Kyle Schwarber, Jorge Soler and Kyle Hendricks. Much of the value, though, is in others who won't be contributing for another few years, like Gleyber Torres and Ian Happ. If the Angels were to trade Mike Trout, they would probably need to pick a lane in doing so -- players, or prospects. I can defend the proposed package, in part because I think highly of Torres, but I can see where the Angels' fans -- and new GM Billy Eppler -- would say that it's not enough.

Despite all that the Angels, despite the overwhelming negative reaction to my idea, would have to take an offer like this seriously. They've played the last four seasons with Trout averaging nine bWAR a year, and they've yet to win a postseason series. They've made the playoffs once. Trout is surrounded by a team that without him would struggle to reach .500, that is mostly past prime, that seems to have maxed out its payroll, that has a farm system decimated by years of poor drafting, terrible international work and the desperate trading of their few real prospects in an effort to patch the major-league team's holes.

So is the proposed trade Kyle Schwarber, Jorge Soler, Kyle Hendricks, Gleyber Torres and Ian Happ for Trout? Lots of references to "the offer" but you omit the actual proposed offer.

If that's the offer, sign me up.

Sorry. There's almost no precision whatsoever trying to highlight text in the email app. All the names were mentioned, just not directly:

Last month, just after the 30 Teams project, I suggested a trade package the Cubs could assemble to acquire Mike Trout:

"@joe_sheehan: Schwarber, Soler, Hendricks, Torres and Happ for Trout. Who says no? #cubs #angels"