I am so often deluged
By the trepidation of a contiguous life
Washed beneath the surface of a turbulent sea
Still perceptible, the faintest light shines through
Within my grasp, yet the source a million miles away
To what rationale does this light persist?
Derelict remainders, we meander along
Now provoked by a disposition so innate
By instinct, I reach towards the light
By credulity, the light reaches towards me
I emerge once more without resolution
No greater understanding of why this must be
Back on solid footing, I peer at the source,
Unsure to what extent a role it had played
It peers back at me, revealing no secret
Interminable, the only constant I've ever known
I feel it's necessity, the most dense of illusions
The goal is forever in sight
In the depths of despair, it's signature glow,
Sending my aspirations to saunter free
My only doubt as darkness sets again,
Was I born of the light, or the light born of me?
Saturday, December 26, 2015
Tuesday, December 8, 2015
A poem (to the best of my knowledge)
All the blustering of a nor'easters gale
Full of intensity and thrice the chill
Sweeping over both land and sea
With ample warning, it struck us still
Extreme is the force behind this storm
To respond, women and men cannot refrain
Each clash rains a hatred, overflowing,
The run-off seeps into the brain
In a fury, all parties spring to action,
Not knowing how or why
To save us all, sacrifices must be made,
And surely some will die
A biting cold creeps towards the heart,
Unrest aims to destroy what's long been there
Each individual rhythm is unique, isolated,
Vulnerable is the symbol we all share
The wrath peaks, giving way to silence,
We cling to hope, holding our loved ones near
In a sudden flash, the storm breaks,
Is anyone there? as the clouds begin to clear
Full of intensity and thrice the chill
Sweeping over both land and sea
With ample warning, it struck us still
Extreme is the force behind this storm
To respond, women and men cannot refrain
Each clash rains a hatred, overflowing,
The run-off seeps into the brain
In a fury, all parties spring to action,
Not knowing how or why
To save us all, sacrifices must be made,
And surely some will die
A biting cold creeps towards the heart,
Unrest aims to destroy what's long been there
Each individual rhythm is unique, isolated,
Vulnerable is the symbol we all share
The wrath peaks, giving way to silence,
We cling to hope, holding our loved ones near
In a sudden flash, the storm breaks,
Is anyone there? as the clouds begin to clear
Saturday, December 5, 2015
John Lackey persists despite all objections
The Chicago Cubs have signed 37-year old Starting Pitcher John Lackey to a 2-year/$32 million contract. Last night, I responded to that news with a minor tantrum. It was an emotional reaction where I aired my litany of grievances against Lackey, from being a grown man who wears a cowboy hat, to the more serious offense of leaving his wife as she was battling breast cancer. The more I thought about it, the more I started to accept that emotions are stupid when analyzing baseball transactions. So, I decided to take a more rational approach and look at the numbers and what this signing means for the Cubs.
There are two projections on Lackey currently available. The first is his Steamer projection available on FanGraphs (here). Steamer projects Lackey to make 31 starts in 2016, for 190 innings, with a 3.89 ERA. That's an expected WAR of 2.6. Last night, Dan Szymborski tweeted Lackey's two-year ZiPS projection (here). The ZiPS projection was pretty favorable for Lackey and the Cubs, expecting a 3.4 WAR in 2016, and 3.1 WAR in 2017. If he performs at that level, this deal will be quite a success for the Cubs. For comparison, Jordan Zimmermann, who just last week signed a 5-year/$110 million contract with the Detroit Tigers, is projected for 2.5 WAR by Steamer. That means, the Cubs signed a roughly comparable pitcher for fewer years, which equals less risk, and an average annual value that's $6 million less. Despite all my bitching, the Cubs may have found a bargain in Lackey.
My projection for Lackey is more in agreement with the Steamer projection, mostly due to the fact that I don't believe Lackey's performance with RISP is sustainable. I would expect a greater deal of regression than ZiPS is suggesting. Though, it should be noted, my projection is only a product of my feeble brain, and not of complex algorithms like Steamer and ZiPS. My brain is less efficient than a computer at producing everything except the abstract. My expectation is about 2.8 WAR. I believe he'll throw more than 190 innings, but at about the same effectiveness as Steamer projects. When calculating how much this addition improves the Cubs, you can't just simply add Lackey's value, as his expected 31 starts will be replacing something. (Here), in a previous post, I already took a look at what the Cubs had in their rotation prior this signing. Lackey will likely slide into the #3 slot in the Cubs rotation, but the starts he's really replacing, in theory, are the worst 31 in the projection, from the bottom of the Cubs pitching depth. Those starts would have been worth about 1.0 WAR to the team, but replacing those starts with Lackey adds 1.8 WAR to a Cubs team already projected to win 93 games.
How does this effect the rest of the Cubs offseason? you might ask. Well, the expectation was the Cubs could add roughly $20 million to their 2016 payroll. If that's the case, this signing pretty much takes them out of the running for another major free-agent. That seems to be the greatest disappointment coming from the Lackey signing. He's not the exciting splash that every fan wants his team to make. Personally, I wanted the Cubs to give Jason Heyward all of the money and all of the years. Not necessarily because it's the best strategy, or that I wouldn't regret it halfway through the contract. I just wanted to be excited right now. I wanted instant gratification. I will not apologize for this because all evidence suggests: this is who we are. Take it up with your creator, or EVILution, or whoever else you'd like.
So, this leaves a few questions. Are the Cubs going to add another starting pitcher? Are they going to add an elite reliever? Who's going to hit lead-off? Who the hell is going to play Center Field? I don't know any of these things. My suspicion was that if they were going to trade for an impact starting pitcher, it was going to cost them a minimum of Jorge Soler. With limitations on how much payroll they can add, I doubt at this point they'll deal Soler to make another significant addition to the rotation, opening up a second hole in the Outfield. The Cubs had been linked to reliever Darren O'Day early in the off-season, but as interest in O'Day increased, interest from the Cubs seems to have tempered. It now appears the Cubs will employ a similar strategy with the Bullpen as they did, with some success, in 2015. They've already started the process, adding Ryan Cook and Rex Brothers, inexpensive rebound candidates coming off a combination of injuries and poor performance. Center Field is still the biggest area of need. I've thought all along the Cubs were more likely to fill that need through trade than free-agency (including Dexter Fowler). However, yesterday, I found some interesting news that went a bit under the radar. Javier Baez is going to play Center Field this winter in Puerto Rico. If he can do it well, and with his athleticism I'm confident he can, that certainly gives the team some more options. This does not, however, solve the mystery of the likely lead-off hitter. I still don't think that guy is on this team right now. I wish I could offer solutions, but unless the Cubs extend past their comfort level with the payroll, or get creative with some trades, I don't see a clear answer. We know Dexter Fowler is available and can do the job, but he's probably asking for a contract in the 4-years/$60 million range. Denard Span is a slightly less attractive free-agent possibility, expected to receive a contract in the 3-years/$40 million range. A couple weeks ago, the Cubs were rumored to have discussed a Starlin Castro for Brett Gardner deal with the New York Yankees. A deal that would have been a net increase of $6 million to the 2016 payroll. That's a move that fits more with the Cubs budget, and fills the lead-off need, but Gardner profiles best as a Left Fielder. He's been roughly average over the past three seasons in Center Field over a sample of 180 games. Now 32, and signed through 2018, Gardner's defensive decline would only be amplified with a full-time move to Center Field.
There's two main takeaways from this: The Lackey signing was a good deal, and an improvement, despite how much of an asshole he might be. The Cubs definitely still have work to do. All else is guesswork, providing no limit to the number of hot takes to be offered.
There are two projections on Lackey currently available. The first is his Steamer projection available on FanGraphs (here). Steamer projects Lackey to make 31 starts in 2016, for 190 innings, with a 3.89 ERA. That's an expected WAR of 2.6. Last night, Dan Szymborski tweeted Lackey's two-year ZiPS projection (here). The ZiPS projection was pretty favorable for Lackey and the Cubs, expecting a 3.4 WAR in 2016, and 3.1 WAR in 2017. If he performs at that level, this deal will be quite a success for the Cubs. For comparison, Jordan Zimmermann, who just last week signed a 5-year/$110 million contract with the Detroit Tigers, is projected for 2.5 WAR by Steamer. That means, the Cubs signed a roughly comparable pitcher for fewer years, which equals less risk, and an average annual value that's $6 million less. Despite all my bitching, the Cubs may have found a bargain in Lackey.
My projection for Lackey is more in agreement with the Steamer projection, mostly due to the fact that I don't believe Lackey's performance with RISP is sustainable. I would expect a greater deal of regression than ZiPS is suggesting. Though, it should be noted, my projection is only a product of my feeble brain, and not of complex algorithms like Steamer and ZiPS. My brain is less efficient than a computer at producing everything except the abstract. My expectation is about 2.8 WAR. I believe he'll throw more than 190 innings, but at about the same effectiveness as Steamer projects. When calculating how much this addition improves the Cubs, you can't just simply add Lackey's value, as his expected 31 starts will be replacing something. (Here), in a previous post, I already took a look at what the Cubs had in their rotation prior this signing. Lackey will likely slide into the #3 slot in the Cubs rotation, but the starts he's really replacing, in theory, are the worst 31 in the projection, from the bottom of the Cubs pitching depth. Those starts would have been worth about 1.0 WAR to the team, but replacing those starts with Lackey adds 1.8 WAR to a Cubs team already projected to win 93 games.
How does this effect the rest of the Cubs offseason? you might ask. Well, the expectation was the Cubs could add roughly $20 million to their 2016 payroll. If that's the case, this signing pretty much takes them out of the running for another major free-agent. That seems to be the greatest disappointment coming from the Lackey signing. He's not the exciting splash that every fan wants his team to make. Personally, I wanted the Cubs to give Jason Heyward all of the money and all of the years. Not necessarily because it's the best strategy, or that I wouldn't regret it halfway through the contract. I just wanted to be excited right now. I wanted instant gratification. I will not apologize for this because all evidence suggests: this is who we are. Take it up with your creator, or EVILution, or whoever else you'd like.
So, this leaves a few questions. Are the Cubs going to add another starting pitcher? Are they going to add an elite reliever? Who's going to hit lead-off? Who the hell is going to play Center Field? I don't know any of these things. My suspicion was that if they were going to trade for an impact starting pitcher, it was going to cost them a minimum of Jorge Soler. With limitations on how much payroll they can add, I doubt at this point they'll deal Soler to make another significant addition to the rotation, opening up a second hole in the Outfield. The Cubs had been linked to reliever Darren O'Day early in the off-season, but as interest in O'Day increased, interest from the Cubs seems to have tempered. It now appears the Cubs will employ a similar strategy with the Bullpen as they did, with some success, in 2015. They've already started the process, adding Ryan Cook and Rex Brothers, inexpensive rebound candidates coming off a combination of injuries and poor performance. Center Field is still the biggest area of need. I've thought all along the Cubs were more likely to fill that need through trade than free-agency (including Dexter Fowler). However, yesterday, I found some interesting news that went a bit under the radar. Javier Baez is going to play Center Field this winter in Puerto Rico. If he can do it well, and with his athleticism I'm confident he can, that certainly gives the team some more options. This does not, however, solve the mystery of the likely lead-off hitter. I still don't think that guy is on this team right now. I wish I could offer solutions, but unless the Cubs extend past their comfort level with the payroll, or get creative with some trades, I don't see a clear answer. We know Dexter Fowler is available and can do the job, but he's probably asking for a contract in the 4-years/$60 million range. Denard Span is a slightly less attractive free-agent possibility, expected to receive a contract in the 3-years/$40 million range. A couple weeks ago, the Cubs were rumored to have discussed a Starlin Castro for Brett Gardner deal with the New York Yankees. A deal that would have been a net increase of $6 million to the 2016 payroll. That's a move that fits more with the Cubs budget, and fills the lead-off need, but Gardner profiles best as a Left Fielder. He's been roughly average over the past three seasons in Center Field over a sample of 180 games. Now 32, and signed through 2018, Gardner's defensive decline would only be amplified with a full-time move to Center Field.
There's two main takeaways from this: The Lackey signing was a good deal, and an improvement, despite how much of an asshole he might be. The Cubs definitely still have work to do. All else is guesswork, providing no limit to the number of hot takes to be offered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)