It’s the eighth episode of a super awesome podcast featuring me and Sahadev Sharma. You can listen to the podcast there below, or download it for later listening. You can also subscribe via iTunes. Here’s your iTunes link, and you can also find it by searching in the iTunes store. For those of you who use other feed-catching services, here’s the podcast feed.

As always, you can send questions, comments, etc. to the official podcast email address (podcast AT bleachernation DOT com) if you want your thoughts included on a future show. It’s fun to include you folks, so, like, do it. We got in a whole bunch of emails this week.

Before that, we talked about the Cubs’ Winter Meetings experience, the implications of the (surprisingly controversial) Nate Schierholtz signing (during which Sahadev busts my chops about sample sizes) and Ian Stewart re-signing, the big moves around baseball (Greinke, Rays/Royals, etc.), and the latest Alfonso Soriano rumor.

It’s a long one (about a buck-fifteen), but a good one this week. Check it out and enjoy:

  • Kyle

    Replacement Level Yankees Weblog had a nice statistical breakdown on Schierholtz when it looked like they might go after him:

    (it’s a few down, they don’t let you link directly to each post).

    Talks about the proper way to project splits, which is kind of interesting.

    • hansman1982

      Ha, looking 1 article down I see this gem about Russell Martin:

      “It seems to me the Yankees could have matched this deal and I’m not sure why they didn’t.”

      Sound familiar? (I’m not directing this at you, btw)

  • Myles – WCSW

    Last year, Schierholtz had a very crazy split, but until last year it was literally even. It’s a total sample size warning.

    • Brett

      Shrug. I thought it was an interesting talking point. Even Sahadev busted my chops on that one.

      • Myles – WCSW

        Understood, and it IS interesting to see how crazy the 2012 splits are. I just don’t think Schierholtz is a very good representative of platoon success.

  • Rob

    Brett – Is it better for you in any way to have people subscribe via I-Tunes, as opposed to just listening from your web site?

    • Brett

      Thanks for asking Rob – not really. Subscribing is nice because it ensures that folks won’t miss an episode because they don’t see it on the site, but we don’t make any money off of it (or any of the podcast, really – we just enjoy it). So, however you best enjoy listening, go for it. And thanks.

  • Troy

    Brett and Sahadev, great podcast! You were talking about ranking farm systems putting the Cubs possibly in the top 10. Do you think if we trade Soriano and maybe Garza( along with a few smart moves along the way) that we may be looking at a top 5 system come next year at this time? I know what Ifs are irritating… But since this seams to be the direction of the cubs. It got me curious


    • Brett

      Absolutely possible – though I think the progress/regress of guys already in the system (coupled with a good draft) would probably be the thing that pushes them into top 5 territory, if that happens.

  • Troy

    To you

  • Troy

    To your point I think promotions or regressions from other clubs will play a part with how the cubs system is compared to folks like the Rangers, Jays, O’s and others.

  • Pingback: Other Teams Think the Cubs’ Future Looks Bright and Other Bullets | Bleacher Nation | Chicago Cubs News, Rumors, and Commentary()

  • BD

    Got to this late- but two thoughts that struck me regarding the Shileds trade:

    1) KC window can’t be for next 6 years+, can it? Would they be able to keep all of their core players deep into arbitration and beyond?

    2) Doesn’t the package seem more fair when you compare it to the package for Dickey? Myers is a little higher rated than d’Arnaud, and Odorizzi is a little higher rated than Syndergaard, but the Royals also got Wade Davis.