It's like they already won!
For Apex, Toddy Walker's thoughts (http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7096345/todd-walker-said-theo-epstein-succeed-chicago-cubs-gm)on Epstein.
Quote from: BH on October 13, 2011, 12:03:54 PM
For Apex, Toddy Walker's thoughts (http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7096345/todd-walker-said-theo-epstein-succeed-chicago-cubs-gm)on Epstein.
Turd.
I can't imagine why Theo would want to leave Boston (http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2011/10/henry_did_not_s.html).
Nothing better then telling a player who's still on the team for another 6 years that you never wanted him to begin with.
We should give them jackson and whoever they want and take crawford.
From crazy rumor guy (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/10/theo-epstein-announcement-not-expected-today.html).
"Current Padres GM Jed Hoyer is being considered by the Cubs and Epstein, tweets SI's Jon Heyman. In that scenario, Josh Byrnes would become the Padres' GM. Heyman notes that the Cubs are also looking at Padres executives Byrnes and Jason McLeod for themselves, should Hoyer stay. All the executives were once members of the Boston front office with Epstein."
Quote from: BH on October 18, 2011, 01:12:54 PM
From crazy rumor guy (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/10/theo-epstein-announcement-not-expected-today.html).
"Current Padres GM Jed Hoyer is being considered by the Cubs and Epstein, tweets SI's Jon Heyman. In that scenario, Josh Byrnes would become the Padres' GM. Heyman notes that the Cubs are also looking at Padres executives Byrnes and Jason McLeod for themselves, should Hoyer stay. All the executives were once members of the Boston front office with Epstein."
They are going to hire TWO baseball guys? Terrible, terrible idea.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 18, 2011, 01:41:22 PM
Quote from: BH on October 18, 2011, 01:12:54 PM
From crazy rumor guy (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/10/theo-epstein-announcement-not-expected-today.html).
"Current Padres GM Jed Hoyer is being considered by the Cubs and Epstein, tweets SI's Jon Heyman. In that scenario, Josh Byrnes would become the Padres' GM. Heyman notes that the Cubs are also looking at Padres executives Byrnes and Jason McLeod for themselves, should Hoyer stay. All the executives were once members of the Boston front office with Epstein."
They are going to hire TWO baseball guys? Terrible, terrible idea.
Any luck finding that datase yet?
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 18, 2011, 01:41:22 PM
Quote from: BH on October 18, 2011, 01:12:54 PM
From crazy rumor guy (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/10/theo-epstein-announcement-not-expected-today.html).
"Current Padres GM Jed Hoyer is being considered by the Cubs and Epstein, tweets SI's Jon Heyman. In that scenario, Josh Byrnes would become the Padres' GM. Heyman notes that the Cubs are also looking at Padres executives Byrnes and Jason McLeod for themselves, should Hoyer stay. All the executives were once members of the Boston front office with Epstein."
They are going to hire TWO baseball guys? Terrible, terrible idea.
Surprise! I have no idea what's going on...I thought Epstein was going to be the GM. What is this Hoyer guy going to do?
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on October 18, 2011, 03:32:35 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 18, 2011, 01:41:22 PM
Quote from: BH on October 18, 2011, 01:12:54 PM
From crazy rumor guy (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/10/theo-epstein-announcement-not-expected-today.html).
"Current Padres GM Jed Hoyer is being considered by the Cubs and Epstein, tweets SI's Jon Heyman. In that scenario, Josh Byrnes would become the Padres' GM. Heyman notes that the Cubs are also looking at Padres executives Byrnes and Jason McLeod for themselves, should Hoyer stay. All the executives were once members of the Boston front office with Epstein."
They are going to hire TWO baseball guys? Terrible, terrible idea.
Surprise! I have no idea what's going on...I thought Epstein was going to be the GM. What is this Hoyer guy going to do?
No, Epstein is going to have a swank new title like President, Grand Poobah or Supreme Leader.
Quote from: CT III on October 18, 2011, 03:40:11 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on October 18, 2011, 03:32:35 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 18, 2011, 01:41:22 PM
Quote from: BH on October 18, 2011, 01:12:54 PM
From crazy rumor guy (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/10/theo-epstein-announcement-not-expected-today.html).
"Current Padres GM Jed Hoyer is being considered by the Cubs and Epstein, tweets SI's Jon Heyman. In that scenario, Josh Byrnes would become the Padres' GM. Heyman notes that the Cubs are also looking at Padres executives Byrnes and Jason McLeod for themselves, should Hoyer stay. All the executives were once members of the Boston front office with Epstein."
They are going to hire TWO baseball guys? Terrible, terrible idea.
Surprise! I have no idea what's going on...I thought Epstein was going to be the GM. What is this Hoyer guy going to do?
No, Epstein is going to have a swank new title like President, Grand Poobah or Supreme Leader.
"Defender of the Faith."
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 18, 2011, 03:51:10 PM
Quote from: CT III on October 18, 2011, 03:40:11 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on October 18, 2011, 03:32:35 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 18, 2011, 01:41:22 PM
Quote from: BH on October 18, 2011, 01:12:54 PM
From crazy rumor guy (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/10/theo-epstein-announcement-not-expected-today.html).
"Current Padres GM Jed Hoyer is being considered by the Cubs and Epstein, tweets SI's Jon Heyman. In that scenario, Josh Byrnes would become the Padres' GM. Heyman notes that the Cubs are also looking at Padres executives Byrnes and Jason McLeod for themselves, should Hoyer stay. All the executives were once members of the Boston front office with Epstein."
They are going to hire TWO baseball guys? Terrible, terrible idea.
Surprise! I have no idea what's going on...I thought Epstein was going to be the GM. What is this Hoyer guy going to do?
No, Epstein is going to have a swank new title like President, Grand Poobah or Supreme Leader.
"Defender of the Faith."
(http://oi52.tinypic.com/hv80bc.jpg)
Has anyone noticed Epstein's canine teeth? Is there a chance that he is a vampire?
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 18, 2011, 03:51:10 PM
Quote from: CT III on October 18, 2011, 03:40:11 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on October 18, 2011, 03:32:35 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 18, 2011, 01:41:22 PM
Quote from: BH on October 18, 2011, 01:12:54 PM
From crazy rumor guy (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/10/theo-epstein-announcement-not-expected-today.html).
"Current Padres GM Jed Hoyer is being considered by the Cubs and Epstein, tweets SI's Jon Heyman. In that scenario, Josh Byrnes would become the Padres' GM. Heyman notes that the Cubs are also looking at Padres executives Byrnes and Jason McLeod for themselves, should Hoyer stay. All the executives were once members of the Boston front office with Epstein."
They are going to hire TWO baseball guys? Terrible, terrible idea.
Surprise! I have no idea what's going on...I thought Epstein was going to be the GM. What is this Hoyer guy going to do?
No, Epstein is going to have a swank new title like President, Grand Poobah or Supreme Leader.
"Defender of the Faith."
Lord Protector of the Baseball Realm.
Quote from: SKO on October 18, 2011, 06:18:19 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 18, 2011, 03:51:10 PM
Quote from: CT III on October 18, 2011, 03:40:11 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on October 18, 2011, 03:32:35 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 18, 2011, 01:41:22 PM
Quote from: BH on October 18, 2011, 01:12:54 PM
From crazy rumor guy (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/10/theo-epstein-announcement-not-expected-today.html).
"Current Padres GM Jed Hoyer is being considered by the Cubs and Epstein, tweets SI's Jon Heyman. In that scenario, Josh Byrnes would become the Padres' GM. Heyman notes that the Cubs are also looking at Padres executives Byrnes and Jason McLeod for themselves, should Hoyer stay. All the executives were once members of the Boston front office with Epstein."
They are going to hire TWO baseball guys? Terrible, terrible idea.
Surprise! I have no idea what's going on...I thought Epstein was going to be the GM. What is this Hoyer guy going to do?
No, Epstein is going to have a swank new title like President, Grand Poobah or Supreme Leader.
"Defender of the Faith."
Lord Protector of the Baseball Realm.
Also known in 2013 as "Who?"
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 18, 2011, 06:24:48 PM
Quote from: SKO on October 18, 2011, 06:18:19 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 18, 2011, 03:51:10 PM
Quote from: CT III on October 18, 2011, 03:40:11 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on October 18, 2011, 03:32:35 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 18, 2011, 01:41:22 PM
Quote from: BH on October 18, 2011, 01:12:54 PM
From crazy rumor guy (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/10/theo-epstein-announcement-not-expected-today.html).
"Current Padres GM Jed Hoyer is being considered by the Cubs and Epstein, tweets SI's Jon Heyman. In that scenario, Josh Byrnes would become the Padres' GM. Heyman notes that the Cubs are also looking at Padres executives Byrnes and Jason McLeod for themselves, should Hoyer stay. All the executives were once members of the Boston front office with Epstein."
They are going to hire TWO baseball guys? Terrible, terrible idea.
Surprise! I have no idea what's going on...I thought Epstein was going to be the GM. What is this Hoyer guy going to do?
No, Epstein is going to have a swank new title like President, Grand Poobah or Supreme Leader.
"Defender of the Faith."
Lord Protector of the Baseball Realm.
Also known in 2013 as "Who?"
Just the Doctor.
Quote from: ChuckD on October 18, 2011, 06:30:30 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 18, 2011, 06:24:48 PM
Quote from: SKO on October 18, 2011, 06:18:19 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 18, 2011, 03:51:10 PM
Quote from: CT III on October 18, 2011, 03:40:11 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on October 18, 2011, 03:32:35 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 18, 2011, 01:41:22 PM
Quote from: BH on October 18, 2011, 01:12:54 PM
From crazy rumor guy (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/10/theo-epstein-announcement-not-expected-today.html).
"Current Padres GM Jed Hoyer is being considered by the Cubs and Epstein, tweets SI's Jon Heyman. In that scenario, Josh Byrnes would become the Padres' GM. Heyman notes that the Cubs are also looking at Padres executives Byrnes and Jason McLeod for themselves, should Hoyer stay. All the executives were once members of the Boston front office with Epstein."
They are going to hire TWO baseball guys? Terrible, terrible idea.
Surprise! I have no idea what's going on...I thought Epstein was going to be the GM. What is this Hoyer guy going to do?
No, Epstein is going to have a swank new title like President, Grand Poobah or Supreme Leader.
"Defender of the Faith."
Lord Protector of the Baseball Realm.
Also known in 2013 as "Who?"
Just the Doctor.
NERD.
Press conference tomorrow (http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7126311/source-chicago-cubs-expected-hire-theo-epstein-thursday)?
And he's bringing Jed Hoyer? Awful, awful that there will be two baseball guys instead of one.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 20, 2011, 10:05:18 AM
Press conference tomorrow (http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7126311/source-chicago-cubs-expected-hire-theo-epstein-thursday)?
And he's bringing Jed Hoyer? Awful, awful that there will be two baseball guys instead of one.
Ah, it's time for another installment of Revisionist History with Chuck!
You see guys, Chuck didn't say that hiring one baseball guy would be a failure (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?action=post;quote=246382;topic=7887.45;num_replies=122;sesc=0c54c4e1e9985d872d744ab69c75d420).
It was all of
us fucking mindreaders who said that hiring two baseball guys was a bad idea.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 20, 2011, 10:05:18 AM
Press conference tomorrow (http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7126311/source-chicago-cubs-expected-hire-theo-epstein-thursday)?
And he's bringing Jed Hoyer? Awful, awful that there will be two baseball guys instead of one.
Was anyone saying it would be an awful idea to have two smart baseball guys?
Quote from: Eli on October 20, 2011, 10:30:25 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 20, 2011, 10:05:18 AM
Press conference tomorrow (http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7126311/source-chicago-cubs-expected-hire-theo-epstein-thursday)?
And he's bringing Jed Hoyer? Awful, awful that there will be two baseball guys instead of one.
Was anyone saying it would be an awful idea to have two smart baseball guys?
Intrepid Reader: Tom RickettsOf course not. What idiot would ever say that? (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-06-15/sports/ct-spt-0616-ricketts-tom-cubs-chicago20110615_1_mike-quade-cubs-chairman-tom-ricketts-baseball-guy)
"I've never bought into the (idea) that I should have a baseball guy to watch my baseball guy and his baseball guys. Then what do you get — a baseball guy to watch the baseball guy who's watching your baseball guys?"
Quote from: R-V on October 20, 2011, 10:25:06 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 20, 2011, 10:05:18 AM
Press conference tomorrow (http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7126311/source-chicago-cubs-expected-hire-theo-epstein-thursday)?
And he's bringing Jed Hoyer? Awful, awful that there will be two baseball guys instead of one.
Ah, it's time for another installment of Revisionist History with Chuck!
You see guys, Chuck didn't say that hiring one baseball guy would be a failure (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7887.msg246382#msg246382).
It was all of us fucking mindreaders who said that hiring two baseball guys was a bad idea.
Link un-Morph'd
Quote from: Brownie on October 20, 2011, 10:33:36 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 20, 2011, 10:30:25 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 20, 2011, 10:05:18 AM
Press conference tomorrow (http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7126311/source-chicago-cubs-expected-hire-theo-epstein-thursday)?
And he's bringing Jed Hoyer? Awful, awful that there will be two baseball guys instead of one.
Was anyone saying it would be an awful idea to have two smart baseball guys?
Intrepid Reader: Tom Ricketts
Of course not. What idiot would ever say that? (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-06-15/sports/ct-spt-0616-ricketts-tom-cubs-chicago20110615_1_mike-quade-cubs-chairman-tom-ricketts-baseball-guy)
"I've never bought into the (idea) that I should have a baseball guy to watch my baseball guy and his baseball guys. Then what do you get — a baseball guy to watch the baseball guy who's watching your baseball guys?"
Saying the Cubs don't
need two "baseball guys" at the top isn't the same thing as saying it would be
an awful idea.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 20, 2011, 10:38:36 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 20, 2011, 10:33:36 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 20, 2011, 10:30:25 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 20, 2011, 10:05:18 AM
Press conference tomorrow (http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7126311/source-chicago-cubs-expected-hire-theo-epstein-thursday)?
And he's bringing Jed Hoyer? Awful, awful that there will be two baseball guys instead of one.
Was anyone saying it would be an awful idea to have two smart baseball guys?
Intrepid Reader: Tom Ricketts
Of course not. What idiot would ever say that? (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-06-15/sports/ct-spt-0616-ricketts-tom-cubs-chicago20110615_1_mike-quade-cubs-chairman-tom-ricketts-baseball-guy)
"I've never bought into the (idea) that I should have a baseball guy to watch my baseball guy and his baseball guys. Then what do you get — a baseball guy to watch the baseball guy who's watching your baseball guys?"
Saying the Cubs don't need two "baseball guys" at the top isn't the same thing as saying it would be an awful idea.
Exactly. I'm sure Ricketts wants to have as many smart "baseball guys" in the front office as possible. But naturally, Chuck chose to spin it as Ricketts saying he would prefer to NOT have it that way.
Quote from: Eli on October 20, 2011, 10:41:13 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 20, 2011, 10:38:36 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 20, 2011, 10:33:36 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 20, 2011, 10:30:25 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 20, 2011, 10:05:18 AM
Press conference tomorrow (http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7126311/source-chicago-cubs-expected-hire-theo-epstein-thursday)?
And he's bringing Jed Hoyer? Awful, awful that there will be two baseball guys instead of one.
Was anyone saying it would be an awful idea to have two smart baseball guys?
Intrepid Reader: Tom Ricketts
Of course not. What idiot would ever say that? (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-06-15/sports/ct-spt-0616-ricketts-tom-cubs-chicago20110615_1_mike-quade-cubs-chairman-tom-ricketts-baseball-guy)
"I've never bought into the (idea) that I should have a baseball guy to watch my baseball guy and his baseball guys. Then what do you get — a baseball guy to watch the baseball guy who's watching your baseball guys?"
Saying the Cubs don't need two "baseball guys" at the top isn't the same thing as saying it would be an awful idea.
Exactly. I'm sure Ricketts wants to have as many smart "baseball guys" in the front office as possible. But naturally, Chuck chose to spin it as Ricketts saying he would prefer to NOT have it that way.
God damn, Chuck ruins EVERYTHING. I bet he complained about his first heej.
Quote from: R-V on October 20, 2011, 10:47:07 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 20, 2011, 10:41:13 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 20, 2011, 10:38:36 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 20, 2011, 10:33:36 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 20, 2011, 10:30:25 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 20, 2011, 10:05:18 AM
Press conference tomorrow (http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7126311/source-chicago-cubs-expected-hire-theo-epstein-thursday)?
And he's bringing Jed Hoyer? Awful, awful that there will be two baseball guys instead of one.
Was anyone saying it would be an awful idea to have two smart baseball guys?
Intrepid Reader: Tom Ricketts
Of course not. What idiot would ever say that? (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-06-15/sports/ct-spt-0616-ricketts-tom-cubs-chicago20110615_1_mike-quade-cubs-chairman-tom-ricketts-baseball-guy)
"I've never bought into the (idea) that I should have a baseball guy to watch my baseball guy and his baseball guys. Then what do you get — a baseball guy to watch the baseball guy who's watching your baseball guys?"
Saying the Cubs don't need two "baseball guys" at the top isn't the same thing as saying it would be an awful idea.
Exactly. I'm sure Ricketts wants to have as many smart "baseball guys" in the front office as possible. But naturally, Chuck chose to spin it as Ricketts saying he would prefer to NOT have it that way.
God damn, Chuck ruins EVERYTHING. I bet he complained about his first heej.
Hanj?
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 20, 2011, 11:06:03 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 20, 2011, 10:47:07 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 20, 2011, 10:41:13 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 20, 2011, 10:38:36 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 20, 2011, 10:33:36 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 20, 2011, 10:30:25 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 20, 2011, 10:05:18 AM
Press conference tomorrow (http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7126311/source-chicago-cubs-expected-hire-theo-epstein-thursday)?
And he's bringing Jed Hoyer? Awful, awful that there will be two baseball guys instead of one.
Was anyone saying it would be an awful idea to have two smart baseball guys?
Intrepid Reader: Tom Ricketts
Of course not. What idiot would ever say that? (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-06-15/sports/ct-spt-0616-ricketts-tom-cubs-chicago20110615_1_mike-quade-cubs-chairman-tom-ricketts-baseball-guy)
"I've never bought into the (idea) that I should have a baseball guy to watch my baseball guy and his baseball guys. Then what do you get — a baseball guy to watch the baseball guy who's watching your baseball guys?"
Saying the Cubs don't need two "baseball guys" at the top isn't the same thing as saying it would be an awful idea.
Exactly. I'm sure Ricketts wants to have as many smart "baseball guys" in the front office as possible. But naturally, Chuck chose to spin it as Ricketts saying he would prefer to NOT have it that way.
God damn, Chuck ruins EVERYTHING. I bet he complained about his first heej.
Hanj?
Rimj.
Quote from: Slaky on October 20, 2011, 11:18:31 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 20, 2011, 11:06:03 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 20, 2011, 10:47:07 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 20, 2011, 10:41:13 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 20, 2011, 10:38:36 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 20, 2011, 10:33:36 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 20, 2011, 10:30:25 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 20, 2011, 10:05:18 AM
Press conference tomorrow (http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7126311/source-chicago-cubs-expected-hire-theo-epstein-thursday)?
And he's bringing Jed Hoyer? Awful, awful that there will be two baseball guys instead of one.
Was anyone saying it would be an awful idea to have two smart baseball guys?
Intrepid Reader: Tom Ricketts
Of course not. What idiot would ever say that? (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-06-15/sports/ct-spt-0616-ricketts-tom-cubs-chicago20110615_1_mike-quade-cubs-chairman-tom-ricketts-baseball-guy)
"I've never bought into the (idea) that I should have a baseball guy to watch my baseball guy and his baseball guys. Then what do you get — a baseball guy to watch the baseball guy who's watching your baseball guys?"
Saying the Cubs don't need two "baseball guys" at the top isn't the same thing as saying it would be an awful idea.
Exactly. I'm sure Ricketts wants to have as many smart "baseball guys" in the front office as possible. But naturally, Chuck chose to spin it as Ricketts saying he would prefer to NOT have it that way.
God damn, Chuck ruins EVERYTHING. I bet he complained about his first heej.
Hanj?
Rimj.
Rimj (no taintj).
Quote from: R-V on October 20, 2011, 12:21:34 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 20, 2011, 11:18:31 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 20, 2011, 11:06:03 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 20, 2011, 10:47:07 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 20, 2011, 10:41:13 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 20, 2011, 10:38:36 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 20, 2011, 10:33:36 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 20, 2011, 10:30:25 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 20, 2011, 10:05:18 AM
Press conference tomorrow (http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7126311/source-chicago-cubs-expected-hire-theo-epstein-thursday)?
And he's bringing Jed Hoyer? Awful, awful that there will be two baseball guys instead of one.
Was anyone saying it would be an awful idea to have two smart baseball guys?
Intrepid Reader: Tom Ricketts
Of course not. What idiot would ever say that? (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-06-15/sports/ct-spt-0616-ricketts-tom-cubs-chicago20110615_1_mike-quade-cubs-chairman-tom-ricketts-baseball-guy)
"I've never bought into the (idea) that I should have a baseball guy to watch my baseball guy and his baseball guys. Then what do you get — a baseball guy to watch the baseball guy who's watching your baseball guys?"
Saying the Cubs don't need two "baseball guys" at the top isn't the same thing as saying it would be an awful idea.
Exactly. I'm sure Ricketts wants to have as many smart "baseball guys" in the front office as possible. But naturally, Chuck chose to spin it as Ricketts saying he would prefer to NOT have it that way.
God damn, Chuck ruins EVERYTHING. I bet he complained about his first heej.
Hanj?
Rimj.
Rimj (no taintj).
If you have to ask you can't afford it
Quote from: Slaky on October 20, 2011, 11:18:31 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 20, 2011, 11:06:03 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 20, 2011, 10:47:07 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 20, 2011, 10:41:13 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 20, 2011, 10:38:36 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 20, 2011, 10:33:36 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 20, 2011, 10:30:25 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 20, 2011, 10:05:18 AM
Press conference tomorrow (http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7126311/source-chicago-cubs-expected-hire-theo-epstein-thursday)?
And he's bringing Jed Hoyer? Awful, awful that there will be two baseball guys instead of one.
Was anyone saying it would be an awful idea to have two smart baseball guys?
Intrepid Reader: Tom Ricketts
Of course not. What idiot would ever say that? (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-06-15/sports/ct-spt-0616-ricketts-tom-cubs-chicago20110615_1_mike-quade-cubs-chairman-tom-ricketts-baseball-guy)
"I've never bought into the (idea) that I should have a baseball guy to watch my baseball guy and his baseball guys. Then what do you get — a baseball guy to watch the baseball guy who's watching your baseball guys?"
Saying the Cubs don't need two "baseball guys" at the top isn't the same thing as saying it would be an awful idea.
Exactly. I'm sure Ricketts wants to have as many smart "baseball guys" in the front office as possible. But naturally, Chuck chose to spin it as Ricketts saying he would prefer to NOT have it that way.
God damn, Chuck ruins EVERYTHING. I bet he complained about his first heej.
Hanj?
Rimj.
Couldn't get the taste out of his mouth.
Quote from: Shooter on October 20, 2011, 07:02:05 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 20, 2011, 11:18:31 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 20, 2011, 11:06:03 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 20, 2011, 10:47:07 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 20, 2011, 10:41:13 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 20, 2011, 10:38:36 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 20, 2011, 10:33:36 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 20, 2011, 10:30:25 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 20, 2011, 10:05:18 AM
Press conference tomorrow (http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7126311/source-chicago-cubs-expected-hire-theo-epstein-thursday)?
And he's bringing Jed Hoyer? Awful, awful that there will be two baseball guys instead of one.
Was anyone saying it would be an awful idea to have two smart baseball guys?
Intrepid Reader: Tom Ricketts
Of course not. What idiot would ever say that? (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-06-15/sports/ct-spt-0616-ricketts-tom-cubs-chicago20110615_1_mike-quade-cubs-chairman-tom-ricketts-baseball-guy)
"I've never bought into the (idea) that I should have a baseball guy to watch my baseball guy and his baseball guys. Then what do you get — a baseball guy to watch the baseball guy who's watching your baseball guys?"
Saying the Cubs don't need two "baseball guys" at the top isn't the same thing as saying it would be an awful idea.
Exactly. I'm sure Ricketts wants to have as many smart "baseball guys" in the front office as possible. But naturally, Chuck chose to spin it as Ricketts saying he would prefer to NOT have it that way.
God damn, Chuck ruins EVERYTHING. I bet he complained about his first heej.
Hanj?
Rimj.
Couldn't get the taste out of his mouth.
Rimsh
I laughed.
Via obstructedview.net - this man (http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/8323434-452/root-for-theo-if-you-want-but-i-want-my-cubs-back.html) is so retarded he could write a column for the Trib. I don't even know what to quote because the whole thing is so goddamned stupid.
QuoteThe Cubs don't always need to chase the biggest name. Instead, let's do what the Red Sox did. They gave a local guy a shot. Epstein was personally invested in the team and delivered. It worked because he was one of them. Same as Nolan Ryan in Texas.
And you don't always need a homegrown guy. It's the essence of a man that matters, not the address. Look at the Pittsburgh Steelers. When Bill Cower left, everyone was calling for a big name. Instead they hired a hungry, young coach and supported him with appropriate resources and time. Look at Mike Tomlin now, and you think one thing: Steelers.
Of course my buddies think I'm nuts (and a few other things I can't print). They say, "I don't care how we do it, I just want to finally win."
But if I've waited this long, invested this much, I want more.
So if you want to root for Theo Epstein to make it to the Hall of Fame, go for it. As for me, I'm rooting to get my team back. The one that has players who play their butts off, and fans who appreciate them for it. So that when the Cubs do eventually win — and I know they will one of these years — the championship will honor all the Cubs fans who have rooted for them throughout the last 100 years, not a GM from Boston.
Quote from: R-V on October 21, 2011, 08:43:27 AM
Via obstructedview.net - this man (http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/8323434-452/root-for-theo-if-you-want-but-i-want-my-cubs-back.html) is so retarded he could write a column for the Trib. I don't even know what to quote because the whole thing is so goddamned stupid.
QuoteThe Cubs don't always need to chase the biggest name. Instead, let's do what the Red Sox did. They gave a local guy a shot. Epstein was personally invested in the team and delivered. It worked because he was one of them. Same as Nolan Ryan in Texas.
And you don't always need a homegrown guy. It's the essence of a man that matters, not the address. Look at the Pittsburgh Steelers. When Bill Cower left, everyone was calling for a big name. Instead they hired a hungry, young coach and supported him with appropriate resources and time. Look at Mike Tomlin now, and you think one thing: Steelers.
Of course my buddies think I'm nuts (and a few other things I can't print). They say, "I don't care how we do it, I just want to finally win."
But if I've waited this long, invested this much, I want more.
So if you want to root for Theo Epstein to make it to the Hall of Fame, go for it. As for me, I'm rooting to get my team back. The one that has players who play their butts off, and fans who appreciate them for it. So that when the Cubs do eventually win — and I know they will one of these years — the championship will honor all the Cubs fans who have rooted for them throughout the last 100 years, not a GM from Boston.
I think it's time to stop giving local guys access to write articles in the local papers. I look forward to the day when our entire baseball culture is transformed into something successful and all these "must retain the kubbee culture" assholes shut their mouths. I think the new regime, starting today, can get us there.
Gary Karton (http://www.e-squaredcommunications.com/about_e2.html) (Senior Consultant) joined E-Squared Communications after spending five years as senior writer/editor for the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation. In addition, he spent the 2005 baseball season covering the Washington Nationals for the Washington Post Express, a publication of the Washington Post. For six years, Gary was a reporter for The Washington Post, where he wrote news and feature articles on political figures and athletes. He was the co-author of No Free Lunch (Ballantine/One World, May 2002), the inspiring true story of Rodney Carroll, the President and CEO of The Welfare to Work Partnership. Prior to joining the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, he wrote hundred of speeches on welfare issues with business leaders, state governors, members of the White House and Democratic and Republican members of Congress. Gary has also written op-ed pieces that have appeared in several publications, including the Washington Post and USA Today.
#OccupyWrigley
Quote from: R-V on October 21, 2011, 08:43:27 AM
QuoteThe Cubs don't always need to chase the biggest name. Instead, let's do what the Red Sox did. They gave a local guy a shot. Epstein was personally invested in the team and delivered. It worked because he was one of them. Same as Nolan Ryan in Texas.
I must have missed the part where Nolan Ryan had anything to do with building this Rangers' team.
Quote from: Eli on October 21, 2011, 09:05:56 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 21, 2011, 08:43:27 AM
QuoteThe Cubs don't always need to chase the biggest name. Instead, let's do what the Red Sox did. They gave a local guy a shot. Epstein was personally invested in the team and delivered. It worked because he was one of them. Same as Nolan Ryan in Texas.
I must have missed the part where Nolan Ryan had anything to do with building this Rangers' team.
The steelers after cowher is a great example as well... wtf.
Holy crap is that awful.
The only thing good about that article is the first comment.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 21, 2011, 08:54:17 AM
Gary Karton (http://www.e-squaredcommunications.com/about_e2.html) (Senior Consultant) joined E-Squared Communications after spending five years as senior writer/editor for the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation. In addition, he spent the 2005 baseball season covering the Washington Nationals for the Washington Post Express, a publication of the Washington Post. For six years, Gary was a reporter for The Washington Post, where he wrote news and feature articles on political figures and athletes. He was the co-author of No Free Lunch (Ballantine/One World, May 2002), the inspiring true story of Rodney Carroll, the President and CEO of The Welfare to Work Partnership. Prior to joining the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, he wrote hundred of speeches on welfare issues with business leaders, state governors, members of the White House and Democratic and Republican members of Congress. Gary has also written op-ed pieces that have appeared in several publications, including the Washington Post and USA Today.
now he can add "Known Dumbass" to his resume.
Quote from: R-V on October 21, 2011, 08:43:27 AM
Via obstructedview.net - this man (http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/8323434-452/root-for-theo-if-you-want-but-i-want-my-cubs-back.html) is so retarded he could write a column for the Trib. I don't even know what to quote because the whole thing is so goddamned stupid.
QuoteThe Cubs don't always need to chase the biggest name. Instead, let's do what the Red Sox did. They gave a local guy a shot. Epstein was personally invested in the team and delivered. It worked because he was one of them. Same as Nolan Ryan in Texas.
And you don't always need a homegrown guy. It's the essence of a man that matters, not the address. Look at the Pittsburgh Steelers. When Bill Cower left, everyone was calling for a big name. Instead they hired a hungry, young coach and supported him with appropriate resources and time. Look at Mike Tomlin now, and you think one thing: Steelers.
Of course my buddies think I'm nuts (and a few other things I can't print). They say, "I don't care how we do it, I just want to finally win."
But if I've waited this long, invested this much, I want more.
So if you want to root for Theo Epstein to make it to the Hall of Fame, go for it. As for me, I'm rooting to get my team back. The one that has players who play their butts off, and fans who appreciate them for it. So that when the Cubs do eventually win — and I know they will one of these years — the championship will honor all the Cubs fans who have rooted for them throughout the last 100 years, not a GM from Boston.
So this doofus is pining for a local guy to take over and yet in the next paragraph states you don't always need a homegrown guy.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 21, 2011, 08:54:17 AM
Gary Karton (http://www.e-squaredcommunications.com/about_e2.html) (Senior Consultant) joined E-Squared Communications after spending five years as senior writer/editor for the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation. In addition, he spent the 2005 baseball season covering the Washington Nationals for the Washington Post Express, a publication of the Washington Post. For six years, Gary was a reporter for The Washington Post, where he wrote news and feature articles on political figures and athletes. He was the co-author of No Free Lunch (Ballantine/One World, May 2002), the inspiring true story of Rodney Carroll, the President and CEO of The Welfare to Work Partnership. Prior to joining the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, he wrote hundred of speeches on welfare issues with business leaders, state governors, members of the White House and Democratic and Republican members of Congress. Gary has also written op-ed pieces that have appeared in several publications, including the Washington Post and USA Today.
I bet this guy's tight with George Will.
Mister, we could use a man like Emil Verban again.
Quote from: Eli on October 21, 2011, 09:05:56 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 21, 2011, 08:43:27 AM
QuoteThe Cubs don't always need to chase the biggest name. Instead, let's do what the Red Sox did. They gave a local guy a shot. Epstein was personally invested in the team and delivered. It worked because he was one of them. Same as Nolan Ryan in Texas.
I must have missed the part where Nolan Ryan had anything to do with building this Rangers' team.
Hey, he shows up looking hopelessly constipated and watches every damn game. That's buildin' enough.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 21, 2011, 09:30:02 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 21, 2011, 08:54:17 AM
Gary Karton (http://www.e-squaredcommunications.com/about_e2.html) (Senior Consultant) joined E-Squared Communications after spending five years as senior writer/editor for the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation. In addition, he spent the 2005 baseball season covering the Washington Nationals for the Washington Post Express, a publication of the Washington Post. For six years, Gary was a reporter for The Washington Post, where he wrote news and feature articles on political figures and athletes. He was the co-author of No Free Lunch (Ballantine/One World, May 2002), the inspiring true story of Rodney Carroll, the President and CEO of The Welfare to Work Partnership. Prior to joining the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, he wrote hundred of speeches on welfare issues with business leaders, state governors, members of the White House and Democratic and Republican members of Congress. Gary has also written op-ed pieces that have appeared in several publications, including the Washington Post and USA Today.
I bet this guy's tight with George Will.
Mister, we could use a man like Emil Verban again.
Well done.
The fact that the next line in the source song is
Didn't need no welfare state makes it fit even more.
Quote from: BH on October 21, 2011, 08:52:29 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 21, 2011, 08:43:27 AM
Via obstructedview.net - this man (http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/8323434-452/root-for-theo-if-you-want-but-i-want-my-cubs-back.html) is so retarded he could write a column for the Trib. I don't even know what to quote because the whole thing is so goddamned stupid.
QuoteThe Cubs don't always need to chase the biggest name. Instead, let's do what the Red Sox did. They gave a local guy a shot. Epstein was personally invested in the team and delivered. It worked because he was one of them. Same as Nolan Ryan in Texas.
And you don't always need a homegrown guy. It's the essence of a man that matters, not the address. Look at the Pittsburgh Steelers. When Bill Cower left, everyone was calling for a big name. Instead they hired a hungry, young coach and supported him with appropriate resources and time. Look at Mike Tomlin now, and you think one thing: Steelers.
Of course my buddies think I'm nuts (and a few other things I can't print). They say, "I don't care how we do it, I just want to finally win."
But if I've waited this long, invested this much, I want more.
So if you want to root for Theo Epstein to make it to the Hall of Fame, go for it. As for me, I'm rooting to get my team back. The one that has players who play their butts off, and fans who appreciate them for it. So that when the Cubs do eventually win — and I know they will one of these years — the championship will honor all the Cubs fans who have rooted for them throughout the last 100 years, not a GM from Boston.
I think it's time to stop giving local guys access to write articles in the local papers. I look forward to the day when our entire baseball culture is transformed into something successful and all these "must retain the kubbee culture" assholes shut their mouths. I think the new regime, starting today, can get us there.
Yeah, the local guys do such a great job running things we should make them president of everthing. Oh, wait.
Hey, maybe Theo Epstein can make things right with Gary and have a multi-pouch fanny pack night at Wrigley Field! (http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/D411659.html)
Quote from: Brownie on October 21, 2011, 03:11:05 PM
Hey, maybe Theo Epstein can make things right with Gary and have a multi-pouch fanny pack night at Wrigley Field! (http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/D411659.html)
Can you even imagine how many Bacci slices Huey could cram into one of those?
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 21, 2011, 05:35:50 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 21, 2011, 03:11:05 PM
Hey, maybe Theo Epstein can make things right with Gary and have a multi-pouch fanny pack night at Wrigley Field! (http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/D411659.html)
Can you even imagine how many Bacci slices Huey could cram into one of those?
Well, that made me laugh harder than most Huey stickpokes.
Done and done.
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2011/10/its_official_ep.html
Quote from: CT III on October 21, 2011, 09:21:17 PM
Done and done.
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2011/10/its_official_ep.html
And they mean
done:
QuoteThe clubs also have reached an agreement regarding a process by which appropriate compensation will be determined for the Red Sox and that issue will be resolved in the near term.
Glad that's all settled.
I really wish they hired Jake the Old Style guy. Oh well. I can't root for the Cubs now.
I'm still awe struck that the beav has done a amazing job.
Quote from: BBM on October 21, 2011, 09:53:56 PM
I still awe struck that the beav has done a amazing job.
I'm sure Chuck will be along at some point to explain how this is all just further proof that Ricketts is a no count fuck-up.
In direct contradiction to prior reports it sounds like the Cubs will be sending prospects to SD for compensation. Damn liberal media.
While we anxiously await the arrival of Theo (and Chuck's Andrew Freidman datase), he's busy saying goodbye to Bostoners.
(http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/assets_c/2011/10/609Theo_thank_you-thumb-609x1100-53948.jpg)
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2011, 08:05:07 PM
While we anxiously await the arrival of Theo (and Chuck's Andrew Freidman datase), he's busy saying goodbye to Bostoners.
(http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/assets_c/2011/10/609Theo_thank_you-thumb-609x1100-53948.jpg)
GO SOX!?!??!?!!
That son of a bitch
#FireTheo
Whatever Theo does, he should keep (http://www.suntimes.com/sports/8379686-573/memo-to-theo-epstein-parts-of-old-cubs-regime-are-worth-keeping.html)the entire cubs organization. Lots of good guys already on the ground.
Quote from: BH on October 24, 2011, 08:55:08 AM
Whatever Theo does, he should keep (http://www.suntimes.com/sports/8379686-573/memo-to-theo-epstein-parts-of-old-cubs-regime-are-worth-keeping.html)the entire cubs organization. Lots of good guys already on the ground.
All those guys are going to quit out of loyalty to Jim Hendry anyway.
Quote from: BH on October 24, 2011, 08:55:08 AM
Whatever Theo does, he should keep (http://www.suntimes.com/sports/8379686-573/memo-to-theo-epstein-parts-of-old-cubs-regime-are-worth-keeping.html)the entire cubs organization. Lots of good guys already on the ground.
Oh my god this guy. He is the dumbest of the dumb. Phil Rogers, step aside.
QuoteConsider that the Cubs' old regime had as many playoff appearances as Epstein's and Jed Hoyer's teams combined the last two years.
Brain matter, everywhere.
Macphail (http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/cubs/post/_/id/6863/macphail-theo-faces-more-pressure)thinks theo will have more pressure in chicago than he had in boston to win. WTF is going on.
Quote from: Slaky on October 24, 2011, 09:28:09 AM
Quote from: BH on October 24, 2011, 08:55:08 AM
Whatever Theo does, he should keep (http://www.suntimes.com/sports/8379686-573/memo-to-theo-epstein-parts-of-old-cubs-regime-are-worth-keeping.html)the entire cubs organization. Lots of good guys already on the ground.
Oh my god this guy. He is the dumbest of the dumb. Phil Rogers, step aside.
QuoteConsider that the Cubs' old regime had as many playoff appearances as Epstein's and Jed Hoyer's teams combined the last two years.
Brain matter, everywhere.
+1
Quote from: Slaky on October 24, 2011, 09:28:09 AM
Quote from: BH on October 24, 2011, 08:55:08 AM
Whatever Theo does, he should keep (http://www.suntimes.com/sports/8379686-573/memo-to-theo-epstein-parts-of-old-cubs-regime-are-worth-keeping.html)the entire cubs organization. Lots of good guys already on the ground.
Oh my god this guy. He is the dumbest of the dumb. Phil Rogers, step aside.
QuoteConsider that the Cubs' old regime had as many playoff appearances as Epstein's and Jed Hoyer's teams combined the last two years.
Brain matter, everywhere.
In the case of Bush, Gammons couldn't have been more wrong.
''I don't know if there's another assistant GM in baseball who has seen more players in his organization and knows more about those players than Randy Bush,'' said one longtime, high-ranking major-league official from outside the organization."
Well, if one unidentified, longtime, high-ranking major-league official from outside the organization, thinks that is true, who am I to doubt it?
Quote from: CBStew on October 24, 2011, 12:21:31 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 24, 2011, 09:28:09 AM
Quote from: BH on October 24, 2011, 08:55:08 AM
Whatever Theo does, he should keep (http://www.suntimes.com/sports/8379686-573/memo-to-theo-epstein-parts-of-old-cubs-regime-are-worth-keeping.html)the entire cubs organization. Lots of good guys already on the ground.
Oh my god this guy. He is the dumbest of the dumb. Phil Rogers, step aside.
QuoteConsider that the Cubs' old regime had as many playoff appearances as Epstein's and Jed Hoyer's teams combined the last two years.
Brain matter, everywhere.
In the case of Bush, Gammons couldn't have been more wrong.
''I don't know if there's another assistant GM in baseball who has seen more players in his organization and knows more about those players than Randy Bush,'' said one longtime, high-ranking major-league official from outside the organization."
Well, if one unidentified, longtime, high-ranking major-league official from outside the organization, thinks that is true, who am I to doubt it?
I know I've never doubted Jim Hendry.
Quote from: CBStew on October 24, 2011, 12:21:31 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 24, 2011, 09:28:09 AM
Quote from: BH on October 24, 2011, 08:55:08 AM
Whatever Theo does, he should keep (http://www.suntimes.com/sports/8379686-573/memo-to-theo-epstein-parts-of-old-cubs-regime-are-worth-keeping.html)the entire cubs organization. Lots of good guys already on the ground.
Oh my god this guy. He is the dumbest of the dumb. Phil Rogers, step aside.
QuoteConsider that the Cubs' old regime had as many playoff appearances as Epstein's and Jed Hoyer's teams combined the last two years.
Brain matter, everywhere.
In the case of Bush, Gammons couldn't have been more wrong.
''I don't know if there's another assistant GM in baseball who has seen more players in his organization and knows more about those players than Randy Bush,'' said one longtime, high-ranking major-league official from outside the organization."
Well, if one unidentified, longtime, high-ranking major-league official from outside the organization, thinks that is true, who am I to doubt it?
Does he know they all suck?
Epstein walking at Wrigley, you guys!!!! (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-1025-cubs-crane-kenney-chicago--20111025,0,6854434.story)
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 24, 2011, 07:44:04 PM
Epstein walking at Wrigley, you guys!!!! (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-1025-cubs-crane-kenney-chicago--20111025,0,6854434.story)
I can't tell you how exciting that video was. No. Really. I can't tell you. You have to wait for the press conderence.
Press con now. Theo is allergic to bullshit. I think I love him.
Theo did have coffee at Starbucks! BREAKING!
Theo's first moves need to be to sign Dempster and trade for Derrek Holland. Imagine how the two of them can keep things in the clubhouse light, with all their zany impressions.
Does he know who owns the Cubs?
Quote from: BH on October 25, 2011, 12:34:50 PM
Theo's first moves need to be to sign Dempster and trade for Derrek Holland. Imagine how the two of them can keep things in the clubhouse light, with all their zany impressions.
You forgot Brian Wilson. Then they would have an unbeatable comedy triumvirate. He's black ops!
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 25, 2011, 02:12:50 PM
Quote from: BH on October 25, 2011, 12:34:50 PM
Theo's first moves need to be to sign Dempster and trade for Derrek Holland. Imagine how the two of them can keep things in the clubhouse light, with all their zany impressions.
You forgot Brian Wilson. Then they would have an unbeatable comedy triumvirate. He's black ops!
(https://i.minus.com/jkvpgahDcT66r.JPG) (https://min.us/lkvpgahDcT66r)
Can Theo destroy Cubness before Cubness detroys Theo?
(http://i55.tinypic.com/mrwo6v.jpg)
Quote from: Slaky on October 25, 2011, 02:16:08 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 25, 2011, 02:12:50 PM
Quote from: BH on October 25, 2011, 12:34:50 PM
Theo's first moves need to be to sign Dempster and trade for Derrek Holland. Imagine how the two of them can keep things in the clubhouse light, with all their zany impressions.
You forgot Brian Wilson. Then they would have an unbeatable comedy triumvirate. He's black ops!
(https://i.minus.com/jkvpgahDcT66r.JPG) (https://min.us/lkvpgahDcT66r)
Brian Wilson is truly a testament to Trying Way Too Fucking Hard™.
Quote from: Fork on October 25, 2011, 02:57:53 PM
Can Theo destroy Cubness before Cubness detroys Theo?
(http://i55.tinypic.com/mrwo6v.jpg)
Am I a bad person for wishing terrible harm on both the subject of this photo and its photographer?
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 25, 2011, 03:31:40 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 25, 2011, 02:57:53 PM
Can Theo destroy Cubness before Cubness detroys Theo?
(http://i55.tinypic.com/mrwo6v.jpg)
Am I a bad person for wishing terrible harm on both the subject of this photo and its photographer?
No.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 25, 2011, 03:31:40 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 25, 2011, 02:57:53 PM
Can Theo destroy Cubness before Cubness detroys Theo?
(http://i55.tinypic.com/mrwo6v.jpg)
Am I a bad person for wishing terrible harm on both the subject of this photo and its photographer?
Tonker says yes
Has Crane Kenney been fired yet?
Quote from: Tollbooth Yeti on October 25, 2011, 03:32:49 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 25, 2011, 03:31:40 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 25, 2011, 02:57:53 PM
Can Theo destroy Cubness before Cubness detroys Theo?
(http://i55.tinypic.com/mrwo6v.jpg)
Am I a bad person for wishing terrible harm on both the subject of this photo and its photographer?
Tonker says yes
It's a hygiene / dental thing.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 25, 2011, 03:31:40 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 25, 2011, 02:57:53 PM
Can Theo destroy Cubness before Cubness detroys Theo?
(http://i55.tinypic.com/mrwo6v.jpg)
Am I a bad person for wishing terrible harm on both the subject of this photo and its photographer?
You know who'd agree with you?
Al Yellon.
Quote from: Canadouche on October 25, 2011, 06:41:38 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 25, 2011, 03:31:40 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 25, 2011, 02:57:53 PM
Can Theo destroy Cubness before Cubness detroys Theo?
(http://i55.tinypic.com/mrwo6v.jpg)
Am I a bad person for wishing terrible harm on both the subject of this photo and its photographer?
You know who'd agree with you?
Al Yellon.
Al Yellon does, in fact, hate proper photography, so you're correct. Broken clock.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 25, 2011, 07:09:16 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on October 25, 2011, 06:41:38 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 25, 2011, 03:31:40 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 25, 2011, 02:57:53 PM
Can Theo destroy Cubness before Cubness detroys Theo?
(http://i55.tinypic.com/mrwo6v.jpg)
Am I a bad person for wishing terrible harm on both the subject of this photo and its photographer?
You know who'd agree with you?
Al Yellon.
Al Yellon does, in fact, hate proper photography, so you're correct. Broken clock.
I laughed.
Quote from: flannj on October 25, 2011, 06:24:40 PM
Quote from: Tollbooth Yeti on October 25, 2011, 03:32:49 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 25, 2011, 03:31:40 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 25, 2011, 02:57:53 PM
Can Theo destroy Cubness before Cubness detroys Theo?
(http://i55.tinypic.com/mrwo6v.jpg)
Am I a bad person for wishing terrible harm on both the subject of this photo and its photographer?
Tonker says yes
It's a hygiene / dental thing.
Ronnie serves as an aspirational model for Tonk.
Move over, Gary Karton. You've got company on the Retarded Sun-Times Columns About Theo Epstein dais.
The analogy Telander tries to draw is so breathtakingly stupid that I don't know what to quote.
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/8439764-419/cubs-have-adopted-the-1-percent-solution.html
Quote from: R-V on October 27, 2011, 09:07:47 AM
Move over, Gary Karton. You've got company on the Retarded Sun-Times Columns About Theo Epstein dais.
The analogy Telander tries to draw is so breathtakingly stupid that I don't know what to quote.
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/8439764-419/cubs-have-adopted-the-1-percent-solution.html
This is pretty good:
Quote
Yale undergrad, law degree in his spare time, smart-as-a-whip, boy-wonder Theo won two World Series in his nine years as general manager for the Red Sox. But where did he play his pro ball? Oh, in the hallways of various front offices.
Screw his success doing what the Cubs hired him to do. He never did this other job that the Cubs don't need him to do*
*Hendry never played pro ball ether, FWIW.
Quote from: Fork on October 27, 2011, 09:53:05 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 27, 2011, 09:07:47 AM
Move over, Gary Karton. You've got company on the Retarded Sun-Times Columns About Theo Epstein dais.
The analogy Telander tries to draw is so breathtakingly stupid that I don't know what to quote.
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/8439764-419/cubs-have-adopted-the-1-percent-solution.html
This is pretty good:
Quote
Yale undergrad, law degree in his spare time, smart-as-a-whip, boy-wonder Theo won two World Series in his nine years as general manager for the Red Sox. But where did he play his pro ball? Oh, in the hallways of various front offices.
Screw his success doing what the Cubs hired him to do. He never did this other job that the Cubs don't need him to do*
*Hendry never played pro ball ether, FWIW.
Wow, Telander is more out of touch than a monk. This is sad.
Quote from: Fork on October 27, 2011, 09:53:05 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 27, 2011, 09:07:47 AM
Move over, Gary Karton. You've got company on the Retarded Sun-Times Columns About Theo Epstein dais.
The analogy Telander tries to draw is so breathtakingly stupid that I don't know what to quote.
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/8439764-419/cubs-have-adopted-the-1-percent-solution.html
This is pretty good:
Quote
Yale undergrad, law degree in his spare time, smart-as-a-whip, boy-wonder Theo won two World Series in his nine years as general manager for the Red Sox. But where did he play his pro ball? Oh, in the hallways of various front offices.
Screw his success doing what the Cubs hired him to do. He never did this other job that the Cubs don't need him to do*
*Hendry never played pro ball ether, FWIW.
Here's the thing about bringing in Theo...
It's such a self-evidently smart hire that the lackwits in the Chicago sports media—so accustomed to being able to replay the same familiar bits, aimed at the same easy targets, over and over again—have had to go out and trailblaze whole new frontiers of stupidity just for sake of having something,
anything, to say about it.
We've entered a brave new era of discovery, with each day bringing us a new pioneer of the absurd unearthing a whole new brand of idiocy that seems like it, too, could stand for all time as The Dumbest Fucking Thing Ever Written. But just you wait until tomorrow.
What a time to be alive.
Quote from: Slaky on October 27, 2011, 09:54:54 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 27, 2011, 09:53:05 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 27, 2011, 09:07:47 AM
Move over, Gary Karton. You've got company on the Retarded Sun-Times Columns About Theo Epstein dais.
The analogy Telander tries to draw is so breathtakingly stupid that I don't know what to quote.
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/8439764-419/cubs-have-adopted-the-1-percent-solution.html
This is pretty good:
Quote
Yale undergrad, law degree in his spare time, smart-as-a-whip, boy-wonder Theo won two World Series in his nine years as general manager for the Red Sox. But where did he play his pro ball? Oh, in the hallways of various front offices.
Screw his success doing what the Cubs hired him to do. He never did this other job that the Cubs don't need him to do*
*Hendry never played pro ball ether, FWIW.
Wow, Telander is more out of touch than a monk. This is sad.
QuoteAt a time when the middle class is vanishing, when Baby Boomers are wondering how they're going to be able to retire, when job-hunting young people who are saddled with mammoth education and government debt are protesting the clever profiteers at the top of the capitalist food chain, is it silly to ask if Tom Ricketts and Theo Epstein are appropriate heroes for the times?
Aren't these the type of fellows who helped muddy up what used to be known as the American Dream?
Let's play multiple choice:
Rick Telander wrote the above phrasing:
a) in the Sun-Times newsroom
b) at Grant Park during an Occupy Chicago protest
c) In the press box at Busch Stadium
d) In his 7,000 square-foot home east of downtown Lake Forest
HINT: Likely not a) or c).
I very much like this pregnant parenthetical:
QuoteFor sure, that new stuff, called sabermetrics by some, was all the rage. And it makes sense, to a point. (See "Moneyball'' for details.)
Any page in particular, Rick?
But this Whitman-esque turn of phrase might take the cake:
QuoteThe 103-year desert of failure stares at Cubs fans like a howling wasteland.
QuoteIf we do, then why — if the Texas Rangers win this World Series, which they lead 3-2 — will 10 different baseball teams have won World Series titles in the last 11 years?
The only team to win it twice during Rick's example is, of course, where the new Cubs president came from.
So does the stupid come naturally from Rick or does he have to work at it?
I sent the following to rtelander@suntimes.com:
QuoteAfter reading today's column, I beg of whomever is reading this e-mail and filing stories under the nom de plume "Rick Telander" to please stop! Can said person also locate the guy who went by the same name, appeared on the Sportswriters on TV, and wrote for Sports Illustrated in the 1980s and 90s? Please? I hope Conrad Black and David Radler didn't exile Rick Telander to some small burg in upper New Brunswick to run one of his other enterprises, never to be heard from again! (If that's the case, we can at least thank Lord Black for not long ago exiling Roger Ebert to cover a Kazakhstan Film Festival.)
Today's column by "Rick Telander" might have been the second-worst thing the Chicago Sun-Times has ever run. Just to remind you (I can't blame you if you've tried to forget), the Sun-Times ran 700 words of Jay Mariotti bluster nearly every day for 16 years. Jay doesn't even crack the top 2 worst works of the Sun-Times. Congrats, "Rick," or whatever your real name is.
I like Rick Telander. I hope he is safe, healthy and OK, wherever he is. I hope he returns to writing and reporting someday soon.
Please let me know the whereabouts of that Rick. I'm sure he'd have a lot to say about the hiring of Theo Epstein.
Quote from: Waco Kid on October 27, 2011, 11:13:44 AM
QuoteIf we do, then why — if the Texas Rangers win this World Series, which they lead 3-2 — will 10 different baseball teams have won World Series titles in the last 11 years?
The only team to win it twice during Rick's example is, of course, where the new Cubs president came from.
So does the stupid come naturally from Rick or does he have to work at it?
Everyone's doing this whole "statistics" thing now, so why even bother?
The Jim Hendry Cubs were the vinyl of baseball front offices and all hiring Theo does is surrender one of our last claims to hipster cred. This like 1988 all over again.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 27, 2011, 10:41:42 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 27, 2011, 09:53:05 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 27, 2011, 09:07:47 AM
Move over, Gary Karton. You've got company on the Retarded Sun-Times Columns About Theo Epstein dais.
The analogy Telander tries to draw is so breathtakingly stupid that I don't know what to quote.
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/8439764-419/cubs-have-adopted-the-1-percent-solution.html
This is pretty good:
Quote
Yale undergrad, law degree in his spare time, smart-as-a-whip, boy-wonder Theo won two World Series in his nine years as general manager for the Red Sox. But where did he play his pro ball? Oh, in the hallways of various front offices.
Screw his success doing what the Cubs hired him to do. He never did this other job that the Cubs don't need him to do*
*Hendry never played pro ball ether, FWIW.
Here's the thing about bringing in Theo...
It's such a self-evidently smart hire that the lackwits in the Chicago sports media—so accustomed to being able to replay the same familiar bits, aimed at the same easy targets, over and over again—have had to go out and trailblaze whole new frontiers of stupidity just for sake of having something, anything, to say about it.
We've entered a brave new era of discovery, with each day bringing us a new pioneer of the absurd unearthing a whole new brand of idiocy that seems like it, too, could stand for all time as The Dumbest Fucking Thing Ever Written. But just you wait until tomorrow.
What a time to be alive.
Yes.
Quote from: Internet Apex on October 27, 2011, 11:29:58 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 27, 2011, 10:41:42 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 27, 2011, 09:53:05 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 27, 2011, 09:07:47 AM
Move over, Gary Karton. You've got company on the Retarded Sun-Times Columns About Theo Epstein dais.
The analogy Telander tries to draw is so breathtakingly stupid that I don't know what to quote.
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/8439764-419/cubs-have-adopted-the-1-percent-solution.html
This is pretty good:
Quote
Yale undergrad, law degree in his spare time, smart-as-a-whip, boy-wonder Theo won two World Series in his nine years as general manager for the Red Sox. But where did he play his pro ball? Oh, in the hallways of various front offices.
Screw his success doing what the Cubs hired him to do. He never did this other job that the Cubs don't need him to do*
*Hendry never played pro ball ether, FWIW.
Here's the thing about bringing in Theo...
It's such a self-evidently smart hire that the lackwits in the Chicago sports media—so accustomed to being able to replay the same familiar bits, aimed at the same easy targets, over and over again—have had to go out and trailblaze whole new frontiers of stupidity just for sake of having something, anything, to say about it.
We've entered a brave new era of discovery, with each day bringing us a new pioneer of the absurd unearthing a whole new brand of idiocy that seems like it, too, could stand for all time as The Dumbest Fucking Thing Ever Written. But just you wait until tomorrow.
What a time to be alive.
Yes.
Puts me in mind of this guy Hawking. Where was he when the Universe was created? What are his credentials?
Quote from: Internet Apex on October 27, 2011, 11:29:58 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 27, 2011, 10:41:42 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 27, 2011, 09:53:05 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 27, 2011, 09:07:47 AM
Move over, Gary Karton. You've got company on the Retarded Sun-Times Columns About Theo Epstein dais.
The analogy Telander tries to draw is so breathtakingly stupid that I don't know what to quote.
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/8439764-419/cubs-have-adopted-the-1-percent-solution.html
This is pretty good:
Quote
Yale undergrad, law degree in his spare time, smart-as-a-whip, boy-wonder Theo won two World Series in his nine years as general manager for the Red Sox. But where did he play his pro ball? Oh, in the hallways of various front offices.
Screw his success doing what the Cubs hired him to do. He never did this other job that the Cubs don't need him to do*
*Hendry never played pro ball ether, FWIW.
Here's the thing about bringing in Theo...
It's such a self-evidently smart hire that the lackwits in the Chicago sports media—so accustomed to being able to replay the same familiar bits, aimed at the same easy targets, over and over again—have had to go out and trailblaze whole new frontiers of stupidity just for sake of having something, anything, to say about it.
We've entered a brave new era of discovery, with each day bringing us a new pioneer of the absurd unearthing a whole new brand of idiocy that seems like it, too, could stand for all time as The Dumbest Fucking Thing Ever Written. But just you wait until tomorrow.
What a time to be alive.
Yes.
Between this post and pointing me out to Chuck's hilarious ramblings about the Greek priest and Soriano's contract, Tank wins Desipio for today. Shut 'er down, Ratto.
Twenty-two of the 29 paragraphs are one sentence. What the hell kind of writing is that?
Although in his defense, this BC-esque parasentence clocks in at 65 words"
QuoteAt a time when the middle class is vanishing, when Baby Boomers are wondering how they're going to be able to retire, when job-hunting young people who are saddled with mammoth education and government debt are protesting the clever profiteers at the top of the capitalist food chain, is it silly to ask if Tom Ricketts and Theo Epstein are appropriate heroes for the times?
Quote from: Shooter on October 27, 2011, 07:17:25 PM
Twenty-two of the 29 paragraphs are one sentence. What the hell kind of writing is that?
Although in his defense, this BC-esque parasentence clocks in at 65 words"
QuoteAt a time when the middle class is vanishing, when Baby Boomers are wondering how they're going to be able to retire, when job-hunting young people who are saddled with mammoth education and government debt are protesting the clever profiteers at the top of the capitalist food chain, is it silly to ask if Tom Ricketts and Theo Epstein are appropriate heroes for the times?
In other words, how can you think about sports at a time like this asks the extremely rich, old, white, lazy sportswriter who doesn't have to even try to write a decent column to collect his giant paycheck anymore.
Quote from: Slaky on October 27, 2011, 07:44:11 PM
Quote from: Shooter on October 27, 2011, 07:17:25 PM
Twenty-two of the 29 paragraphs are one sentence. What the hell kind of writing is that?
Although in his defense, this BC-esque parasentence clocks in at 65 words"
QuoteAt a time when the middle class is vanishing, when Baby Boomers are wondering how they're going to be able to retire, when job-hunting young people who are saddled with mammoth education and government debt are protesting the clever profiteers at the top of the capitalist food chain, is it silly to ask if Tom Ricketts and Theo Epstein are appropriate heroes for the times?
In other words, how can you think about sports at a time like this asks the extremely rich, old, white, lazy sportswriter who doesn't have to even try to write a decent column to collect his giant paycheck anymore.
OCCUPY RICK TELANDER'S HOUSE!
Quote from: Shooter on October 27, 2011, 07:17:25 PM
Twenty-two of the 29 paragraphs are one sentence. What the hell kind of writing is that?
Although in his defense, this BC-esque parasentence clocks in at 65 words"
QuoteAt a time when the middle class is vanishing, when Baby Boomers are wondering how they're going to be able to retire, when job-hunting young people who are saddled with mammoth education and government debt are protesting the clever profiteers at the top of the capitalist food chain, is it silly to ask if Tom Ricketts and Theo Epstein are appropriate heroes for the times?
The Cubs won pennants in 1932, 1935 and 1938. Maybe the Cubs need a Great Depression to put a winner on the field. You ever think of that Rick?
Quote from: Fork on October 28, 2011, 07:12:49 AM
Quote from: Shooter on October 27, 2011, 07:17:25 PM
Twenty-two of the 29 paragraphs are one sentence. What the hell kind of writing is that?
Although in his defense, this BC-esque parasentence clocks in at 65 words"
QuoteAt a time when the middle class is vanishing, when Baby Boomers are wondering how they're going to be able to retire, when job-hunting young people who are saddled with mammoth education and government debt are protesting the clever profiteers at the top of the capitalist food chain, is it silly to ask if Tom Ricketts and Theo Epstein are appropriate heroes for the times?
The Cubs won pennants in 1932, 1935 and 1938. Maybe the Cubs need a Great Depression to put a winner on the field. You ever think of that Rick?
Things weren't all that good in 1907 or 1908 either:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1907
guess we should root for the double dip.
Quote from: thehawk on October 28, 2011, 08:34:05 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 28, 2011, 07:12:49 AM
Quote from: Shooter on October 27, 2011, 07:17:25 PM
Twenty-two of the 29 paragraphs are one sentence. What the hell kind of writing is that?
Although in his defense, this BC-esque parasentence clocks in at 65 words"
QuoteAt a time when the middle class is vanishing, when Baby Boomers are wondering how they're going to be able to retire, when job-hunting young people who are saddled with mammoth education and government debt are protesting the clever profiteers at the top of the capitalist food chain, is it silly to ask if Tom Ricketts and Theo Epstein are appropriate heroes for the times?
The Cubs won pennants in 1932, 1935 and 1938. Maybe the Cubs need a Great Depression to put a winner on the field. You ever think of that Rick?
Things weren't all that good in 1907 or 1908 either:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1907
guess we should root for the double dip.
Fuck! TARP screwed us in more ways than one! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008)
QuoteOn October 1, 2008, the Senate debated and voted on an amendment to H.R. 1424, which substituted a newly revised version of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 for the language of H.R. 1424.[6][7] The Senate accepted the amendment and passed the entire amended bill, voting 74–25.[8] Additional unrelated provisions added an estimated $150 billion to the cost of the package and increased the length of the bill to 451 pages.[9][10] (See Public Law 110-343 for details on the added provisions.) The amended version of H.R. 1424 was sent to the House for consideration, and on October 3, the House voted 263-171 to enact the bill into law.[6][11][12] President George W. Bush signed the bill into law within hours of its congressional enactment, creating the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to purchase failing bank assets.[13]
Meanwhile, what happened in baseball on Oct. 1 and 2?
Here's your Halloween scare, coutesy of Mr. Selig.
"Hoyer and Epstein also have one more day to work out a deal with Boston for compensation over the Epstein signing. Commissioner Bud Selig gave the two teams until Nov. 1 to cut a deal, threatening to become the sole arbiter if they could not get anything done."
The arrangement between the major league clubs must be a real winner if it gives the Commissioner to appoint himself as the "arbiter" with the power to make a final and binding decison on how to strip the Cubs of players/prospects.
Quote from: CBStew on October 31, 2011, 04:42:27 PM
Here's your Halloween scare, coutesy of Mr. Selig.
"Hoyer and Epstein also have one more day to work out a deal with Boston for compensation over the Epstein signing. Commissioner Bud Selig gave the two teams until Nov. 1 to cut a deal, threatening to become the sole arbiter if they could not get anything done."
The arrangement between the major league clubs must be a real winner if it gives the Commissioner to appoint himself as the "arbiter" with the power to make a final and binding decison on how to strip the Cubs of players/prospects.
If conventional wisdom is right (I hear you laughing), Selig won't let Boston have much for compensation since the league doesn't want to set a bad precedent for executives switching teams. Might be a good thing if he takes over. Maybe he'll just throw up his hands and declare a tie.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 31, 2011, 06:37:41 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 31, 2011, 04:42:27 PM
Here's your Halloween scare, coutesy of Mr. Selig.
"Hoyer and Epstein also have one more day to work out a deal with Boston for compensation over the Epstein signing. Commissioner Bud Selig gave the two teams until Nov. 1 to cut a deal, threatening to become the sole arbiter if they could not get anything done."
The arrangement between the major league clubs must be a real winner if it gives the Commissioner to appoint himself as the "arbiter" with the power to make a final and binding decison on how to strip the Cubs of players/prospects.
If conventional wisdom is right (I hear you laughing), Selig won't let Boston have much for compensation since the league doesn't want to set a bad precedent for executives switching teams. Might be a good thing if he takes over. Maybe he'll just throw up his hands and declare a tie.
Intrepid Reader: BCBud Selig hates the Cubs, so he will order Starlin Castro and Matt Garza to go to the Red Sox and then make the Cubs pay the Cardinals and the Brewers $150 MM each so they can re-sign Pujols and Fielder.
Quote from: Brownie on November 01, 2011, 11:36:39 AM
Let's look again what Dallas Green did with the Cubs. They were more rancid and less interesting in 1981 than they were in 2011. True story. Green rebuilt them into a semi-contender in 1983 (they were a half game out of first on the morning of July 4th, as the Cubs evidently did get hotter than shit just so Lee Elia could shove it up the ass of the 5,000 nickel-dime people who showed up every day) and a division champion in 1984. This was a quick rebuild job, and by the end of 1988, only Sandberg, Sanderson and Rick Sutcliffe remained. In 1989, the Cubs reaped the true fruit of Dallas Green's system.
That's what to expect, ideally, with Epstein. Build a competitive team that could mount a run for a division title early, and then quietly build a pipeline of young talent to replace the aging team later. I don't think it's out of the question to sign Aramis, especially if Epstein has the freedom to pursue Fielder and a top-line starting pitcher.
THIS.
Quote from: PANK! on November 01, 2011, 11:59:14 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 01, 2011, 11:36:39 AM
Let's look again what Dallas Green did with the Cubs. They were more rancid and less interesting in 1981 than they were in 2011. True story. Green rebuilt them into a semi-contender in 1983 (they were a half game out of first on the morning of July 4th, as the Cubs evidently did get hotter than shit just so Lee Elia could shove it up the ass of the 5,000 nickel-dime people who showed up every day) and a division champion in 1984. This was a quick rebuild job, and by the end of 1988, only Sandberg, Sanderson and Rick Sutcliffe remained. In 1989, the Cubs reaped the true fruit of Dallas Green's system.
That's what to expect, ideally, with Epstein. Build a competitive team that could mount a run for a division title early, and then quietly build a pipeline of young talent to replace the aging team later. I don't think it's out of the question to sign Aramis, especially if Epstein has the freedom to pursue Fielder and a top-line starting pitcher.
THIS.
so when can we expect Larry Himes?
Quote from: PANK! on November 01, 2011, 11:59:14 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 01, 2011, 11:36:39 AM
Let's look again what Dallas Green did with the Cubs. They were more rancid and less interesting in 1981 than they were in 2011. True story. Green rebuilt them into a semi-contender in 1983 (they were a half game out of first on the morning of July 4th, as the Cubs evidently did get hotter than shit just so Lee Elia could shove it up the ass of the 5,000 nickel-dime people who showed up every day) and a division champion in 1984. This was a quick rebuild job, and by the end of 1988, only Sandberg, Sanderson and Rick Sutcliffe remained. In 1989, the Cubs reaped the true fruit of Dallas Green's system.
That's what to expect, ideally, with Epstein. Build a competitive team that could mount a run for a division title early, and then quietly build a pipeline of young talent to replace the aging team later. I don't think it's out of the question to sign Aramis, especially if Epstein has the freedom to pursue Fielder and a top-line starting pitcher.
THIS.
I agree with the gist here. My stance on Theo is simple: I expect him to improve the Chicago Cubs immediately, but I also am willing to wait a few years to see how this plays out. The problem is that when this team goes 11-13 in April or whatever we all know the vast majority of idiots out there are going to spew the "same old Cubs" bile. The problem with TJ's Dallas Green analogy is exactly the fact that the idiots lost patience with the guy that actually had a plan and shit fell apart all over again. I fear this fanbase hasn't changed much, except to become even more impatient.
Quote from: SKO on November 01, 2011, 12:40:00 PM
Quote from: PANK! on November 01, 2011, 11:59:14 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 01, 2011, 11:36:39 AM
Let's look again what Dallas Green did with the Cubs. They were more rancid and less interesting in 1981 than they were in 2011. True story. Green rebuilt them into a semi-contender in 1983 (they were a half game out of first on the morning of July 4th, as the Cubs evidently did get hotter than shit just so Lee Elia could shove it up the ass of the 5,000 nickel-dime people who showed up every day) and a division champion in 1984. This was a quick rebuild job, and by the end of 1988, only Sandberg, Sanderson and Rick Sutcliffe remained. In 1989, the Cubs reaped the true fruit of Dallas Green's system.
That's what to expect, ideally, with Epstein. Build a competitive team that could mount a run for a division title early, and then quietly build a pipeline of young talent to replace the aging team later. I don't think it's out of the question to sign Aramis, especially if Epstein has the freedom to pursue Fielder and a top-line starting pitcher.
THIS.
I agree with the gist here. My stance on Theo is simple: I expect him to improve the Chicago Cubs immediately, but I also am willing to wait a few years to see how this plays out. The problem is that when this team goes 11-13 in April or whatever we all know the vast majority of idiots out there are going to spew the "same old Cubs" bile. The problem with TJ's Dallas Green analogy is exactly the fact that the idiots lost patience with the guy that actually had a plan and shit fell apart all over again. I fear this fanbase hasn't changed much, except to become even more impatient.
I don't think the fanbase lost patience with him as much as he and the Tribune Co. sparred over power. This certainly can happen here as well. But Green resigned because the Tribune Company didn't like John Vukovich's footwear choice during his interview with John Madigan (Vuk wore boots), and then when they said Green couldn't hire Vuk to manage, Green offered to be field manager (AND general mgr AND team president). That's why he resigned.
If you look at the follies that were the Chicago Bears in the late 60s to mid-70s, ownership was too involved and too unwilling to change. We can accept that the owner might have thought he invented the game when he, after all, pretty much did. But, George Halas wanted to run the Bears like it was 1940 all over again in a league with Vince Lombardi, Al Davis, Don Shula, Chuck Noll, Tom Landry, Tex Schram, Bud Grant et. al is as ridiculous as bringing in a cryogenically-preserved George Washington circa 1796 to take over as President of the U.S. today. So you had Halas' ego that Mugsy downsized enough just to bring in Jim Finks to be GM. Finks came from the Vikings, and he immediately did things to piss off Halas. CAN YOU BELIEVE FINKS MADE NORTHWEST AIRLINES THE OFFICIAL AIRLINE OF THE BEARS JUST BECAUSE THEY OFFERED MORE MONEY?!?!?!?
Finks had the backing of Mugsy, whom Finks technically replaced (Mugs was President and GM from 1960 until Finks came aboard), and as long as Mugsy looked over him, Finks could do his work. But then Mugs died of a grabber in Dec. 1979, Papa Bear named himself team president as no one but a Halas was going to run the team. Cooper Rollow of the Tribune compared it to Wilbur Wright becoming CEO of United Airlines. As President, GSH started undoing anything Finks would do, except in the area of drafting (and player acquisition, as Alan Page was a nice pickup).
The final straw came when Papa Bear hired Ditka without consulting Finks. Finks was also convinced that Ditka and Halas were chatting it up as early as Dec. 1981 when Neill Armstrong (a Jim Finks guy from Minnesota) was still Bears coach and Ditka should have been working, Dave-Toub style on some magical play to answer Dwight Clark's catch as special teams coordinator for the Cowboys.
So, Finks left. Under Jerry Vainisi and Bill Tobin, the Bears were fine, but Vainisi wasn't long for Beardom either.
So, let's hope the Ricketts are not like the Tribsters or the Halas/McCaskey clan.
Quote from: SKO on November 01, 2011, 12:40:00 PM
Quote from: PANK! on November 01, 2011, 11:59:14 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 01, 2011, 11:36:39 AM
Let's look again what Dallas Green did with the Cubs. They were more rancid and less interesting in 1981 than they were in 2011. True story. Green rebuilt them into a semi-contender in 1983 (they were a half game out of first on the morning of July 4th, as the Cubs evidently did get hotter than shit just so Lee Elia could shove it up the ass of the 5,000 nickel-dime people who showed up every day) and a division champion in 1984. This was a quick rebuild job, and by the end of 1988, only Sandberg, Sanderson and Rick Sutcliffe remained. In 1989, the Cubs reaped the true fruit of Dallas Green's system.
That's what to expect, ideally, with Epstein. Build a competitive team that could mount a run for a division title early, and then quietly build a pipeline of young talent to replace the aging team later. I don't think it's out of the question to sign Aramis, especially if Epstein has the freedom to pursue Fielder and a top-line starting pitcher.
THIS.
I agree with the gist here. My stance on Theo is simple: I expect him to improve the Chicago Cubs immediately, but I also am willing to wait a few years to see how this plays out. The problem is that when this team goes 11-13 in April or whatever we all know the vast majority of idiots out there are going to spew the "same old Cubs" bile. The problem with TJ's Dallas Green analogy is exactly the fact that the idiots lost patience with the guy that actually had a plan and shit fell apart all over again. I fear this fanbase hasn't changed much, except to become even more impatient.
Fortunately, neither the fanbase nor the likes of Gordon Wittenmyer run the organization.
And, no matter what Chuck says, the guy who
does run the organization has of late given us plenty of reason to believe he has a clue about what he's doing with it.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 01, 2011, 01:11:47 PM
And, no matter what Chuck says, the guy who does run the organization has of late given us plenty of reason to believe he has a clue about what he's doing with it.
They've laid out a solid project plan, employed best practices, and gotten the best subject matter experts available.
Let's see how this gets all Cubbed up.
Quote from: Fork on November 01, 2011, 01:13:20 PM
Let's see how this gets all Cubbed up.
OK, Rosenbloom.
Quote from: Eli on November 01, 2011, 01:15:47 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 01, 2011, 01:13:20 PM
Let's see how this gets all Cubbed up.
OK, Rosenbloom.
Once hendry gets on hit feet and takes fleita and wilkens, we're going to be hurting.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 01, 2011, 01:11:47 PM
And, no matter what Chuck says, the guy who does run the organization has of late given us plenty of reason to believe he has a clue about what he's doing with it.
Yeah. He hired the best guy out there and gave him a blank check to fulfill said guy's vision. Mike McCaskey did that with Dave Wannstedt.
Just because you hire the best guy available doesn't mean you know what the fuck you are doing.
That Crane is still here (albeit no longer a company director) is strong evidence that there's plenty of McCaskey in Ricketts.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 01, 2011, 01:54:29 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 01, 2011, 01:11:47 PM
And, no matter what Chuck says, the guy who does run the organization has of late given us plenty of reason to believe he has a clue about what he's doing with it.
Yeah. He hired the best guy out there and gave him a blank check to fulfill said guy's vision. Mike McCaskey did that with Dave Wannstedt.
Just because you hire the best guy available doesn't mean you know what the fuck you are doing.
That Crane is still here (albeit no longer a company director) is strong evidence that there's plenty of McCaskey in Ricketts.
When did he do this?
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 01, 2011, 01:54:29 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 01, 2011, 01:11:47 PM
And, no matter what Chuck says, the guy who does run the organization has of late given us plenty of reason to believe he has a clue about what he's doing with it.
Yeah. He hired the best guy out there and gave him a blank check to fulfill said guy's vision. Mike McCaskey did that with Dave Wannstedt.
Just because you hire the best guy available doesn't mean you know what the fuck you are doing.
That Crane is still here (albeit no longer a company director) is strong evidence that there's plenty of McCaskey in Ricketts.
That's certainly one way to temper one's expectations. Jesus Christ.
Quote from: PenPho on November 01, 2011, 02:04:21 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 01, 2011, 01:54:29 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 01, 2011, 01:11:47 PM
And, no matter what Chuck says, the guy who does run the organization has of late given us plenty of reason to believe he has a clue about what he's doing with it.
Yeah. He hired the best guy out there and gave him a blank check to fulfill said guy's vision. Mike McCaskey did that with Dave Wannstedt.
Just because you hire the best guy available doesn't mean you know what the fuck you are doing.
That Crane is still here (albeit no longer a company director) is strong evidence that there's plenty of McCaskey in Ricketts.
When did he do this?
Wannstedt was a horrible president for the bears. This analogy is spot on.
Quote from: BH on November 01, 2011, 02:15:19 PM
Quote from: PenPho on November 01, 2011, 02:04:21 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 01, 2011, 01:54:29 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 01, 2011, 01:11:47 PM
And, no matter what Chuck says, the guy who does run the organization has of late given us plenty of reason to believe he has a clue about what he's doing with it.
Yeah. He hired the best guy out there and gave him a blank check to fulfill said guy's vision. Mike McCaskey did that with Dave Wannstedt.
Just because you hire the best guy available doesn't mean you know what the fuck you are doing.
That Crane is still here (albeit no longer a company director) is strong evidence that there's plenty of McCaskey in Ricketts.
When did he do this?
Wannstedt was a horrible president for the bears. This analogy is spot on.
As long as the Cubs don't hire Wannstedt, I think this may just work out.
Quote from: Slaky on November 01, 2011, 02:16:08 PM
Quote from: BH on November 01, 2011, 02:15:19 PM
Quote from: PenPho on November 01, 2011, 02:04:21 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 01, 2011, 01:54:29 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 01, 2011, 01:11:47 PM
And, no matter what Chuck says, the guy who does run the organization has of late given us plenty of reason to believe he has a clue about what he's doing with it.
Yeah. He hired the best guy out there and gave him a blank check to fulfill said guy's vision. Mike McCaskey did that with Dave Wannstedt.
Just because you hire the best guy available doesn't mean you know what the fuck you are doing.
That Crane is still here (albeit no longer a company director) is strong evidence that there's plenty of McCaskey in Ricketts.
When did he do this?
Wannstedt was a horrible president for the bears. This analogy is spot on.
As long as the Cubs don't hire Wannstedt, I think this may just work out.
Chuck is my least favorite CT character. When the cubs make the moves he wants, he still finds a way to bitch about them.
Quote from: BH on November 01, 2011, 02:20:15 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 01, 2011, 02:16:08 PM
Quote from: BH on November 01, 2011, 02:15:19 PM
Quote from: PenPho on November 01, 2011, 02:04:21 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 01, 2011, 01:54:29 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 01, 2011, 01:11:47 PM
And, no matter what Chuck says, the guy who does run the organization has of late given us plenty of reason to believe he has a clue about what he's doing with it.
Yeah. He hired the best guy out there and gave him a blank check to fulfill said guy's vision. Mike McCaskey did that with Dave Wannstedt.
Just because you hire the best guy available doesn't mean you know what the fuck you are doing.
That Crane is still here (albeit no longer a company director) is strong evidence that there's plenty of McCaskey in Ricketts.
When did he do this?
Wannstedt was a horrible president for the bears. This analogy is spot on.
As long as the Cubs don't hire Wannstedt, I think this may just work out.
Chuck is my least favorite CT character. When the cubs make the moves he wants, he still finds a way to bitch about them.
Actually, I'm bitching about JWW's new found confidence in Ricketts. It's positively Yellonesqe.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 01, 2011, 01:54:29 PMJust because you hire the best guy available doesn't mean you know what the fuck you are doing.
OK, I'll play along. What *else* does Ricketts need to do to prove he knows what he's doing? After all, he went above and beyond your demand for TWO baseball guys - he hired THREE!
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 01, 2011, 01:54:29 PMThat Crane is still here (albeit no longer a company director) is strong evidence that there's plenty of McCaskey in Ricketts.
If Kenney has been marginalized to the point where he has absolutely zero input into baseball operations (which none of us know for sure, but is a distinct possibility), who the fuck cares if Ricketts keeps him in the organization as Vice President Emeritus of Rubbing Elbows with Other Ivy League Assholes in High Places?
Quote from: R-V on November 01, 2011, 02:30:02 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 01, 2011, 01:54:29 PMJust because you hire the best guy available doesn't mean you know what the fuck you are doing.
OK, I'll play along. What *else* does Ricketts need to do to prove he knows what he's doing? After all, he went above and beyond your demand for TWO baseball guys - he hired THREE!
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 01, 2011, 01:54:29 PMThat Crane is still here (albeit no longer a company director) is strong evidence that there's plenty of McCaskey in Ricketts.
If Kenney has been marginalized to the point where he has absolutely zero input into baseball operations (which none of us know for sure, but is a distinct possibility), who the fuck cares if Ricketts keeps him in the organization as Vice President Emeritus of Rubbing Elbows with Other Ivy League Assholes in High Places?
Until i read theo, jed and mccloud's contracts, I'm withholding an opinion.
Quote from: R-V on November 01, 2011, 02:30:02 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 01, 2011, 01:54:29 PMJust because you hire the best guy available doesn't mean you know what the fuck you are doing.
OK, I'll play along. What *else* does Ricketts need to do to prove he knows what he's doing? After all, he went above and beyond your demand for TWO baseball guys - he hired THREE!
Too late.
After all, the Theo signing itself was just another testament to how royally fucked the Cubs have been under the Ricketts regime (http://ivychat.blogspot.com/2011/10/big-time-move.html).
QuoteIf the Ricketts get Theo, it's because they can't afford to screw around anymore... In 2011, the empty seats brought the Ricketts something they didn't expect. Fear... They had to do something.
Nothing he can do now can erase the original sin of not rashly burning down the existing organization from day one like a
real business leader would have done. That, and letting Crane get away with that whole Greek priest thing.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 01, 2011, 01:54:29 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 01, 2011, 01:11:47 PM
And, no matter what Chuck says, the guy who does run the organization has of late given us plenty of reason to believe he has a clue about what he's doing with it.
That Crane is still here (albeit no longer a company director) is strong evidence that there's plenty of McCaskey in Ricketts.
Crane has no role in baseball operations. His fuckups will be relegated to tbe business side.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 01, 2011, 01:54:29 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 01, 2011, 01:11:47 PM
And, no matter what Chuck says, the guy who does run the organization has of late given us plenty of reason to believe he has a clue about what he's doing with it.
Yeah. He hired the best guy out there and gave him a blank check to fulfill said guy's vision. Mike McCaskey did that with Dave Wannstedt.
Just because you hire the best guy available doesn't mean you know what the fuck you are doing.
That Crane is still here (albeit no longer a company director) is strong evidence that there's plenty of McCaskey in Ricketts.
Intrepid Reader (He certainly has the time) Bob Pulford Becuase the only way you can get rid of a meddlesome former member of a front office is fire them...
Also your Wanny anlogy would be better if he had won 2 Superbowls as a head coach before he took the Bears gig, but he didn't, so it isnt.
Quote from: thehawk on November 01, 2011, 04:06:16 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 01, 2011, 01:54:29 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 01, 2011, 01:11:47 PM
And, no matter what Chuck says, the guy who does run the organization has of late given us plenty of reason to believe he has a clue about what he's doing with it.
Yeah. He hired the best guy out there and gave him a blank check to fulfill said guy's vision. Mike McCaskey did that with Dave Wannstedt.
Just because you hire the best guy available doesn't mean you know what the fuck you are doing.
That Crane is still here (albeit no longer a company director) is strong evidence that there's plenty of McCaskey in Ricketts.
Intrepid Reader (He certainly has the time) Bob Pulford
Becuase the only way you can get rid of a meddlesome former member of a front office is fire them...
Also your Wanny anlogy would be better if he had won 2 Superbowls as a head coach before he took the Bears gig, but he didn't, so it isnt.
Intrepid Reader: A former Winnetka ResidentHi. Am I the analogy Chuck's looking for?
(http://www.thelosscolumn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/andy_macphail_video.jpg)
I suppose I came in with my Jed (Ed, rhymes with Jed) and Jason (Hendry).
The Wannstedt analogy may honestly be Chuck's worst analogy of all time. There's a vast difference between "the coordinator perceived by most people to be the hottest head coaching prospect of the time but would still be in a brand new position" and a "guy who is being hired to do the exact job that he's done before which resulted in two championships for the last franchise he was in charge of."
Quote from: Brownie on November 01, 2011, 04:50:44 PM
Quote from: thehawk on November 01, 2011, 04:06:16 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 01, 2011, 01:54:29 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 01, 2011, 01:11:47 PM
And, no matter what Chuck says, the guy who does run the organization has of late given us plenty of reason to believe he has a clue about what he's doing with it.
Yeah. He hired the best guy out there and gave him a blank check to fulfill said guy's vision. Mike McCaskey did that with Dave Wannstedt.
Just because you hire the best guy available doesn't mean you know what the fuck you are doing.
That Crane is still here (albeit no longer a company director) is strong evidence that there's plenty of McCaskey in Ricketts.
Intrepid Reader (He certainly has the time) Bob Pulford
Becuase the only way you can get rid of a meddlesome former member of a front office is fire them...
Also your Wanny anlogy would be better if he had won 2 Superbowls as a head coach before he took the Bears gig, but he didn't, so it isnt.
Intrepid Reader: A former Winnetka Resident
Hi. Am I the analogy Chuck's looking for?
(http://www.thelosscolumn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/andy_macphail_video.jpg)
I suppose I came in with my Jed (Ed, rhymes with Jed) and Jason (Hendry).
To me, this is the $64 question (more like the $164 million question). The Trib brought in McPhail for mere window-dressing, as they were unwilling to spend the real dollars for talent that was necessary. I kind of want to see the Ricketts actually write the checks for their own real payroll, but we are still likely a year or two away from that.
With that said, I would doubt Theo, given his age and leverage, would come to the Cubs without some assurance that he would be able to spend like he feels he needs to, but its one thing to promise it and another to actually write the check.
Quote from: SKO on November 01, 2011, 05:28:37 PM
The Wannstedt analogy may honestly be Chuck's worst analogy of all time. There's a vast difference between "the coordinator perceived by most people to be the hottest head coaching prospect of the time but would still be in a brand new position" and a "guy who is being hired to do the exact job that he's done before which resulted in two championships for the last franchise he was in charge of."
So then, this is more like the time the Dolphins hired Bill Parcells.
EXCEPT TOTALLY FUCKING AWESOME.
Quote from: PenPho on November 01, 2011, 06:22:52 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 01, 2011, 05:28:37 PM
The Wannstedt analogy may honestly be Chuck's worst analogy of all time. There's a vast difference between "the coordinator perceived by most people to be the hottest head coaching prospect of the time but would still be in a brand new position" and a "guy who is being hired to do the exact job that he's done before which resulted in two championships for the last franchise he was in charge of."
So then, this is more like the time the Dolphins hired Bill Parcells.
Except Parcells never won a Super Bowl in the front office.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 01, 2011, 06:41:39 PM
Quote from: PenPho on November 01, 2011, 06:22:52 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 01, 2011, 05:28:37 PM
The Wannstedt analogy may honestly be Chuck's worst analogy of all time. There's a vast difference between "the coordinator perceived by most people to be the hottest head coaching prospect of the time but would still be in a brand new position" and a "guy who is being hired to do the exact job that he's done before which resulted in two championships for the last franchise he was in charge of."
So then, this is more like the time the Dolphins hired Bill Parcells.
Except Parcells never won a Super Bowl in the front office.
So this is totally like the time Rick Pitino took over the Celtics!
Quote from: CT III on November 01, 2011, 06:59:06 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 01, 2011, 06:41:39 PM
Quote from: PenPho on November 01, 2011, 06:22:52 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 01, 2011, 05:28:37 PM
The Wannstedt analogy may honestly be Chuck's worst analogy of all time. There's a vast difference between "the coordinator perceived by most people to be the hottest head coaching prospect of the time but would still be in a brand new position" and a "guy who is being hired to do the exact job that he's done before which resulted in two championships for the last franchise he was in charge of."
So then, this is more like the time the Dolphins hired Bill Parcells.
Except Parcells never won a Super Bowl in the front office.
So this is totally like the time Rick Pitino took over the Celtics!
Except Pitino never won anything in the NBA.
So, this is totally unprecedented in the history of SPORTS.
Except for the time that Texas Tech hired Bob Knight.
Quote from: PenPho on November 01, 2011, 07:13:10 PM
Quote from: CT III on November 01, 2011, 06:59:06 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 01, 2011, 06:41:39 PM
Quote from: PenPho on November 01, 2011, 06:22:52 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 01, 2011, 05:28:37 PM
The Wannstedt analogy may honestly be Chuck's worst analogy of all time. There's a vast difference between "the coordinator perceived by most people to be the hottest head coaching prospect of the time but would still be in a brand new position" and a "guy who is being hired to do the exact job that he's done before which resulted in two championships for the last franchise he was in charge of."
So then, this is more like the time the Dolphins hired Bill Parcells.
Except Parcells never won a Super Bowl in the front office.
So this is totally like the time Rick Pitino took over the Celtics!
Except Pitino never won anything in the NBA.
So, this is totally unprecedented in the history of SPORTS.
Except for the time that Texas Tech hired Bob Knight.
Well, if it's inevitable...
Didn't see this posted, but Cubs hiring of Joe Bohringer (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=7147) as the new pro scouting director is another big win by teh cubs. Guys using computers and experience? What a novel concept.
Quote from: BH on November 07, 2011, 08:35:03 AM
Didn't see this posted, but Cubs hiring of Joe Bohringer (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=7147) as the new pro scouting director is another big win by teh cubs. Guys using computers and experience? What a novel concept.
And...here's another totally awesome smart guy, new Assistant to the General Manager, Shiraz Rehman. (http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/11/14/chicago-cubs-add-another-top-name-to-the-front-office-mix-shiraz-rehman/)
It's like a Matryoshka doll of baseball guys!
Quote from: PenPho on November 14, 2011, 10:09:07 AM
Quote from: BH on November 07, 2011, 08:35:03 AM
Didn't see this posted, but Cubs hiring of Joe Bohringer (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=7147) as the new pro scouting director is another big win by teh cubs. Guys using computers and experience? What a novel concept.
And...here's another totally awesome smart guy, new Assistant to the General Manager, Shiraz Rehman. (http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/11/14/chicago-cubs-add-another-top-name-to-the-front-office-mix-shiraz-rehman/)
It's like a Matryoshka doll Daryle Ward pizza of baseball guys!
Hey... Anyone remember 2007 and 2008? Those years were kinda fun.
For the most part.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 14, 2011, 10:12:36 AM
Quote from: PenPho on November 14, 2011, 10:09:07 AM
Quote from: BH on November 07, 2011, 08:35:03 AM
Didn't see this posted, but Cubs hiring of Joe Bohringer (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=7147) as the new pro scouting director is another big win by teh cubs. Guys using computers and experience? What a novel concept.
And...here's another totally awesome smart guy, new Assistant to the General Manager, Shiraz Rehman. (http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/11/14/chicago-cubs-add-another-top-name-to-the-front-office-mix-shiraz-rehman/)
It's like a Matryoshka doll Daryle Ward pizza of baseball guys!
Hey... Anyone remember 2007 and 2008? Those years were kinda fun.
For the most part.
Remember having useful bench players? That didn't suck.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 14, 2011, 10:12:36 AM
Quote from: PenPho on November 14, 2011, 10:09:07 AM
Quote from: BH on November 07, 2011, 08:35:03 AM
Didn't see this posted, but Cubs hiring of Joe Bohringer (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=7147) as the new pro scouting director is another big win by teh cubs. Guys using computers and experience? What a novel concept.
And...here's another totally awesome smart guy, new Assistant to the General Manager, Shiraz Rehman. (http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/11/14/chicago-cubs-add-another-top-name-to-the-front-office-mix-shiraz-rehman/)
It's like a Matryoshka doll Daryle Ward Jimmy Anderson pizza of baseball guys!
Hey... Anyone remember 20074 and 20085? Those years were kinda fun.
For the most part.
Quote from: PenPho on November 14, 2011, 10:09:07 AM
Quote from: BH on November 07, 2011, 08:35:03 AM
Didn't see this posted, but Cubs hiring of Joe Bohringer (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=7147) as the new pro scouting director is another big win by teh cubs. Guys using computers and experience? What a novel concept.
And...here's another totally awesome smart guy, new Assistant to the General Manager, Shiraz Rehman. (http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/11/14/chicago-cubs-add-another-top-name-to-the-front-office-mix-shiraz-rehman/)
It's like a Matryoshka doll of baseball guys!
Asking as someone who's never heard of it, is Bleacher Nation the Bleacher Report of the Cublogosphere?
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 14, 2011, 10:28:23 AM
Quote from: PenPho on November 14, 2011, 10:09:07 AM
Quote from: BH on November 07, 2011, 08:35:03 AM
Didn't see this posted, but Cubs hiring of Joe Bohringer (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=7147) as the new pro scouting director is another big win by teh cubs. Guys using computers and experience? What a novel concept.
And...here's another totally awesome smart guy, new Assistant to the General Manager, Shiraz Rehman. (http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/11/14/chicago-cubs-add-another-top-name-to-the-front-office-mix-shiraz-rehman/)
It's like a Matryoshka doll of baseball guys!
Asking as someone who's never heard of it, is Bleacher Nation the Bleacher Report of the Cublogosphere?
No, but the name is unfortunate. Bleacher Report has ruined the word Bleacher for everyone.
That said, I believe it's run by a fella the older members here may know as Ace.
Quote from: Slaky on November 14, 2011, 10:50:41 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 14, 2011, 10:28:23 AM
Quote from: PenPho on November 14, 2011, 10:09:07 AM
Quote from: BH on November 07, 2011, 08:35:03 AM
Didn't see this posted, but Cubs hiring of Joe Bohringer (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=7147) as the new pro scouting director is another big win by teh cubs. Guys using computers and experience? What a novel concept.
And...here's another totally awesome smart guy, new Assistant to the General Manager, Shiraz Rehman. (http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/11/14/chicago-cubs-add-another-top-name-to-the-front-office-mix-shiraz-rehman/)
It's like a Matryoshka doll of baseball guys!
Asking as someone who's never heard of it, is Bleacher Nation the Bleacher Report of the Cublogosphere?
No, but the name is unfortunate. Bleacher Report has ruined the word Bleacher for everyone.
That said, I believe it's run by a fella the older members here may know as Ace.
Unless Shiraz can play third base i don't get this move.. STOP WITH THE THE FRONT OFFICE PEOPLE THEO AND START BUILDING A WINNING TEAM IN 2012! What the frick is he waiting on?! We've already missed out on papelbon and aaron hill.. ugh.
Quote from: PANK! on November 14, 2011, 10:16:12 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 14, 2011, 10:12:36 AM
Quote from: PenPho on November 14, 2011, 10:09:07 AM
Quote from: BH on November 07, 2011, 08:35:03 AM
Didn't see this posted, but Cubs hiring of Joe Bohringer (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=7147) as the new pro scouting director is another big win by teh cubs. Guys using computers and experience? What a novel concept.
And...here's another totally awesome smart guy, new Assistant to the General Manager, Shiraz Rehman. (http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/11/14/chicago-cubs-add-another-top-name-to-the-front-office-mix-shiraz-rehman/)
It's like a Matryoshka doll Daryle Ward Jimmy Anderson pizza of baseball guys!
Hey... Anyone remember 20074 and 20085? Those years were kinda fun.
For the most part.
I think we're starting to lose the plot here.
Unless Jimmy Anderson had other men nested inside him. Which is a possibility.
Quote from: Slaky on November 14, 2011, 10:14:11 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 14, 2011, 10:12:36 AM
Quote from: PenPho on November 14, 2011, 10:09:07 AM
Quote from: BH on November 07, 2011, 08:35:03 AM
Didn't see this posted, but Cubs hiring of Joe Bohringer (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=7147) as the new pro scouting director is another big win by teh cubs. Guys using computers and experience? What a novel concept.
And...here's another totally awesome smart guy, new Assistant to the General Manager, Shiraz Rehman. (http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/11/14/chicago-cubs-add-another-top-name-to-the-front-office-mix-shiraz-rehman/)
It's like a Matryoshka doll Daryle Ward pizza of baseball guys!
Hey... Anyone remember 2007 and 2008? Those years were kinda fun.
For the most part.
Remember having useful bench players? That didn't suck.
I assumed that was just a fever dream.
Theo, giving me boners at 830am: http://espn.go.com/chicago/conversations/_/id/7236368/theo-epstein-give-carlos-zambrano-chance-earn-way-back-chicago-cubs
Quote from: Tollbooth Yeti on November 15, 2011, 08:30:28 AM
Theo, giving me boners at 830am:
Isn't he a little old for you?
Quote from: Tollbooth Yeti on November 15, 2011, 08:30:28 AM
Theo, giving me boners at 830am: http://espn.go.com/chicago/conversations/_/id/7236368/theo-epstein-give-carlos-zambrano-chance-earn-way-back-chicago-cubs
Translation: We will give Carlos an opportunity to rebuild some value before trading him to the Yankees at the deadline.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 15, 2011, 09:24:48 AM
Quote from: Tollbooth Yeti on November 15, 2011, 08:30:28 AM
Theo, giving me boners at 830am: http://espn.go.com/chicago/conversations/_/id/7236368/theo-epstein-give-carlos-zambrano-chance-earn-way-back-chicago-cubs
Translation: We will give Carlos an opportunity to rebuild some value before trading him to the Yankees at the deadline.
Also: Carlos was my 30th call, after I called every GM in baseball offering him up.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 15, 2011, 09:24:48 AM
Quote from: Tollbooth Yeti on November 15, 2011, 08:30:28 AM
Theo, giving me boners at 830am: http://espn.go.com/chicago/conversations/_/id/7236368/theo-epstein-give-carlos-zambrano-chance-earn-way-back-chicago-cubs
Translation: We will give Carlos an opportunity to rebuild some value before trading him to the Yankees at the deadline.
This alone would be refreshing.. Hendry would have spent the entire offseason talking about how zambrano is worse than hitler, falling apart mentally and physically, then paying his entire salary to dump him for nothing.
Quote from: BH on November 15, 2011, 09:35:27 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 15, 2011, 09:24:48 AM
Quote from: Tollbooth Yeti on November 15, 2011, 08:30:28 AM
Theo, giving me boners at 830am: http://espn.go.com/chicago/conversations/_/id/7236368/theo-epstein-give-carlos-zambrano-chance-earn-way-back-chicago-cubs
Translation: We will give Carlos an opportunity to rebuild some value before trading him to the Yankees at the deadline.
This alone would be refreshing.. Hendry would have spent the entire offseason talking about how zambrano is worse than hitler, falling apart mentally and physically, then paying his entire salary to dump him for nothing.
The entire offseason? He'd still have to find time to eat and sign Prince Fielder and go to dinner with him.
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 15, 2011, 09:58:10 AM
The entire offseason? He'd still have to find time to eat and sign Prince Fielder and go to dinner with him.
Eat him, sign him, then have dinner with him? Man, that Hendry had skillz.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 15, 2011, 10:12:26 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 15, 2011, 09:58:10 AM
The entire offseason? He'd still have to find time to eat and sign Prince Fielder and go to dinner with him.
Eat him, sign him, then have dinner with him? Man, that Hendry had skillz.
Missing a (||) in there. My apologies.
Intrepid Reader: Theo Epstein
Need a closer? (http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Ryan_Doumit_passes_physical_finalizes_1year_contract_with_Twins112311) Interesting...
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 23, 2011, 12:16:19 PM
Intrepid Reader: Theo Epstein
Need a closer? (http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Ryan_Doumit_passes_physical_finalizes_1year_contract_with_Twins112311) Interesting...
Is this supposed to be about Marmol? Because I read that Theo was taking calls on him, but you may have linked the wrong article.
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on November 28, 2011, 11:19:16 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 23, 2011, 12:16:19 PM
Intrepid Reader: Theo Epstein
Need a closer? (http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Ryan_Doumit_passes_physical_finalizes_1year_contract_with_Twins112311) Interesting...
Is this supposed to be about Marmol? Because I read that Theo was taking calls on him, but you may have linked the wrong article.
Yes, I'm saying if Terry Ryan is dumb enough to sign a 37-year-old to play shortstop and give him a multi-year deal to boot, he might be an easy target to overpay for Marmol.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 28, 2011, 11:31:21 AM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on November 28, 2011, 11:19:16 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 23, 2011, 12:16:19 PM
Intrepid Reader: Theo Epstein
Need a closer? (http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Ryan_Doumit_passes_physical_finalizes_1year_contract_with_Twins112311) Interesting...
Is this supposed to be about Marmol? Because I read that Theo was taking calls on him, but you may have linked the wrong article.
Yes, I'm saying if Terry Ryan is dumb enough to sign a 37-year-old to play shortstop and give him a multi-year deal to boot, he might be an easy target to overpay for Marmol.
You know what. He just might be.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 28, 2011, 11:31:21 AM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on November 28, 2011, 11:19:16 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 23, 2011, 12:16:19 PM
Intrepid Reader: Theo Epstein
Need a closer? (http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Ryan_Doumit_passes_physical_finalizes_1year_contract_with_Twins112311) Interesting...
Is this supposed to be about Marmol? Because I read that Theo was taking calls on him, but you may have linked the wrong article.
Yes, I'm saying if Terry Ryan is dumb enough to sign a 37-year-old to play shortstop and give him a multi-year deal to boot, he might be an easy target to overpay for Marmol.
There are easier targets (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/rumors/post/Mariano-Rivera-retiring-after-2012-?urn=mlb-413072).
Bump.
Quote from: R-V on October 20, 2011, 10:47:07 AM
God damn, Chuck ruins EVERYTHING. I bet he complained about his first heej.
Bump.
Damn. They just got San Diego's #1 prospect for a broken reliever. Either SD knows he's overrated or we're seeing why Theo wanted Hoyer and not Byrnes.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on January 06, 2012, 03:07:33 PM
Damn. They just got San Diego's #1 prospect for a broken reliever. Either SD knows he's overrated or we're seeing why Theo wanted Hoyer and not Byrnes.
On the other hand, Cashner is the kind of player that Theo would trade for if he were on another team.
Quote from: CBStew on January 06, 2012, 03:10:06 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on January 06, 2012, 03:07:33 PM
Damn. They just got San Diego's #1 prospect for a broken reliever. Either SD knows he's overrated or we're seeing why Theo wanted Hoyer and not Byrnes.
On the other hand, Cashner is the kind of player that Theo would trade for if he were on another team.
Doubtful Theo would target a reliever as the primary piece of any trade.
Quote from: BH on January 06, 2012, 03:13:17 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 06, 2012, 03:10:06 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on January 06, 2012, 03:07:33 PM
Damn. They just got San Diego's #1 prospect for a broken reliever. Either SD knows he's overrated or we're seeing why Theo wanted Hoyer and not Byrnes.
On the other hand, Cashner is the kind of player that Theo would trade for if he were on another team.
Doubtful Theo would target a reliever as the primary piece of any trade.
I don't think Cashner will always be a reliever for them, unless they plan for him to stick at closer.
Quote from: BH on January 06, 2012, 03:13:17 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 06, 2012, 03:10:06 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on January 06, 2012, 03:07:33 PM
Damn. They just got San Diego's #1 prospect for a broken reliever. Either SD knows he's overrated or we're seeing why Theo wanted Hoyer and not Byrnes.
On the other hand, Cashner is the kind of player that Theo would trade for if he were on another team.
Doubtful Theo would target a reliever as the primary piece of any trade.
Except that Cashner was touted as a starter, and that is what he was doing when he wrecked his shoulder.
Quote from: Eli on January 06, 2012, 03:47:39 PM
Quote from: BH on January 06, 2012, 03:13:17 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 06, 2012, 03:10:06 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on January 06, 2012, 03:07:33 PM
Damn. They just got San Diego's #1 prospect for a broken reliever. Either SD knows he's overrated or we're seeing why Theo wanted Hoyer and not Byrnes.
On the other hand, Cashner is the kind of player that Theo would trade for if he were on another team.
Doubtful Theo would target a reliever as the primary piece of any trade.
I don't think Cashner will always be a reliever for them, unless they plan for him to stick at closer.
That would seem to be their bet. He closed at TCU.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 06, 2012, 03:51:47 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 06, 2012, 03:47:39 PM
Quote from: BH on January 06, 2012, 03:13:17 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 06, 2012, 03:10:06 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on January 06, 2012, 03:07:33 PM
Damn. They just got San Diego's #1 prospect for a broken reliever. Either SD knows he's overrated or we're seeing why Theo wanted Hoyer and not Byrnes.
On the other hand, Cashner is the kind of player that Theo would trade for if he were on another team.
Doubtful Theo would target a reliever as the primary piece of any trade.
I don't think Cashner will always be a reliever for them, unless they plan for him to stick at closer.
That would seem to be their bet. He closed at TCU.
Here's the take from a senior level executive at another ML franchise (sic'd):
"Rizzo is about as good a 1B prospect as you can be – young for every level, succeeding at every level, etc. The only problem is that still isn't a great prospect. The offensive expectations at 1B (roughly .280/.360/.470 to just be average) are so high that no matter how good a minor league hitter you are, we can't really expect you to hit that well. 50% of players might "outperform" our expectations/projections/translation, but Rizzo will have to do that to be an above average 1B.
We like Cates a decent amount – a chance to be a mid-rotation starter.
Cashner is tough. Our scouts love him, but they disagree whether he can get back into the rotation. Statistically, he's pretty good in either role, but obviously has much more value as an SP. But his shoulder issues mean he hasn't thrown more than about 100 IP in any season in his career, so I kinda doubt he can stay healthy as a starter.
We have one great report on Na from last year and one terrible one from this year. Statistically he kinda sucks. He's definitely worse that Cates.
I generally like the trade...just keep remember how high your expectations are for Rizzo to be a good 1B."In other words, decent trade because Cashner is no guarantee but 1Bs are a dime a dozen.
Quote from: MidgetSellingWater on January 06, 2012, 04:54:27 PM
In other words, decent trade because Cashner is no guarantee but 1Bs are a dime a dozen First Basemen with low .900 OPS basically grow on trees.
LDA'd (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7039.msg193799#msg193799)
Quote from: MidgetSellingWater on January 06, 2012, 04:54:27 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 06, 2012, 03:51:47 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 06, 2012, 03:47:39 PM
Quote from: BH on January 06, 2012, 03:13:17 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 06, 2012, 03:10:06 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on January 06, 2012, 03:07:33 PM
Damn. They just got San Diego's #1 prospect for a broken reliever. Either SD knows he's overrated or we're seeing why Theo wanted Hoyer and not Byrnes.
On the other hand, Cashner is the kind of player that Theo would trade for if he were on another team.
Doubtful Theo would target a reliever as the primary piece of any trade.
I don't think Cashner will always be a reliever for them, unless they plan for him to stick at closer.
That would seem to be their bet. He closed at TCU.
Here's the take from a senior level executive at another ML franchise (sic'd):
"Rizzo is about as good a 1B prospect as you can be – young for every level, succeeding at every level, etc. The only problem is that still isn't a great prospect. The offensive expectations at 1B (roughly .280/.360/.470 to just be average) are so high that no matter how good a minor league hitter you are, we can't really expect you to hit that well. 50% of players might "outperform" our expectations/projections/translation, but Rizzo will have to do that to be an above average 1B.
We like Cates a decent amount – a chance to be a mid-rotation starter.
Cashner is tough. Our scouts love him, but they disagree whether he can get back into the rotation. Statistically, he's pretty good in either role, but obviously has much more value as an SP. But his shoulder issues mean he hasn't thrown more than about 100 IP in any season in his career, so I kinda doubt he can stay healthy as a starter.
We have one great report on Na from last year and one terrible one from this year. Statistically he kinda sucks. He's definitely worse that Cates.
I generally like the trade...just keep remember how high your expectations are for Rizzo to be a good 1B."
In other words, decent trade because Cashner is no guarantee but 1Bs are a dime a dozen.
No
you just keep remember!
Quote from: PANK! on January 07, 2012, 09:11:41 AM
Quote from: MidgetSellingWater on January 06, 2012, 04:54:27 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 06, 2012, 03:51:47 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 06, 2012, 03:47:39 PM
Quote from: BH on January 06, 2012, 03:13:17 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 06, 2012, 03:10:06 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on January 06, 2012, 03:07:33 PM
Damn. They just got San Diego's #1 prospect for a broken reliever. Either SD knows he's overrated or we're seeing why Theo wanted Hoyer and not Byrnes.
On the other hand, Cashner is the kind of player that Theo would trade for if he were on another team.
Doubtful Theo would target a reliever as the primary piece of any trade.
I don't think Cashner will always be a reliever for them, unless they plan for him to stick at closer.
That would seem to be their bet. He closed at TCU.
Here's the take from a senior level executive at another ML franchise (sic'd):
"Rizzo is about as good a 1B prospect as you can be – young for every level, succeeding at every level, etc. The only problem is that still isn't a great prospect. The offensive expectations at 1B (roughly .280/.360/.470 to just be average) are so high that no matter how good a minor league hitter you are, we can't really expect you to hit that well. 50% of players might "outperform" our expectations/projections/translation, but Rizzo will have to do that to be an above average 1B.
We like Cates a decent amount – a chance to be a mid-rotation starter.
Cashner is tough. Our scouts love him, but they disagree whether he can get back into the rotation. Statistically, he's pretty good in either role, but obviously has much more value as an SP. But his shoulder issues mean he hasn't thrown more than about 100 IP in any season in his career, so I kinda doubt he can stay healthy as a starter.
We have one great report on Na from last year and one terrible one from this year. Statistically he kinda sucks. He's definitely worse that Cates.
I generally like the trade...just keep remember how high your expectations are for Rizzo to be a good 1B."
In other words, decent trade because Cashner is no guarantee but 1Bs are a dime a dozen.
No you just keep remember!
I don't never just keep remember!
No Paul Malholm excitement?
One year, $4.25M. Not bad.
Quote from: BH on January 10, 2012, 07:52:57 AM
No Paul Malholm excitement?
Sure. Makes me wonder if a corresponding Garza trade is coming.
Read that Cubs and Tigers are past the initial stages for a Garza deal. Tigers willing to talk about Josh Turner, but may be reluctant to deal the 3B prospect Castellanos.
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on January 10, 2012, 08:22:46 AM
Read that Cubs and Tigers are past the initial stages for a Garza deal. Tigers willing to talk about Josh Turner, but may be reluctant to deal the 3B prospect Castellanos.
(http://calitreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/03-Costanza.png)
Quote from: Eli on January 10, 2012, 08:02:48 AM
Quote from: BH on January 10, 2012, 07:52:57 AM
No Paul Malholm excitement?
Sure. Makes me wonder if a corresponding Garza trade is coming.
If?
If Garza's in a Cubs uniform on opening day, I'll eat my not inconsiderable weight in breakfast gravy.*
I like the Maholm signing, anyway.
*
assuming one of you will pay for me to fly to Chicago to eat it.
Quote from: Eli on January 10, 2012, 08:02:48 AM
Quote from: BH on January 10, 2012, 07:52:57 AM
No Paul Malholm excitement?
Sure. Makes me wonder if a corresponding Garza trade is coming.
Maholm's 2nd most similar player (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/maholpa01.shtml) through age 29 is Frank Castillo. I always liked Frank.
Quote from: R-V on January 10, 2012, 10:09:57 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 10, 2012, 08:02:48 AM
Quote from: BH on January 10, 2012, 07:52:57 AM
No Paul Malholm excitement?
Sure. Makes me wonder if a corresponding Garza trade is coming.
Maholm's 2nd most similar player (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/maholpa01.shtml) through age 29 is Frank Castillo. I always liked Frank.
THEE Frank Castillo? (http://bleedgrizzlypink.blogspot.com/2008/09/september-25-1995.html)
Quote from: R-V on January 10, 2012, 10:09:57 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 10, 2012, 08:02:48 AM
Quote from: BH on January 10, 2012, 07:52:57 AM
No Paul Malholm excitement?
Sure. Makes me wonder if a corresponding Garza trade is coming.
Maholm's 2nd most similar player (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/maholpa01.shtml) through age 29 is Frank Castillo. I always liked Frank.
You would, you dolt.
Quote from: morpheus on January 10, 2012, 11:08:25 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 10, 2012, 10:09:57 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 10, 2012, 08:02:48 AM
Quote from: BH on January 10, 2012, 07:52:57 AM
No Paul Malholm excitement?
Sure. Makes me wonder if a corresponding Garza trade is coming.
Maholm's 2nd most similar player (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/maholpa01.shtml) through age 29 is Frank Castillo. I always liked Frank.
THEE Frank Castillo? (http://bleedgrizzlypink.blogspot.com/2008/09/september-25-1995.html)
I completely forgot I wrote that.
Holy crap is this (http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/2012/1/11/2699285/kerry-wood-theo-epstein-jed-hoyer-cubs-open-letter)article dumb.
"But if you blithely toss away a pitcher and man who has meant so much to this franchise and Cubs fans over the last 14 years, thinking you don't "need" him, some of those people might say, "Well, I'm not buying tickets this year."
Kerry Wood has value to the Cubs in many different ways. He's committed to the city and has made it his permanent home. Theo & Jed, can't you squeeze a little extra money out of your budget and get him signed before Friday's opening of the Cubs Convention? Having Wood introduced at the opening ceremony would create some enthusiasm and buzz that you guys very much need. (And incidentally, no matter what you two have been told about the convention, you won't really get it until you're there. Not a single newcomer to the team has ever really understood it until they see it.)
You might not think you need Kerry Wood. But for all the reasons above, yes, you do need him. It's worth a few extra dollars, Theo & Jed. Get it done this week.
Sincerely,
Al"
Quote from: BH on January 11, 2012, 09:08:36 AM
Quote from: Al YellonAnd incidentally, no matter what you two have been told about the convention, you won't really get it until you're there. Not a single newcomer to the team has ever really understood it until they see it.
This is the sort of impossibly perfect setup that makes me wish Andy Dolan were still alive.
Quote from: BH on January 11, 2012, 09:08:36 AM
Holy crap is this (http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/2012/1/11/2699285/kerry-wood-theo-epstein-jed-hoyer-cubs-open-letter)article dumb.
"But if you blithely toss away a pitcher and man who has meant so much to this franchise and Cubs fans over the last 14 years, thinking you don't "need" him, some of those people might say, "Well, I'm not buying tickets this year."
Kerry Wood has value to the Cubs in many different ways. He's committed to the city and has made it his permanent home. Theo & Jed, can't you squeeze a little extra money out of your budget and get him signed before Friday's opening of the Cubs Convention? Having Wood introduced at the opening ceremony would create some enthusiasm and buzz that you guys very much need. (And incidentally, no matter what you two have been told about the convention, you won't really get it until you're there. Not a single newcomer to the team has ever really understood it until they see it.)
You might not think you need Kerry Wood. But for all the reasons above, yes, you do need him. It's worth a few extra dollars, Theo & Jed. Get it done this week.
Sincerely,
Al"
I wish the Phillies wanted Al, too.
Quote from: Al Yellon on January 11, 2012, 09:08:36 AM
Having Wood introduced at the opening ceremony would create some enthusiasm and buzz that you guys very much need.
Yeah. What Theo and Jed are lacking is positive press.
Quote from: BH on January 11, 2012, 09:08:36 AM
Holy crap is this (http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/2012/1/11/2699285/kerry-wood-theo-epstein-jed-hoyer-cubs-open-letter)article dumb.
"But if you blithely toss away a pitcher and man who has meant so much to this franchise and Cubs fans over the last 14 years, thinking you don't "need" him, some of those people might say, "Well, I'm not buying tickets this year."
Kerry Wood has value to the Cubs in many different ways. He's committed to the city and has made it his permanent home. Theo & Jed, can't you squeeze a little extra money out of your budget and get him signed before Friday's opening of the Cubs Convention? Having Wood introduced at the opening ceremony would create some enthusiasm and buzz that you guys very much need. (And incidentally, no matter what you two have been told about the convention, you won't really get it until you're there. Not a single newcomer to the team has ever really understood it until they see it.)
You might not think you need Kerry Wood. But for all the reasons above, yes, you do need him. It's worth a few extra dollars, Theo & Jed. Get it done this week.
Sincerely,
Al"
From what I've read, teams are interested in KW, but they aren't quite eager to give him the dough he wants, either. The Cubs' offer, money-wise, is probably in line with what the Phillies are offering. I'm just wondering if there's a bit more going on. Kerry Wood is 34, has an arm that could quit at any time, and sees that the team has been dismantled to the point where contention the next couple of years will be just about impossible. He's had a happy reunion with the Cubs, but now teams that have an actual use for him beyond mascot are calling. A chance to win a World Series before retiring to Chicago and doing something for the Cubs organization vs. having to watch all 162 games this year, pitch a lot of meaningless 7th and 8th innings and babysit a lot of kids?
I'd love Kerry Wood to stay with the Cubs. He's my favorite player on the team. I like to root for more than laundry. But the Cubs not re-signing him is not indicative of Ted and Jed's callousness as much as it is reality.
Kerry is high on my list as well, but Jed and Theo would be doing him a favor to allow him to pass up fair offer from the Cubs for the chance to win a ring this year with another team (which, frankly, isn't going to happen if he's playing in Wrigley), and then come back to Cubs in some capacity (even if only an "ambassador"). Frankly, it wouldn't be bad for the organization to make a clean break for all those crutches the BCB crowd relies on as well, if only for a year or two.
This is a stupid question, but why do the cubs needs to keep bringing back popular players who were a large part of the frustrations cubs fans have felt for 100 years? I'd be ok if we never brought these guys back. If the cubs want to change the culture, they might be better served ignoring all the past failures. If we start winning, fine, bring these guys back to help celebrate.
Quote from: BH on January 11, 2012, 10:39:23 AM
This is a stupid question, but why do the cubs needs to keep bringing back popular players who were a large part of the frustrations cubs fans have felt for 100 years? I'd be ok if we never brought these guys back. If the cubs want to change the culture, they might be better served ignoring all the past failures. If we start winning, fine, bring these guys back to help celebrate.
Because they, unlike you, GET IT.
I would love to find out that Theo printed Al's letter out and hung it up in the bathroom so they all can laugh at it whenever they see it.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on January 11, 2012, 10:53:36 AM
I would love to find out that Theo printed Al's letter out and hung it up in the bathroom so they all can laugh at it whenever they see it.
Are Theo's people only allowed to laugh in the bathroom?
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 11, 2012, 10:56:33 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on January 11, 2012, 10:53:36 AM
I would love to find out that Theo printed Al's letter out and hung it up in the bathroom so they all can laugh at it whenever they see it.
Are Theo's people only allowed to laugh in the bathroom?
The Jews? Yes.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 11, 2012, 10:56:33 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on January 11, 2012, 10:53:36 AM
I would love to find out that Theo printed Al's letter out and hung it up in the bathroom so they all can laugh at it whenever they see it.
Are Theo's people only allowed to laugh in the bathroom?
That's the only place Al's letter deserves, unless they stick it to the refrigerator.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on January 11, 2012, 11:13:07 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 11, 2012, 10:56:33 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on January 11, 2012, 10:53:36 AM
I would love to find out that Theo printed Al's letter out and hung it up in the bathroom so they all can laugh at it whenever they see it.
Are Theo's people only allowed to laugh in the bathroom?
That's the only place Al's letter deserves, unless they stick it to the refrigerator.
They won't have room for a full-sized fridge until the Triangle Building is finished.
Quote from: CT III on January 11, 2012, 11:00:22 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 11, 2012, 10:56:33 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on January 11, 2012, 10:53:36 AM
I would love to find out that Theo printed Al's letter out and hung it up in the bathroom so they all can laugh at it whenever they see it.
Are Theo's people only allowed to laugh in the bathroom?
The Jews? Yes.
I won't believe that he is Jewish until I see him in a synagogue on Yom Kippur while the Cubs are playing a World Series game.
Quote from: CT III on January 11, 2012, 11:15:14 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on January 11, 2012, 11:13:07 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 11, 2012, 10:56:33 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on January 11, 2012, 10:53:36 AM
I would love to find out that Theo printed Al's letter out and hung it up in the bathroom so they all can laugh at it whenever they see it.
Are Theo's people only allowed to laugh in the bathroom?
That's the only place Al's letter deserves, unless they stick it to the refrigerator.
They won't have room for a full-sized fridge until the Triangle Building is finished.
GET IT DONE RAHM
Quote from: thehawk on January 11, 2012, 10:33:07 AM
Kerry is high on my list as well, but Jed and Theo would be doing him a favor to allow him to pass up fair offer from the Cubs for the chance to win a ring this year with another team (which, frankly, isn't going to happen if he's playing in Wrigley), and then come back to Cubs in some capacity (even if only an "ambassador"). Frankly, it wouldn't be bad for the organization to make a clean break for all those crutches the BCB crowd relies on as well, if only for a year or two.
Sign him. Let me be happy for a little while. Trade him to The Red Sox in July as compensation for Theo. Or, fuck The Red Sox and trade him somewhere else so he can win.
Quote from: Oleg on January 12, 2012, 11:49:56 AM
Quote from: thehawk on January 11, 2012, 10:33:07 AM
Kerry is high on my list as well, but Jed and Theo would be doing him a favor to allow him to pass up fair offer from the Cubs for the chance to win a ring this year with another team (which, frankly, isn't going to happen if he's playing in Wrigley), and then come back to Cubs in some capacity (even if only an "ambassador"). Frankly, it wouldn't be bad for the organization to make a clean break for all those crutches the BCB crowd relies on as well, if only for a year or two.
Sign him. Let me be happy for a little while. Trade him to The Red Sox in July as compensation for Theo. Or, fuck The Red Sox and trade him somewhere else so he can win for a prospect or two.
That would be cool also.
The longer Theo waits, the less likely Boston gets anything useful. (http://m.mlb.com/chc/news/article/2012011826376284/) Nicely done.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on January 18, 2012, 12:32:47 PM
The longer Theo waits, the less likely Boston gets anything useful. (http://m.mlb.com/chc/news/article/2012011826376284/) Nicely done.
The longer Theo is in Chicago, the worse our Kubbeez are going to be.
Quote from: BH on January 18, 2012, 12:35:37 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on January 18, 2012, 12:32:47 PM
The longer Theo waits, the less likely Boston gets anything useful. (http://m.mlb.com/chc/news/article/2012011826376284/) Nicely done.
The longer Theo is in Chicago, the worse our Kubbeez are going to be.
He's ruining this franchise.
Quote from: Slaky on January 18, 2012, 01:25:14 PM
Quote from: BH on January 18, 2012, 12:35:37 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on January 18, 2012, 12:32:47 PM
The longer Theo waits, the less likely Boston gets anything useful. (http://m.mlb.com/chc/news/article/2012011826376284/) Nicely done.
The longer Theo is in Chicago, the worse our Kubbeez are going to be.
He's ruining this franchise.
Epstink is terrible.
Theo Epstein presents:
The Cubs Way. (http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/lmfao-cubs-teaching-prospects-ins-outs-party-rocking-192600792.html)
Quote from: Sterling Archer on January 23, 2012, 09:07:31 PM
Theo Epstein presents:
The Cubs Way. (http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/lmfao-cubs-teaching-prospects-ins-outs-party-rocking-192600792.html)
The idaho cubs aren't a part of the Cubs organization.
Quote from: BH on January 24, 2012, 08:38:10 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on January 23, 2012, 09:07:31 PM
Theo Epstein presents:
The Cubs Way. (http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/lmfao-cubs-teaching-prospects-ins-outs-party-rocking-192600792.html)
The idaho cubs aren't a part of the Cubs organization.
I thought it was pretty clear Boise got their copy early and decided to try it out on these guys. It's so obvious.
Theo wants to reduce (http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/04/theo-epstein-chicago-bar-scene-has-been-an-impediment-to-the-cubs-in-winning/) partying.. what a loser.
According to these stat mankissers (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=16208), the Padres have the top farm system in baseball. Jed Hoyer? Splooge?
Four-Star Prospects
1. Rymer Liriano, OF
2. Robbie Erlin, LHP
3. Jedd Gyorko, 3B
4. Cory Spangenberg, 2B
5. Joe Wieland, RHP
6. Anthony Rizzo, 1B
7. Casey Kelly, RHP
8. Austin Hedges, C
9. Joe Ross, RHP
Three-Star Prospects
10. Keyvius Sampson, RHP
11. Donavan Tate, OF
I don't know shit about this. But it seems like this list is old.
Quote from: Internet Apex on March 12, 2012, 10:23:36 PM
According to these stat mankissers (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=16208), the Padres have the top farm system in baseball. Jed Hoyer? Splooge?
Four-Star Prospects
1. Rymer Liriano, OF
2. Robbie Erlin, LHP
3. Jedd Gyorko, 3B
4. Cory Spangenberg, 2B
5. Joe Wieland, RHP
6. Anthony Rizzo, 1B
7. Casey Kelly, RHP
8. Austin Hedges, C
9. Joe Ross, RHP
Three-Star Prospects
10. Keyvius Sampson, RHP
11. Donavan Tate, OF
I don't know shit about this. But it seems like this list is old.
The Padres list was compiled in mid-December, before Rizzo was traded to the Cubs.
Quote from: Shooter on March 12, 2012, 10:33:17 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on March 12, 2012, 10:23:36 PM
According to these stat mankissers (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=16208), the Padres have the top farm system in baseball. Jed Hoyer? Splooge?
Four-Star Prospects
1. Rymer Liriano, OF
2. Robbie Erlin, LHP
3. Jedd Gyorko, 3B
4. Cory Spangenberg, 2B
5. Joe Wieland, RHP
6. Anthony Rizzo, 1B
7. Casey Kelly, RHP
8. Austin Hedges, C
9. Joe Ross, RHP
Three-Star Prospects
10. Keyvius Sampson, RHP
11. Donavan Tate, OF
I don't know shit about this. But it seems like this list is old.
The Padres list was compiled in mid-December, before Rizzo was traded to the Cubs.
So JEDSPLOOGE? Or no?
Quote from: Internet Apex on March 12, 2012, 10:35:17 PM
Quote from: Shooter on March 12, 2012, 10:33:17 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on March 12, 2012, 10:23:36 PM
According to these stat mankissers (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=16208), the Padres have the top farm system in baseball. Jed Hoyer? Splooge?
Four-Star Prospects
1. Rymer Liriano, OF
2. Robbie Erlin, LHP
3. Jedd Gyorko, 3B
4. Cory Spangenberg, 2B
5. Joe Wieland, RHP
6. Anthony Rizzo, 1B
7. Casey Kelly, RHP
8. Austin Hedges, C
9. Joe Ross, RHP
Three-Star Prospects
10. Keyvius Sampson, RHP
11. Donavan Tate, OF
I don't know shit about this. But it seems like this list is old.
The Padres list was compiled in mid-December, before Rizzo was traded to the Cubs.
So JEDSPLOOGE? Or no?
I'd allow it. The Padres are going to be good for a while for not a lot of money.
Quote from: Internet Apex on March 12, 2012, 10:35:17 PM
Quote from: Shooter on March 12, 2012, 10:33:17 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on March 12, 2012, 10:23:36 PM
According to these stat mankissers (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=16208), the Padres have the top farm system in baseball. Jed Hoyer? Splooge?
Four-Star Prospects
1. Rymer Liriano, OF
2. Robbie Erlin, LHP
3. Jedd Gyorko, 3B
4. Cory Spangenberg, 2B
5. Joe Wieland, RHP
6. Anthony Rizzo, 1B
7. Casey Kelly, RHP
8. Austin Hedges, C
9. Joe Ross, RHP
Three-Star Prospects
10. Keyvius Sampson, RHP
11. Donavan Tate, OF
I don't know shit about this. But it seems like this list is old.
The Padres list was compiled in mid-December, before Rizzo was traded to the Cubs.
So JEDSPLOOGE? Or no?
DEY SHUDDA GOTTEN DAT GYORKO GUY
http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-cubs-acquire-first-base-prospect-to-complete-epstein-compensation-deal-20120329,0,3313808.story
QuoteMESA, Ariz. -- The Cubs acquired Boston first baseman Jair Bogaerts as the final piece of the compensation package for Theo Epstein.
Bogaerts, 19, is from Aruba and hit .288 in the Dominican Summer League in 47 games.
The Cubs were surprised to hear that Chris Carpenter, the pitcher sent to Boston as part of the compensation deal for allowing Epstein out of his Red Sox contract, will undergo surgery Thursday to remove a bone spur in his elbow.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 29, 2012, 12:10:27 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-cubs-acquire-first-base-prospect-to-complete-epstein-compensation-deal-20120329,0,3313808.story
QuoteMESA, Ariz. -- The Cubs acquired Boston first baseman Jair Bogaerts as the final piece of the compensation package for Theo Epstein.
Bogaerts, 19, is from Aruba and hit .288 in the Dominican Summer League in 47 games.
The Cubs were surprised to hear that Chris Carpenter, the pitcher sent to Boston as part of the compensation deal for allowing Epstein out of his Red Sox contract, will undergo surgery Thursday to remove a bone spur in his elbow.
When does Boston's owner ask for an additional player since carpenter got hurt?
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 29, 2012, 12:10:27 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-cubs-acquire-first-base-prospect-to-complete-epstein-compensation-deal-20120329,0,3313808.story
QuoteMESA, Ariz. -- The Cubs acquired Boston first baseman Jair Bogaerts as the final piece of the compensation package for Theo Epstein.
Bogaerts, 19, is from Aruba and hit .288 in the Dominican Summer League in 47 games.
The Cubs were surprised to hear that Chris Carpenter, the pitcher sent to Boston as part of the compensation deal for allowing Epstein out of his Red Sox contract, will undergo surgery Thursday to remove a bone spur in his elbow.
(http://i43.tinypic.com/24z9aww.jpg)
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 29, 2012, 12:10:27 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-cubs-acquire-first-base-prospect-to-complete-epstein-compensation-deal-20120329,0,3313808.story
QuoteMESA, Ariz. -- The Cubs acquired Boston first baseman Jair Bogaerts as the final piece of the compensation package for Theo Epstein.
Bogaerts, 19, is from Aruba and hit .288 in the Dominican Summer League in 47 games.
The Cubs were surprised to hear that Chris Carpenter, the pitcher sent to Boston as part of the compensation deal for allowing Epstein out of his Red Sox contract, will undergo surgery Thursday to remove a bone spur in his elbow.
Quote
"Bogaerts is the twin brother of highly-regarded infield prospect Xander Bogaerts."
Ozzie Canseco, here we come!
Quote from: PenPho on March 29, 2012, 01:32:39 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 29, 2012, 12:10:27 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-cubs-acquire-first-base-prospect-to-complete-epstein-compensation-deal-20120329,0,3313808.story
QuoteMESA, Ariz. -- The Cubs acquired Boston first baseman Jair Bogaerts as the final piece of the compensation package for Theo Epstein.
Bogaerts, 19, is from Aruba and hit .288 in the Dominican Summer League in 47 games.
The Cubs were surprised to hear that Chris Carpenter, the pitcher sent to Boston as part of the compensation deal for allowing Epstein out of his Red Sox contract, will undergo surgery Thursday to remove a bone spur in his elbow.
Quote
"Bogaerts is the twin brother of highly-regarded infield prospect Xander Bogaerts."
Ozzie Canseco, here we come!
They're already the 5th and 6th on the all-time list of players from Aruba, and Sidney Ponson better enjoy his last days at the top of the heap.
Quote from: Fork on March 29, 2012, 01:44:23 PM
Quote from: PenPho on March 29, 2012, 01:32:39 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 29, 2012, 12:10:27 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-cubs-acquire-first-base-prospect-to-complete-epstein-compensation-deal-20120329,0,3313808.story
QuoteMESA, Ariz. -- The Cubs acquired Boston first baseman Jair Bogaerts as the final piece of the compensation package for Theo Epstein.
Bogaerts, 19, is from Aruba and hit .288 in the Dominican Summer League in 47 games.
The Cubs were surprised to hear that Chris Carpenter, the pitcher sent to Boston as part of the compensation deal for allowing Epstein out of his Red Sox contract, will undergo surgery Thursday to remove a bone spur in his elbow.
Quote
"Bogaerts is the twin brother of highly-regarded infield prospect Xander Bogaerts."
Ozzie Canseco, here we come!
They're already the 5th and 6th on the all-time list of players from Aruba, and Sidney Ponson better enjoy his last days at the top of the heap.
Sidney Ponson would probably enjoy his remaining time at the buffet line.
"Don't Bogaerts that joint, my friend."
Quote from: Slaky on March 29, 2012, 04:10:29 PM
"Don't Bogaerts that joint, my friend."
You've got to stop hanging around Fork.
Great. (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/03/al-east-notes-epstein-orioles-eveland-depaula.html)
QuoteThe Red Sox and Cubs seemed to have completed the compensation package for Theo Epstein's move to Chicago earlier today, but Michael Silverman of the Boston Herald hears from a team source that the Sox aren't quite satisfied. Chris Carpenter underwent elbow surgery on Wednesday and while the Red Sox believe the Cubs gave up Carpenter with no knowledge of any injury problems, Boston "is weighing its options" about whether the matter should be revisited.
Clearly, Boston's decision to let an employee out of his contract early is the greatest injustice ever known to humankind. Hopefully they keep bitching about it all season.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on March 29, 2012, 10:40:21 PM
Great. (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/03/al-east-notes-epstein-orioles-eveland-depaula.html)
QuoteThe Red Sox and Cubs seemed to have completed the compensation package for Theo Epstein's move to Chicago earlier today, but Michael Silverman of the Boston Herald hears from a team source that the Sox aren't quite satisfied. Chris Carpenter underwent elbow surgery on Wednesday and while the Red Sox believe the Cubs gave up Carpenter with no knowledge of any injury problems, Boston "is weighing its options" about whether the matter should be revisited.
Clearly, Boston's decision to let an employee out of his contract early is the greatest injustice ever known to humankind. Hopefully they keep bitching about it all season for the next 86 seasons until they win the 2098 World Series, but not before Dan Shaugnessy and Bill Simmons V write absurd and awful books about the curse of Theo and blame the Cubs and their fans for every problem in Massachusetts.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on March 29, 2012, 10:40:21 PM
Great. (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/03/al-east-notes-epstein-orioles-eveland-depaula.html)
QuoteThe Red Sox and Cubs seemed to have completed the compensation package for Theo Epstein's move to Chicago earlier today, but Michael Silverman of the Boston Herald hears from a team source that the Sox aren't quite satisfied. Chris Carpenter underwent elbow surgery on Wednesday and while the Red Sox believe the Cubs gave up Carpenter with no knowledge of any injury problems, Boston "is weighing its options" about whether the matter should be revisited.
Clearly, Boston's decision to let an employee out of his contract early is the greatest injustice ever known to humankind. Hopefully they keep bitching about it all season.
Boston gave him a physical and signed off on him. They had access to his medical records, which clearly show he's been hurt quite a bit in the past. Screw Boston.
Epstink is wonderful.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-0626-cubs-mets-chicago--20120626,0,1121964.story
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 26, 2012, 09:52:38 AM
Epstink is wonderful.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-0626-cubs-mets-chicago--20120626,0,1121964.story
Brett Jackson sucks.
"Jackson watch: With Rizzo coming up on Tuesday, the next big question is when center fielder Brett Jackson will get his chance. Jackson hasn't had a particularly strong year at Triple-A Iowa, striking out a league-leading 107 times, or 30 more than his closest pursuer.
"The strikeouts are at an incredible rate, which is a little bit strange," manager Dale Sveum said.
Jackson has been swinging at pitches in the dirt, having a difficult time with pitch selection. Sveum pointed to his .832 OPS (on-base plus slugging percentage) along with the strikeouts in 281 at-bats."
Quote from: BH on June 26, 2012, 10:18:01 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 26, 2012, 09:52:38 AM
Epstink is wonderful.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-0626-cubs-mets-chicago--20120626,0,1121964.story
Brett Jackson sucks.
"Jackson watch: With Rizzo coming up on Tuesday, the next big question is when center fielder Brett Jackson will get his chance. Jackson hasn't had a particularly strong year at Triple-A Iowa, striking out a league-leading 107 times, or 30 more than his closest pursuer.
"The strikeouts are at an incredible rate, which is a little bit strange," manager Dale Sveum said.
Jackson has been swinging at pitches in the dirt, having a difficult time with pitch selection. Sveum pointed to his .832 OPS (on-base plus slugging percentage) along with the strikeouts in 281 at-bats."
Sounds like someone never read a scouting report on Brett Jackson.
Quote from: Slaky on June 26, 2012, 11:12:05 AM
Quote from: BH on June 26, 2012, 10:18:01 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 26, 2012, 09:52:38 AM
Epstink is wonderful.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-0626-cubs-mets-chicago--20120626,0,1121964.story
Brett Jackson sucks.
"Jackson watch: With Rizzo coming up on Tuesday, the next big question is when center fielder Brett Jackson will get his chance. Jackson hasn't had a particularly strong year at Triple-A Iowa, striking out a league-leading 107 times, or 30 more than his closest pursuer.
"The strikeouts are at an incredible rate, which is a little bit strange," manager Dale Sveum said.
Jackson has been swinging at pitches in the dirt, having a difficult time with pitch selection. Sveum pointed to his .832 OPS (on-base plus slugging percentage) along with the strikeouts in 281 at-bats."
Sounds like someone never read a scouting report on Brett Jacksonany "5-tool" Cubs minor leaguer ever.
Quote from: Fork on June 26, 2012, 12:39:43 PM
Quote from: Slaky on June 26, 2012, 11:12:05 AM
Quote from: BH on June 26, 2012, 10:18:01 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 26, 2012, 09:52:38 AM
Epstink is wonderful.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-0626-cubs-mets-chicago--20120626,0,1121964.story
Brett Jackson sucks.
"Jackson watch: With Rizzo coming up on Tuesday, the next big question is when center fielder Brett Jackson will get his chance. Jackson hasn't had a particularly strong year at Triple-A Iowa, striking out a league-leading 107 times, or 30 more than his closest pursuer.
"The strikeouts are at an incredible rate, which is a little bit strange," manager Dale Sveum said.
Jackson has been swinging at pitches in the dirt, having a difficult time with pitch selection. Sveum pointed to his .832 OPS (on-base plus slugging percentage) along with the strikeouts in 281 at-bats."
Sounds like someone never read a scouting report on Brett Jacksonany "5-tool" Cubs minor leaguer ever.
In Brett's defense, he walks more than Pie, Patterson, etc. ever did.
Quote from: SKO on June 26, 2012, 12:46:03 PM
Quote from: Fork on June 26, 2012, 12:39:43 PM
Quote from: Slaky on June 26, 2012, 11:12:05 AM
Quote from: BH on June 26, 2012, 10:18:01 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 26, 2012, 09:52:38 AM
Epstink is wonderful.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-0626-cubs-mets-chicago--20120626,0,1121964.story
Brett Jackson sucks.
"Jackson watch: With Rizzo coming up on Tuesday, the next big question is when center fielder Brett Jackson will get his chance. Jackson hasn't had a particularly strong year at Triple-A Iowa, striking out a league-leading 107 times, or 30 more than his closest pursuer.
"The strikeouts are at an incredible rate, which is a little bit strange," manager Dale Sveum said.
Jackson has been swinging at pitches in the dirt, having a difficult time with pitch selection. Sveum pointed to his .832 OPS (on-base plus slugging percentage) along with the strikeouts in 281 at-bats."
Sounds like someone never read a scouting report on Brett Jacksonany "5-tool" Cubs minor leaguer ever.
In Brett's defense, he walks more than Pie, Patterson, etc. ever did.
Steven Hawking walks more than Patterson and Pie ever did.
Quote from: Fork on June 26, 2012, 12:47:17 PM
Quote from: SKO on June 26, 2012, 12:46:03 PM
Quote from: Fork on June 26, 2012, 12:39:43 PM
Quote from: Slaky on June 26, 2012, 11:12:05 AM
Quote from: BH on June 26, 2012, 10:18:01 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 26, 2012, 09:52:38 AM
Epstink is wonderful.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-0626-cubs-mets-chicago--20120626,0,1121964.story
Brett Jackson sucks.
"Jackson watch: With Rizzo coming up on Tuesday, the next big question is when center fielder Brett Jackson will get his chance. Jackson hasn't had a particularly strong year at Triple-A Iowa, striking out a league-leading 107 times, or 30 more than his closest pursuer.
"The strikeouts are at an incredible rate, which is a little bit strange," manager Dale Sveum said.
Jackson has been swinging at pitches in the dirt, having a difficult time with pitch selection. Sveum pointed to his .832 OPS (on-base plus slugging percentage) along with the strikeouts in 281 at-bats."
Sounds like someone never read a scouting report on Brett Jacksonany "5-tool" Cubs minor leaguer ever.
In Brett's defense, he walks more than Pie, Patterson, etc. ever did.
Steven Hawking walks more than Patterson and Pie ever did.
I nearly lol'd at this Fork joke during a conference call with a client and subcontractor just now.
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 26, 2012, 01:23:46 PM
Quote from: Fork on June 26, 2012, 12:47:17 PM
Quote from: SKO on June 26, 2012, 12:46:03 PM
Quote from: Fork on June 26, 2012, 12:39:43 PM
Quote from: Slaky on June 26, 2012, 11:12:05 AM
Quote from: BH on June 26, 2012, 10:18:01 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 26, 2012, 09:52:38 AM
Epstink is wonderful.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-0626-cubs-mets-chicago--20120626,0,1121964.story
Brett Jackson sucks.
"Jackson watch: With Rizzo coming up on Tuesday, the next big question is when center fielder Brett Jackson will get his chance. Jackson hasn't had a particularly strong year at Triple-A Iowa, striking out a league-leading 107 times, or 30 more than his closest pursuer.
"The strikeouts are at an incredible rate, which is a little bit strange," manager Dale Sveum said.
Jackson has been swinging at pitches in the dirt, having a difficult time with pitch selection. Sveum pointed to his .832 OPS (on-base plus slugging percentage) along with the strikeouts in 281 at-bats."
Sounds like someone never read a scouting report on Brett Jacksonany "5-tool" Cubs minor leaguer ever.
In Brett's defense, he walks more than Pie, Patterson, etc. ever did.
Steven Hawking walks more than Patterson and Pie ever did.
I nearly lol'd at this Fork joke during a conference call with a client and subcontractor just now.
You're flipping houses now?
Quote from: BH on June 27, 2012, 07:37:37 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 26, 2012, 01:23:46 PM
Quote from: Fork on June 26, 2012, 12:47:17 PM
Quote from: SKO on June 26, 2012, 12:46:03 PM
Quote from: Fork on June 26, 2012, 12:39:43 PM
Quote from: Slaky on June 26, 2012, 11:12:05 AM
Quote from: BH on June 26, 2012, 10:18:01 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 26, 2012, 09:52:38 AM
Epstink is wonderful.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-0626-cubs-mets-chicago--20120626,0,1121964.story
Brett Jackson sucks.
"Jackson watch: With Rizzo coming up on Tuesday, the next big question is when center fielder Brett Jackson will get his chance. Jackson hasn't had a particularly strong year at Triple-A Iowa, striking out a league-leading 107 times, or 30 more than his closest pursuer.
"The strikeouts are at an incredible rate, which is a little bit strange," manager Dale Sveum said.
Jackson has been swinging at pitches in the dirt, having a difficult time with pitch selection. Sveum pointed to his .832 OPS (on-base plus slugging percentage) along with the strikeouts in 281 at-bats."
Sounds like someone never read a scouting report on Brett Jacksonany "5-tool" Cubs minor leaguer ever.
In Brett's defense, he walks more than Pie, Patterson, etc. ever did.
Steven Hawking walks more than Patterson and Pie ever did.
I nearly lol'd at this Fork joke during a conference call with a client and subcontractor just now.
You're flipping houses now?
Pimping.
Cubs sign future household name (http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/prospects/2012/07/cubs-sign-no-19-international-prospect-frandy-de-la-rosa/)
Quote from: Sterling Archer on July 02, 2012, 01:36:22 PM
Cubs sign future household name (http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/prospects/2012/07/cubs-sign-no-19-international-prospect-frandy-de-la-rosa/)
DELAROSA? IT'S ABOUT TIME DAT EPSTEIN RIGHTED DAT WRONG. HE WAS DA HEART AND SOUL OF THE CUBS.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on July 02, 2012, 01:36:22 PM
Cubs sign future household name (http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/prospects/2012/07/cubs-sign-no-19-international-prospect-frandy-de-la-rosa/)
Frandy?
So Ryan Freel's coming back?
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 02, 2012, 01:56:50 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on July 02, 2012, 01:36:22 PM
Cubs sign future household name (http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/prospects/2012/07/cubs-sign-no-19-international-prospect-frandy-de-la-rosa/)
Frandy?
So Ryan Freel's coming back?
I can't wait to be the first one to welcome him back to the Chi.
Epstinks got an admirer (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-woman-accused-of-stalking-cubs-boss-20120717,0,2295809.story)
Yikes.
Quote from: flannj on July 17, 2012, 07:55:28 AM
Epstinks got an admirer (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-woman-accused-of-stalking-cubs-boss-20120717,0,2295809.story)
Yikes.
Is it carlosz#1fan?
Quote from: flannj on July 17, 2012, 07:55:28 AM
Epstinks got an admirer (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-woman-accused-of-stalking-cubs-boss-20120717,0,2295809.story)
Yikes.
I love how they took her to his house.
"Hey, you crazy bitch. Let's go meet Theo."
Quote from: Slaky on July 17, 2012, 08:52:48 AM
Quote from: flannj on July 17, 2012, 07:55:28 AM
Epstinks got an admirer (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-woman-accused-of-stalking-cubs-boss-20120717,0,2295809.story)
Yikes.
I love how they took her to his house.
"Hey, you crazy bitch. Let's go meet Theo."
She had just put a delivery order in at D'ags for her new family. Would've been a pain in the ass to change the delivery address to the precinct.
(http://www.reactionface.info/sites/default/files/images/1310650820313.jpg)
http://www.csnchicago.com/baseball-chicago-cubs/cubs-talk/Influx-of-information-a-boon-for-Cubs-pr?blockID=827371
Quote"[In 2011], I was in Peoria and Tennessee," began Beeler, "We would go into games and look at a guy's stats and say 'He's hitting this [average], or he's hitting this [average] over the last 10 games, or this many home runs, or had this many stolen bases."
But when 2012 rolled around, Beeler and other Cubs hurlers found themselves with a lot more information to digest.
"This past year, we'd have a guy -- a video guy -- who would come and go over [the opposing team's] entire lineup, go through their last 10 games and would find their strengths, their weaknesses, where you should pitch them and in what counts, their stats, if they like steal early, etc. It was a lot more in-depth."
MLB Homegrown Teams (http://itsaboutthemoney.net/archives/2013/08/12/the-all-homegrown-mlb/)
While, they're all interesting to look through, the Cubs one made me laugh:
QuoteChicago Cubs
Starting Pitchers
• Andrew Cashner
• Jon Garland
• Kyle Lohse
• Ricky Nolasco
• Jeff Samardzija
Bullpen
• Al Alburquerque
• Jerry Blevins
• Scott Downs
• Rich Hill
• Carlos Marmol
• Sean Marshall
• James Russell
Catchers
• Jose Molina
• Geovany Soto
Infielders
• Darwin Barney
• Starlin Castro
• Ronny Cedeno
• Josh Donaldson
• Hak-Ju Lee
• Josh Vitters
Outfielders
• Tony Campana
• Tyler Colvin
• Sam Fuld
• Brett Jackson
• Junior Lake
Now this is a bad team. There's some young talent in Cashner and Castro (and, possibly, Vitters, Jackson, and Lake) ... but these Cubs would be in the running for the first pick of the draft, with its average rotation appearing to be its greatest strength. This makes Theo Epstein's slash-and-burn rebuild seem all the more necessary.
Quote from: Yeti on August 12, 2013, 01:35:31 PM
MLB Homegrown Teams (http://itsaboutthemoney.net/archives/2013/08/12/the-all-homegrown-mlb/)
While, they're all interesting to look through, the Cubs one made me laugh:
QuoteChicago Cubs
Starting Pitchers
• Andrew Cashner
• Jon Garland
• Kyle Lohse
• Ricky Nolasco
• Jeff Samardzija
Bullpen
• Al Alburquerque
• Jerry Blevins
• Scott Downs
• Rich Hill
• Carlos Marmol
• Sean Marshall
• James Russell
Catchers
• Jose Molina
• Geovany Soto
Infielders
• Darwin Barney
• Starlin Castro
• Ronny Cedeno
• Josh Donaldson
• Hak-Ju Lee
• Josh Vitters
Outfielders
• Tony Campana
• Tyler Colvin
• Sam Fuld
• Brett Jackson
• Junior Lake
Now this is a bad team. There's some young talent in Cashner and Castro (and, possibly, Vitters, Jackson, and Lake) ... but these Cubs would be in the running for the first pick of the draft, with its average rotation appearing to be its greatest strength. This makes Theo Epstein's slash-and-burn rebuild seem all the more necessary.
David Archer?
Quote from: Internet Apex on August 12, 2013, 01:47:54 PM
Quote from: Yeti on August 12, 2013, 01:35:31 PM
MLB Homegrown Teams (http://itsaboutthemoney.net/archives/2013/08/12/the-all-homegrown-mlb/)
While, they're all interesting to look through, the Cubs one made me laugh:
QuoteChicago Cubs
Starting Pitchers
• Andrew Cashner
• Jon Garland
• Kyle Lohse
• Ricky Nolasco
• Jeff Samardzija
Bullpen
• Al Alburquerque
• Jerry Blevins
• Scott Downs
• Rich Hill
• Carlos Marmol
• Sean Marshall
• James Russell
Catchers
• Jose Molina
• Geovany Soto
Infielders
• Darwin Barney
• Starlin Castro
• Ronny Cedeno
• Josh Donaldson
• Hak-Ju Lee
• Josh Vitters
Outfielders
• Tony Campana
• Tyler Colvin
• Sam Fuld
• Brett Jackson
• Junior Lake
Now this is a bad team. There's some young talent in Cashner and Castro (and, possibly, Vitters, Jackson, and Lake) ... but these Cubs would be in the running for the first pick of the draft, with its average rotation appearing to be its greatest strength. This makes Theo Epstein's slash-and-burn rebuild seem all the more necessary.
David Archer?
Chris Archer? Drafted and signed by Cleveland, traded to Chicago for the great Mark DeRosa.
If you're doing a bit and I missed it, ignore this.
After all these years I still want to kick Ed Lynch in the nuts whenever I see John Garland's name.
Quote from: Internet Apex on August 12, 2013, 01:47:54 PM
Quote from: Yeti on August 12, 2013, 01:35:31 PM
MLB Homegrown Teams (http://itsaboutthemoney.net/archives/2013/08/12/the-all-homegrown-mlb/)
While, they're all interesting to look through, the Cubs one made me laugh:
QuoteChicago Cubs
Starting Pitchers
• Andrew Cashner
• Jon Garland
• Kyle Lohse
• Ricky Nolasco
• Jeff Samardzija
Bullpen
• Al Alburquerque
• Jerry Blevins
• Scott Downs
• Rich Hill
• Carlos Marmol
• Sean Marshall
• James Russell
Catchers
• Jose Molina
• Geovany Soto
Infielders
• Darwin Barney
• Starlin Castro
• Ronny Cedeno
• Josh Donaldson
• Hak-Ju Lee
• Josh Vitters
Outfielders
• Tony Campana
• Tyler Colvin
• Sam Fuld
• Brett Jackson
• Junior Lake
Now this is a bad team. There's some young talent in Cashner and Castro (and, possibly, Vitters, Jackson, and Lake) ... but these Cubs would be in the running for the first pick of the draft, with its average rotation appearing to be its greatest strength. This makes Theo Epstein's slash-and-burn rebuild seem all the more necessary.
David Archer?
(http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2010/0929/chi_g_dent_sy_300.jpg)
Quote from: Armchair_QB on August 12, 2013, 02:25:45 PM
After all these years I still want to kick Ed Lynch in the nuts whenever I see John Garland's name.
You even misspelled the most of the reason to hate Jo
hn Garland..
Sorry, Bort
Quote from: PANK! on August 12, 2013, 02:32:53 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on August 12, 2013, 01:47:54 PM
Quote from: Yeti on August 12, 2013, 01:35:31 PM
MLB Homegrown Teams (http://itsaboutthemoney.net/archives/2013/08/12/the-all-homegrown-mlb/)
While, they're all interesting to look through, the Cubs one made me laugh:
QuoteChicago Cubs
Starting Pitchers
• Andrew Cashner
• Jon Garland
• Kyle Lohse
• Ricky Nolasco
• Jeff Samardzija
Bullpen
• Al Alburquerque
• Jerry Blevins
• Scott Downs
• Rich Hill
• Carlos Marmol
• Sean Marshall
• James Russell
Catchers
• Jose Molina
• Geovany Soto
Infielders
• Darwin Barney
• Starlin Castro
• Ronny Cedeno
• Josh Donaldson
• Hak-Ju Lee
• Josh Vitters
Outfielders
• Tony Campana
• Tyler Colvin
• Sam Fuld
• Brett Jackson
• Junior Lake
Now this is a bad team. There's some young talent in Cashner and Castro (and, possibly, Vitters, Jackson, and Lake) ... but these Cubs would be in the running for the first pick of the draft, with its average rotation appearing to be its greatest strength. This makes Theo Epstein's slash-and-burn rebuild seem all the more necessary.
David Archer?
(http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2010/0929/chi_g_dent_sy_300.jpg)
Yeah, it's probably good they traded that guy.
Quote from: Yeti on August 12, 2013, 02:53:38 PM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on August 12, 2013, 02:25:45 PM
After all these years I still want to kick Ed Lynch in the nuts whenever I see John Garland's name.
You even misspelled the most of the reason to hate John Garland..
Sorry, Bort
I see no need for that extra H, Yheti.
Quote from: Yeti on August 12, 2013, 02:53:38 PM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on August 12, 2013, 02:25:45 PM
After all these years I still want to kick Ed Lynch in the nuts whenever I see John Garland's name.
You even misspelled the most of the reason to hate John Garland..
Sorry, Bort
Ooops.
But my point stands.
Quote from: Yeti on August 12, 2013, 02:53:38 PM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on August 12, 2013, 02:25:45 PM
After all these years I still want to kick Ed Lynch in the nuts whenever I see John Garland's name.
You even misspelled the most of the reason to hate John Garland.. Ed Lynch
Sorry, Bort
I thought only Maddux was allowed to make trades for himself.
Quote from: Brownie on August 13, 2013, 11:55:58 AM
Quote from: Yeti on August 12, 2013, 02:53:38 PM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on August 12, 2013, 02:25:45 PM
After all these years I still want to kick Ed Lynch in the nuts whenever I see John Garland's name.
You even misspelled the most of the reason to hate John Garland.. Ed Lynch
Sorry, Bort
I thought only Maddux was allowed to make trades for himself.
Him and Phil Nevin.
Now there's a Cub worthy of our hate.
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on August 13, 2013, 12:28:15 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 13, 2013, 11:55:58 AM
Quote from: Yeti on August 12, 2013, 02:53:38 PM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on August 12, 2013, 02:25:45 PM
After all these years I still want to kick Ed Lynch in the nuts whenever I see John Garland's name.
You even misspelled the most of the reason to hate John Garland.. Ed Lynch
Sorry, Bort
I thought only Maddux was allowed to make trades for himself.
Him and Phil Nevin.
Now there's a Cub worthy of our hate.
THANK you, TEC. I was thinking about this a few weeks ago, and could have sworn I remembered Phil Nevin trading himself. Could I find any reference to it on the interwebs, though? Could I fuck. I thought I was going barmy.
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on August 13, 2013, 12:28:15 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 13, 2013, 11:55:58 AM
Quote from: Yeti on August 12, 2013, 02:53:38 PM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on August 12, 2013, 02:25:45 PM
After all these years I still want to kick Ed Lynch in the nuts whenever I see John Garland's name.
You even misspelled the most of the reason to hate John Garland.. Ed Lynch
Sorry, Bort
I thought only Maddux was allowed to make trades for himself.
Him and Phil Nevin.
Now there's a Cub worthy of our hate.
(http://www.posters.ws/images/359603/fred_mcgriff_studio_portrait_photofile.jpg)
Brian McCann: Baseball Cop to the ... Cubs? (http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/writer/jon-heyman/24112680/mccann-may-hit-hr-as-free-agent-bosox-yanks-rangers-etc-in-play)
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 21, 2013, 11:01:50 AM
Brian McCann: Baseball Cop to the ... Cubs? (http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/writer/jon-heyman/24112680/mccann-may-hit-hr-as-free-agent-bosox-yanks-rangers-etc-in-play)
I'm fine with this. Sign him, sign Tanaka, let Bryant and Baez start the season in the majors and ...
... profit?
Quote from: Eli on October 21, 2013, 11:22:37 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 21, 2013, 11:01:50 AM
Brian McCann: Baseball Cop to the ... Cubs? (http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/writer/jon-heyman/24112680/mccann-may-hit-hr-as-free-agent-bosox-yanks-rangers-etc-in-play)
I'm fine with this. Sign him, sign Tanaka, let Bryant and Baez start the season in the majors and ...
... profit?
Would you start Baez at SS, 2B, 3B? And would you send him to Chicago in April regardless, or treat spring training as a tryout/gauge of readiness?
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 21, 2013, 11:38:02 AM
Would you start Baez at SS, 2B, 3B? And would you send him to Chicago in April regardless, or treat spring training as a tryout/gauge of readiness?
2B, I guess. And sure, maybe use spring training as a rough barometer. Give him some time in AAA if need be. especially if he needs some game reps at a new position.
I do think Bryant is ready and AAA would mostly be a waste of time.
Quote from: Eli on October 21, 2013, 11:47:47 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 21, 2013, 11:38:02 AM
Would you start Baez at SS, 2B, 3B? And would you send him to Chicago in April regardless, or treat spring training as a tryout/gauge of readiness?
2B, I guess. And sure, maybe use spring training as a rough barometer. Give him some time in AAA if need be. especially if he needs some game reps at a new position.
I do think Bryant is ready and AAA would mostly be a waste of time.
I think Baez is really close but I'd probably wait to see improvement in plate discipline over a longer sample before promoting him. (That's without mentioning his struggles on defense, too, although he could probably handle 2nd.) His OBP (.341 last year across two levels) may not translate too well to the majors, and it's hard to say if he'd make enough contact to hit enough homers and doubles to make up for it. There's no rush to get him up here, as I don't think they'll contend in 2014 either. It'll be hard to send him down if he has another strong spring training though.
I also think Bryant is just about ready, more so than Baez, but he finished in High-A last year and again, there's no hurry. He should definitely get an invitation to spring training, and if he rakes and looks solid in the field, I would be fine with him starting on Opening Day.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 21, 2013, 11:57:15 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 21, 2013, 11:47:47 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 21, 2013, 11:38:02 AM
Would you start Baez at SS, 2B, 3B? And would you send him to Chicago in April regardless, or treat spring training as a tryout/gauge of readiness?
2B, I guess. And sure, maybe use spring training as a rough barometer. Give him some time in AAA if need be. especially if he needs some game reps at a new position.
I do think Bryant is ready and AAA would mostly be a waste of time.
I think Baez is really close but I'd probably wait to see improvement in plate discipline over a longer sample before promoting him. (That's without mentioning his struggles on defense, too, although he could probably handle 2nd.) His OBP (.341 last year across two levels) may not translate too well to the majors, and it's hard to say if he'd make enough contact to hit enough homers and doubles to make up for it. There's no rush to get him up here, as I don't think they'll contend in 2014 either. It'll be hard to send him down if he has another strong spring training though.
I also think Bryant is just about ready, more so than Baez, but he finished in High-A last year and again, there's no hurry. He should definitely get an invitation to spring training, and if he rakes and looks solid in the field, I would be fine with him starting on Opening Day.
Both will come up after Super II day, sometime in early to mid-May.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 21, 2013, 02:00:28 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 21, 2013, 11:57:15 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 21, 2013, 11:47:47 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 21, 2013, 11:38:02 AM
Would you start Baez at SS, 2B, 3B? And would you send him to Chicago in April regardless, or treat spring training as a tryout/gauge of readiness?
2B, I guess. And sure, maybe use spring training as a rough barometer. Give him some time in AAA if need be. especially if he needs some game reps at a new position.
I do think Bryant is ready and AAA would mostly be a waste of time.
I think Baez is really close but I'd probably wait to see improvement in plate discipline over a longer sample before promoting him. (That's without mentioning his struggles on defense, too, although he could probably handle 2nd.) His OBP (.341 last year across two levels) may not translate too well to the majors, and it's hard to say if he'd make enough contact to hit enough homers and doubles to make up for it. There's no rush to get him up here, as I don't think they'll contend in 2014 either. It'll be hard to send him down if he has another strong spring training though.
I also think Bryant is just about ready, more so than Baez, but he finished in High-A last year and again, there's no hurry. He should definitely get an invitation to spring training, and if he rakes and looks solid in the field, I would be fine with him starting on Opening Day.
Both will come up after Super II day, sometime in early to mid-May.
You're probably right. But I feel like that's a small-market move that a team like the Cubs shouldn't have to make. In the abstract, at least.
Quote from: Eli on October 21, 2013, 03:06:50 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 21, 2013, 02:00:28 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 21, 2013, 11:57:15 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 21, 2013, 11:47:47 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 21, 2013, 11:38:02 AM
Would you start Baez at SS, 2B, 3B? And would you send him to Chicago in April regardless, or treat spring training as a tryout/gauge of readiness?
2B, I guess. And sure, maybe use spring training as a rough barometer. Give him some time in AAA if need be. especially if he needs some game reps at a new position.
I do think Bryant is ready and AAA would mostly be a waste of time.
I think Baez is really close but I'd probably wait to see improvement in plate discipline over a longer sample before promoting him. (That's without mentioning his struggles on defense, too, although he could probably handle 2nd.) His OBP (.341 last year across two levels) may not translate too well to the majors, and it's hard to say if he'd make enough contact to hit enough homers and doubles to make up for it. There's no rush to get him up here, as I don't think they'll contend in 2014 either. It'll be hard to send him down if he has another strong spring training though.
I also think Bryant is just about ready, more so than Baez, but he finished in High-A last year and again, there's no hurry. He should definitely get an invitation to spring training, and if he rakes and looks solid in the field, I would be fine with him starting on Opening Day.
Both will come up after Super II day, sometime in early to mid-May.
You're probably right. But I feel like that's a small-market move that a team like the Cubs shouldn't have to make. In the abstract, at least.
That's not small market. That's cash flow management. If knowing you are going to be an extra couple million ahead in 2016 gets you the flexibility to afford Scherzer now, you do it.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 21, 2013, 04:12:11 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 21, 2013, 03:06:50 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 21, 2013, 02:00:28 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 21, 2013, 11:57:15 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 21, 2013, 11:47:47 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 21, 2013, 11:38:02 AM
Would you start Baez at SS, 2B, 3B? And would you send him to Chicago in April regardless, or treat spring training as a tryout/gauge of readiness?
2B, I guess. And sure, maybe use spring training as a rough barometer. Give him some time in AAA if need be. especially if he needs some game reps at a new position.
I do think Bryant is ready and AAA would mostly be a waste of time.
I think Baez is really close but I'd probably wait to see improvement in plate discipline over a longer sample before promoting him. (That's without mentioning his struggles on defense, too, although he could probably handle 2nd.) His OBP (.341 last year across two levels) may not translate too well to the majors, and it's hard to say if he'd make enough contact to hit enough homers and doubles to make up for it. There's no rush to get him up here, as I don't think they'll contend in 2014 either. It'll be hard to send him down if he has another strong spring training though.
I also think Bryant is just about ready, more so than Baez, but he finished in High-A last year and again, there's no hurry. He should definitely get an invitation to spring training, and if he rakes and looks solid in the field, I would be fine with him starting on Opening Day.
Both will come up after Super II day, sometime in early to mid-May.
You're probably right. But I feel like that's a small-market move that a team like the Cubs shouldn't have to make. In the abstract, at least.
That's not small market. That's cash flow management. If knowing you are going to be an extra couple million ahead in 2016 gets you the flexibility to afford Scherzer now, you do it.
Well, that's a big leap in thinking.
Quote from: Eli on October 21, 2013, 05:17:34 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 21, 2013, 04:12:11 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 21, 2013, 03:06:50 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 21, 2013, 02:00:28 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 21, 2013, 11:57:15 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 21, 2013, 11:47:47 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 21, 2013, 11:38:02 AM
Would you start Baez at SS, 2B, 3B? And would you send him to Chicago in April regardless, or treat spring training as a tryout/gauge of readiness?
2B, I guess. And sure, maybe use spring training as a rough barometer. Give him some time in AAA if need be. especially if he needs some game reps at a new position.
I do think Bryant is ready and AAA would mostly be a waste of time.
I think Baez is really close but I'd probably wait to see improvement in plate discipline over a longer sample before promoting him. (That's without mentioning his struggles on defense, too, although he could probably handle 2nd.) His OBP (.341 last year across two levels) may not translate too well to the majors, and it's hard to say if he'd make enough contact to hit enough homers and doubles to make up for it. There's no rush to get him up here, as I don't think they'll contend in 2014 either. It'll be hard to send him down if he has another strong spring training though.
I also think Bryant is just about ready, more so than Baez, but he finished in High-A last year and again, there's no hurry. He should definitely get an invitation to spring training, and if he rakes and looks solid in the field, I would be fine with him starting on Opening Day.
Both will come up after Super II day, sometime in early to mid-May.
You're probably right. But I feel like that's a small-market move that a team like the Cubs shouldn't have to make. In the abstract, at least.
That's not small market. That's cash flow management. If knowing you are going to be an extra couple million ahead in 2016 gets you the flexibility to afford Scherzer now, you do it.
Well, that's a big leap in thinking.
Well, that's just what Chuck provides. You need a big thinker to get both Cano and Scherzer on the payroll.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 21, 2013, 02:00:28 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 21, 2013, 11:57:15 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 21, 2013, 11:47:47 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 21, 2013, 11:38:02 AM
Would you start Baez at SS, 2B, 3B? And would you send him to Chicago in April regardless, or treat spring training as a tryout/gauge of readiness?
2B, I guess. And sure, maybe use spring training as a rough barometer. Give him some time in AAA if need be. especially if he needs some game reps at a new position.
I do think Bryant is ready and AAA would mostly be a waste of time.
I think Baez is really close but I'd probably wait to see improvement in plate discipline over a longer sample before promoting him. (That's without mentioning his struggles on defense, too, although he could probably handle 2nd.) His OBP (.341 last year across two levels) may not translate too well to the majors, and it's hard to say if he'd make enough contact to hit enough homers and doubles to make up for it. There's no rush to get him up here, as I don't think they'll contend in 2014 either. It'll be hard to send him down if he has another strong spring training though.
I also think Bryant is just about ready, more so than Baez, but he finished in High-A last year and again, there's no hurry. He should definitely get an invitation to spring training, and if he rakes and looks solid in the field, I would be fine with him starting on Opening Day.
Both will come up after Super II day, sometime in early to mid-May.
I can see the Cubs being willing to accept an extra year of arbitration if they want the immediate talent infusion and also if they think promoting him to the majors is the only way to figure out if he's a 3B, OF, or 1B. Recent signings are putting a real damper on 1B value, especially in long-term deals. (Pujols, yikes.) If they like what they see, they can plug him into 3B or the OF and immediately try to get a team-friendly extension done, maybe trading a few of those years of arbitration for a reasonable guaranteed salary and generous signing bonus. OTOH, if they think he's limited to 1B, they can either keep Rizzo and trade Bryant for immediate pitching help (Price?) or do the same but reverse the names.
Then again, May to September would also be a fine sample to figure out if he can play somewhere other than 1B.
I guess what I'm saying is let's just see how it all plays out.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 21, 2013, 08:40:13 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 21, 2013, 02:00:28 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 21, 2013, 11:57:15 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 21, 2013, 11:47:47 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 21, 2013, 11:38:02 AM
Would you start Baez at SS, 2B, 3B? And would you send him to Chicago in April regardless, or treat spring training as a tryout/gauge of readiness?
2B, I guess. And sure, maybe use spring training as a rough barometer. Give him some time in AAA if need be. especially if he needs some game reps at a new position.
I do think Bryant is ready and AAA would mostly be a waste of time.
I think Baez is really close but I'd probably wait to see improvement in plate discipline over a longer sample before promoting him. (That's without mentioning his struggles on defense, too, although he could probably handle 2nd.) His OBP (.341 last year across two levels) may not translate too well to the majors, and it's hard to say if he'd make enough contact to hit enough homers and doubles to make up for it. There's no rush to get him up here, as I don't think they'll contend in 2014 either. It'll be hard to send him down if he has another strong spring training though.
I also think Bryant is just about ready, more so than Baez, but he finished in High-A last year and again, there's no hurry. He should definitely get an invitation to spring training, and if he rakes and looks solid in the field, I would be fine with him starting on Opening Day.
Both will come up after Super II day, sometime in early to mid-May.
I can see the Cubs being willing to accept an extra year of arbitration if they want the immediate talent infusion and also if they think promoting him to the majors is the only way to figure out if he's a 3B, OF, or 1B. Recent signings are putting a real damper on 1B value, especially in long-term deals. (Pujols, yikes.) If they like what they see, they can plug him into 3B or the OF and immediately try to get a team-friendly extension done, maybe trading a few of those years of arbitration for a reasonable guaranteed salary and generous signing bonus. OTOH, if they think he's limited to 1B, they can either keep Rizzo and trade Bryant for immediate pitching help (Price?) or do the same but reverse the names.
Then again, May to September would also be a fine sample to figure out if he can play somewhere other than 1B.
I guess what I'm saying is let's just see how it all plays out.
If MIKE OLT! has his vision issues sorted out, that could take 3B out of the discussion.
Quote from: Fork on October 23, 2013, 09:46:01 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 21, 2013, 08:40:13 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 21, 2013, 02:00:28 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 21, 2013, 11:57:15 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 21, 2013, 11:47:47 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 21, 2013, 11:38:02 AM
Would you start Baez at SS, 2B, 3B? And would you send him to Chicago in April regardless, or treat spring training as a tryout/gauge of readiness?
2B, I guess. And sure, maybe use spring training as a rough barometer. Give him some time in AAA if need be. especially if he needs some game reps at a new position.
I do think Bryant is ready and AAA would mostly be a waste of time.
I think Baez is really close but I'd probably wait to see improvement in plate discipline over a longer sample before promoting him. (That's without mentioning his struggles on defense, too, although he could probably handle 2nd.) His OBP (.341 last year across two levels) may not translate too well to the majors, and it's hard to say if he'd make enough contact to hit enough homers and doubles to make up for it. There's no rush to get him up here, as I don't think they'll contend in 2014 either. It'll be hard to send him down if he has another strong spring training though.
I also think Bryant is just about ready, more so than Baez, but he finished in High-A last year and again, there's no hurry. He should definitely get an invitation to spring training, and if he rakes and looks solid in the field, I would be fine with him starting on Opening Day.
Both will come up after Super II day, sometime in early to mid-May.
I can see the Cubs being willing to accept an extra year of arbitration if they want the immediate talent infusion and also if they think promoting him to the majors is the only way to figure out if he's a 3B, OF, or 1B. Recent signings are putting a real damper on 1B value, especially in long-term deals. (Pujols, yikes.) If they like what they see, they can plug him into 3B or the OF and immediately try to get a team-friendly extension done, maybe trading a few of those years of arbitration for a reasonable guaranteed salary and generous signing bonus. OTOH, if they think he's limited to 1B, they can either keep Rizzo and trade Bryant for immediate pitching help (Price?) or do the same but reverse the names.
Then again, May to September would also be a fine sample to figure out if he can play somewhere other than 1B.
I guess what I'm saying is let's just see how it all plays out.
If MIKE OLT! has his vision issues sorted out, that could take 3B out of the discussion.
(http://www.parade.com/images/-v5/celebrity/2012/1014/personality-parade/spot-jack-huston.jpg)
My Colt
Quote from: PANK! on October 23, 2013, 10:47:45 AM
My Colt
That should only be used in a sentence if you conclude it thusly: "...Python is the best damned thing ever."
Mike Olt.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2013, 10:50:43 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 23, 2013, 10:47:45 AM
My Colt
That should only be used in a sentence if you conclude it thusly: "...Python is the best damned thing ever."
Most beautiful but fragile thing ever.
Anyone else disturbed by this (paraphrased) quote (http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/11/11/fridays-season-ticket-holder-event-loyalty-patience-prospects-plans-progress-and-more/)? Have Theo & Jed been getting moving targets for spending for the near future?
QuoteA fan groused to Epstein about the Edwin Jackson signing, and Epstein took a middle road, noting that he didn't have the year the Cubs hoped he would, but that his underlying metrics indicated he wasn't all that bad. Epstein expects a good year from Jackson in 2014. Unfortunately, Epstein also said this, paraphrased: "We also got a little ahead of ourselves, and didn't fully understand our situation. If we had full knowledge of business timing and plan at that time, we might have been more patient." Ouch. He's saying that, had they known last year at this time just how far off the big revenues were and/or how tight things were going to be, they might have waited to spend the cash.
Quote from: R-V on November 12, 2013, 09:08:18 AM
Anyone else disturbed by this (paraphrased) quote (http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/11/11/fridays-season-ticket-holder-event-loyalty-patience-prospects-plans-progress-and-more/)? Have Theo & Jed been getting moving targets for spending for the near future?
QuoteA fan groused to Epstein about the Edwin Jackson signing, and Epstein took a middle road, noting that he didn't have the year the Cubs hoped he would, but that his underlying metrics indicated he wasn't all that bad. Epstein expects a good year from Jackson in 2014. Unfortunately, Epstein also said this, paraphrased: "We also got a little ahead of ourselves, and didn't fully understand our situation. If we had full knowledge of business timing and plan at that time, we might have been more patient." Ouch. He's saying that, had they known last year at this time just how far off the big revenues were and/or how tight things were going to be, they might have waited to spend the cash.
I'm more disturbed that we have another 4 years and $41 million of Edwin fucking Jackson.
Quote from: PenFoe on November 12, 2013, 09:19:10 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 12, 2013, 09:08:18 AM
Anyone else disturbed by this (paraphrased) quote (http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/11/11/fridays-season-ticket-holder-event-loyalty-patience-prospects-plans-progress-and-more/)? Have Theo & Jed been getting moving targets for spending for the near future?
QuoteA fan groused to Epstein about the Edwin Jackson signing, and Epstein took a middle road, noting that he didn't have the year the Cubs hoped he would, but that his underlying metrics indicated he wasn't all that bad. Epstein expects a good year from Jackson in 2014. Unfortunately, Epstein also said this, paraphrased: "We also got a little ahead of ourselves, and didn't fully understand our situation. If we had full knowledge of business timing and plan at that time, we might have been more patient." Ouch. He's saying that, had they known last year at this time just how far off the big revenues were and/or how tight things were going to be, they might have waited to spend the cash.
I'm more disturbed that we have another 4 years and $41 million of Edwin fucking Jackson.
After contracts like Soriano's, Edwin's seems rather pedestrian.
Besides that, I think he's going to have a nice season in 2014.
Quote from: Slaky on November 12, 2013, 09:26:35 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on November 12, 2013, 09:19:10 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 12, 2013, 09:08:18 AM
Anyone else disturbed by this (paraphrased) quote (http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/11/11/fridays-season-ticket-holder-event-loyalty-patience-prospects-plans-progress-and-more/)? Have Theo & Jed been getting moving targets for spending for the near future?
QuoteA fan groused to Epstein about the Edwin Jackson signing, and Epstein took a middle road, noting that he didn't have the year the Cubs hoped he would, but that his underlying metrics indicated he wasn't all that bad. Epstein expects a good year from Jackson in 2014. Unfortunately, Epstein also said this, paraphrased: "We also got a little ahead of ourselves, and didn't fully understand our situation. If we had full knowledge of business timing and plan at that time, we might have been more patient." Ouch. He's saying that, had they known last year at this time just how far off the big revenues were and/or how tight things were going to be, they might have waited to spend the cash.
I'm more disturbed that we have another 4 years and $41 million of Edwin fucking Jackson.
After contracts like Soriano's, Edwin's seems rather pedestrian.
Besides that, I think he's going to have a nice season in 2014.
I don't have a big problem with Edwin's contract specifically. I don't like the fact that a year ago, Theo was told he'd have X, Y and Z to spend in 2013, 2014 and 2015 and this implies that Y and possibly Z have decreased significantly.
Quote from: PenFoe on November 12, 2013, 09:19:10 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 12, 2013, 09:08:18 AM
Anyone else disturbed by this (paraphrased) quote (http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/11/11/fridays-season-ticket-holder-event-loyalty-patience-prospects-plans-progress-and-more/)? Have Theo & Jed been getting moving targets for spending for the near future?
QuoteA fan groused to Epstein about the Edwin Jackson signing, and Epstein took a middle road, noting that he didn't have the year the Cubs hoped he would, but that his underlying metrics indicated he wasn't all that bad. Epstein expects a good year from Jackson in 2014. Unfortunately, Epstein also said this, paraphrased: "We also got a little ahead of ourselves, and didn't fully understand our situation. If we had full knowledge of business timing and plan at that time, we might have been more patient." Ouch. He's saying that, had they known last year at this time just how far off the big revenues were and/or how tight things were going to be, they might have waited to spend the cash.
I'm more disturbed that we have another 4 years and $41 million of Edwin fucking Jackson.
A) It's 3 years, $39mm ($13mm x 3 years).
B) I still read that quote as spin. "You fans would have a better team if Beth Murphy and the Roofies would go away." But maybe it's Daddy Ricketts saying, "Nope. You told me they sell out. I'm not subsidizing this."
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 12, 2013, 09:45:45 AM
I still read that quote as spin. "You fans would have a better team if Beth Murphy and the Roofies would go away."
Yes, Chuck.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 12, 2013, 09:45:45 AMBut maybe it's Daddy Ricketts saying, "Nope. You told me they sell out. I'm not subsidizing this."
No, Chuck.
Quote from: R-V on November 12, 2013, 09:08:18 AM
Anyone else disturbed by this (paraphrased) quote (http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/11/11/fridays-season-ticket-holder-event-loyalty-patience-prospects-plans-progress-and-more/)? Have Theo & Jed been getting moving targets for spending for the near future?
I think we'll know more after this offseason and whether they're able to pay up for Choo or Tanaka. From what has been said, I'm not really counting on it, so 2014 will be another rough year. I think most people expect that at this point.
And if we're being realistic, a lack of veteran signings this offseason probably doesn't bode too well for 2015 either. They need several guys who can post 4-5 win seasons to make the jump into 90-win territory (they currently have zero guys like that, with Rizzo as the best possibility). As excited as we are about Baez, Bryant and the other young guys, they're probably not going to come straight up from the minors and dominate.
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 09:58:12 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 12, 2013, 09:08:18 AM
Anyone else disturbed by this (paraphrased) quote (http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/11/11/fridays-season-ticket-holder-event-loyalty-patience-prospects-plans-progress-and-more/)? Have Theo & Jed been getting moving targets for spending for the near future?
I think we'll know more after this offseason and whether they're able to pay up for Choo or Tanaka. From what has been said, I'm not really counting on it, so 2014 will be another rough year. I think most people expect that at this point.
And if we're being realistic, a lack of veteran signings this offseason probably doesn't bode too well for 2015 either. They need several guys who can post 4-5 win seasons to make the jump into 90-win territory (they currently have zero guys like that, with Rizzo as the best possibility). As excited as we are about Baez, Bryant and the other young guys, they're probably not going to come straight up from the minors and dominate.
I do like where their heads are at though. There simply aren't names on the market that you can pay and get those 5 wins, or what have you. They don't exist. The only guys hitting free agency now are old and expensive. Good pieces to wealthy clubs who need to patch up holes to contend. Not super helpful to teams that need to fix almost everything at the major league level.
It'd be great if they got Tanaka but somehow I'm just not picturing that happening.
Quote from: Slaky on November 12, 2013, 10:02:22 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 09:58:12 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 12, 2013, 09:08:18 AM
Anyone else disturbed by this (paraphrased) quote (http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/11/11/fridays-season-ticket-holder-event-loyalty-patience-prospects-plans-progress-and-more/)? Have Theo & Jed been getting moving targets for spending for the near future?
I think we'll know more after this offseason and whether they're able to pay up for Choo or Tanaka. From what has been said, I'm not really counting on it, so 2014 will be another rough year. I think most people expect that at this point.
And if we're being realistic, a lack of veteran signings this offseason probably doesn't bode too well for 2015 either. They need several guys who can post 4-5 win seasons to make the jump into 90-win territory (they currently have zero guys like that, with Rizzo as the best possibility). As excited as we are about Baez, Bryant and the other young guys, they're probably not going to come straight up from the minors and dominate.
I do like where their heads are at though. There simply aren't names on the market that you can pay and get those 5 wins, or what have you. They don't exist. The only guys hitting free agency now are old and expensive. Good pieces to wealthy clubs who need to patch up holes to contend. Not super helpful to teams that need to fix almost everything at the major league level.
It'd be great if they got Tanaka but somehow I'm just not picturing that happening.
Nitpicky point, but Choo and Ellsbury were both above my somewhat arbitrary mark (5.2 and 5.8). Of course, they're both on the back end of their primes so that may not hold up going forward. But they'll probably be pretty good players for at least a few more years. I see the argument for not signing them, but I'd be happy if they did grab one simply because the team needs quality players at some point.
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 10:31:00 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 12, 2013, 10:02:22 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 09:58:12 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 12, 2013, 09:08:18 AM
Anyone else disturbed by this (paraphrased) quote (http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/11/11/fridays-season-ticket-holder-event-loyalty-patience-prospects-plans-progress-and-more/)? Have Theo & Jed been getting moving targets for spending for the near future?
I think we'll know more after this offseason and whether they're able to pay up for Choo or Tanaka. From what has been said, I'm not really counting on it, so 2014 will be another rough year. I think most people expect that at this point.
And if we're being realistic, a lack of veteran signings this offseason probably doesn't bode too well for 2015 either. They need several guys who can post 4-5 win seasons to make the jump into 90-win territory (they currently have zero guys like that, with Rizzo as the best possibility). As excited as we are about Baez, Bryant and the other young guys, they're probably not going to come straight up from the minors and dominate.
I do like where their heads are at though. There simply aren't names on the market that you can pay and get those 5 wins, or what have you. They don't exist. The only guys hitting free agency now are old and expensive. Good pieces to wealthy clubs who need to patch up holes to contend. Not super helpful to teams that need to fix almost everything at the major league level.
It'd be great if they got Tanaka but somehow I'm just not picturing that happening.
Nitpicky point, but Choo and Ellsbury were both above my somewhat arbitrary mark (5.2 and 5.8). Of course, they're both on the back end of their primes so that may not hold up going forward. But they'll probably be pretty good players for at least a few more years. I see the argument for not signing them, but I'd be happy if they did grab one simply because the team needs quality players at some point.
I'm a big advocate of signing Choo for a lot of reasons but the biggest one is his penchant for getting on base. Just having him at the top of the lineup would be a huge upgrade. Just keep him away from the all the soju joints on California.
Quote from: Slaky on November 12, 2013, 10:44:55 AM
Just keep him away from the all the soju joints on California.
And lefties.
Quote from: R-V on November 12, 2013, 09:08:18 AM
Anyone else disturbed by this (paraphrased) quote (http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/11/11/fridays-season-ticket-holder-event-loyalty-patience-prospects-plans-progress-and-more/)? Have Theo & Jed been getting moving targets for spending for the near future?
QuoteA fan groused to Epstein about the Edwin Jackson signing, and Epstein took a middle road, noting that he didn't have the year the Cubs hoped he would, but that his underlying metrics indicated he wasn't all that bad. Epstein expects a good year from Jackson in 2014. Unfortunately, Epstein also said this, paraphrased: "We also got a little ahead of ourselves, and didn't fully understand our situation. If we had full knowledge of business timing and plan at that time, we might have been more patient." Ouch. He's saying that, had they known last year at this time just how far off the big revenues were and/or how tight things were going to be, they might have waited to spend the cash.
Rewinding the thread for a moment, RV's quote chopped off this gloss from Bleacher Nation's Brett:
QuoteThat paints a fairly dire picture, doesn't it? Probably more dire than is intended, and I guess we already know that the Wrigley problems have delayed those anticipated revenues by a year. Add it to the evidence pile that big spending this offseason is not likely, though.
I think that is exactly the point here.
Which is to say: No, RV.
Quote from: Slaky on November 12, 2013, 10:02:22 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 09:58:12 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 12, 2013, 09:08:18 AM
Anyone else disturbed by this (paraphrased) quote (http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/11/11/fridays-season-ticket-holder-event-loyalty-patience-prospects-plans-progress-and-more/)? Have Theo & Jed been getting moving targets for spending for the near future?
I think we'll know more after this offseason and whether they're able to pay up for Choo or Tanaka. From what has been said, I'm not really counting on it, so 2014 will be another rough year. I think most people expect that at this point.
And if we're being realistic, a lack of veteran signings this offseason probably doesn't bode too well for 2015 either. They need several guys who can post 4-5 win seasons to make the jump into 90-win territory (they currently have zero guys like that, with Rizzo as the best possibility). As excited as we are about Baez, Bryant and the other young guys, they're probably not going to come straight up from the minors and dominate.
I do like where their heads are at though. There simply aren't names on the market that you can pay and get those 5 wins, or what have you. They don't exist. The only guys hitting free agency now are old and expensive. Good pieces to wealthy clubs who need to patch up holes to contend. Not super helpful to teams that need to fix almost everything at the major league level.
It'd be great if they got Tanaka but somehow I'm just not picturing that happening.
I'm fine with a third shitty season so long as we're at least seeing one or two of the kids beyond the All-Star Break, and am okay with another struggling team in '15 if they're all up. I have fond memories of 1987/1988.
I'd rather see them suck for another year at a low budget than make moves simply for the sake of making moves.
Baez will be up by midseason. Bryant might not ever get challenged until he's in Chicago. Once they're here, they might not set the National League on fire right from the jump, but they'll turn on enough pitchers' mistakes to make everyone optimistic.
Quote from: PANK! on November 12, 2013, 11:31:58 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 12, 2013, 10:02:22 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 09:58:12 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 12, 2013, 09:08:18 AM
Anyone else disturbed by this (paraphrased) quote (http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/11/11/fridays-season-ticket-holder-event-loyalty-patience-prospects-plans-progress-and-more/)? Have Theo & Jed been getting moving targets for spending for the near future?
I think we'll know more after this offseason and whether they're able to pay up for Choo or Tanaka. From what has been said, I'm not really counting on it, so 2014 will be another rough year. I think most people expect that at this point.
And if we're being realistic, a lack of veteran signings this offseason probably doesn't bode too well for 2015 either. They need several guys who can post 4-5 win seasons to make the jump into 90-win territory (they currently have zero guys like that, with Rizzo as the best possibility). As excited as we are about Baez, Bryant and the other young guys, they're probably not going to come straight up from the minors and dominate.
I do like where their heads are at though. There simply aren't names on the market that you can pay and get those 5 wins, or what have you. They don't exist. The only guys hitting free agency now are old and expensive. Good pieces to wealthy clubs who need to patch up holes to contend. Not super helpful to teams that need to fix almost everything at the major league level.
It'd be great if they got Tanaka but somehow I'm just not picturing that happening.
I'm fine with a third shitty season so long as we're at least seeing one or two of the kids beyond the All-Star Break, and am okay with another struggling team in '15 if they're all up. I have fond memories of 1987/1988.
Just curious, if someone had told you when Epstein was hired in 2011 that the first truly competitive team would come in 2016, would you have been disappointed?
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 11:57:45 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 12, 2013, 11:31:58 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 12, 2013, 10:02:22 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 09:58:12 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 12, 2013, 09:08:18 AM
Anyone else disturbed by this (paraphrased) quote (http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/11/11/fridays-season-ticket-holder-event-loyalty-patience-prospects-plans-progress-and-more/)? Have Theo & Jed been getting moving targets for spending for the near future?
I think we'll know more after this offseason and whether they're able to pay up for Choo or Tanaka. From what has been said, I'm not really counting on it, so 2014 will be another rough year. I think most people expect that at this point.
And if we're being realistic, a lack of veteran signings this offseason probably doesn't bode too well for 2015 either. They need several guys who can post 4-5 win seasons to make the jump into 90-win territory (they currently have zero guys like that, with Rizzo as the best possibility). As excited as we are about Baez, Bryant and the other young guys, they're probably not going to come straight up from the minors and dominate.
I do like where their heads are at though. There simply aren't names on the market that you can pay and get those 5 wins, or what have you. They don't exist. The only guys hitting free agency now are old and expensive. Good pieces to wealthy clubs who need to patch up holes to contend. Not super helpful to teams that need to fix almost everything at the major league level.
It'd be great if they got Tanaka but somehow I'm just not picturing that happening.
I'm fine with a third shitty season so long as we're at least seeing one or two of the kids beyond the All-Star Break, and am okay with another struggling team in '15 if they're all up. I have fond memories of 1987/1988.
Just curious, if someone had told you when Epstein was hired in 2011 that the first truly competitive team would come in 2016, would you have been disappointed?
It's a fair question and I think, not knowing what I now know (just how empty the cupboard was, that financial implications would have been this significant) then I'd say yes, but that would have been with the assumption that he was going to go out and spend a bunch of money for high-priced free agents.
Quote from: PenFoe on November 12, 2013, 12:00:07 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 11:57:45 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 12, 2013, 11:31:58 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 12, 2013, 10:02:22 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 09:58:12 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 12, 2013, 09:08:18 AM
Anyone else disturbed by this (paraphrased) quote (http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/11/11/fridays-season-ticket-holder-event-loyalty-patience-prospects-plans-progress-and-more/)? Have Theo & Jed been getting moving targets for spending for the near future?
I think we'll know more after this offseason and whether they're able to pay up for Choo or Tanaka. From what has been said, I'm not really counting on it, so 2014 will be another rough year. I think most people expect that at this point.
And if we're being realistic, a lack of veteran signings this offseason probably doesn't bode too well for 2015 either. They need several guys who can post 4-5 win seasons to make the jump into 90-win territory (they currently have zero guys like that, with Rizzo as the best possibility). As excited as we are about Baez, Bryant and the other young guys, they're probably not going to come straight up from the minors and dominate.
I do like where their heads are at though. There simply aren't names on the market that you can pay and get those 5 wins, or what have you. They don't exist. The only guys hitting free agency now are old and expensive. Good pieces to wealthy clubs who need to patch up holes to contend. Not super helpful to teams that need to fix almost everything at the major league level.
It'd be great if they got Tanaka but somehow I'm just not picturing that happening.
I'm fine with a third shitty season so long as we're at least seeing one or two of the kids beyond the All-Star Break, and am okay with another struggling team in '15 if they're all up. I have fond memories of 1987/1988.
Just curious, if someone had told you when Epstein was hired in 2011 that the first truly competitive team would come in 2016, would you have been disappointed?
It's a fair question and I think, not knowing what I now know (just how empty the cupboard was, that financial implications would have been this significant) then I'd say yes, but that would have been with the assumption that he was going to go out and spend a bunch of money for high-priced free agents.
I would have been disappointed but at this point I'm not. I can do two bad years standing on my head.
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 12, 2013, 12:03:08 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on November 12, 2013, 12:00:07 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 11:57:45 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 12, 2013, 11:31:58 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 12, 2013, 10:02:22 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 09:58:12 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 12, 2013, 09:08:18 AM
Anyone else disturbed by this (paraphrased) quote (http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/11/11/fridays-season-ticket-holder-event-loyalty-patience-prospects-plans-progress-and-more/)? Have Theo & Jed been getting moving targets for spending for the near future?
I think we'll know more after this offseason and whether they're able to pay up for Choo or Tanaka. From what has been said, I'm not really counting on it, so 2014 will be another rough year. I think most people expect that at this point.
And if we're being realistic, a lack of veteran signings this offseason probably doesn't bode too well for 2015 either. They need several guys who can post 4-5 win seasons to make the jump into 90-win territory (they currently have zero guys like that, with Rizzo as the best possibility). As excited as we are about Baez, Bryant and the other young guys, they're probably not going to come straight up from the minors and dominate.
I do like where their heads are at though. There simply aren't names on the market that you can pay and get those 5 wins, or what have you. They don't exist. The only guys hitting free agency now are old and expensive. Good pieces to wealthy clubs who need to patch up holes to contend. Not super helpful to teams that need to fix almost everything at the major league level.
It'd be great if they got Tanaka but somehow I'm just not picturing that happening.
I'm fine with a third shitty season so long as we're at least seeing one or two of the kids beyond the All-Star Break, and am okay with another struggling team in '15 if they're all up. I have fond memories of 1987/1988.
Just curious, if someone had told you when Epstein was hired in 2011 that the first truly competitive team would come in 2016, would you have been disappointed?
It's a fair question and I think, not knowing what I now know (just how empty the cupboard was, that financial implications would have been this significant) then I'd say yes, but that would have been with the assumption that he was going to go out and spend a bunch of money for high-priced free agents.
I would have been disappointed but at this point I'm not. I can do two bad years standing on my head.
Plus, they are sticking to the plan of building the organization from the ground up, which has the possibility of working long term. As opposed to running out and overpaying for a bunch of guys who could give you a year (or two - see 2007-08) of lightning in a bottle, which is certain to not work long term.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 12, 2013, 11:26:25 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 12, 2013, 09:08:18 AM
Anyone else disturbed by this (paraphrased) quote (http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/11/11/fridays-season-ticket-holder-event-loyalty-patience-prospects-plans-progress-and-more/)? Have Theo & Jed been getting moving targets for spending for the near future?
QuoteA fan groused to Epstein about the Edwin Jackson signing, and Epstein took a middle road, noting that he didn't have the year the Cubs hoped he would, but that his underlying metrics indicated he wasn't all that bad. Epstein expects a good year from Jackson in 2014. Unfortunately, Epstein also said this, paraphrased: "We also got a little ahead of ourselves, and didn't fully understand our situation. If we had full knowledge of business timing and plan at that time, we might have been more patient." Ouch. He's saying that, had they known last year at this time just how far off the big revenues were and/or how tight things were going to be, they might have waited to spend the cash.
Rewinding the thread for a moment, RV's quote chopped off this gloss from Bleacher Nation's Brett:
QuoteThat paints a fairly dire picture, doesn't it? Probably more dire than is intended, and I guess we already know that the Wrigley problems have delayed those anticipated revenues by a year. Add it to the evidence pile that big spending this offseason is not likely, though.
I think that is exactly the point here.
Which is to say: No, RV.
My concern is not just that timing has changed, it's that amounts have changed. What if the original medium-term budget given to Epstein/Hoyer was based on the assumption that the Ricketts would get some help from the city/county/state to pay for the renovations? And now that they're staring a half billion self-funded renovation in the face, some of that incremental revenue will go towards paying that down rather than funding the team?
Quote from: R-V on November 12, 2013, 12:07:58 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 12, 2013, 11:26:25 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 12, 2013, 09:08:18 AM
Anyone else disturbed by this (paraphrased) quote (http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/11/11/fridays-season-ticket-holder-event-loyalty-patience-prospects-plans-progress-and-more/)? Have Theo & Jed been getting moving targets for spending for the near future?
QuoteA fan groused to Epstein about the Edwin Jackson signing, and Epstein took a middle road, noting that he didn't have the year the Cubs hoped he would, but that his underlying metrics indicated he wasn't all that bad. Epstein expects a good year from Jackson in 2014. Unfortunately, Epstein also said this, paraphrased: "We also got a little ahead of ourselves, and didn't fully understand our situation. If we had full knowledge of business timing and plan at that time, we might have been more patient." Ouch. He's saying that, had they known last year at this time just how far off the big revenues were and/or how tight things were going to be, they might have waited to spend the cash.
Rewinding the thread for a moment, RV's quote chopped off this gloss from Bleacher Nation's Brett:
QuoteThat paints a fairly dire picture, doesn't it? Probably more dire than is intended, and I guess we already know that the Wrigley problems have delayed those anticipated revenues by a year. Add it to the evidence pile that big spending this offseason is not likely, though.
I think that is exactly the point here.
Which is to say: No, RV.
My concern is not just that timing has changed, it's that amounts have changed. What if the original medium-term budget given to Epstein/Hoyer was based on the assumption that the Ricketts would get some help from the city/county/state to pay for the renovations? And now that they're staring a half billion self-funded renovation in the face, some of that incremental revenue will go towards paying that down rather than funding the team?
I would say, in that case, that payroll will likely be lower than it would have been otherwise.
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 12, 2013, 12:10:04 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 12, 2013, 12:07:58 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 12, 2013, 11:26:25 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 12, 2013, 09:08:18 AM
Anyone else disturbed by this (paraphrased) quote (http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/11/11/fridays-season-ticket-holder-event-loyalty-patience-prospects-plans-progress-and-more/)? Have Theo & Jed been getting moving targets for spending for the near future?
QuoteA fan groused to Epstein about the Edwin Jackson signing, and Epstein took a middle road, noting that he didn't have the year the Cubs hoped he would, but that his underlying metrics indicated he wasn't all that bad. Epstein expects a good year from Jackson in 2014. Unfortunately, Epstein also said this, paraphrased: "We also got a little ahead of ourselves, and didn't fully understand our situation. If we had full knowledge of business timing and plan at that time, we might have been more patient." Ouch. He's saying that, had they known last year at this time just how far off the big revenues were and/or how tight things were going to be, they might have waited to spend the cash.
Rewinding the thread for a moment, RV's quote chopped off this gloss from Bleacher Nation's Brett:
QuoteThat paints a fairly dire picture, doesn't it? Probably more dire than is intended, and I guess we already know that the Wrigley problems have delayed those anticipated revenues by a year. Add it to the evidence pile that big spending this offseason is not likely, though.
I think that is exactly the point here.
Which is to say: No, RV.
My concern is not just that timing has changed, it's that amounts have changed. What if the original medium-term budget given to Epstein/Hoyer was based on the assumption that the Ricketts would get some help from the city/county/state to pay for the renovations? And now that they're staring a half billion self-funded renovation in the face, some of that incremental revenue will go towards paying that down rather than funding the team?
I would say, in that case, that payroll will likely be lower than it would have been otherwise.
FINALLY YOU SHEEPLE ARE SEEING THE LIGHT.
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 11:57:45 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 12, 2013, 11:31:58 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 12, 2013, 10:02:22 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 09:58:12 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 12, 2013, 09:08:18 AM
Anyone else disturbed by this (paraphrased) quote (http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/11/11/fridays-season-ticket-holder-event-loyalty-patience-prospects-plans-progress-and-more/)? Have Theo & Jed been getting moving targets for spending for the near future?
I think we'll know more after this offseason and whether they're able to pay up for Choo or Tanaka. From what has been said, I'm not really counting on it, so 2014 will be another rough year. I think most people expect that at this point.
And if we're being realistic, a lack of veteran signings this offseason probably doesn't bode too well for 2015 either. They need several guys who can post 4-5 win seasons to make the jump into 90-win territory (they currently have zero guys like that, with Rizzo as the best possibility). As excited as we are about Baez, Bryant and the other young guys, they're probably not going to come straight up from the minors and dominate.
I do like where their heads are at though. There simply aren't names on the market that you can pay and get those 5 wins, or what have you. They don't exist. The only guys hitting free agency now are old and expensive. Good pieces to wealthy clubs who need to patch up holes to contend. Not super helpful to teams that need to fix almost everything at the major league level.
It'd be great if they got Tanaka but somehow I'm just not picturing that happening.
I'm fine with a third shitty season so long as we're at least seeing one or two of the kids beyond the All-Star Break, and am okay with another struggling team in '15 if they're all up. I have fond memories of 1987/1988.
Just curious, if someone had told you when Epstein was hired in 2011 that the first truly competitive team would come in 2016, would you have been disappointed?
I feel like I always had that year in my head as the season where things finally start to come together.
As for concerns about payroll - if your superstar hitters are all cost controlled youngsters (which at that time, IF things work out, they would be) does not having a mega-budget matter as much?
Maybe you can't throw 10 yrs/250 million at someone but the hope is you never have to.
Quote from: Slaky on November 12, 2013, 12:17:24 PM
I feel like I always had that year in my head as the season where things finally start to come together.
I'll admit that initially I had 2014 in my head. Maybe I bought into Theo's press conference bullshit about how "every chance to win is sacred." He probably should have scrapped that line.
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 12:29:15 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 12, 2013, 12:17:24 PM
I feel like I always had that year in my head as the season where things finally start to come together.
I'll admit that initially I had 2014 in my head. Maybe I bought into Theo's press conference bullshit about how "every chance to win is sacred." He probably should have scrapped that line.
Hindsight and all that, but I think that means every chance to win is sacred once you have talent on the roster. Like, if you're better than a .500 team, you should value every chance to win, but if your team is absolute horseshit you should acquire talent instead of wasting money in a futile effort to win.
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 11:57:45 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 12, 2013, 11:31:58 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 12, 2013, 10:02:22 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 09:58:12 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 12, 2013, 09:08:18 AM
Anyone else disturbed by this (paraphrased) quote (http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/11/11/fridays-season-ticket-holder-event-loyalty-patience-prospects-plans-progress-and-more/)? Have Theo & Jed been getting moving targets for spending for the near future?
I think we'll know more after this offseason and whether they're able to pay up for Choo or Tanaka. From what has been said, I'm not really counting on it, so 2014 will be another rough year. I think most people expect that at this point.
And if we're being realistic, a lack of veteran signings this offseason probably doesn't bode too well for 2015 either. They need several guys who can post 4-5 win seasons to make the jump into 90-win territory (they currently have zero guys like that, with Rizzo as the best possibility). As excited as we are about Baez, Bryant and the other young guys, they're probably not going to come straight up from the minors and dominate.
I do like where their heads are at though. There simply aren't names on the market that you can pay and get those 5 wins, or what have you. They don't exist. The only guys hitting free agency now are old and expensive. Good pieces to wealthy clubs who need to patch up holes to contend. Not super helpful to teams that need to fix almost everything at the major league level.
It'd be great if they got Tanaka but somehow I'm just not picturing that happening.
I'm fine with a third shitty season so long as we're at least seeing one or two of the kids beyond the All-Star Break, and am okay with another struggling team in '15 if they're all up. I have fond memories of 1987/1988.
Just curious, if someone had told you when Epstein was hired in 2011 that the first truly competitive team would come in 2016, would you have been disappointed?
I would probably have gone along with it at the time just because what other choice did I have other than to throw my lot in with Theo's, but that's not to say it'd be any easier. I went into the last 2 years with zero expectations and thus have no had no emotional investment in this team. But I don't know, now, if I can do 2 more years. Then again, if they're trending upward--which you should be able to see by 2015, then I'm fine, I guess.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 12, 2013, 12:39:55 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 12:29:15 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 12, 2013, 12:17:24 PM
I feel like I always had that year in my head as the season where things finally start to come together.
I'll admit that initially I had 2014 in my head. Maybe I bought into Theo's press conference bullshit about how "every chance to win is sacred." He probably should have scrapped that line.
Hindsight and all that, but I think that means every chance to win is sacred once you have talent on the roster. Like, if you're better than a .500 team, you should value every chance to win, but if your team is absolute horseshit you should acquire talent instead of wasting money in a futile effort to win.
That seems like a generous interpretation.
Quote from: PANK! on November 12, 2013, 12:42:49 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 11:57:45 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 12, 2013, 11:31:58 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 12, 2013, 10:02:22 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 09:58:12 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 12, 2013, 09:08:18 AM
Anyone else disturbed by this (paraphrased) quote (http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/11/11/fridays-season-ticket-holder-event-loyalty-patience-prospects-plans-progress-and-more/)? Have Theo & Jed been getting moving targets for spending for the near future?
I think we'll know more after this offseason and whether they're able to pay up for Choo or Tanaka. From what has been said, I'm not really counting on it, so 2014 will be another rough year. I think most people expect that at this point.
And if we're being realistic, a lack of veteran signings this offseason probably doesn't bode too well for 2015 either. They need several guys who can post 4-5 win seasons to make the jump into 90-win territory (they currently have zero guys like that, with Rizzo as the best possibility). As excited as we are about Baez, Bryant and the other young guys, they're probably not going to come straight up from the minors and dominate.
I do like where their heads are at though. There simply aren't names on the market that you can pay and get those 5 wins, or what have you. They don't exist. The only guys hitting free agency now are old and expensive. Good pieces to wealthy clubs who need to patch up holes to contend. Not super helpful to teams that need to fix almost everything at the major league level.
It'd be great if they got Tanaka but somehow I'm just not picturing that happening.
I'm fine with a third shitty season so long as we're at least seeing one or two of the kids beyond the All-Star Break, and am okay with another struggling team in '15 if they're all up. I have fond memories of 1987/1988.
Just curious, if someone had told you when Epstein was hired in 2011 that the first truly competitive team would come in 2016, would you have been disappointed?
I would probably have gone along with it at the time just because what other choice did I have other than to throw my lot in with Theo's, but that's not to say it'd be any easier. I went into the last 2 years with zero expectations and thus have no had no emotional investment in this team. But I don't know, now, if I can do 2 more years. Then again, if they're trending upward--which you should be able to see by 2015, then I'm fine, I guess.
I mean I'd argue they are trending upwards because there's no room to trend downwards.
I'd also ask those who feel like progress is little to non-existent what they'd have done differently to get that roster competitive earlier. What route?
I realize that's akin to responding to someone questioning any general manager's activity with "I don't see you working in major league baseball" but it's pretty easy to refute someone bitching about this process taking too long with about 1,000 different reasons why they should be patient.
And if you can't afford to be patient (sorry Stew) I mean, hey, it's just fucking baseball.
Quote from: PANK! on November 12, 2013, 12:42:49 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 11:57:45 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 12, 2013, 11:31:58 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 12, 2013, 10:02:22 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 09:58:12 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 12, 2013, 09:08:18 AM
Anyone else disturbed by this (paraphrased) quote (http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/11/11/fridays-season-ticket-holder-event-loyalty-patience-prospects-plans-progress-and-more/)? Have Theo & Jed been getting moving targets for spending for the near future?
I think we'll know more after this offseason and whether they're able to pay up for Choo or Tanaka. From what has been said, I'm not really counting on it, so 2014 will be another rough year. I think most people expect that at this point.
And if we're being realistic, a lack of veteran signings this offseason probably doesn't bode too well for 2015 either. They need several guys who can post 4-5 win seasons to make the jump into 90-win territory (they currently have zero guys like that, with Rizzo as the best possibility). As excited as we are about Baez, Bryant and the other young guys, they're probably not going to come straight up from the minors and dominate.
I do like where their heads are at though. There simply aren't names on the market that you can pay and get those 5 wins, or what have you. They don't exist. The only guys hitting free agency now are old and expensive. Good pieces to wealthy clubs who need to patch up holes to contend. Not super helpful to teams that need to fix almost everything at the major league level.
It'd be great if they got Tanaka but somehow I'm just not picturing that happening.
I'm fine with a third shitty season so long as we're at least seeing one or two of the kids beyond the All-Star Break, and am okay with another struggling team in '15 if they're all up. I have fond memories of 1987/1988.
Just curious, if someone had told you when Epstein was hired in 2011 that the first truly competitive team would come in 2016, would you have been disappointed?
I would probably have gone along with it at the time just because what other choice did I have other than to throw my lot in with Theo's, but that's not to say it'd be any easier. I went into the last 2 years with zero expectations and thus have no had no emotional investment in this team. But I don't know, now, if I can do 2 more years. Then again, if they're trending upward--which you should be able to see by 2015, then I'm fine, I guess.
The problem, for me, will manifest if they start calling these top prospects up and it becomes clear that most of them can't play. My level of trust depends on several of these guys panning out. If that doesn't happen, they won't trend upward by 2015 and then they'll start signing big money free agents in an attempt to save their phony baloney jobs. At that point I may give up on the sport indefinitely.
They will win anywhere between 78 and 84 games this year. They'll have us thinking they'e in contention in late June, with something like a 40-32 record. But then they'll go into a 23-game stretch with Pittsburgh, the Nats, the Braves and Cardinals in which they'll go 5-18, putting them under .500 (45-50) at the break and they'll sputter a little bit out of the break, going 5-8 (50-58) up to the trade deadline. They'll be decided sellers at the deadline, possibly moving Edwin Jackson and Nate Schierholtz.
Then they'll hit a stride in late August and September going 29-25 the rest of the way, including 15-10 in September (79-83). But they'll be loaded for bear int he offseason and with apologies to Ernie Banks, they'll be as sweet as Dentyne in 2015. Not putrid, not a protected draft pick, but we'll be completely undistracted as a pissed off Jay Cutler plays out his string under the franchise tag in September 2014. Yay?
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 12:29:15 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 12, 2013, 12:17:24 PM
I feel like I always had that year in my head as the season where things finally start to come together.
I'll admit that initially I had 2014 in my head. Maybe I bought into Theo's press conference bullshit about how "every chance to win is sacred." He probably should have scrapped that line.
This one's (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7056.msg265142#msg265142) not going away easily (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=8301.msg262027#msg262027), huh?
Edited for bad link fixage.
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 12, 2013, 12:48:48 PM
Quote from: PANK! on November 12, 2013, 12:42:49 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 11:57:45 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 12, 2013, 11:31:58 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 12, 2013, 10:02:22 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 09:58:12 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 12, 2013, 09:08:18 AM
Anyone else disturbed by this (paraphrased) quote (http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/11/11/fridays-season-ticket-holder-event-loyalty-patience-prospects-plans-progress-and-more/)? Have Theo & Jed been getting moving targets for spending for the near future?
I think we'll know more after this offseason and whether they're able to pay up for Choo or Tanaka. From what has been said, I'm not really counting on it, so 2014 will be another rough year. I think most people expect that at this point.
And if we're being realistic, a lack of veteran signings this offseason probably doesn't bode too well for 2015 either. They need several guys who can post 4-5 win seasons to make the jump into 90-win territory (they currently have zero guys like that, with Rizzo as the best possibility). As excited as we are about Baez, Bryant and the other young guys, they're probably not going to come straight up from the minors and dominate.
I do like where their heads are at though. There simply aren't names on the market that you can pay and get those 5 wins, or what have you. They don't exist. The only guys hitting free agency now are old and expensive. Good pieces to wealthy clubs who need to patch up holes to contend. Not super helpful to teams that need to fix almost everything at the major league level.
It'd be great if they got Tanaka but somehow I'm just not picturing that happening.
I'm fine with a third shitty season so long as we're at least seeing one or two of the kids beyond the All-Star Break, and am okay with another struggling team in '15 if they're all up. I have fond memories of 1987/1988.
Just curious, if someone had told you when Epstein was hired in 2011 that the first truly competitive team would come in 2016, would you have been disappointed?
I would probably have gone along with it at the time just because what other choice did I have other than to throw my lot in with Theo's, but that's not to say it'd be any easier. I went into the last 2 years with zero expectations and thus have no had no emotional investment in this team. But I don't know, now, if I can do 2 more years. Then again, if they're trending upward--which you should be able to see by 2015, then I'm fine, I guess.
The problem, for me, will manifest if they start calling these top prospects up and it becomes clear that most of them can't play. My level of trust depends on several of these guys panning out. If that doesn't happen, they won't trend upward by 2015 and then they'll start signing big money free agents in an attempt to save their phony baloney jobs. At that point I may give up on the sport indefinitely.
I want to print this reply out and hang it on the wall in my office.
Quote from: PANK! on November 12, 2013, 12:54:20 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 12, 2013, 12:48:48 PM
Quote from: PANK! on November 12, 2013, 12:42:49 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 11:57:45 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 12, 2013, 11:31:58 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 12, 2013, 10:02:22 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 09:58:12 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 12, 2013, 09:08:18 AM
Anyone else disturbed by this (paraphrased) quote (http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/11/11/fridays-season-ticket-holder-event-loyalty-patience-prospects-plans-progress-and-more/)? Have Theo & Jed been getting moving targets for spending for the near future?
I think we'll know more after this offseason and whether they're able to pay up for Choo or Tanaka. From what has been said, I'm not really counting on it, so 2014 will be another rough year. I think most people expect that at this point.
And if we're being realistic, a lack of veteran signings this offseason probably doesn't bode too well for 2015 either. They need several guys who can post 4-5 win seasons to make the jump into 90-win territory (they currently have zero guys like that, with Rizzo as the best possibility). As excited as we are about Baez, Bryant and the other young guys, they're probably not going to come straight up from the minors and dominate.
I do like where their heads are at though. There simply aren't names on the market that you can pay and get those 5 wins, or what have you. They don't exist. The only guys hitting free agency now are old and expensive. Good pieces to wealthy clubs who need to patch up holes to contend. Not super helpful to teams that need to fix almost everything at the major league level.
It'd be great if they got Tanaka but somehow I'm just not picturing that happening.
I'm fine with a third shitty season so long as we're at least seeing one or two of the kids beyond the All-Star Break, and am okay with another struggling team in '15 if they're all up. I have fond memories of 1987/1988.
Just curious, if someone had told you when Epstein was hired in 2011 that the first truly competitive team would come in 2016, would you have been disappointed?
I would probably have gone along with it at the time just because what other choice did I have other than to throw my lot in with Theo's, but that's not to say it'd be any easier. I went into the last 2 years with zero expectations and thus have no had no emotional investment in this team. But I don't know, now, if I can do 2 more years. Then again, if they're trending upward--which you should be able to see by 2015, then I'm fine, I guess.
The problem, for me, will manifest if they start calling these top prospects up and it becomes clear that most of them can't play. My level of trust depends on several of these guys panning out. If that doesn't happen, they won't trend upward by 2015 and then they'll start signing big money free agents in an attempt to save their phony baloney jobs. At that point I may give up on the sport indefinitely.
I want to print this reply out and hang it on the wall in my office.
To cover up that ugly Bulls 3-Peat poster, natch.
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 12, 2013, 12:55:53 PM
Quote from: PANK! on November 12, 2013, 12:54:20 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 12, 2013, 12:48:48 PM
Quote from: PANK! on November 12, 2013, 12:42:49 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 11:57:45 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 12, 2013, 11:31:58 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 12, 2013, 10:02:22 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 09:58:12 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 12, 2013, 09:08:18 AM
Anyone else disturbed by this (paraphrased) quote (http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/11/11/fridays-season-ticket-holder-event-loyalty-patience-prospects-plans-progress-and-more/)? Have Theo & Jed been getting moving targets for spending for the near future?
I think we'll know more after this offseason and whether they're able to pay up for Choo or Tanaka. From what has been said, I'm not really counting on it, so 2014 will be another rough year. I think most people expect that at this point.
And if we're being realistic, a lack of veteran signings this offseason probably doesn't bode too well for 2015 either. They need several guys who can post 4-5 win seasons to make the jump into 90-win territory (they currently have zero guys like that, with Rizzo as the best possibility). As excited as we are about Baez, Bryant and the other young guys, they're probably not going to come straight up from the minors and dominate.
I do like where their heads are at though. There simply aren't names on the market that you can pay and get those 5 wins, or what have you. They don't exist. The only guys hitting free agency now are old and expensive. Good pieces to wealthy clubs who need to patch up holes to contend. Not super helpful to teams that need to fix almost everything at the major league level.
It'd be great if they got Tanaka but somehow I'm just not picturing that happening.
I'm fine with a third shitty season so long as we're at least seeing one or two of the kids beyond the All-Star Break, and am okay with another struggling team in '15 if they're all up. I have fond memories of 1987/1988.
Just curious, if someone had told you when Epstein was hired in 2011 that the first truly competitive team would come in 2016, would you have been disappointed?
I would probably have gone along with it at the time just because what other choice did I have other than to throw my lot in with Theo's, but that's not to say it'd be any easier. I went into the last 2 years with zero expectations and thus have no had no emotional investment in this team. But I don't know, now, if I can do 2 more years. Then again, if they're trending upward--which you should be able to see by 2015, then I'm fine, I guess.
The problem, for me, will manifest if they start calling these top prospects up and it becomes clear that most of them can't play. My level of trust depends on several of these guys panning out. If that doesn't happen, they won't trend upward by 2015 and then they'll start signing big money free agents in an attempt to save their phony baloney jobs. At that point I may give up on the sport indefinitely.
I want to print this reply out and hang it on the wall in my office.
To cover up that ugly Bulls 3-Peat poster, natch.
Huey wants to, he just isn't sure how to print it out. Can you fax him a copy?
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 12, 2013, 12:55:53 PM
Quote from: PANK! on November 12, 2013, 12:54:20 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 12, 2013, 12:48:48 PM
Quote from: PANK! on November 12, 2013, 12:42:49 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 11:57:45 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 12, 2013, 11:31:58 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 12, 2013, 10:02:22 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 09:58:12 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 12, 2013, 09:08:18 AM
Anyone else disturbed by this (paraphrased) quote (http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/11/11/fridays-season-ticket-holder-event-loyalty-patience-prospects-plans-progress-and-more/)? Have Theo & Jed been getting moving targets for spending for the near future?
I think we'll know more after this offseason and whether they're able to pay up for Choo or Tanaka. From what has been said, I'm not really counting on it, so 2014 will be another rough year. I think most people expect that at this point.
And if we're being realistic, a lack of veteran signings this offseason probably doesn't bode too well for 2015 either. They need several guys who can post 4-5 win seasons to make the jump into 90-win territory (they currently have zero guys like that, with Rizzo as the best possibility). As excited as we are about Baez, Bryant and the other young guys, they're probably not going to come straight up from the minors and dominate.
I do like where their heads are at though. There simply aren't names on the market that you can pay and get those 5 wins, or what have you. They don't exist. The only guys hitting free agency now are old and expensive. Good pieces to wealthy clubs who need to patch up holes to contend. Not super helpful to teams that need to fix almost everything at the major league level.
It'd be great if they got Tanaka but somehow I'm just not picturing that happening.
I'm fine with a third shitty season so long as we're at least seeing one or two of the kids beyond the All-Star Break, and am okay with another struggling team in '15 if they're all up. I have fond memories of 1987/1988.
Just curious, if someone had told you when Epstein was hired in 2011 that the first truly competitive team would come in 2016, would you have been disappointed?
I would probably have gone along with it at the time just because what other choice did I have other than to throw my lot in with Theo's, but that's not to say it'd be any easier. I went into the last 2 years with zero expectations and thus have no had no emotional investment in this team. But I don't know, now, if I can do 2 more years. Then again, if they're trending upward--which you should be able to see by 2015, then I'm fine, I guess.
The problem, for me, will manifest if they start calling these top prospects up and it becomes clear that most of them can't play. My level of trust depends on several of these guys panning out. If that doesn't happen, they won't trend upward by 2015 and then they'll start signing big money free agents in an attempt to save their phony baloney jobs. At that point I may give up on the sport indefinitely.
I want to print this reply out and hang it on the wall in my office.
To cover up that ugly Bulls Repeat of the 3-Peat poster, natch.
My glorious Bulls poster is from 1997'd.
Quote from: PenFoe on November 12, 2013, 12:54:16 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 12:29:15 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 12, 2013, 12:17:24 PM
I feel like I always had that year in my head as the season where things finally start to come together.
I'll admit that initially I had 2014 in my head. Maybe I bought into Theo's press conference bullshit about how "every chance to win is sacred." He probably should have scrapped that line.
This one's not going away easily (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?action=post;quote=265142;topic=7056.1710;num_replies=2059;sesc=0829100f3d5a0dce3eca142e5d7bc84f), huh?
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7056.msg265142#msg265142
Quote from: PANK! on November 12, 2013, 12:54:20 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 12, 2013, 12:48:48 PM
Quote from: PANK! on November 12, 2013, 12:42:49 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 11:57:45 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 12, 2013, 11:31:58 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 12, 2013, 10:02:22 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 09:58:12 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 12, 2013, 09:08:18 AM
Anyone else disturbed by this (paraphrased) quote (http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/11/11/fridays-season-ticket-holder-event-loyalty-patience-prospects-plans-progress-and-more/)? Have Theo & Jed been getting moving targets for spending for the near future?
I think we'll know more after this offseason and whether they're able to pay up for Choo or Tanaka. From what has been said, I'm not really counting on it, so 2014 will be another rough year. I think most people expect that at this point.
And if we're being realistic, a lack of veteran signings this offseason probably doesn't bode too well for 2015 either. They need several guys who can post 4-5 win seasons to make the jump into 90-win territory (they currently have zero guys like that, with Rizzo as the best possibility). As excited as we are about Baez, Bryant and the other young guys, they're probably not going to come straight up from the minors and dominate.
I do like where their heads are at though. There simply aren't names on the market that you can pay and get those 5 wins, or what have you. They don't exist. The only guys hitting free agency now are old and expensive. Good pieces to wealthy clubs who need to patch up holes to contend. Not super helpful to teams that need to fix almost everything at the major league level.
It'd be great if they got Tanaka but somehow I'm just not picturing that happening.
I'm fine with a third shitty season so long as we're at least seeing one or two of the kids beyond the All-Star Break, and am okay with another struggling team in '15 if they're all up. I have fond memories of 1987/1988.
Just curious, if someone had told you when Epstein was hired in 2011 that the first truly competitive team would come in 2016, would you have been disappointed?
I would probably have gone along with it at the time just because what other choice did I have other than to throw my lot in with Theo's, but that's not to say it'd be any easier. I went into the last 2 years with zero expectations and thus have no had no emotional investment in this team. But I don't know, now, if I can do 2 more years. Then again, if they're trending upward--which you should be able to see by 2015, then I'm fine, I guess.
The problem, for me, will manifest if they start calling these top prospects up and it becomes clear that most of them can't play. My level of trust depends on several of these guys panning out. If that doesn't happen, they won't trend upward by 2015 and then they'll start signing big money free agents in an attempt to save their phony baloney jobs. At that point I may give up on the sport indefinitely.
I want to print this reply out and hang it on the wall in my office.
I think pex brings up a good point and we're mostly afraid to talk about it. I know the whole reason behind accumulating as many prospects as the Cubs have is that it's a guarantee that some will be busts. It's more likely they'll all be busts than a few of them will be superstars.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 12, 2013, 01:04:09 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on November 12, 2013, 12:54:16 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 12:29:15 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 12, 2013, 12:17:24 PM
I feel like I always had that year in my head as the season where things finally start to come together.
I'll admit that initially I had 2014 in my head. Maybe I bought into Theo's press conference bullshit about how "every chance to win is sacred." He probably should have scrapped that line.
This one's not going away easily (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?action=post;quote=265142;topic=7056.1710;num_replies=2059;sesc=0829100f3d5a0dce3eca142e5d7bc84f), huh?
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7056.msg265142#msg265142
Plus http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=8301.msg262027#msg262027
Quote from: PenFoe on November 12, 2013, 01:10:23 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 12, 2013, 01:04:09 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on November 12, 2013, 12:54:16 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 12:29:15 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 12, 2013, 12:17:24 PM
I feel like I always had that year in my head as the season where things finally start to come together.
I'll admit that initially I had 2014 in my head. Maybe I bought into Theo's press conference bullshit about how "every chance to win is sacred." He probably should have scrapped that line.
This one's not going away easily (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?action=post;quote=265142;topic=7056.1710;num_replies=2059;sesc=0829100f3d5a0dce3eca142e5d7bc84f), huh?
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7056.msg265142#msg265142
Plus http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=8301.msg262027#msg262027
Noted. I'll try to not mention it again.
Quote from: Slaky on November 12, 2013, 01:09:06 PM
Quote from: PANK! on November 12, 2013, 12:54:20 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 12, 2013, 12:48:48 PM
Quote from: PANK! on November 12, 2013, 12:42:49 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 11:57:45 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 12, 2013, 11:31:58 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 12, 2013, 10:02:22 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 09:58:12 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 12, 2013, 09:08:18 AM
Anyone else disturbed by this (paraphrased) quote (http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/11/11/fridays-season-ticket-holder-event-loyalty-patience-prospects-plans-progress-and-more/)? Have Theo & Jed been getting moving targets for spending for the near future?
I think we'll know more after this offseason and whether they're able to pay up for Choo or Tanaka. From what has been said, I'm not really counting on it, so 2014 will be another rough year. I think most people expect that at this point.
And if we're being realistic, a lack of veteran signings this offseason probably doesn't bode too well for 2015 either. They need several guys who can post 4-5 win seasons to make the jump into 90-win territory (they currently have zero guys like that, with Rizzo as the best possibility). As excited as we are about Baez, Bryant and the other young guys, they're probably not going to come straight up from the minors and dominate.
I do like where their heads are at though. There simply aren't names on the market that you can pay and get those 5 wins, or what have you. They don't exist. The only guys hitting free agency now are old and expensive. Good pieces to wealthy clubs who need to patch up holes to contend. Not super helpful to teams that need to fix almost everything at the major league level.
It'd be great if they got Tanaka but somehow I'm just not picturing that happening.
I'm fine with a third shitty season so long as we're at least seeing one or two of the kids beyond the All-Star Break, and am okay with another struggling team in '15 if they're all up. I have fond memories of 1987/1988.
Just curious, if someone had told you when Epstein was hired in 2011 that the first truly competitive team would come in 2016, would you have been disappointed?
I would probably have gone along with it at the time just because what other choice did I have other than to throw my lot in with Theo's, but that's not to say it'd be any easier. I went into the last 2 years with zero expectations and thus have no had no emotional investment in this team. But I don't know, now, if I can do 2 more years. Then again, if they're trending upward--which you should be able to see by 2015, then I'm fine, I guess.
The problem, for me, will manifest if they start calling these top prospects up and it becomes clear that most of them can't play. My level of trust depends on several of these guys panning out. If that doesn't happen, they won't trend upward by 2015 and then they'll start signing big money free agents in an attempt to save their phony baloney jobs. At that point I may give up on the sport indefinitely.
I want to print this reply out and hang it on the wall in my office.
I think pex brings up a good point and we're mostly afraid to talk about it. I know the whole reason behind accumulating as many prospects as the Cubs have is that it's a guarantee that some will be busts. It's more likely they'll all be busts than a few of them will be superstars.
Then again, you look at the Royals and I don't know if any of those young players are superstars. But that's a good ballclub and if you were to add even a handful of veterans and one blockbuster free-agent, something KC probably can't do, they'd be good to go. The Yankees had 5-7 guys come up and play at a superstar level and they built around that for going on 15 years. If it's unrealistic to expect that, just give me a 25-man Eric Hosmer roster and let's drink to their health.
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 01:11:41 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on November 12, 2013, 01:10:23 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 12, 2013, 01:04:09 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on November 12, 2013, 12:54:16 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 12:29:15 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 12, 2013, 12:17:24 PM
I feel like I always had that year in my head as the season where things finally start to come together.
I'll admit that initially I had 2014 in my head. Maybe I bought into Theo's press conference bullshit about how "every chance to win is sacred." He probably should have scrapped that line.
This one's not going away easily (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?action=post;quote=265142;topic=7056.1710;num_replies=2059;sesc=0829100f3d5a0dce3eca142e5d7bc84f), huh?
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7056.msg265142#msg265142
Plus http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=8301.msg262027#msg262027
Noted. I'll try to not mention it again.
Is it really unreasonable to hold Theo to a bullshitty feel-good phrase he used a bunch in a press conference the day he got hired?
Quote from: Slaky on November 12, 2013, 01:09:06 PM
I think pex brings up a good point and we're mostly afraid to talk about it. I know the whole reason behind accumulating as many prospects as the Cubs have is that it's a guarantee that some will be busts. It's more likely they'll all be busts than a few of them will be superstars.
Some guys will be busts, some will be good. I think we'd be thrilled if 2 of the big 4 guys end up as perennial All-Star level players. But that still leaves a lot of gaps to fill in. I think a lot of my excitement over the volume of quality prospects is the hope that they can consolidate several of those into one megastar player still in his prime like a CarGo or Stanton. That would speed this whole process up significantly.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 12, 2013, 01:16:55 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 01:11:41 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on November 12, 2013, 01:10:23 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 12, 2013, 01:04:09 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on November 12, 2013, 12:54:16 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 12:29:15 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 12, 2013, 12:17:24 PM
I feel like I always had that year in my head as the season where things finally start to come together.
I'll admit that initially I had 2014 in my head. Maybe I bought into Theo's press conference bullshit about how "every chance to win is sacred." He probably should have scrapped that line.
This one's not going away easily (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?action=post;quote=265142;topic=7056.1710;num_replies=2059;sesc=0829100f3d5a0dce3eca142e5d7bc84f), huh?
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7056.msg265142#msg265142
Plus http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=8301.msg262027#msg262027
Noted. I'll try to not mention it again.
Is it really unreasonable to hold Theo to a bullshitty feel-good phrase he used a bunch in a press conference the day he got hired?
Yes.
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 01:18:47 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 12, 2013, 01:09:06 PM
I think pex brings up a good point and we're mostly afraid to talk about it. I know the whole reason behind accumulating as many prospects as the Cubs have is that it's a guarantee that some will be busts. It's more likely they'll all be busts than a few of them will be superstars.
Some guys will be busts, some will be good. I think we'd be thrilled if 2 of the big 4 guys end up as perennial All-Star level players. But that still leaves a lot of gaps to fill in. I think a lot of my excitement over the volume of quality prospects is the hope that they can consolidate several of those into one megastar player still in his prime like a CarGo or Stanton. That would speed this whole process up significantly.
The other thing is that beyond the Big 4, there are guys like Alcantra (strikeouts notwithstanding) and Candelario who project out to be damn solid players as well.
Quote from: Fork on November 12, 2013, 01:28:10 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 01:18:47 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 12, 2013, 01:09:06 PM
I think pex brings up a good point and we're mostly afraid to talk about it. I know the whole reason behind accumulating as many prospects as the Cubs have is that it's a guarantee that some will be busts. It's more likely they'll all be busts than a few of them will be superstars.
Some guys will be busts, some will be good. I think we'd be thrilled if 2 of the big 4 guys end up as perennial All-Star level players. But that still leaves a lot of gaps to fill in. I think a lot of my excitement over the volume of quality prospects is the hope that they can consolidate several of those into one megastar player still in his prime like a CarGo or Stanton. That would speed this whole process up significantly.
The other thing is that beyond the Big 45, there are guys like Alcantra (strikeouts notwithstanding) and Candelario who project out to be damn solid players as well.
Edwardstink is awesome.
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 12, 2013, 01:15:03 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 12, 2013, 01:09:06 PM
Quote from: PANK! on November 12, 2013, 12:54:20 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 12, 2013, 12:48:48 PM
Quote from: PANK! on November 12, 2013, 12:42:49 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 11:57:45 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 12, 2013, 11:31:58 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 12, 2013, 10:02:22 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 09:58:12 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 12, 2013, 09:08:18 AM
Anyone else disturbed by this (paraphrased) quote (http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/11/11/fridays-season-ticket-holder-event-loyalty-patience-prospects-plans-progress-and-more/)? Have Theo & Jed been getting moving targets for spending for the near future?
I think we'll know more after this offseason and whether they're able to pay up for Choo or Tanaka. From what has been said, I'm not really counting on it, so 2014 will be another rough year. I think most people expect that at this point.
And if we're being realistic, a lack of veteran signings this offseason probably doesn't bode too well for 2015 either. They need several guys who can post 4-5 win seasons to make the jump into 90-win territory (they currently have zero guys like that, with Rizzo as the best possibility). As excited as we are about Baez, Bryant and the other young guys, they're probably not going to come straight up from the minors and dominate.
I do like where their heads are at though. There simply aren't names on the market that you can pay and get those 5 wins, or what have you. They don't exist. The only guys hitting free agency now are old and expensive. Good pieces to wealthy clubs who need to patch up holes to contend. Not super helpful to teams that need to fix almost everything at the major league level.
It'd be great if they got Tanaka but somehow I'm just not picturing that happening.
I'm fine with a third shitty season so long as we're at least seeing one or two of the kids beyond the All-Star Break, and am okay with another struggling team in '15 if they're all up. I have fond memories of 1987/1988.
Just curious, if someone had told you when Epstein was hired in 2011 that the first truly competitive team would come in 2016, would you have been disappointed?
I would probably have gone along with it at the time just because what other choice did I have other than to throw my lot in with Theo's, but that's not to say it'd be any easier. I went into the last 2 years with zero expectations and thus have no had no emotional investment in this team. But I don't know, now, if I can do 2 more years. Then again, if they're trending upward--which you should be able to see by 2015, then I'm fine, I guess.
The problem, for me, will manifest if they start calling these top prospects up and it becomes clear that most of them can't play. My level of trust depends on several of these guys panning out. If that doesn't happen, they won't trend upward by 2015 and then they'll start signing big money free agents in an attempt to save their phony baloney jobs. At that point I may give up on the sport indefinitely.
I want to print this reply out and hang it on the wall in my office.
I think pex brings up a good point and we're mostly afraid to talk about it. I know the whole reason behind accumulating as many prospects as the Cubs have is that it's a guarantee that some will be busts. It's more likely they'll all be busts than a few of them will be superstars.
Then again, you look at the Royals and I don't know if any of those young players are superstars. But that's a good ballclub and if you were to add even a handful of veterans and one blockbuster free-agent, something KC probably can't do, they'd be good to go. The Yankees had 5-7 guys come up and play at a superstar level and they built around that for going on 15 years. If it's unrealistic to expect that, just give me a 25-man Eric Hosmer roster and let's drink to their health.
The Giants won two World Series with some very (VERY!) good pitching but no superstar position players.
Quote from: CBStew on November 12, 2013, 04:03:33 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 12, 2013, 01:15:03 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 12, 2013, 01:09:06 PM
Quote from: PANK! on November 12, 2013, 12:54:20 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 12, 2013, 12:48:48 PM
Quote from: PANK! on November 12, 2013, 12:42:49 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 11:57:45 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 12, 2013, 11:31:58 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 12, 2013, 10:02:22 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 09:58:12 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 12, 2013, 09:08:18 AM
Anyone else disturbed by this (paraphrased) quote (http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/11/11/fridays-season-ticket-holder-event-loyalty-patience-prospects-plans-progress-and-more/)? Have Theo & Jed been getting moving targets for spending for the near future?
I think we'll know more after this offseason and whether they're able to pay up for Choo or Tanaka. From what has been said, I'm not really counting on it, so 2014 will be another rough year. I think most people expect that at this point.
And if we're being realistic, a lack of veteran signings this offseason probably doesn't bode too well for 2015 either. They need several guys who can post 4-5 win seasons to make the jump into 90-win territory (they currently have zero guys like that, with Rizzo as the best possibility). As excited as we are about Baez, Bryant and the other young guys, they're probably not going to come straight up from the minors and dominate.
I do like where their heads are at though. There simply aren't names on the market that you can pay and get those 5 wins, or what have you. They don't exist. The only guys hitting free agency now are old and expensive. Good pieces to wealthy clubs who need to patch up holes to contend. Not super helpful to teams that need to fix almost everything at the major league level.
It'd be great if they got Tanaka but somehow I'm just not picturing that happening.
I'm fine with a third shitty season so long as we're at least seeing one or two of the kids beyond the All-Star Break, and am okay with another struggling team in '15 if they're all up. I have fond memories of 1987/1988.
Just curious, if someone had told you when Epstein was hired in 2011 that the first truly competitive team would come in 2016, would you have been disappointed?
I would probably have gone along with it at the time just because what other choice did I have other than to throw my lot in with Theo's, but that's not to say it'd be any easier. I went into the last 2 years with zero expectations and thus have no had no emotional investment in this team. But I don't know, now, if I can do 2 more years. Then again, if they're trending upward--which you should be able to see by 2015, then I'm fine, I guess.
The problem, for me, will manifest if they start calling these top prospects up and it becomes clear that most of them can't play. My level of trust depends on several of these guys panning out. If that doesn't happen, they won't trend upward by 2015 and then they'll start signing big money free agents in an attempt to save their phony baloney jobs. At that point I may give up on the sport indefinitely.
I want to print this reply out and hang it on the wall in my office.
I think pex brings up a good point and we're mostly afraid to talk about it. I know the whole reason behind accumulating as many prospects as the Cubs have is that it's a guarantee that some will be busts. It's more likely they'll all be busts than a few of them will be superstars.
Then again, you look at the Royals and I don't know if any of those young players are superstars. But that's a good ballclub and if you were to add even a handful of veterans and one blockbuster free-agent, something KC probably can't do, they'd be good to go. The Yankees had 5-7 guys come up and play at a superstar level and they built around that for going on 15 years. If it's unrealistic to expect that, just give me a 25-man Eric Hosmer roster and let's drink to their health.
The Giants won two World Series with some very (VERY!) good pitching but no superstar position players.
Buster Posey won the MVP.
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 04:57:13 PM
Quote from: CBStew on November 12, 2013, 04:03:33 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 12, 2013, 01:15:03 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 12, 2013, 01:09:06 PM
Quote from: PANK! on November 12, 2013, 12:54:20 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 12, 2013, 12:48:48 PM
Quote from: PANK! on November 12, 2013, 12:42:49 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 11:57:45 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 12, 2013, 11:31:58 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 12, 2013, 10:02:22 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 09:58:12 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 12, 2013, 09:08:18 AM
Anyone else disturbed by this (paraphrased) quote (http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/11/11/fridays-season-ticket-holder-event-loyalty-patience-prospects-plans-progress-and-more/)? Have Theo & Jed been getting moving targets for spending for the near future?
I think we'll know more after this offseason and whether they're able to pay up for Choo or Tanaka. From what has been said, I'm not really counting on it, so 2014 will be another rough year. I think most people expect that at this point.
And if we're being realistic, a lack of veteran signings this offseason probably doesn't bode too well for 2015 either. They need several guys who can post 4-5 win seasons to make the jump into 90-win territory (they currently have zero guys like that, with Rizzo as the best possibility). As excited as we are about Baez, Bryant and the other young guys, they're probably not going to come straight up from the minors and dominate.
I do like where their heads are at though. There simply aren't names on the market that you can pay and get those 5 wins, or what have you. They don't exist. The only guys hitting free agency now are old and expensive. Good pieces to wealthy clubs who need to patch up holes to contend. Not super helpful to teams that need to fix almost everything at the major league level.
It'd be great if they got Tanaka but somehow I'm just not picturing that happening.
I'm fine with a third shitty season so long as we're at least seeing one or two of the kids beyond the All-Star Break, and am okay with another struggling team in '15 if they're all up. I have fond memories of 1987/1988.
Just curious, if someone had told you when Epstein was hired in 2011 that the first truly competitive team would come in 2016, would you have been disappointed?
I would probably have gone along with it at the time just because what other choice did I have other than to throw my lot in with Theo's, but that's not to say it'd be any easier. I went into the last 2 years with zero expectations and thus have no had no emotional investment in this team. But I don't know, now, if I can do 2 more years. Then again, if they're trending upward--which you should be able to see by 2015, then I'm fine, I guess.
The problem, for me, will manifest if they start calling these top prospects up and it becomes clear that most of them can't play. My level of trust depends on several of these guys panning out. If that doesn't happen, they won't trend upward by 2015 and then they'll start signing big money free agents in an attempt to save their phony baloney jobs. At that point I may give up on the sport indefinitely.
I want to print this reply out and hang it on the wall in my office.
I think pex brings up a good point and we're mostly afraid to talk about it. I know the whole reason behind accumulating as many prospects as the Cubs have is that it's a guarantee that some will be busts. It's more likely they'll all be busts than a few of them will be superstars.
Then again, you look at the Royals and I don't know if any of those young players are superstars. But that's a good ballclub and if you were to add even a handful of veterans and one blockbuster free-agent, something KC probably can't do, they'd be good to go. The Yankees had 5-7 guys come up and play at a superstar level and they built around that for going on 15 years. If it's unrealistic to expect that, just give me a 25-man Eric Hosmer roster and let's drink to their health.
The Giants won two World Series with some very (VERY!) good pitching but no superstar position players.
Buster Posey won the MVP.
Pablo Sandoval probably isn't a "superstar," but he comes a lot closer than, say, Aubrey Huff or Marco Scutaro. Posey definitely is.
That Giants story is like the White Sox 2005 myth when they (allegedly) won a trophy. Ozzieball! Moving runners over!
Nope. Unhittable starting pitching and bullpen plus lots of homers.
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 04:57:13 PM
Quote from: CBStew on November 12, 2013, 04:03:33 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 12, 2013, 01:15:03 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 12, 2013, 01:09:06 PM
Quote from: PANK! on November 12, 2013, 12:54:20 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 12, 2013, 12:48:48 PM
Quote from: PANK! on November 12, 2013, 12:42:49 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 11:57:45 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 12, 2013, 11:31:58 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 12, 2013, 10:02:22 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 12, 2013, 09:58:12 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 12, 2013, 09:08:18 AM
Anyone else disturbed by this (paraphrased) quote (http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/11/11/fridays-season-ticket-holder-event-loyalty-patience-prospects-plans-progress-and-more/)? Have Theo & Jed been getting moving targets for spending for the near future?
I think we'll know more after this offseason and whether they're able to pay up for Choo or Tanaka. From what has been said, I'm not really counting on it, so 2014 will be another rough year. I think most people expect that at this point.
And if we're being realistic, a lack of veteran signings this offseason probably doesn't bode too well for 2015 either. They need several guys who can post 4-5 win seasons to make the jump into 90-win territory (they currently have zero guys like that, with Rizzo as the best possibility). As excited as we are about Baez, Bryant and the other young guys, they're probably not going to come straight up from the minors and dominate.
I do like where their heads are at though. There simply aren't names on the market that you can pay and get those 5 wins, or what have you. They don't exist. The only guys hitting free agency now are old and expensive. Good pieces to wealthy clubs who need to patch up holes to contend. Not super helpful to teams that need to fix almost everything at the major league level.
It'd be great if they got Tanaka but somehow I'm just not picturing that happening.
I'm fine with a third shitty season so long as we're at least seeing one or two of the kids beyond the All-Star Break, and am okay with another struggling team in '15 if they're all up. I have fond memories of 1987/1988.
Just curious, if someone had told you when Epstein was hired in 2011 that the first truly competitive team would come in 2016, would you have been disappointed?
I would probably have gone along with it at the time just because what other choice did I have other than to throw my lot in with Theo's, but that's not to say it'd be any easier. I went into the last 2 years with zero expectations and thus have no had no emotional investment in this team. But I don't know, now, if I can do 2 more years. Then again, if they're trending upward--which you should be able to see by 2015, then I'm fine, I guess.
The problem, for me, will manifest if they start calling these top prospects up and it becomes clear that most of them can't play. My level of trust depends on several of these guys panning out. If that doesn't happen, they won't trend upward by 2015 and then they'll start signing big money free agents in an attempt to save their phony baloney jobs. At that point I may give up on the sport indefinitely.
I want to print this reply out and hang it on the wall in my office.
I think pex brings up a good point and we're mostly afraid to talk about it. I know the whole reason behind accumulating as many prospects as the Cubs have is that it's a guarantee that some will be busts. It's more likely they'll all be busts than a few of them will be superstars.
Then again, you look at the Royals and I don't know if any of those young players are superstars. But that's a good ballclub and if you were to add even a handful of veterans and one blockbuster free-agent, something KC probably can't do, they'd be good to go. The Yankees had 5-7 guys come up and play at a superstar level and they built around that for going on 15 years. If it's unrealistic to expect that, just give me a 25-man Eric Hosmer roster and let's drink to their health.
The Giants won two World Series with some very (VERY!) good pitching but no superstar position players.
Buster Posey won the MVP.
A matter of opinion.
DOOM! http://www.majoronions.com/plain-simple-theo-epstein-baseballs-biggest-fraud/
Quote from: morpheus on November 14, 2013, 03:03:41 PM
DOOM! http://www.majoronions.com/plain-simple-theo-epstein-baseballs-biggest-fraud/
"but outside of Dustin Pedroia, Jon Lester and Clay Buchholz – where was all this player development in Beantown that the boy genius talks about?"
Outside of those great players, what you got Theo?
Quote from: BH on November 14, 2013, 03:07:07 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 14, 2013, 03:03:41 PM
DOOM! http://www.majoronions.com/plain-simple-theo-epstein-baseballs-biggest-fraud/
"but outside of Dustin Pedroia, Jon Lester and Clay Buchholz – where was all this player development in Beantown that the boy genius talks about?"
Outside of those great players, what you got Theo?
"I don't point to a single mistake he's made in Chicago, but he had a big payroll in Boston, so he's a huge fraud."
Quote from: BH on November 14, 2013, 03:07:07 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 14, 2013, 03:03:41 PM
DOOM! http://www.majoronions.com/plain-simple-theo-epstein-baseballs-biggest-fraud/
"but outside of Dustin Pedroia, Jon Lester and Clay Buchholz – where was all this player development in Beantown that the boy genius talks about?"
Outside of those great players, what you got Theo?
Jacoby Ellsbury.
Quote from: Eli on November 14, 2013, 03:22:36 PM
Quote from: BH on November 14, 2013, 03:07:07 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 14, 2013, 03:03:41 PM
DOOM! http://www.majoronions.com/plain-simple-theo-epstein-baseballs-biggest-fraud/
"but outside of Dustin Pedroia, Jon Lester and Clay Buchholz – where was all this player development in Beantown that the boy genius talks about?"
Outside of those great players, what you got Theo?
Jacoby Ellsbury.
But after just two years of the all-great and all-powerful Theo, the only goat is a gullible nation of Cubs fans.
Quote from: Eli on November 14, 2013, 03:22:36 PM
Quote from: BH on November 14, 2013, 03:07:07 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 14, 2013, 03:03:41 PM
DOOM! http://www.majoronions.com/plain-simple-theo-epstein-baseballs-biggest-fraud/
"but outside of Dustin Pedroia, Jon Lester and Clay Buchholz – where was all this player development in Beantown that the boy genius talks about?"
Outside of those great players, what you got Theo?
Jacoby Ellsbury.
Exactly, NOTHING.
Quote from: CT III on November 14, 2013, 03:35:16 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 14, 2013, 03:22:36 PM
Quote from: BH on November 14, 2013, 03:07:07 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 14, 2013, 03:03:41 PM
DOOM! http://www.majoronions.com/plain-simple-theo-epstein-baseballs-biggest-fraud/
"but outside of Dustin Pedroia, Jon Lester and Clay Buchholz – where was all this player development in Beantown that the boy genius talks about?"
Outside of those great players, what you got Theo?
Jacoby Ellsbury.
Exactly, NOTHING.
Was Youkilis already in the farm system when Epstink arrived? Because he was pretty decent there for awhile.
Quote from: Eli on November 14, 2013, 03:22:36 PM
Quote from: BH on November 14, 2013, 03:07:07 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 14, 2013, 03:03:41 PM
DOOM! http://www.majoronions.com/plain-simple-theo-epstein-baseballs-biggest-fraud/
"but outside of Dustin Pedroia, Jon Lester and Clay Buchholz – where was all this player development in Beantown that the boy genius talks about?"
Outside of those great players, what you got Theo?
Jacoby Ellsbury.
Yeah, but aside from drafting and developing those two MVPs, those two front of the rotation starters, Jonathan Papelbon, some other decent guys like Josh Redick, Jed Lowrie, and Justin Masterson (who you later traded basically straight up for Victor Martinez), signing Xander Bogaerts, and hiring Terry Francona after he was run out of Philadelphia ... what the fuck else did you and your boy toy Jed Hoyer do in Boston?
Quote from: ChuckD on November 14, 2013, 04:33:39 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 14, 2013, 03:22:36 PM
Quote from: BH on November 14, 2013, 03:07:07 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 14, 2013, 03:03:41 PM
DOOM! http://www.majoronions.com/plain-simple-theo-epstein-baseballs-biggest-fraud/
"but outside of Dustin Pedroia, Jon Lester and Clay Buchholz – where was all this player development in Beantown that the boy genius talks about?"
Outside of those great players, what you got Theo?
Jacoby Ellsbury.
Yeah, but aside from drafting and developing those two MVPs, those two front of the rotation starters, Jonathan Papelbon, some other decent guys like Josh Redick, Jed Lowrie, and Justin Masterson (who you later traded basically straight up for Victor Martinez), signing Xander Bogaerts, and hiring Terry Francona after he was run out of Philadelphia ... what the fuck else did you and your boy toy Jed Hoyer do in Boston?
Well he doesn't get credit for Papi falling out of the sky. This is established.
Quote from: SKO on November 14, 2013, 04:44:24 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on November 14, 2013, 04:33:39 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 14, 2013, 03:22:36 PM
Quote from: BH on November 14, 2013, 03:07:07 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 14, 2013, 03:03:41 PM
DOOM! http://www.majoronions.com/plain-simple-theo-epstein-baseballs-biggest-fraud/
"but outside of Dustin Pedroia, Jon Lester and Clay Buchholz – where was all this player development in Beantown that the boy genius talks about?"
Outside of those great players, what you got Theo?
Jacoby Ellsbury.
Yeah, but aside from drafting and developing those two MVPs, those two front of the rotation starters, Jonathan Papelbon, some other decent guys like Josh Redick, Jed Lowrie, and Justin Masterson (who you later traded basically straight up for Victor Martinez), signing Xander Bogaerts, and hiring Terry Francona after he was run out of Philadelphia ... what the fuck else did you and your boy toy Jed Hoyer do in Boston?
Well he doesn't get credit for Papi falling out of the sky. This is established.
Same goes for signing Schilling. And Keith Foulke and Mike Timlin. And Doug Mientkiewicz, Kevin Millar, Bill Mueller, Mark Bellhorn, Pokey Reese, Gabe Kapler, Orlando Cabrera, and basically every other position player on the 2004 playoff roster not named Manny Ramirez, Johnny Damon, or Jason Varitek. Those guys don't count.
Quote from: ChuckD on November 14, 2013, 05:05:27 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 14, 2013, 04:44:24 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on November 14, 2013, 04:33:39 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 14, 2013, 03:22:36 PM
Quote from: BH on November 14, 2013, 03:07:07 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 14, 2013, 03:03:41 PM
DOOM! http://www.majoronions.com/plain-simple-theo-epstein-baseballs-biggest-fraud/
"but outside of Dustin Pedroia, Jon Lester and Clay Buchholz – where was all this player development in Beantown that the boy genius talks about?"
Outside of those great players, what you got Theo?
Jacoby Ellsbury.
Yeah, but aside from drafting and developing those two MVPs, those two front of the rotation starters, Jonathan Papelbon, some other decent guys like Josh Redick, Jed Lowrie, and Justin Masterson (who you later traded basically straight up for Victor Martinez), signing Xander Bogaerts, and hiring Terry Francona after he was run out of Philadelphia ... what the fuck else did you and your boy toy Jed Hoyer do in Boston?
Well he doesn't get credit for Papi falling out of the sky. This is established.
Same goes for signing Schilling. And Keith Foulke and Mike Timlin. And Doug Mientkiewicz, Kevin Millar, Bill Mueller, Mark Bellhorn, Pokey Reese, Gabe Kapler, Orlando Cabrera, and basically every other position player on the 2004 playoff roster not named Manny Ramirez, Johnny Damon, or Jason Varitek. Those guys don't count.
Even John Lackey had a pretty good season. If he wasn't such a boy genius failure, I'd say everything is coming up Theo.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on November 14, 2013, 08:49:01 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on November 14, 2013, 05:05:27 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 14, 2013, 04:44:24 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on November 14, 2013, 04:33:39 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 14, 2013, 03:22:36 PM
Quote from: BH on November 14, 2013, 03:07:07 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 14, 2013, 03:03:41 PM
DOOM! http://www.majoronions.com/plain-simple-theo-epstein-baseballs-biggest-fraud/
"but outside of Dustin Pedroia, Jon Lester and Clay Buchholz – where was all this player development in Beantown that the boy genius talks about?"
Outside of those great players, what you got Theo?
Jacoby Ellsbury.
Yeah, but aside from drafting and developing those two MVPs, those two front of the rotation starters, Jonathan Papelbon, some other decent guys like Josh Redick, Jed Lowrie, and Justin Masterson (who you later traded basically straight up for Victor Martinez), signing Xander Bogaerts, and hiring Terry Francona after he was run out of Philadelphia ... what the fuck else did you and your boy toy Jed Hoyer do in Boston?
Well he doesn't get credit for Papi falling out of the sky. This is established.
Same goes for signing Schilling. And Keith Foulke and Mike Timlin. And Doug Mientkiewicz, Kevin Millar, Bill Mueller, Mark Bellhorn, Pokey Reese, Gabe Kapler, Orlando Cabrera, and basically every other position player on the 2004 playoff roster not named Manny Ramirez, Johnny Damon, or Jason Varitek. Those guys don't count.
Even John Lackey had a pretty good season. If he wasn't such a boy genius failure, I'd say everything is coming up Theo.
That's a parody site right? Onions? He has a link on there to a video, which I refuse to watch, headlined: "Derrick Rose or Kyrie Irving. Who's the NBA's premier point guard?" Um, Chris Paul.
RT @BleacherNation #Cubs: There Are Increasing Signals That 2014 and 2015 Could Be Ugly http://bit.ly/1cDRefC (http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/11/18/there-are-increasing-signals-that-2014-and-2015-could-be-ugly/)
/Elibait
Quote from: R-V on November 18, 2013, 12:24:21 PM
RT @BleacherNation #Cubs: There Are Increasing Signals That 2014 and 2015 Could Be Ugly http://bit.ly/1cDRefC (http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/11/18/there-are-increasing-signals-that-2014-and-2015-could-be-ugly/)
/Elibait
Intrepid Reader: Some redneck from Cobb County 23 years agoDaggummit! That Schuerholtzskink won't promise the Braves won't finish in last place in 1991 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozrddSibe0g) DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!
Besides, Sid Bream and Terry Pendleton their big free agent signings and Bobby Cox still the manager? Ted Turner doesn't get it!
Quote from: R-V on November 18, 2013, 12:24:21 PM
RT @BleacherNation #Cubs: There Are Increasing Signals That 2014 and 2015 Could Be Ugly http://bit.ly/1cDRefC (http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/11/18/there-are-increasing-signals-that-2014-and-2015-could-be-ugly/)
/Elibait
Cool.
Obviously the Cubs aren't worried about winning in 2014, seeing as they just missed out on signing new Rockies closer (seriously) LaTroy Hawkins.
I can't believe that I am the first to post about the Earth shaking acquisition of George Kottaras. It isn't often that you can acquire a 30 year old .180 hitting catcher. This is what re-building is all about. Kudos to Epstein.
Quote from: CBStew on November 27, 2013, 03:22:36 PM
I can't believe that I am the first to post about the Earth shaking acquisition of George Kottaras. It isn't often that you can acquire a 30 year old .180 hitting catcher. This is what re-building is all about. Kudos to Epstein.
He'll be in the mix for the backup catcher spot in spring training. Fingers crossed.
Quote from: CBStew on November 27, 2013, 03:22:36 PM
I can't believe that I am the first to post about the Earth shaking acquisition of George Kottaras. It isn't often that you can acquire a 30 year old .180 hitting catcher. This is what re-building is all about. Kudos to Epstein.
I don't mind the pickup and maybe like it a bit. It's not a sexy trade, but they had to get someone to replace Navarro. True story: he saw more pitches per plate appearance than all but three players and his .349 OBP would be near the top of the team. He doesn't swing at much out of the zone but doesn't hit much of anything inside it either. He's a backup catcher that they give up basically nothing to get. He'll get a walk and maybe a hit every so often on the days that Castillo's not playing. That's basically all you could ask from a backup catcher this side of Hank White.
Quote from: ChuckD on November 27, 2013, 04:02:02 PM
Quote from: CBStew on November 27, 2013, 03:22:36 PM
I can't believe that I am the first to post about the Earth shaking acquisition of George Kottaras. It isn't often that you can acquire a 30 year old .180 hitting catcher. This is what re-building is all about. Kudos to Epstein.
I don't mind the pickup and maybe like it a bit. It's not a sexy trade, but they had to get someone to replace Navarro. True story: he saw more pitches per plate appearance than all but three players and his .349 OBP would be near the top of the team. He doesn't swing at much out of the zone but doesn't hit much of anything inside it either. He's a backup catcher that they give up basically nothing to get. He'll get a walk and maybe a hit every so often on the days that Castillo's not playing. That's basically all you could ask from a backup catcher this side of Hank White.
Except that the Cubs asked for more out of Navarro and got it. I can't see this as anything but regression.
Quote from: CBStew on November 27, 2013, 04:11:37 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on November 27, 2013, 04:02:02 PM
Quote from: CBStew on November 27, 2013, 03:22:36 PM
I can't believe that I am the first to post about the Earth shaking acquisition of George Kottaras. It isn't often that you can acquire a 30 year old .180 hitting catcher. This is what re-building is all about. Kudos to Epstein.
I don't mind the pickup and maybe like it a bit. It's not a sexy trade, but they had to get someone to replace Navarro. True story: he saw more pitches per plate appearance than all but three players and his .349 OBP would be near the top of the team. He doesn't swing at much out of the zone but doesn't hit much of anything inside it either. He's a backup catcher that they give up basically nothing to get. He'll get a walk and maybe a hit every so often on the days that Castillo's not playing. That's basically all you could ask from a backup catcher this side of Hank White.
Except that the Cubs asked for more out of Navarro and got it. I can't see this as anything but regression.
And some team will pay Dioner Navarro what he thinks he's worth and then expect him, at age 30, to duplicate last year's numbers, which exceed anything he put up in his previous nine years of MLB service by leaps and bounds. Is that something that you would do, if you ran the zoo, Mr. Stew?
That's exactly the type of maneuver that Cub front offices have made over and over again in the past. No more, Stewart. No more of this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBcbc8eWz6U)
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 27, 2013, 04:17:17 PM
Quote from: CBStew on November 27, 2013, 04:11:37 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on November 27, 2013, 04:02:02 PM
Quote from: CBStew on November 27, 2013, 03:22:36 PM
I can't believe that I am the first to post about the Earth shaking acquisition of George Kottaras. It isn't often that you can acquire a 30 year old .180 hitting catcher. This is what re-building is all about. Kudos to Epstein.
I don't mind the pickup and maybe like it a bit. It's not a sexy trade, but they had to get someone to replace Navarro. True story: he saw more pitches per plate appearance than all but three players and his .349 OBP would be near the top of the team. He doesn't swing at much out of the zone but doesn't hit much of anything inside it either. He's a backup catcher that they give up basically nothing to get. He'll get a walk and maybe a hit every so often on the days that Castillo's not playing. That's basically all you could ask from a backup catcher this side of Hank White.
Except that the Cubs asked for more out of Navarro and got it. I can't see this as anything but regression.
And some team will pay Dioner Navarro what he thinks he's worth and then expect him to duplicate last year's numbers, which exceed anything he put up in his previous nine years of MLB service by leaps and bounds. Is that something that you would do, if you ran the zoo, Mr. Stew?
Was typing up something and saw this. This is exactly my thinking.
If you expect Dioner Navarro to duplicate what he did last year, then sure, go ahead and say that Navarro->Kottaras is a regression. Problem with that is that Navarro over-performed and now expects to be compensated for that blip in performance. Navarro was a really lucky last year while Kottaras was a little unlucky. Kottaras has a much better eye which should stay steady and assuming a few more balls drop for hits (and maybe even if they don't), he'll provide effectively the same value as Navarro for a third of the asking price.
Again, it's not a sexy acquisition but, given what we know, it's hard to pan the move.
Quote from: CBStew on November 27, 2013, 03:22:36 PM
I can't believe that I am the first to post about the Earth shaking acquisition of George Kottaras. It isn't often that you can acquire a 30 year old .180 hitting catcher. This is what re-building is all about. Kudos to Epstein.
You really have to stop looking at batting average by itself as a performance indicator.
Quote from: Eli on November 28, 2013, 08:06:37 AM
Quote from: CBStew on November 27, 2013, 03:22:36 PM
I can't believe that I am the first to post about the Earth shaking acquisition of George Kottaras. It isn't often that you can acquire a 30 year old .180 hitting catcher. This is what re-building is all about. Kudos to Epstein.
You really have to stop looking at batting average by itself as a performance indicator.
Stew was born during the
first FDR administration. He deserves credit for being okay with darkies playing.
There are still plenty of failure points that will prevent the Cubs from winning that are more critical than backup catcher.
Quote from: Fork on November 28, 2013, 01:04:17 PM
There are still plenty of failure points that will prevent the Cubs from winning that are more critical than backup catcher.
Yes, but considering most of us on this messageboard spent the better part of two years blaming everything that went wrong on Paul Bako, I'm going to cut Stew some slack on that.
Quote from: CT III on November 28, 2013, 07:28:39 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 28, 2013, 01:04:17 PM
There are still plenty of failure points that will prevent the Cubs from winning that are more critical than backup catcher.
Yes, but considering most of us on this messageboard spent the better part of two years blaming everything that went wrong on Paul Bako, I'm going to cut Stew some slack on that.
I still blame Paul Bako for every bad thing that has ever happened.
Quote from: CT III on November 28, 2013, 07:28:39 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 28, 2013, 01:04:17 PM
There are still plenty of failure points that will prevent the Cubs from winning that are more critical than backup catcher.
Yes, but considering most of us on this messageboard spent the better part of two years blaming everything that went wrong on Paul Bako, I'm going to cut Stew some slack on that.
My point was that of all the things that they could be doing, going after a backup catcher who is a definite downgrade over the previous backup catcher sends a signal that as bad as last year was, next year will be worse.
Quote from: CBStew on November 30, 2013, 10:58:55 PM
Quote from: CT III on November 28, 2013, 07:28:39 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 28, 2013, 01:04:17 PM
There are still plenty of failure points that will prevent the Cubs from winning that are more critical than backup catcher.
Yes, but considering most of us on this messageboard spent the better part of two years blaming everything that went wrong on Paul Bako, I'm going to cut Stew some slack on that.
My point was that of all the things that they could be doing, going after a backup catcher who is a definite downgrade over the previous backup catcher sends a signal that as bad as last year was, next year will be worse.
Kottaras is as good of a backup catcher option as one could reasonably expect. He gets on base, has a little power and isn't very good defensively, which is why he's a backup. There are like 10 all-around good catchers in the entire world but there need to be 60 of them employed at any given time, so I'm not sure what you expected from this move.
Quote from: Eli on December 01, 2013, 09:52:14 AM
Quote from: CBStew on November 30, 2013, 10:58:55 PM
Quote from: CT III on November 28, 2013, 07:28:39 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 28, 2013, 01:04:17 PM
There are still plenty of failure points that will prevent the Cubs from winning that are more critical than backup catcher.
Yes, but considering most of us on this messageboard spent the better part of two years blaming everything that went wrong on Paul Bako, I'm going to cut Stew some slack on that.
My point was that of all the things that they could be doing, going after a backup catcher who is a definite downgrade over the previous backup catcher sends a signal that as bad as last year was, next year will be worse.
Kottaras is as good of a backup catcher option as one could reasonably expect. He gets on base, has a little power and isn't very good defensively, which is why he's a backup. There are like 10 all-around good catchers in the entire world but there need to be 60 of them employed at any given time, so I'm not sure what you expected from this move.
I think he wanted them to sign Cano first and then take care of the backup catcher position.
Quote from: CBStew on November 30, 2013, 10:58:55 PM
Quote from: CT III on November 28, 2013, 07:28:39 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 28, 2013, 01:04:17 PM
There are still plenty of failure points that will prevent the Cubs from winning that are more critical than backup catcher.
Yes, but considering most of us on this messageboard spent the better part of two years blaming everything that went wrong on Paul Bako, I'm going to cut Stew some slack on that.
My point was that of all the things that they could be doing, going after a backup catcher who is a definite downgrade over the previous backup catcher sends a signal that as bad as last year was, next year will be worse.
While I fully understand your impatience there are so many holes on the club you could make a case for being terrible. Second base? How about that. Let's start there. We don't bitch about it enough.
Quote from: Slaky on December 01, 2013, 01:18:35 PM
Quote from: CBStew on November 30, 2013, 10:58:55 PM
Quote from: CT III on November 28, 2013, 07:28:39 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 28, 2013, 01:04:17 PM
There are still plenty of failure points that will prevent the Cubs from winning that are more critical than backup catcher.
Yes, but considering most of us on this messageboard spent the better part of two years blaming everything that went wrong on Paul Bako, I'm going to cut Stew some slack on that.
My point was that of all the things that they could be doing, going after a backup catcher who is a definite downgrade over the previous backup catcher sends a signal that as bad as last year was, next year will be worse.
While I fully understand your impatience there are so many holes on the club you could make a case for being terrible. Second base? How about that. Let's start there. We don't bitch about it enough.
Don't forget rotation spots 1-5 and bullpen spots 1-6.
Quote from: CBStew on November 30, 2013, 10:58:55 PM
Quote from: CT III on November 28, 2013, 07:28:39 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 28, 2013, 01:04:17 PM
There are still plenty of failure points that will prevent the Cubs from winning that are more critical than backup catcher.
Yes, but considering most of us on this messageboard spent the better part of two years blaming everything that went wrong on Paul Bako, I'm going to cut Stew some slack on that.
My point was that of all the things that they could be doing, going after a backup catcher who is a definite downgrade over the previous backup catcher sends a signal that as bad as last year was, next year will be worse.
Overpaying Dioner Mantle for his fluke 2013 would be the mistake. Hendry would've given him three years, $15M after an intense bidding war with himself. If this were Welington Castillo being replaced with Kottaras, I'd be with you, but this is more like resigning yourself to the worst Christmas ever because Dad used cheaper bulbs on the wall side of the tree. And we still have Steve Clevenger! Oh wait.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 02, 2013, 08:07:13 AM
Quote from: CBStew on November 30, 2013, 10:58:55 PM
Quote from: CT III on November 28, 2013, 07:28:39 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 28, 2013, 01:04:17 PM
There are still plenty of failure points that will prevent the Cubs from winning that are more critical than backup catcher.
Yes, but considering most of us on this messageboard spent the better part of two years blaming everything that went wrong on Paul Bako, I'm going to cut Stew some slack on that.
My point was that of all the things that they could be doing, going after a backup catcher who is a definite downgrade over the previous backup catcher sends a signal that as bad as last year was, next year will be worse.
Overpaying Dioner Mantle for his fluke 2013 would be the mistake. Hendry would've given him three years, $15M after an intense bidding war with himself. If this were Welington Castillo being replaced with Kottaras, I'd be with you, but this is more like resigning yourself to the worst Christmas ever because Dad used cheaper bulbs on the wall side of the tree. And we still have Steve Clevenger! Oh wait.
Yeah, Stew will get the Christmas tree analogy.
DA CUBS NEED MORE SCRAPPY IRISH LIKE DAT DONNY MUPRHY AN DAT DONNY O'NAVARO. DOSE GUYS KNOW HOW TO WIN MY FRENTS!
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 02, 2013, 08:07:13 AM
Quote from: CBStew on November 30, 2013, 10:58:55 PM
Quote from: CT III on November 28, 2013, 07:28:39 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 28, 2013, 01:04:17 PM
There are still plenty of failure points that will prevent the Cubs from winning that are more critical than backup catcher.
Yes, but considering most of us on this messageboard spent the better part of two years blaming everything that went wrong on Paul Bako, I'm going to cut Stew some slack on that.
My point was that of all the things that they could be doing, going after a backup catcher who is a definite downgrade over the previous backup catcher sends a signal that as bad as last year was, next year will be worse.
Overpaying Dioner Mantle for his fluke 2013 would be the mistake. Hendry would've given him three years, $15M after an intense bidding war with himself. If this were Welington Castillo being replaced with Kottaras, I'd be with you, but this is more like resigning yourself to the worst Christmas ever because Dad used cheaper bulbs on the wall side of the tree. And we still have Steve Clevenger! Oh wait.
Plus, Navarro was probably looking for a starting gig, like the one he just got in Toronto.
ETA: 2 years, $8 million. Better there than here.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on December 02, 2013, 08:28:02 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 02, 2013, 08:07:13 AM
Quote from: CBStew on November 30, 2013, 10:58:55 PM
Quote from: CT III on November 28, 2013, 07:28:39 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 28, 2013, 01:04:17 PM
There are still plenty of failure points that will prevent the Cubs from winning that are more critical than backup catcher.
Yes, but considering most of us on this messageboard spent the better part of two years blaming everything that went wrong on Paul Bako, I'm going to cut Stew some slack on that.
My point was that of all the things that they could be doing, going after a backup catcher who is a definite downgrade over the previous backup catcher sends a signal that as bad as last year was, next year will be worse.
Overpaying Dioner Mantle for his fluke 2013 would be the mistake. Hendry would've given him three years, $15M after an intense bidding war with himself. If this were Welington Castillo being replaced with Kottaras, I'd be with you, but this is more like resigning yourself to the worst Christmas ever because Dad used cheaper bulbs on the wall side of the tree. And we still have Steve Clevenger! Oh wait.
Yeah, Stew will get the Christmas tree analogy.
Cheaper bulbs?
Quote from: Fork on December 02, 2013, 08:53:19 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 02, 2013, 08:07:13 AM
Quote from: CBStew on November 30, 2013, 10:58:55 PM
Quote from: CT III on November 28, 2013, 07:28:39 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 28, 2013, 01:04:17 PM
There are still plenty of failure points that will prevent the Cubs from winning that are more critical than backup catcher.
Yes, but considering most of us on this messageboard spent the better part of two years blaming everything that went wrong on Paul Bako, I'm going to cut Stew some slack on that.
My point was that of all the things that they could be doing, going after a backup catcher who is a definite downgrade over the previous backup catcher sends a signal that as bad as last year was, next year will be worse.
Overpaying Dioner Mantle for his fluke 2013 would be the mistake. Hendry would've given him three years, $15M after an intense bidding war with himself. If this were Welington Castillo being replaced with Kottaras, I'd be with you, but this is more like resigning yourself to the worst Christmas ever because Dad used cheaper bulbs on the wall side of the tree. And we still have Steve Clevenger! Oh wait.
Plus, Navarro was probably looking for a starting gig, like the one he just got in Toronto.
ETA: 2 years, $8 million. Better there than here.
The Cubs should have signed Ray Emery.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 02, 2013, 09:32:07 AM
Quote from: Fork on December 02, 2013, 08:53:19 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 02, 2013, 08:07:13 AM
Quote from: CBStew on November 30, 2013, 10:58:55 PM
Quote from: CT III on November 28, 2013, 07:28:39 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 28, 2013, 01:04:17 PM
There are still plenty of failure points that will prevent the Cubs from winning that are more critical than backup catcher.
Yes, but considering most of us on this messageboard spent the better part of two years blaming everything that went wrong on Paul Bako, I'm going to cut Stew some slack on that.
My point was that of all the things that they could be doing, going after a backup catcher who is a definite downgrade over the previous backup catcher sends a signal that as bad as last year was, next year will be worse.
Overpaying Dioner Mantle for his fluke 2013 would be the mistake. Hendry would've given him three years, $15M after an intense bidding war with himself. If this were Welington Castillo being replaced with Kottaras, I'd be with you, but this is more like resigning yourself to the worst Christmas ever because Dad used cheaper bulbs on the wall side of the tree. And we still have Steve Clevenger! Oh wait.
Plus, Navarro was probably looking for a starting gig, like the one he just got in Toronto.
ETA: 2 years, $8 million. Better there than here.
The Cubs should have signed Ray Emery.
Or Josh McNown.
Quote from: PenFoe on December 02, 2013, 10:42:24 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 02, 2013, 09:32:07 AM
Quote from: Fork on December 02, 2013, 08:53:19 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 02, 2013, 08:07:13 AM
Quote from: CBStew on November 30, 2013, 10:58:55 PM
Quote from: CT III on November 28, 2013, 07:28:39 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 28, 2013, 01:04:17 PM
There are still plenty of failure points that will prevent the Cubs from winning that are more critical than backup catcher.
Yes, but considering most of us on this messageboard spent the better part of two years blaming everything that went wrong on Paul Bako, I'm going to cut Stew some slack on that.
My point was that of all the things that they could be doing, going after a backup catcher who is a definite downgrade over the previous backup catcher sends a signal that as bad as last year was, next year will be worse.
Overpaying Dioner Mantle for his fluke 2013 would be the mistake. Hendry would've given him three years, $15M after an intense bidding war with himself. If this were Welington Castillo being replaced with Kottaras, I'd be with you, but this is more like resigning yourself to the worst Christmas ever because Dad used cheaper bulbs on the wall side of the tree. And we still have Steve Clevenger! Oh wait.
Plus, Navarro was probably looking for a starting gig, like the one he just got in Toronto.
ETA: 2 years, $8 million. Better there than here.
The Cubs should have signed Ray Emery.
Or Josh McNown.
I think the plan was to have Girardi player-manage.
"Okay fine, Stew, I guess we'll try to win now. Gosh."
CUBS SIGN WESLEY WRIGHT!!! (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/12/cubs-sign-wesley-wright.html)
Wesley Wrong.
ROCK AND ROLL MACDONALDS. ROCK AND ROLL MACDONALDS. ROCK AND ROLL MACDONALDS. ROCK AND ROLL MACDONALDS. ROCK AND ROLL MACDONALDS. ROCK AND ROLL MACDONALDS. ROCK AND ROLL MACDONALDS. ROCK AND ROLL MACDONALDS. ROCK AND ROLL MACDONALDS. ROCK AND ROLL MACDONALDS. ROCK AND ROLL MACDONALDS. ROCK AND ROLL MACDONALDS. ROCK AND ROLL MACDONALDS.
Edit: Willis, Wright -- whatever.
YA CAN'T WIN DA WERLSERIOUS WIDDOUT WUNNADOSE LOOGY GUYS, MY FRENTS.
I am trying to contain my elation.
I am waiting for the obligatory "I like this signing" post.
Quote from: CBStew on December 05, 2013, 12:57:44 PM
I am waiting for the obligatory "I like this signing" post.
I don't know why anyone wouldn't like this signing.
Unless they hate good pitching.
Stew, would it help if I said that Wesley Wright has a 123 ERA+ over the past 3 seasons?
(http://i.imgur.com/oIeTBGm.jpg)
Quote from: PenFoe on December 05, 2013, 01:01:46 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 05, 2013, 12:57:44 PM
I am waiting for the obligatory "I like this signing" post.
I don't know why anyone wouldn't like this signing.
Unless they hate good pitching.
Stew, would it help if I said that Wesley Wright has a 123 ERA+ over the past 3 seasons?
(http://i.imgur.com/oIeTBGm.jpg)
Yeah, but he went 2-6 so he's garbage.
Quote from: ChuckD on December 05, 2013, 01:04:17 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on December 05, 2013, 01:01:46 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 05, 2013, 12:57:44 PM
I am waiting for the obligatory "I like this signing" post.
I don't know why anyone wouldn't like this signing.
Unless they hate good pitching.
Stew, would it help if I said that Wesley Wright has a 123 ERA+ over the past 3 seasons?
(http://i.imgur.com/oIeTBGm.jpg)
Yeah, but he went 2-6 so he's garbage.
Um. Guys? in 3 seasons he appeared in 168 games, but only 118 innings. So mostly he was called in to pitch against a lefty and then taken out. Yet in those 118 innings he gave up 105 hits and 45 walks. His managers clearly had a lot of confidence in him.
Quote from: CBStew on December 05, 2013, 01:17:30 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on December 05, 2013, 01:04:17 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on December 05, 2013, 01:01:46 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 05, 2013, 12:57:44 PM
I am waiting for the obligatory "I like this signing" post.
I don't know why anyone wouldn't like this signing.
Unless they hate good pitching.
Stew, would it help if I said that Wesley Wright has a 123 ERA+ over the past 3 seasons?
(http://i.imgur.com/oIeTBGm.jpg)
Yeah, but he went 2-6 so he's garbage.
Um. Guys? in 3 seasons he appeared in 168 games, but only 118 innings. So mostly he was called in to pitch against a lefty and then taken out. Yet in those 118 innings he gave up 105 hits and 45 walks. His managers clearly had a lot of confidence in him.
I know right? Not exactly 2001-03 Randy Johnson, this guy. Epstink is terrible!
Quote from: CBStew on December 05, 2013, 01:17:30 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on December 05, 2013, 01:04:17 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on December 05, 2013, 01:01:46 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 05, 2013, 12:57:44 PM
I am waiting for the obligatory "I like this signing" post.
I don't know why anyone wouldn't like this signing.
Unless they hate good pitching.
Stew, would it help if I said that Wesley Wright has a 123 ERA+ over the past 3 seasons?
(http://i.imgur.com/oIeTBGm.jpg)
Yeah, but he went 2-6 so he's garbage.
Um. Guys? in 3 seasons he appeared in 168 games, but only 118 innings. So mostly he was called in to pitch against a lefty and then taken out. Yet in those 118 innings he gave up 105 hits and 45 walks. His managers clearly had a lot of confidence in him.
LOOGY = Lefthanded One Out Guy
Quote from: CBStew on December 05, 2013, 01:17:30 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on December 05, 2013, 01:04:17 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on December 05, 2013, 01:01:46 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 05, 2013, 12:57:44 PM
I am waiting for the obligatory "I like this signing" post.
I don't know why anyone wouldn't like this signing.
Unless they hate good pitching.
Stew, would it help if I said that Wesley Wright has a 123 ERA+ over the past 3 seasons?
(http://i.imgur.com/oIeTBGm.jpg)
Yeah, but he went 2-6 so he's garbage.
Um. Guys? in 3 seasons he appeared in 168 games, but only 118 innings. So mostly he was called in to pitch against a lefty and then taken out. Yet in those 118 innings he gave up 105 hits and 45 walks. His managers clearly had a lot of confidence in him.
Which is the very definition of LOOGY. That's what he's going to do for the Cubs.
| Split | G | PA | AB | R | H | 2B | 3B | HR | SB | CS | BB | SO | SO/BB | BA | OBP | SLG | OPS | TB | GDP | HBP | SH | SF | IBB | ROE | BAbip | tOPS+ |
| vs RHB as LHP | 226 | 595 | 516 | 99 | 137 | 31 | 3 | 28 | 1 | 0 | 69 | 116 | 1.68 | .266 | .356 | .500 | .856 | 258 | 13 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 9 | 3 | .291 | 123
|
| vs LHB as LHP | 270 | 506 | 445 | 51 | 103 | 20 | 4 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 44 | 137 | 3.11 | .231 | .313 | .342 | .655 | 152 | 10 | 11 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 4 | .315 | 73 |
Quote from: CBStew on December 05, 2013, 01:17:30 PM
Yet in those 118 innings he gave up 105 hits and 45 walks.
Those numbers are pretty good, Stew.
Are you doing a bit?
Quote from: Eli on December 05, 2013, 02:20:50 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 05, 2013, 01:17:30 PM
Yet in those 118 innings he gave up 105 hits and 45 walks.
Those numbers are pretty good, Stew.
Are you doing a bit?
I think he's doing a bit and he has a few people going. I'm not buying it anymore but I'd like to see how far he can go with it.
Quote from: Internet Apex on December 05, 2013, 02:34:31 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 05, 2013, 02:20:50 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 05, 2013, 01:17:30 PM
Yet in those 118 innings he gave up 105 hits and 45 walks.
Those numbers are pretty good, Stew.
Are you doing a bit?
I think he's doing a bit and he has a few people going. I'm not buying it anymore but I'd like to see how far he can go with it.
It ends with his waking up next to Suzanne Pleshette.
Quote from: Internet Apex on December 05, 2013, 02:34:31 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 05, 2013, 02:20:50 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 05, 2013, 01:17:30 PM
Yet in those 118 innings he gave up 105 hits and 45 walks.
Those numbers are pretty good, Stew.
Are you doing a bit?
I think he's doing a bit and he has a few people going. I'm not buying it anymore but I'd like to see how far he can go with it.
I don't think this is a bit. I think he's a meatball.
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on December 05, 2013, 02:52:38 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on December 05, 2013, 02:34:31 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 05, 2013, 02:20:50 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 05, 2013, 01:17:30 PM
Yet in those 118 innings he gave up 105 hits and 45 walks.
Those numbers are pretty good, Stew.
Are you doing a bit?
I think he's doing a bit and he has a few people going. I'm not buying it anymore but I'd like to see how far he can go with it.
I don't think this is a bit. I think he's a meatball.
Maybe he just wants his Desipio back. This used to be a place to come and kvetch about the Cubs. But we all have Jepstink's dong lodged in the lining of our cold, dead hearts and do nothing but agree with them - save for random fits of Chuckwrongness. So now Stew sees a move, and maybe it's a completely insignificant move like the Kotteras trade, or a low-impact signing like Wright and he just wants to kvetch dammit! I don't think it's meatball, but just a bit of fun. Not at our expense or anything, just some sort of exercise in butthurt. I do it all the time.
Quote from: Internet Apex on December 05, 2013, 02:59:32 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on December 05, 2013, 02:52:38 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on December 05, 2013, 02:34:31 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 05, 2013, 02:20:50 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 05, 2013, 01:17:30 PM
Yet in those 118 innings he gave up 105 hits and 45 walks.
Those numbers are pretty good, Stew.
Are you doing a bit?
I think he's doing a bit and he has a few people going. I'm not buying it anymore but I'd like to see how far he can go with it.
I don't think this is a bit. I think he's a meatball.
Maybe he just wants his Desipio back. This used to be a place to come and kvetch about the Cubs. But we all have Jepstink's dong lodged in the lining of our cold, dead hearts and do nothing but agree with them - save for random fits of Chuckwrongness. So now Stew sees a move, and maybe it's a completely insignificant move like the Kotteras trade, or a low-impact signing like Wright and he just wants to kvetch dammit! I don't think it's meatball, but just a bit of fun. Not at our expense or anything, just some sort of exercise in butthurt. I do it all the time.
Are exercises in butthurt sort of like kegel exercises?
Quote from: Internet Apex on December 05, 2013, 02:59:32 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on December 05, 2013, 02:52:38 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on December 05, 2013, 02:34:31 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 05, 2013, 02:20:50 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 05, 2013, 01:17:30 PM
Yet in those 118 innings he gave up 105 hits and 45 walks.
Those numbers are pretty good, Stew.
Are you doing a bit?
I think he's doing a bit and he has a few people going. I'm not buying it anymore but I'd like to see how far he can go with it.
I don't think this is a bit. I think he's a meatball.
Maybe he just wants his Desipio back. This used to be a place to come and kvetch about the Cubs. But we all have Jepstink's dong lodged in the lining of our cold, dead hearts and do nothing but agree with them - save for random fits of Chuckwrongness. So now Stew sees a move, and maybe it's a completely insignificant move like the Kotteras trade, or a low-impact signing like Wright and he just wants to kvetch dammit! I don't think it's meatball, but just a bit of fun. Not at our expense or anything, just some sort of exercise in butthurt. I do it all the time.
I admit it...I like this post.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 05, 2013, 03:10:22 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on December 05, 2013, 02:59:32 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on December 05, 2013, 02:52:38 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on December 05, 2013, 02:34:31 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 05, 2013, 02:20:50 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 05, 2013, 01:17:30 PM
Yet in those 118 innings he gave up 105 hits and 45 walks.
Those numbers are pretty good, Stew.
Are you doing a bit?
I think he's doing a bit and he has a few people going. I'm not buying it anymore but I'd like to see how far he can go with it.
I don't think this is a bit. I think he's a meatball.
Maybe he just wants his Desipio back. This used to be a place to come and kvetch about the Cubs. But we all have Jepstink's dong lodged in the lining of our cold, dead hearts and do nothing but agree with them - save for random fits of Chuckwrongness. So now Stew sees a move, and maybe it's a completely insignificant move like the Kotteras trade, or a low-impact signing like Wright and he just wants to kvetch dammit! I don't think it's meatball, but just a bit of fun. Not at our expense or anything, just some sort of exercise in butthurt. I do it all the time.
Are exercises in butthurt sort of like kegel exercises?
Damn! If I can't sulk here, where can I sulk? I think that it is worth noting that a bunch of billionaires bought our team and we are being very considerate of their desire to spend as little of their money as possible. There is a difference between spending wisely and foolishly. We became accustomed to seeing stupid deals made by Hendry, so now we are forgiving of an ownership of a major market team pretending that it is running a non-profit corporation.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 05, 2013, 03:10:22 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on December 05, 2013, 02:59:32 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on December 05, 2013, 02:52:38 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on December 05, 2013, 02:34:31 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 05, 2013, 02:20:50 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 05, 2013, 01:17:30 PM
Yet in those 118 innings he gave up 105 hits and 45 walks.
Those numbers are pretty good, Stew.
Are you doing a bit?
I think he's doing a bit and he has a few people going. I'm not buying it anymore but I'd like to see how far he can go with it.
I don't think this is a bit. I think he's a meatball.
Maybe he just wants his Desipio back. This used to be a place to come and kvetch about the Cubs. But we all have Jepstink's dong lodged in the lining of our cold, dead hearts and do nothing but agree with them - save for random fits of Chuckwrongness. So now Stew sees a move, and maybe it's a completely insignificant move like the Kotteras trade, or a low-impact signing like Wright and he just wants to kvetch dammit! I don't think it's meatball, but just a bit of fun. Not at our expense or anything, just some sort of exercise in butthurt. I do it all the time.
Are exercises in butthurt sort of like kegel exercises?
I'm sure I don't know.
Quote from: CBStew on December 05, 2013, 03:36:07 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 05, 2013, 03:10:22 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on December 05, 2013, 02:59:32 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on December 05, 2013, 02:52:38 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on December 05, 2013, 02:34:31 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 05, 2013, 02:20:50 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 05, 2013, 01:17:30 PM
Yet in those 118 innings he gave up 105 hits and 45 walks.
Those numbers are pretty good, Stew.
Are you doing a bit?
I think he's doing a bit and he has a few people going. I'm not buying it anymore but I'd like to see how far he can go with it.
I don't think this is a bit. I think he's a meatball.
Maybe he just wants his Desipio back. This used to be a place to come and kvetch about the Cubs. But we all have Jepstink's dong lodged in the lining of our cold, dead hearts and do nothing but agree with them - save for random fits of Chuckwrongness. So now Stew sees a move, and maybe it's a completely insignificant move like the Kotteras trade, or a low-impact signing like Wright and he just wants to kvetch dammit! I don't think it's meatball, but just a bit of fun. Not at our expense or anything, just some sort of exercise in butthurt. I do it all the time.
Are exercises in butthurt sort of like kegel exercises?
Damn! If I can't sulk here, where can I sulk? I think that it is worth noting that a bunch of billionaires bought our team and we are being very considerate of their desire to spend as little of their money as possible. There is a difference between spending wisely and foolishly. We became accustomed to seeing stupid deals made by Hendry, so now we are forgiving of an ownership of a major market team pretending that it is running a non-profit corporation.
See?
Quote from: Internet Apex on December 05, 2013, 03:38:32 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 05, 2013, 03:36:07 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 05, 2013, 03:10:22 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on December 05, 2013, 02:59:32 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on December 05, 2013, 02:52:38 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on December 05, 2013, 02:34:31 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 05, 2013, 02:20:50 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 05, 2013, 01:17:30 PM
Yet in those 118 innings he gave up 105 hits and 45 walks.
Those numbers are pretty good, Stew.
Are you doing a bit?
I think he's doing a bit and he has a few people going. I'm not buying it anymore but I'd like to see how far he can go with it.
I don't think this is a bit. I think he's a meatball.
Maybe he just wants his Desipio back. This used to be a place to come and kvetch about the Cubs. But we all have Jepstink's dong lodged in the lining of our cold, dead hearts and do nothing but agree with them - save for random fits of Chuckwrongness. So now Stew sees a move, and maybe it's a completely insignificant move like the Kotteras trade, or a low-impact signing like Wright and he just wants to kvetch dammit! I don't think it's meatball, but just a bit of fun. Not at our expense or anything, just some sort of exercise in butthurt. I do it all the time.
Are exercises in butthurt sort of like kegel exercises?
Damn! If I can't sulk here, where can I sulk? I think that it is worth noting that a bunch of billionaires bought our team and we are being very considerate of their desire to spend as little of their money as possible. There is a difference between spending wisely and foolishly. We became accustomed to seeing stupid deals made by Hendry, so now we are forgiving of an ownership of a major market team pretending that it is running a non-profit corporation.
See?
...and furthermore, I watch what Oakland has been doing for years. There is more to it than parsimony. (I think that's the word.) If Brad Pitt can produce a winner on a shoestring, why can't Epstein/Hoyer? And if you tell me that it is a few years away, at my age that is like saying that they can't.
Quote from: CBStew on December 05, 2013, 03:36:07 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 05, 2013, 03:10:22 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on December 05, 2013, 02:59:32 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on December 05, 2013, 02:52:38 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on December 05, 2013, 02:34:31 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 05, 2013, 02:20:50 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 05, 2013, 01:17:30 PM
Yet in those 118 innings he gave up 105 hits and 45 walks.
Those numbers are pretty good, Stew.
Are you doing a bit?
I think he's doing a bit and he has a few people going. I'm not buying it anymore but I'd like to see how far he can go with it.
I don't think this is a bit. I think he's a meatball.
Maybe he just wants his Desipio back. This used to be a place to come and kvetch about the Cubs. But we all have Jepstink's dong lodged in the lining of our cold, dead hearts and do nothing but agree with them - save for random fits of Chuckwrongness. So now Stew sees a move, and maybe it's a completely insignificant move like the Kotteras trade, or a low-impact signing like Wright and he just wants to kvetch dammit! I don't think it's meatball, but just a bit of fun. Not at our expense or anything, just some sort of exercise in butthurt. I do it all the time.
Are exercises in butthurt sort of like kegel exercises?
Damn! If I can't sulk here, where can I sulk? I think that it is worth noting that a bunch of billionaires bought our team and we are being very considerate of their desire to spend as little of their money as possible. There is a difference between spending wisely and foolishly. We became accustomed to seeing stupid deals made by Hendry, so now we are forgiving of an ownership of a major market team pretending that it is running a non-profit corporation.
They hired Rocky Wirtz's accountants.
Quote from: CBStew on December 05, 2013, 04:01:02 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on December 05, 2013, 03:38:32 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 05, 2013, 03:36:07 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 05, 2013, 03:10:22 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on December 05, 2013, 02:59:32 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on December 05, 2013, 02:52:38 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on December 05, 2013, 02:34:31 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 05, 2013, 02:20:50 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 05, 2013, 01:17:30 PM
Yet in those 118 innings he gave up 105 hits and 45 walks.
Those numbers are pretty good, Stew.
Are you doing a bit?
I think he's doing a bit and he has a few people going. I'm not buying it anymore but I'd like to see how far he can go with it.
I don't think this is a bit. I think he's a meatball.
Maybe he just wants his Desipio back. This used to be a place to come and kvetch about the Cubs. But we all have Jepstink's dong lodged in the lining of our cold, dead hearts and do nothing but agree with them - save for random fits of Chuckwrongness. So now Stew sees a move, and maybe it's a completely insignificant move like the Kotteras trade, or a low-impact signing like Wright and he just wants to kvetch dammit! I don't think it's meatball, but just a bit of fun. Not at our expense or anything, just some sort of exercise in butthurt. I do it all the time.
Are exercises in butthurt sort of like kegel exercises?
Damn! If I can't sulk here, where can I sulk? I think that it is worth noting that a bunch of billionaires bought our team and we are being very considerate of their desire to spend as little of their money as possible. There is a difference between spending wisely and foolishly. We became accustomed to seeing stupid deals made by Hendry, so now we are forgiving of an ownership of a major market team pretending that it is running a non-profit corporation.
See?
...and furthermore, I watch what Oakland has been doing for years. There is more to it than parsimony. (I think that's the word.) If Brad Pitt can produce a winner on a shoestring, why can't Epstein/Hoyer? And if you tell me that it is a few years away, at my age that is like saying that they can't.
Beane took over as GM of Oakland in 1997 and they didn't reach the playoffs until 2000-03.
Quote from: Internet Apex on December 05, 2013, 02:59:32 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on December 05, 2013, 02:52:38 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on December 05, 2013, 02:34:31 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 05, 2013, 02:20:50 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 05, 2013, 01:17:30 PM
Yet in those 118 innings he gave up 105 hits and 45 walks.
Those numbers are pretty good, Stew.
Are you doing a bit?
I think he's doing a bit and he has a few people going. I'm not buying it anymore but I'd like to see how far he can go with it.
I don't think this is a bit. I think he's a meatball.
Maybe he just wants his Desipio back. This used to be a place to come and kvetch about the Cubs. But we all have Jepstink's dong lodged in the lining of our cold, dead hearts and do nothing but agree with them - save for random fits of Chuckwrongness. So now Stew sees a move, and maybe it's a completely insignificant move like the Kotteras trade, or a low-impact signing like Wright and he just wants to kvetch dammit! I don't think it's meatball, but just a bit of fun. Not at our expense or anything, just some sort of exercise in butthurt. I do it all the time.
Endorsed. I for one am glad Stew and Eli are here to keep us all from choking on Jepstink's breathtaking, veiny, throbbing members. I commend Stew for heeding Al Swearengen's advice and giving some back to the franchise that has beaten him down for longer than any of us:
"Pain, or damage don't end the world, or despair, or fuckin' beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man, and give some back."
Quote from: R-V on December 05, 2013, 04:13:25 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on December 05, 2013, 02:59:32 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on December 05, 2013, 02:52:38 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on December 05, 2013, 02:34:31 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 05, 2013, 02:20:50 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 05, 2013, 01:17:30 PM
Yet in those 118 innings he gave up 105 hits and 45 walks.
Those numbers are pretty good, Stew.
Are you doing a bit?
I think he's doing a bit and he has a few people going. I'm not buying it anymore but I'd like to see how far he can go with it.
I don't think this is a bit. I think he's a meatball.
Maybe he just wants his Desipio back. This used to be a place to come and kvetch about the Cubs. But we all have Jepstink's dong lodged in the lining of our cold, dead hearts and do nothing but agree with them - save for random fits of Chuckwrongness. So now Stew sees a move, and maybe it's a completely insignificant move like the Kotteras trade, or a low-impact signing like Wright and he just wants to kvetch dammit! I don't think it's meatball, but just a bit of fun. Not at our expense or anything, just some sort of exercise in butthurt. I do it all the time.
Endorsed. I for one am glad Stew and Eli are here to keep us all from choking on Jepstink's breathtaking, veiny, throbbing members. I commend Stew for heeding Al Swearengen's advice and giving some back to the franchise that has beaten him down for longer than any of us:
"Pain, or damage don't end the world, or despair, or fuckin' beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man, and give some back."
That was a damn good show. Modern day Shakespeare.
Fork, Hawk and myself met for lunch today and surmised that when the Cubs get good again this board will pick up.
Sure we scared off all the hardcore right wingers with sad feely parts but some of you stayed.
Sure we try talking about other stuff.
Sure Dolan hasn't admitted a new member in 8 years.
But damn it when the Cubs are good again we'll be here during work chattin about splooge and flappity flaps and maybe ol' Andy will even bring back some kind of Game Day Chat Thread thing.
I can dream.
Quote from: Slaky on December 05, 2013, 04:42:52 PM
Fork, Hawk and myself met for lunch today and surmised that when the Cubs get good again this board will pick up.
Sure we scared off all the hardcore right wingers with sad feely parts but some of you stayed.
Sure we try talking about other stuff.
Sure Dolan hasn't admitted a new member in 8 years.
But damn it when the Cubs are good again we'll be here during work chattin about splooge and flappity flaps and maybe ol' Andy will even bring back some kind of Game Day Chat Thread thing.
I can dream.
It's really weird to think that I haven't been actively involved in my Cubs fandom now for four years, and it doesn't really even bother me. A gap like that would have been unthinkable when I was a kid or a teenager and I prided myself on supporting the Cubs no matter how shitty they got, but now I see no problem with remaining technically interested as a fan and bookmarking 8 or 9 players on Minor League Baseball.com and following the prospect rankings while watching barely a dozen games until they start bringing up the kids.
It just isn't fair. St. Louis wins. Boston wins. San Francisco wins. The Whyt Sucks win. Even Arizona won. Everybody else wins. If there was a major league team in Stockton it would win.
(Don't tell me about goats. That happened in 1945, 37 years after the Cubs stopped winning World Series.)
Quote from: CBStew on December 05, 2013, 06:17:02 PM
It just isn't fair. St. Louis wins. Boston wins. San Francisco wins. The Whyt Sucks win. Even Arizona won. Everybody else wins. If there was a major league team in Stockton it would win.
(Don't tell me about goats. That happened in 1945, 37 years after the Cubs stopped winning World Series.)
Go Ports!
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on December 05, 2013, 02:52:38 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on December 05, 2013, 02:34:31 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 05, 2013, 02:20:50 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 05, 2013, 01:17:30 PM
Yet in those 118 innings he gave up 105 hits and 45 walks.
Those numbers are pretty good, Stew.
Are you doing a bit?
I think he's doing a bit and he has a few people going. I'm not buying it anymore but I'd like to see how far he can go with it.
I don't think this is a bit. I think he's a meatball.
Matzo ball?
Quote from: Shooter on December 05, 2013, 07:29:23 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on December 05, 2013, 02:52:38 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on December 05, 2013, 02:34:31 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 05, 2013, 02:20:50 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 05, 2013, 01:17:30 PM
Yet in those 118 innings he gave up 105 hits and 45 walks.
Those numbers are pretty good, Stew.
Are you doing a bit?
I think he's doing a bit and he has a few people going. I'm not buying it anymore but I'd like to see how far he can go with it.
I don't think this is a bit. I think he's a meatball.
Matzo ball?
A nice slice of brisket?
Quote from: CBStew on December 05, 2013, 04:01:02 PM
...and furthermore, I watch what Oakland has been doing for years. There is more to it than parsimony. (I think that's the word.) If Brad Pitt can produce a winner on a shoestring, why can't Epstein/Hoyer? And if you tell me that it is a few years away, at my age that is like saying that they can't.
But the A's were trying to win as many games as they could, so they did their best with that shoestring budget. The Cubs don't give a shit about winning more regular season games, they're trying to win championships. Fielding a team that's over 500 but not in the playoffs means they don't get a shot at players like Kris Bryant. At least it's a plan.
Quote from: Tony on December 05, 2013, 09:17:08 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 05, 2013, 04:01:02 PM
...and furthermore, I watch what Oakland has been doing for years. There is more to it than parsimony. (I think that's the word.) If Brad Pitt can produce a winner on a shoestring, why can't Epstein/Hoyer? And if you tell me that it is a few years away, at my age that is like saying that they can't.
But the A's were trying to win as many games as they could, so they did their best with that shoestring budget. The Cubs don't give a shit about winning more regular season games, they're trying to win championships. Fielding a team that's over 500 but not in the playoffs means they don't get a shot at players like Kris Bryant. At least it's a plan.
Plus, every penny they don't spend in 2012-2015 is a penny more they can spend on some shitty, too-old second baseman free agent when the Cubs look like they might be good in 2016.
Quote from: Tonker on December 06, 2013, 01:43:24 AM
Quote from: Tony on December 05, 2013, 09:17:08 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 05, 2013, 04:01:02 PM
...and furthermore, I watch what Oakland has been doing for years. There is more to it than parsimony. (I think that's the word.) If Brad Pitt can produce a winner on a shoestring, why can't Epstein/Hoyer? And if you tell me that it is a few years away, at my age that is like saying that they can't.
But the A's were trying to win as many games as they could, so they did their best with that shoestring budget. The Cubs don't give a shit about winning more regular season games, they're trying to win championships. Fielding a team that's over 500 but not in the playoffs means they don't get a shot at players like Kris Bryant. At least it's a plan.
Plus, every penny they don't spend in 2012-2015 is a penny more they can spend on some shitty, too-old second baseman free agent when the Cubs look like they might be good in 2016.
CANO 2018!!!
Quote from: R-V on December 05, 2013, 04:13:25 PM
Endorsed. I for one am glad Stew and Eli are here to keep us all from choking on Jepstink's breathtaking, veiny, throbbing members. I commend Stew for heeding Al Swearengen's advice and giving some back to the franchise that has beaten him down for longer than any of us:
Again, I should make it clear I think Jepstink is awesome. I think the longer-than-expected time to a good team is much more related to ownership than the front office. I really think Theo and Jed figured there would be more money to spend.
Quote from: Bort on December 05, 2013, 09:01:28 PM
Quote from: Shooter on December 05, 2013, 07:29:23 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on December 05, 2013, 02:52:38 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on December 05, 2013, 02:34:31 PM
Quote from: Eli on December 05, 2013, 02:20:50 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 05, 2013, 01:17:30 PM
Yet in those 118 innings he gave up 105 hits and 45 walks.
Those numbers are pretty good, Stew.
Are you doing a bit?
I think he's doing a bit and he has a few people going. I'm not buying it anymore but I'd like to see how far he can go with it.
I don't think this is a bit. I think he's a meatball.
Matzo ball?
A nice slice of brisket?
Flanken in a pot.
Quote from: Eli on December 06, 2013, 08:48:02 AM
Quote from: R-V on December 05, 2013, 04:13:25 PM
Endorsed. I for one am glad Stew and Eli are here to keep us all from choking on Jepstink's breathtaking, veiny, throbbing members. I commend Stew for heeding Al Swearengen's advice and giving some back to the franchise that has beaten him down for longer than any of us:
Again, I should make it clear I think Jepstink is awesome. I think the longer-than-expected time to a good team is much more related to ownership than the front office. I really think Theo and Jed figured there would be more money to spend.
I guess I still don't really see who they would have spent the money on if they had it.
Quote from: Slaky on December 06, 2013, 08:56:01 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 06, 2013, 08:48:02 AM
Quote from: R-V on December 05, 2013, 04:13:25 PM
Endorsed. I for one am glad Stew and Eli are here to keep us all from choking on Jepstink's breathtaking, veiny, throbbing members. I commend Stew for heeding Al Swearengen's advice and giving some back to the franchise that has beaten him down for longer than any of us:
Again, I should make it clear I think Jepstink is awesome. I think the longer-than-expected time to a good team is much more related to ownership than the front office. I really think Theo and Jed figured there would be more money to spend.
I guess I still don't really see who they would have spent the money on if they had it.
Good baseball players, ideally.
Quote from: Eli on December 06, 2013, 09:16:51 AM
Quote from: Slaky on December 06, 2013, 08:56:01 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 06, 2013, 08:48:02 AM
Quote from: R-V on December 05, 2013, 04:13:25 PM
Endorsed. I for one am glad Stew and Eli are here to keep us all from choking on Jepstink's breathtaking, veiny, throbbing members. I commend Stew for heeding Al Swearengen's advice and giving some back to the franchise that has beaten him down for longer than any of us:
Again, I should make it clear I think Jepstink is awesome. I think the longer-than-expected time to a good team is much more related to ownership than the front office. I really think Theo and Jed figured there would be more money to spend.
I guess I still don't really see who they would have spent the money on if they had it.
Good baseball players, ideally.
Fuck that. The
best baseball players.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 06, 2013, 09:19:42 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 06, 2013, 09:16:51 AM
Quote from: Slaky on December 06, 2013, 08:56:01 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 06, 2013, 08:48:02 AM
Quote from: R-V on December 05, 2013, 04:13:25 PM
Endorsed. I for one am glad Stew and Eli are here to keep us all from choking on Jepstink's breathtaking, veiny, throbbing members. I commend Stew for heeding Al Swearengen's advice and giving some back to the franchise that has beaten him down for longer than any of us:
Again, I should make it clear I think Jepstink is awesome. I think the longer-than-expected time to a good team is much more related to ownership than the front office. I really think Theo and Jed figured there would be more money to spend.
I guess I still don't really see who they would have spent the money on if they had it.
Good baseball players, ideally.
Fuck that. The best baseball players.
That's good stuff, guys. Good ideas all around.
Get good players! Who? The good ones.
Quote from: Slaky on December 06, 2013, 09:31:29 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 06, 2013, 09:19:42 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 06, 2013, 09:16:51 AM
Quote from: Slaky on December 06, 2013, 08:56:01 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 06, 2013, 08:48:02 AM
Quote from: R-V on December 05, 2013, 04:13:25 PM
Endorsed. I for one am glad Stew and Eli are here to keep us all from choking on Jepstink's breathtaking, veiny, throbbing members. I commend Stew for heeding Al Swearengen's advice and giving some back to the franchise that has beaten him down for longer than any of us:
Again, I should make it clear I think Jepstink is awesome. I think the longer-than-expected time to a good team is much more related to ownership than the front office. I really think Theo and Jed figured there would be more money to spend.
I guess I still don't really see who they would have spent the money on if they had it.
Good baseball players, ideally.
Fuck that. The best baseball players.
That's good stuff, guys. Good ideas all around.
Get good players! Who? The good ones.
I'm just don't see the point of going over it again. I'm being flippant, sure, but it's weird to act like there haven't been plenty of good players available since the new front office took over. I could name a bunch of them and then people would say it's just hindsight and things would get really annoying really fast, if they haven't already.
Quote from: Slaky on December 06, 2013, 09:31:29 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 06, 2013, 09:19:42 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 06, 2013, 09:16:51 AM
Quote from: Slaky on December 06, 2013, 08:56:01 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 06, 2013, 08:48:02 AM
Quote from: R-V on December 05, 2013, 04:13:25 PM
Endorsed. I for one am glad Stew and Eli are here to keep us all from choking on Jepstink's breathtaking, veiny, throbbing members. I commend Stew for heeding Al Swearengen's advice and giving some back to the franchise that has beaten him down for longer than any of us:
Again, I should make it clear I think Jepstink is awesome. I think the longer-than-expected time to a good team is much more related to ownership than the front office. I really think Theo and Jed figured there would be more money to spend.
I guess I still don't really see who they would have spent the money on if they had it.
Good baseball players, ideally.
Fuck that. The best baseball players.
That's good stuff, guys. Good ideas all around.
Get good players! Who? The good ones.
Darvish and Cespedes are two that come to mind. Can't think of any Real Americans off the top of my head that would have been worth fat stacks.
Quote from: Slaky on December 05, 2013, 04:42:52 PM
Fork, Hawk and myself met for lunch today and surmised that when the Cubs get good again this board will pick up.
Sure we scared off all the hardcore right wingers with sad feely parts but some of you stayed.
Sure we try talking about other stuff.
Sure Dolan hasn't admitted a new member in 8 years.
But damn it when the Cubs are good again we'll be here during work chattin about splooge and flappity flaps and maybe ol' Andy will even bring back some kind of Game Day Chat Thread thing.
I can dream.
I have slowed way down on my Cub fandom waiting patiently for them to get good again. Right now as they shuttle through crappy players, 90 plus loss seasons, no free agent activity, and playoff elimination by May 1st my interest has waned. Once the kids start coming up interest for me will pick up again.
Quote from: R-V on December 06, 2013, 09:40:33 AM
Quote from: Slaky on December 06, 2013, 09:31:29 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 06, 2013, 09:19:42 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 06, 2013, 09:16:51 AM
Quote from: Slaky on December 06, 2013, 08:56:01 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 06, 2013, 08:48:02 AM
Quote from: R-V on December 05, 2013, 04:13:25 PM
Endorsed. I for one am glad Stew and Eli are here to keep us all from choking on Jepstink's breathtaking, veiny, throbbing members. I commend Stew for heeding Al Swearengen's advice and giving some back to the franchise that has beaten him down for longer than any of us:
Again, I should make it clear I think Jepstink is awesome. I think the longer-than-expected time to a good team is much more related to ownership than the front office. I really think Theo and Jed figured there would be more money to spend.
I guess I still don't really see who they would have spent the money on if they had it.
Good baseball players, ideally.
Fuck that. The best baseball players.
That's good stuff, guys. Good ideas all around.
Get good players! Who? The good ones.
Darvish and Cespedes are two that come to mind. Can't think of any Real Americans off the top of my head that would have been worth fat stacks.
I believe the Cubes were first runners up both of those guys.
Maybe they were outbid because they were handcuffed by ownership, maybe because Oopstink didn't value them quite as highly as Texas and Oakland. WHO COULD SAY FOR SURE?
Quote from: R-V on December 06, 2013, 09:40:33 AM
Quote from: Slaky on December 06, 2013, 09:31:29 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 06, 2013, 09:19:42 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 06, 2013, 09:16:51 AM
Quote from: Slaky on December 06, 2013, 08:56:01 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 06, 2013, 08:48:02 AM
Quote from: R-V on December 05, 2013, 04:13:25 PM
Endorsed. I for one am glad Stew and Eli are here to keep us all from choking on Jepstink's breathtaking, veiny, throbbing members. I commend Stew for heeding Al Swearengen's advice and giving some back to the franchise that has beaten him down for longer than any of us:
Again, I should make it clear I think Jepstink is awesome. I think the longer-than-expected time to a good team is much more related to ownership than the front office. I really think Theo and Jed figured there would be more money to spend.
I guess I still don't really see who they would have spent the money on if they had it.
Good baseball players, ideally.
Fuck that. The best baseball players.
That's good stuff, guys. Good ideas all around.
Get good players! Who? The good ones.
Darvish and Cespedes are two that come to mind. Can't think of any Real Americans off the top of my head that would have been worth fat stacks.
Choo would be pretty great. He'd be like Fukudome except better and more Korean.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 06, 2013, 09:47:22 AM
Quote from: R-V on December 06, 2013, 09:40:33 AM
Quote from: Slaky on December 06, 2013, 09:31:29 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 06, 2013, 09:19:42 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 06, 2013, 09:16:51 AM
Quote from: Slaky on December 06, 2013, 08:56:01 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 06, 2013, 08:48:02 AM
Quote from: R-V on December 05, 2013, 04:13:25 PM
Endorsed. I for one am glad Stew and Eli are here to keep us all from choking on Jepstink's breathtaking, veiny, throbbing members. I commend Stew for heeding Al Swearengen's advice and giving some back to the franchise that has beaten him down for longer than any of us:
Again, I should make it clear I think Jepstink is awesome. I think the longer-than-expected time to a good team is much more related to ownership than the front office. I really think Theo and Jed figured there would be more money to spend.
I guess I still don't really see who they would have spent the money on if they had it.
Good baseball players, ideally.
Fuck that. The best baseball players.
That's good stuff, guys. Good ideas all around.
Get good players! Who? The good ones.
Darvish and Cespedes are two that come to mind. Can't think of any Real Americans off the top of my head that would have been worth fat stacks.
I believe the Cubes were first runners up both of those guys.
Maybe they were outbid because they were handcuffed by ownership, maybe because Oopstink didn't value them quite as highly as Texas and Oakland. WHO COULD SAY FOR SURE?
My hunch (or what I'd like to believe) is the bolded part. They were also the runner-up for Puig. And they would have had Anibal Sanchez instead of Edwin Jackson if there was a few million more available.
I said I wasn't going to do this.
Quote from: R-V on December 06, 2013, 09:40:33 AM
Quote from: Slaky on December 06, 2013, 09:31:29 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 06, 2013, 09:19:42 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 06, 2013, 09:16:51 AM
Quote from: Slaky on December 06, 2013, 08:56:01 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 06, 2013, 08:48:02 AM
Quote from: R-V on December 05, 2013, 04:13:25 PM
Endorsed. I for one am glad Stew and Eli are here to keep us all from choking on Jepstink's breathtaking, veiny, throbbing members. I commend Stew for heeding Al Swearengen's advice and giving some back to the franchise that has beaten him down for longer than any of us:
Again, I should make it clear I think Jepstink is awesome. I think the longer-than-expected time to a good team is much more related to ownership than the front office. I really think Theo and Jed figured there would be more money to spend.
I guess I still don't really see who they would have spent the money on if they had it.
Good baseball players, ideally.
Fuck that. The best baseball players.
That's good stuff, guys. Good ideas all around.
Get good players! Who? The good ones.
Darvish and Cespedes are two that come to mind. Can't think of any Real Americans off the top of my head that would have been worth fat stacks.
It would have been pretty cool to have Darvish.
Quote from: ChuckD on December 06, 2013, 08:45:44 AM
Quote from: Tonker on December 06, 2013, 01:43:24 AM
Quote from: Tony on December 05, 2013, 09:17:08 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 05, 2013, 04:01:02 PM
...and furthermore, I watch what Oakland has been doing for years. There is more to it than parsimony. (I think that's the word.) If Brad Pitt can produce a winner on a shoestring, why can't Epstein/Hoyer? And if you tell me that it is a few years away, at my age that is like saying that they can't.
But the A's were trying to win as many games as they could, so they did their best with that shoestring budget. The Cubs don't give a shit about winning more regular season games, they're trying to win championships. Fielding a team that's over 500 but not in the playoffs means they don't get a shot at players like Kris Bryant. At least it's a plan.
Plus, every penny they don't spend in 2012-2015 is a penny more they can spend on some shitty, too-old second baseman free agent when the Cubs look like they might be good in 2016.
CANO 2018 2024!!!
It's not the money it's the years'd
Quote from: Eli on December 06, 2013, 09:57:27 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 06, 2013, 09:47:22 AM
Quote from: R-V on December 06, 2013, 09:40:33 AM
Quote from: Slaky on December 06, 2013, 09:31:29 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 06, 2013, 09:19:42 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 06, 2013, 09:16:51 AM
Quote from: Slaky on December 06, 2013, 08:56:01 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 06, 2013, 08:48:02 AM
Quote from: R-V on December 05, 2013, 04:13:25 PM
Endorsed. I for one am glad Stew and Eli are here to keep us all from choking on Jepstink's breathtaking, veiny, throbbing members. I commend Stew for heeding Al Swearengen's advice and giving some back to the franchise that has beaten him down for longer than any of us:
Again, I should make it clear I think Jepstink is awesome. I think the longer-than-expected time to a good team is much more related to ownership than the front office. I really think Theo and Jed figured there would be more money to spend.
I guess I still don't really see who they would have spent the money on if they had it.
Good baseball players, ideally.
Fuck that. The best baseball players.
That's good stuff, guys. Good ideas all around.
Get good players! Who? The good ones.
Darvish and Cespedes are two that come to mind. Can't think of any Real Americans off the top of my head that would have been worth fat stacks.
I believe the Cubes were first runners up both of those guys.
Maybe they were outbid because they were handcuffed by ownership, maybe because Oopstink didn't value them quite as highly as Texas and Oakland. WHO COULD SAY FOR SURE?
My hunch (or what I'd like to believe) is the bolded part. They were also the runner-up for Puig. And they would have had Anibal Sanchez instead of Edwin Jackson if there was a few million more available.
I said I wasn't going to do this.
I didn't ask you to do it to mock you. I asked because I was curious.
Now we are conversing, you see?
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 06, 2013, 10:13:59 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on December 06, 2013, 08:45:44 AM
Quote from: Tonker on December 06, 2013, 01:43:24 AM
Quote from: Tony on December 05, 2013, 09:17:08 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 05, 2013, 04:01:02 PM
...and furthermore, I watch what Oakland has been doing for years. There is more to it than parsimony. (I think that's the word.) If Brad Pitt can produce a winner on a shoestring, why can't Epstein/Hoyer? And if you tell me that it is a few years away, at my age that is like saying that they can't.
But the A's were trying to win as many games as they could, so they did their best with that shoestring budget. The Cubs don't give a shit about winning more regular season games, they're trying to win championships. Fielding a team that's over 500 but not in the playoffs means they don't get a shot at players like Kris Bryant. At least it's a plan.
Plus, every penny they don't spend in 2012-2015 is a penny more they can spend on some shitty, too-old second baseman free agent when the Cubs look like they might be good in 2016.
CANO 2018 2024!!!
It's not the money it's the years'd
I'm not one to complain about baseball players making a lot of money, but I wouldn't mind see him getting slapped down to 9 yrs / 200 million out of principle. WHO SAYS "I REALLY NEED YOU TO PAY ME ANOTHER $25 MILLION DOLLARS WHEN I'M 40 AND SLOW AND BROKEN AND SHITTY SO FUCK YOUR 9 YRS AND $225 MILLION?"
Edit: GODDAMMIT, MARINERS. 10yrs/$240MM (http://sports.yahoo.com/news/robinson-cano-agrees-to-monster-deal-with-mariners-161141867.html)
Quote from: ChuckD on December 06, 2013, 10:25:13 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 06, 2013, 10:13:59 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on December 06, 2013, 08:45:44 AM
Quote from: Tonker on December 06, 2013, 01:43:24 AM
Quote from: Tony on December 05, 2013, 09:17:08 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 05, 2013, 04:01:02 PM
...and furthermore, I watch what Oakland has been doing for years. There is more to it than parsimony. (I think that's the word.) If Brad Pitt can produce a winner on a shoestring, why can't Epstein/Hoyer? And if you tell me that it is a few years away, at my age that is like saying that they can't.
But the A's were trying to win as many games as they could, so they did their best with that shoestring budget. The Cubs don't give a shit about winning more regular season games, they're trying to win championships. Fielding a team that's over 500 but not in the playoffs means they don't get a shot at players like Kris Bryant. At least it's a plan.
Plus, every penny they don't spend in 2012-2015 is a penny more they can spend on some shitty, too-old second baseman free agent when the Cubs look like they might be good in 2016.
CANO 2018 2024!!!
It's not the money it's the years'd
I'm not one to complain about baseball players making a lot of money, but I wouldn't mind see him getting slapped down to 9 yrs / 200 million out of principle. WHO SAYS "I REALLY NEED YOU TO PAY ME ANOTHER $25 MILLION DOLLARS WHEN I'M 40 AND SLOW AND BROKEN AND SHITTY SO FUCK YOUR 9 YRS AND $225 MILLION?"
Who says that? A guy who's now getting 10 years/$240MM, that's who.
(http://i.imgur.com/fagMcGb.jpg)
Sorry, Chuck.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 06, 2013, 10:27:56 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on December 06, 2013, 10:25:13 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 06, 2013, 10:13:59 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on December 06, 2013, 08:45:44 AM
Quote from: Tonker on December 06, 2013, 01:43:24 AM
Quote from: Tony on December 05, 2013, 09:17:08 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 05, 2013, 04:01:02 PM
...and furthermore, I watch what Oakland has been doing for years. There is more to it than parsimony. (I think that's the word.) If Brad Pitt can produce a winner on a shoestring, why can't Epstein/Hoyer? And if you tell me that it is a few years away, at my age that is like saying that they can't.
But the A's were trying to win as many games as they could, so they did their best with that shoestring budget. The Cubs don't give a shit about winning more regular season games, they're trying to win championships. Fielding a team that's over 500 but not in the playoffs means they don't get a shot at players like Kris Bryant. At least it's a plan.
Plus, every penny they don't spend in 2012-2015 is a penny more they can spend on some shitty, too-old second baseman free agent when the Cubs look like they might be good in 2016.
CANO 2018 2024!!!
It's not the money it's the years'd
I'm not one to complain about baseball players making a lot of money, but I wouldn't mind see him getting slapped down to 9 yrs / 200 million out of principle. WHO SAYS "I REALLY NEED YOU TO PAY ME ANOTHER $25 MILLION DOLLARS WHEN I'M 40 AND SLOW AND BROKEN AND SHITTY SO FUCK YOUR 9 YRS AND $225 MILLION?"
Who says that? A guy who's now getting 10 years/$240MM, that's who.
(http://i.imgur.com/fagMcGb.jpg)
I'M SURE THEY'LL BE VERY SATISFIED WITH HIS PERFORMANCE AND NOT REGRET GIVING HIM A QUARTER OF A BILLION DOLLARS AT ALL.
And Granderson gets 4 years from the Mets.
And Feldmania gets 3/$30 from the Astros and will likely be their Opening Day starter.
Baseball is a hell of a thing.
I didn't realize that Felix was the only Mariner under contract after 2014. The contract is insane, of course, but it explains why they had so much to spend. Sounds like they're going to go hard after David Price now.
Quote from: Eli on December 06, 2013, 11:17:53 AM
I didn't realize that Felix was the only Mariner under contract after 2014. The contract is insane, of course, but it explains why they had so much to spend. Sounds like they're going to go hard after David Price now.
But WE were supposed to get David Price!
Quote from: PenFoe on December 06, 2013, 11:18:47 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 06, 2013, 11:17:53 AM
I didn't realize that Felix was the only Mariner under contract after 2014. The contract is insane, of course, but it explains why they had so much to spend. Sounds like they're going to go hard after David Price now.
But WE were supposed to get David Price!
WE'll get nothing and like it.
Quote from: Internet Apex on December 06, 2013, 12:31:14 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on December 06, 2013, 11:18:47 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 06, 2013, 11:17:53 AM
I didn't realize that Felix was the only Mariner under contract after 2014. The contract is insane, of course, but it explains why they had so much to spend. Sounds like they're going to go hard after David Price now.
But WE were supposed to get David Price!
WE'll get nothing and like it.
Sorry, Stew.
Quote from: Bort on December 06, 2013, 12:43:46 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on December 06, 2013, 12:31:14 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on December 06, 2013, 11:18:47 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 06, 2013, 11:17:53 AM
I didn't realize that Felix was the only Mariner under contract after 2014. The contract is insane, of course, but it explains why they had so much to spend. Sounds like they're going to go hard after David Price now.
But WE were supposed to get David Price!
WE'll get nothing and like it.
Sorry, Stew.
DARWIN BARNEY AND LUIS VALBUENA!
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 06, 2013, 09:47:22 AM
Quote from: R-V on December 06, 2013, 09:40:33 AM
Quote from: Slaky on December 06, 2013, 09:31:29 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 06, 2013, 09:19:42 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 06, 2013, 09:16:51 AM
Quote from: Slaky on December 06, 2013, 08:56:01 AM
Quote from: Eli on December 06, 2013, 08:48:02 AM
Quote from: R-V on December 05, 2013, 04:13:25 PM
Endorsed. I for one am glad Stew and Eli are here to keep us all from choking on Jepstink's breathtaking, veiny, throbbing members. I commend Stew for heeding Al Swearengen's advice and giving some back to the franchise that has beaten him down for longer than any of us:
Again, I should make it clear I think Jepstink is awesome. I think the longer-than-expected time to a good team is much more related to ownership than the front office. I really think Theo and Jed figured there would be more money to spend.
I guess I still don't really see who they would have spent the money on if they had it.
Good baseball players, ideally.
Fuck that. The best baseball players.
That's good stuff, guys. Good ideas all around.
Get good players! Who? The good ones.
Darvish and Cespedes are two that come to mind. Can't think of any Real Americans off the top of my head that would have been worth fat stacks.
I believe the Cubes were first runners up both of those guys.
Maybe they were outbid because they were handcuffed by ownership, maybe because Oopstink didn't value them quite as highly as Texas and Oakland. WHO COULD SAY FOR SURE?
I really wanted Darvish. Plenty of Oopstink butthurt for that one.
Sploosh. (http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/01/16/a-number-of-owners-are-convinced-that-the-cubs-will-sign-masahiro-tanaka/)
Quote from: ChuckD on January 17, 2014, 12:58:20 AM
Sploosh. (http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/01/16/a-number-of-owners-are-convinced-that-the-cubs-will-sign-masahiro-tanaka/)
Not a fucking chance.
Quote from: Slaky on January 17, 2014, 09:24:48 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 17, 2014, 12:58:20 AM
Sploosh. (http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/01/16/a-number-of-owners-are-convinced-that-the-cubs-will-sign-masahiro-tanaka/)
Not a fucking chance.
Unsplooshed
Quote from: Yeti on January 17, 2014, 09:36:08 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 17, 2014, 09:24:48 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 17, 2014, 12:58:20 AM
Sploosh. (http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/01/16/a-number-of-owners-are-convinced-that-the-cubs-will-sign-masahiro-tanaka/)
Not a fucking chance.
Unsplooshed
Give me a break. Does anyone not named Crane Kenney think this is gonna happen?
Quote from: Slaky on January 17, 2014, 09:37:07 AM
Quote from: Yeti on January 17, 2014, 09:36:08 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 17, 2014, 09:24:48 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 17, 2014, 12:58:20 AM
Sploosh. (http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/01/16/a-number-of-owners-are-convinced-that-the-cubs-will-sign-masahiro-tanaka/)
Not a fucking chance.
Unsplooshed
Give me a break. Does anyone not named Crane Kenney think this is gonna happen?
"The Cubs, meanwhile, have set aside a sizable chunk of their middle-of-the-pack payroll budget to stay in the Tanaka hunt, sacrificing possible acquisitions early in the offseason to have the wherewithal to make a serious run."
Hey Cub fans, I've got a beautiful bridge you may want to buy.
I'll bite. They'll sign him AND trade for David Price, convert Shark into something, and have a rotation of Tanaka, Price, Wood, Jackson, and Jake Arrieta. Rizzo gives us a .310/.390./560 line and Castro brings his OPS up to .800, My Colt or Bryant get called up and become the balls at second, Darwin Barney gets released and signed by the St. Louis Cardinals who all catch his badatbaseballitis, Jorge Soler gets called up, and... goddam it, did I finish my bottle of Scotch already?
So let's have a fun exercise in the vein of TJ's post.
What if the Cubs are (with roster as presently constructed) somehow hanging in the race in July. It's late July and let's say the Cubs inexplicably hold a 3-4 game lead in the division. Maybe the Cards have some crippling injuries. Maybe the Pirates are back to being the Pirates. But let's just say Cub pitching has far exceeded expectations and while they still can't hit for shit, they're just not giving up enough runs to lose.
What do you think happens?
Again it's a slim lead nearing the trade deadline and in this fake future I've created everyone's waiting for the other shoe to drop. The Cubs don't have the players to win the division. Sell? Buy? Stand pat?
I think it'd be really interesting to see what the front office would do.
Quote from: Slaky on January 17, 2014, 12:04:37 PM
So let's have a fun exercise in the vein of TJ's post.
What if the Cubs are (with roster as presently constructed) somehow hanging in the race in July. It's late July and let's say the Cubs inexplicably hold a 3-4 game lead in the division. Maybe the Cards have some crippling injuries. Maybe the Pirates are back to being the Pirates. But let's just say Cub pitching has far exceeded expectations and while they still can't hit for shit, they're just not giving up enough runs to lose.
What do you think happens?
Again it's a slim lead nearing the trade deadline and in this fake future I've created everyone's waiting for the other shoe to drop. The Cubs don't have the players to win the division. Sell? Buy? Stand pat?
I think it'd be really interesting to see what the front office would do.
They'd probably do something for sure
Quote from: Slaky on January 17, 2014, 12:04:37 PM
So let's have a fun exercise in the vein of TJ's post.
What if the Cubs are (with roster as presently constructed) somehow hanging in the race in July. It's late July and let's say the Cubs inexplicably hold a 3-4 game lead in the division. Maybe the Cards have some crippling injuries. Maybe the Pirates are back to being the Pirates. But let's just say Cub pitching has far exceeded expectations and while they still can't hit for shit, they're just not giving up enough runs to lose.
What do you think happens?
Again it's a slim lead nearing the trade deadline and in this fake future I've created everyone's waiting for the other shoe to drop. The Cubs don't have the players to win the division. Sell? Buy? Stand pat?
I think it'd be really interesting to see what the front office would do.
I think I want them to stand pat. I'm no genius, but I feel like if they're that close with the current roster (they might have had to call someone up to be in that position, though), then 2015 should be fantastic,
Quote from: Slaky on January 17, 2014, 12:04:37 PM
So let's have a fun exercise in the vein of TJ's post.
What if the Cubs are (with roster as presently constructed) somehow hanging in the race in July. It's late July and let's say the Cubs inexplicably hold a 3-4 game lead in the division. Maybe the Cards have some crippling injuries. Maybe the Pirates are back to being the Pirates. But let's just say Cub pitching has far exceeded expectations and while they still can't hit for shit, they're just not giving up enough runs to lose.
What do you think happens?
Again it's a slim lead nearing the trade deadline and in this fake future I've created everyone's waiting for the other shoe to drop. The Cubs don't have the players to win the division. Sell? Buy? Stand pat?
I think it'd be really interesting to see what the front office would do.
Stand pat. I don't see them trading a single valuable piece of the future to back a team of Ruggiano, Schierholtz, Barney, et al.
Quote from: Eli
But every chance to win is sacred though, right Epstein?
Quote from: PenFoe on January 17, 2014, 12:13:50 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 17, 2014, 12:04:37 PM
So let's have a fun exercise in the vein of TJ's post.
What if the Cubs are (with roster as presently constructed) somehow hanging in the race in July. It's late July and let's say the Cubs inexplicably hold a 3-4 game lead in the division. Maybe the Cards have some crippling injuries. Maybe the Pirates are back to being the Pirates. But let's just say Cub pitching has far exceeded expectations and while they still can't hit for shit, they're just not giving up enough runs to lose.
What do you think happens?
Again it's a slim lead nearing the trade deadline and in this fake future I've created everyone's waiting for the other shoe to drop. The Cubs don't have the players to win the division. Sell? Buy? Stand pat?
I think it'd be really interesting to see what the front office would do.
Stand pat. I don't see them trading a single valuable piece of the future to back a team of Ruggiano, Schierholtz, Barney, et al.
^^^
At this point, really anyone on the roster is expendable save for Castro, Rizzo, and maybe Snorknado. The rest are just keeping seats warm while Jepstink and CUBBISNATION waits for the farm to bear fruit. But, they wouldn't trade key parts of the plan they've been working on now for 3 seasons unless whoever they were acquiring could help them long term -- I mean, I guess if someone offered the equivalent of the Aramis Ramirez / Kenny Lofton deal, then sure, take it since Aramis was young and controllable and a beast. But selling? If you think shit's bad now, imagine the shitstorm that would ensue if Jepstink held a fire sale with a 3-4 game lead in late summer.
Quote from: Brownie on January 17, 2014, 09:49:22 AM
I'll bite. They'll sign him AND trade for David Price, convert Shark into something, and have a rotation of Tanaka, Price, Wood, Jackson, and Jake Arrieta. Rizzo gives us a .310/.390./560 line and Castro brings his OPS up to .800, My Colt or Bryant get called up and become the balls at second, Darwin Barney gets released and signed by the St. Louis Cardinals who all catch his badatbaseballitis, Jorge Soler gets called up, and... goddam it, did I finish my bottle of Scotch already?
I think you did because you said Kris Bryant was going to play 2nd base.
Quote from: R-V on January 17, 2014, 12:24:41 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 17, 2014, 09:49:22 AM
I'll bite. They'll sign him AND trade for David Price, convert Shark into something, and have a rotation of Tanaka, Price, Wood, Jackson, and Jake Arrieta. Rizzo gives us a .310/.390./560 line and Castro brings his OPS up to .800, My Colt or Bryant get called up and become the balls at second, Darwin Barney gets released and signed by the St. Louis Cardinals who all catch his badatbaseballitis, Jorge Soler gets called up, and... goddam it, did I finish my bottle of Scotch already?
I think you did because you said Kris Bryant was going to play 2nd base.
Or Left field?
Quote from: Slaky on January 17, 2014, 09:37:07 AM
Quote from: Yeti on January 17, 2014, 09:36:08 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 17, 2014, 09:24:48 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 17, 2014, 12:58:20 AM
Sploosh. (http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/01/16/a-number-of-owners-are-convinced-that-the-cubs-will-sign-masahiro-tanaka/)
Not a fucking chance.
Unsplooshed
Give me a break. Does anyone not named Crane Kenney think this is gonna happen?
If he won't sign here because he wants to live in New York or L.A. or pitch for a contender, I think it's cool that Theo would drive the price up. Hell, why not?
Quote from: Yeti on January 17, 2014, 12:12:57 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 17, 2014, 12:04:37 PM
So let's have a fun exercise in the vein of TJ's post.
What if the Cubs are (with roster as presently constructed) somehow hanging in the race in July. It's late July and let's say the Cubs inexplicably hold a 3-4 game lead in the division. Maybe the Cards have some crippling injuries. Maybe the Pirates are back to being the Pirates. But let's just say Cub pitching has far exceeded expectations and while they still can't hit for shit, they're just not giving up enough runs to lose.
What do you think happens?
Again it's a slim lead nearing the trade deadline and in this fake future I've created everyone's waiting for the other shoe to drop. The Cubs don't have the players to win the division. Sell? Buy? Stand pat?
I think it'd be really interesting to see what the front office would do.
I think I want them to stand pat. I'm no genius, but I feel like if they're that close with the current roster (they might have had to call someone up to be in that position, though), then 2015 should be fantastic,
At this point, the project is getting closer to fruition. Even if the Cubs conten at midsummer, there's no reason to deviate from that. The only non-pat-standing that could happen in this instance would be the addition of Baez if he tortures AAA pitching like he did to AA pitching.
Quote from: Fork on January 17, 2014, 12:45:31 PM
Quote from: Yeti on January 17, 2014, 12:12:57 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 17, 2014, 12:04:37 PM
So let's have a fun exercise in the vein of TJ's post.
What if the Cubs are (with roster as presently constructed) somehow hanging in the race in July. It's late July and let's say the Cubs inexplicably hold a 3-4 game lead in the division. Maybe the Cards have some crippling injuries. Maybe the Pirates are back to being the Pirates. But let's just say Cub pitching has far exceeded expectations and while they still can't hit for shit, they're just not giving up enough runs to lose.
What do you think happens?
Again it's a slim lead nearing the trade deadline and in this fake future I've created everyone's waiting for the other shoe to drop. The Cubs don't have the players to win the division. Sell? Buy? Stand pat?
I think it'd be really interesting to see what the front office would do.
I think I want them to stand pat. I'm no genius, but I feel like if they're that close with the current roster (they might have had to call someone up to be in that position, though), then 2015 should be fantastic,
At this point, the project is getting closer to fruition. Even if the Cubs conten at midsummer, there's no reason to deviate from that. The only non-pat-standing that could happen in this instance would be the addition of Baez if he tortures AAA pitching like he did to AA pitching.
So with the consensus being "stand pat" with the exception for Five Head Todd's pointless offering - imagine the shitstorm from the Haughs, Sullys, Morrisseys, Telanders, et. al. if the Cubs didn't beef up the roster with a division lead in July.
It would be just about the greatest spectacle in media history.
Quote from: Slaky on January 17, 2014, 12:47:26 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 17, 2014, 12:45:31 PM
Quote from: Yeti on January 17, 2014, 12:12:57 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 17, 2014, 12:04:37 PM
So let's have a fun exercise in the vein of TJ's post.
What if the Cubs are (with roster as presently constructed) somehow hanging in the race in July. It's late July and let's say the Cubs inexplicably hold a 3-4 game lead in the division. Maybe the Cards have some crippling injuries. Maybe the Pirates are back to being the Pirates. But let's just say Cub pitching has far exceeded expectations and while they still can't hit for shit, they're just not giving up enough runs to lose.
What do you think happens?
Again it's a slim lead nearing the trade deadline and in this fake future I've created everyone's waiting for the other shoe to drop. The Cubs don't have the players to win the division. Sell? Buy? Stand pat?
I think it'd be really interesting to see what the front office would do.
I think I want them to stand pat. I'm no genius, but I feel like if they're that close with the current roster (they might have had to call someone up to be in that position, though), then 2015 should be fantastic,
At this point, the project is getting closer to fruition. Even if the Cubs conten at midsummer, there's no reason to deviate from that. The only non-pat-standing that could happen in this instance would be the addition of Baez if he tortures AAA pitching like he did to AA pitching.
So with the consensus being "stand pat" with the exception for Five Head Todd's pointless offering - imagine the shitstorm from the Haughs, Sullys, Morrisseys, Telanders, et. al. if the Cubs didn't beef up the roster with a division lead in July.
It would be just about the greatest spectacle in media history.
If we're talking about a slight division lead and the deal on the table is a player who helps now but not so much in the long run in exchange for Baez, Bryant, Almora or Soler, I think you say no. The opportunity to win the division is not worth sacrificing a player you're counting on to build your franchise. If they would be getting back someone that actually could help over the next two years - a pitcher with a decent upside, say, well, yeah. Do it probably.
I think the theory STAND PAT isn't even feasible without knowing what the deal would be. It's a more useful exercise to look at their assets and decide what they should want back in return. When I read the original hypothetical I thought it was with regard to a "white flag" type of trade. That's a question we'd have to ponder at the moment too. If the Cubs were 3 games up in July and a contending team wanted to know what they'd take for Snork, I think it'd be wise to consider what prospects they've got that can help us beyond Snork - even if it made the CubbieBlueStews of the world crap their pants.
Quote from: InternetApex on January 17, 2014, 12:55:37 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 17, 2014, 12:47:26 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 17, 2014, 12:45:31 PM
Quote from: Yeti on January 17, 2014, 12:12:57 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 17, 2014, 12:04:37 PM
So let's have a fun exercise in the vein of TJ's post.
What if the Cubs are (with roster as presently constructed) somehow hanging in the race in July. It's late July and let's say the Cubs inexplicably hold a 3-4 game lead in the division. Maybe the Cards have some crippling injuries. Maybe the Pirates are back to being the Pirates. But let's just say Cub pitching has far exceeded expectations and while they still can't hit for shit, they're just not giving up enough runs to lose.
What do you think happens?
Again it's a slim lead nearing the trade deadline and in this fake future I've created everyone's waiting for the other shoe to drop. The Cubs don't have the players to win the division. Sell? Buy? Stand pat?
I think it'd be really interesting to see what the front office would do.
I think I want them to stand pat. I'm no genius, but I feel like if they're that close with the current roster (they might have had to call someone up to be in that position, though), then 2015 should be fantastic,
At this point, the project is getting closer to fruition. Even if the Cubs conten at midsummer, there's no reason to deviate from that. The only non-pat-standing that could happen in this instance would be the addition of Baez if he tortures AAA pitching like he did to AA pitching.
So with the consensus being "stand pat" with the exception for Five Head Todd's pointless offering - imagine the shitstorm from the Haughs, Sullys, Morrisseys, Telanders, et. al. if the Cubs didn't beef up the roster with a division lead in July.
It would be just about the greatest spectacle in media history.
If we're talking about a slight division lead and the deal on the table is a player who helps now but not so much in the long run in exchange for Baez, Bryant, Almora or Soler, I think you say no. The opportunity to win the division is not worth sacrificing a player you're counting on to build your franchise. If they would be getting back someone that actually could help over the next two years - a pitcher with a decent upside, say, well, yeah. Do it probably.
I think the theory STAND PAT isn't even feasible without knowing what the deal would be. It's a more useful exercise to look at their assets and decide what they should want back in return. When I read the original hypothetical I thought it was with regard to a "white flag" type of trade. That's a question we'd have to ponder at the moment too. If the Cubs were 3 games up in July and a contending team wanted to know what they'd take for Snork, I think it'd be wise to consider what prospects they've got that can help us beyond Snork - even if it made the CubbieBlueStews of the world crap their pants.
What makes me crap my pants is that we are 5 and half weeks to go before Spring training and here we are trying to decide if we are going to the World Series this year or the year after.
Quote from: CBStew on January 17, 2014, 01:17:44 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 17, 2014, 12:55:37 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 17, 2014, 12:47:26 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 17, 2014, 12:45:31 PM
Quote from: Yeti on January 17, 2014, 12:12:57 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 17, 2014, 12:04:37 PM
So let's have a fun exercise in the vein of TJ's post.
What if the Cubs are (with roster as presently constructed) somehow hanging in the race in July. It's late July and let's say the Cubs inexplicably hold a 3-4 game lead in the division. Maybe the Cards have some crippling injuries. Maybe the Pirates are back to being the Pirates. But let's just say Cub pitching has far exceeded expectations and while they still can't hit for shit, they're just not giving up enough runs to lose.
What do you think happens?
Again it's a slim lead nearing the trade deadline and in this fake future I've created everyone's waiting for the other shoe to drop. The Cubs don't have the players to win the division. Sell? Buy? Stand pat?
I think it'd be really interesting to see what the front office would do.
I think I want them to stand pat. I'm no genius, but I feel like if they're that close with the current roster (they might have had to call someone up to be in that position, though), then 2015 should be fantastic,
At this point, the project is getting closer to fruition. Even if the Cubs conten at midsummer, there's no reason to deviate from that. The only non-pat-standing that could happen in this instance would be the addition of Baez if he tortures AAA pitching like he did to AA pitching.
So with the consensus being "stand pat" with the exception for Five Head Todd's pointless offering - imagine the shitstorm from the Haughs, Sullys, Morrisseys, Telanders, et. al. if the Cubs didn't beef up the roster with a division lead in July.
It would be just about the greatest spectacle in media history.
If we're talking about a slight division lead and the deal on the table is a player who helps now but not so much in the long run in exchange for Baez, Bryant, Almora or Soler, I think you say no. The opportunity to win the division is not worth sacrificing a player you're counting on to build your franchise. If they would be getting back someone that actually could help over the next two years - a pitcher with a decent upside, say, well, yeah. Do it probably.
I think the theory STAND PAT isn't even feasible without knowing what the deal would be. It's a more useful exercise to look at their assets and decide what they should want back in return. When I read the original hypothetical I thought it was with regard to a "white flag" type of trade. That's a question we'd have to ponder at the moment too. If the Cubs were 3 games up in July and a contending team wanted to know what they'd take for Snork, I think it'd be wise to consider what prospects they've got that can help us beyond Snork - even if it made the CubbieBlueStews of the world crap their pants.
What makes me crap my pants is that we are 5 and half weeks to go before Spring training and here we are trying to decide if we are going to the World Series this year or the year after.
Neither, Stew.
I'm sorry.
2016 though.
Consider it an 85th birthday present.
Quote from: Slaky on January 17, 2014, 12:47:26 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 17, 2014, 12:45:31 PM
Quote from: Yeti on January 17, 2014, 12:12:57 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 17, 2014, 12:04:37 PM
So let's have a fun exercise in the vein of TJ's post.
What if the Cubs are (with roster as presently constructed) somehow hanging in the race in July. It's late July and let's say the Cubs inexplicably hold a 3-4 game lead in the division. Maybe the Cards have some crippling injuries. Maybe the Pirates are back to being the Pirates. But let's just say Cub pitching has far exceeded expectations and while they still can't hit for shit, they're just not giving up enough runs to lose.
What do you think happens?
Again it's a slim lead nearing the trade deadline and in this fake future I've created everyone's waiting for the other shoe to drop. The Cubs don't have the players to win the division. Sell? Buy? Stand pat?
I think it'd be really interesting to see what the front office would do.
I think I want them to stand pat. I'm no genius, but I feel like if they're that close with the current roster (they might have had to call someone up to be in that position, though), then 2015 should be fantastic,
At this point, the project is getting closer to fruition. Even if the Cubs conten at midsummer, there's no reason to deviate from that. The only non-pat-standing that could happen in this instance would be the addition of Baez if he tortures AAA pitching like he did to AA pitching.
So with the consensus being "stand pat" with the exception for Five Head Todd's pointless offering - imagine the shitstorm from the Haughs, Sullys, Morrisseys, Telanders, et. al. if the Cubs didn't beef up the roster with a division lead in July.
It would be just about the greatest spectacle in media history.
Those assholes will lose their shit regardless of where the Cubs are in the standings. Sully stays pretty calm.
Quote from: PenFoe on January 17, 2014, 12:13:50 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 17, 2014, 12:04:37 PM
So let's have a fun exercise in the vein of TJ's post.
What if the Cubs are (with roster as presently constructed) somehow hanging in the race in July. It's late July and let's say the Cubs inexplicably hold a 3-4 game lead in the division. Maybe the Cards have some crippling injuries. Maybe the Pirates are back to being the Pirates. But let's just say Cub pitching has far exceeded expectations and while they still can't hit for shit, they're just not giving up enough runs to lose.
What do you think happens?
Again it's a slim lead nearing the trade deadline and in this fake future I've created everyone's waiting for the other shoe to drop. The Cubs don't have the players to win the division. Sell? Buy? Stand pat?
I think it'd be really interesting to see what the front office would do.
Stand pat. I don't see them trading a single valuable piece of the future to back a team of Ruggiano, Schierholtz, Barney, et al.
Quote from: Eli
But every chance to win is sacred though, right Epstein?
I think it's weird that it bothers you that it bothers me that the Cubs suck.
Quote from: Eli on January 17, 2014, 04:29:41 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 17, 2014, 12:13:50 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 17, 2014, 12:04:37 PM
So let's have a fun exercise in the vein of TJ's post.
What if the Cubs are (with roster as presently constructed) somehow hanging in the race in July. It's late July and let's say the Cubs inexplicably hold a 3-4 game lead in the division. Maybe the Cards have some crippling injuries. Maybe the Pirates are back to being the Pirates. But let's just say Cub pitching has far exceeded expectations and while they still can't hit for shit, they're just not giving up enough runs to lose.
What do you think happens?
Again it's a slim lead nearing the trade deadline and in this fake future I've created everyone's waiting for the other shoe to drop. The Cubs don't have the players to win the division. Sell? Buy? Stand pat?
I think it'd be really interesting to see what the front office would do.
Stand pat. I don't see them trading a single valuable piece of the future to back a team of Ruggiano, Schierholtz, Barney, et al.
Quote from: Eli
But every chance to win is sacred though, right Epstein?
I think it's weird that it bothers you that it bothers me that the Cubs suck.
It should bother you. It bothers me a lot.
Quote from: Slaky on January 17, 2014, 04:35:17 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 17, 2014, 04:29:41 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 17, 2014, 12:13:50 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 17, 2014, 12:04:37 PM
So let's have a fun exercise in the vein of TJ's post.
What if the Cubs are (with roster as presently constructed) somehow hanging in the race in July. It's late July and let's say the Cubs inexplicably hold a 3-4 game lead in the division. Maybe the Cards have some crippling injuries. Maybe the Pirates are back to being the Pirates. But let's just say Cub pitching has far exceeded expectations and while they still can't hit for shit, they're just not giving up enough runs to lose.
What do you think happens?
Again it's a slim lead nearing the trade deadline and in this fake future I've created everyone's waiting for the other shoe to drop. The Cubs don't have the players to win the division. Sell? Buy? Stand pat?
I think it'd be really interesting to see what the front office would do.
Stand pat. I don't see them trading a single valuable piece of the future to back a team of Ruggiano, Schierholtz, Barney, et al.
Quote from: Eli
But every chance to win is sacred though, right Epstein?
I think it's weird that it bothers you that it bothers me that the Cubs suck.
It should bother you. It bothers me a lot.
Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown.
Quote from: Slaky on January 17, 2014, 04:35:17 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 17, 2014, 04:29:41 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 17, 2014, 12:13:50 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 17, 2014, 12:04:37 PM
So let's have a fun exercise in the vein of TJ's post.
What if the Cubs are (with roster as presently constructed) somehow hanging in the race in July. It's late July and let's say the Cubs inexplicably hold a 3-4 game lead in the division. Maybe the Cards have some crippling injuries. Maybe the Pirates are back to being the Pirates. But let's just say Cub pitching has far exceeded expectations and while they still can't hit for shit, they're just not giving up enough runs to lose.
What do you think happens?
Again it's a slim lead nearing the trade deadline and in this fake future I've created everyone's waiting for the other shoe to drop. The Cubs don't have the players to win the division. Sell? Buy? Stand pat?
I think it'd be really interesting to see what the front office would do.
Stand pat. I don't see them trading a single valuable piece of the future to back a team of Ruggiano, Schierholtz, Barney, et al.
Quote from: Eli
But every chance to win is sacred though, right Epstein?
I think it's weird that it bothers you that it bothers me that the Cubs suck.
It should bother you. It bothers me a lot.
I think any of us should be that depressed about the Cubs being irrelevant for 6+ years and embarking on a slow, methodical, painful rebuilding process that may take another 3-4 years to show any real progress on the major league level, or could backfire and result in no progress whatsoever. That's not to say it's the wrong road to take, it just sucks, and the only alternative anyone ever advocates appears to be spending a lot of money they don't have on players who aren't really deserving of it. The road they're on sucks. The other roads available to them suck. Being a Cub fan sucks.
Quote from: SKO on January 17, 2014, 04:50:09 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 17, 2014, 04:35:17 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 17, 2014, 04:29:41 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 17, 2014, 12:13:50 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 17, 2014, 12:04:37 PM
So let's have a fun exercise in the vein of TJ's post.
What if the Cubs are (with roster as presently constructed) somehow hanging in the race in July. It's late July and let's say the Cubs inexplicably hold a 3-4 game lead in the division. Maybe the Cards have some crippling injuries. Maybe the Pirates are back to being the Pirates. But let's just say Cub pitching has far exceeded expectations and while they still can't hit for shit, they're just not giving up enough runs to lose.
What do you think happens?
Again it's a slim lead nearing the trade deadline and in this fake future I've created everyone's waiting for the other shoe to drop. The Cubs don't have the players to win the division. Sell? Buy? Stand pat?
I think it'd be really interesting to see what the front office would do.
Stand pat. I don't see them trading a single valuable piece of the future to back a team of Ruggiano, Schierholtz, Barney, et al.
Quote from: Eli
But every chance to win is sacred though, right Epstein?
I think it's weird that it bothers you that it bothers me that the Cubs suck.
It should bother you. It bothers me a lot.
I think any of us should be that depressed about the Cubs being irrelevant for 6+ years and embarking on a slow, methodical, painful rebuilding process that may take another 3-4 years to show any real progress on the major league level, or could backfire and result in no progress whatsoever. That's not to say it's the wrong road to take, it just sucks, and the only alternative anyone ever advocates appears to be spending a lot of money they don't have on players who aren't really deserving of it. The road they're on sucks. The other roads available to them suck. Being a Cub fan sucks.
This is where I disagree.
But I think we've already been down this road. (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=8531.msg270930#msg270930)
Quote from: PenFoe on January 17, 2014, 05:44:24 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 17, 2014, 04:50:09 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 17, 2014, 04:35:17 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 17, 2014, 04:29:41 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 17, 2014, 12:13:50 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 17, 2014, 12:04:37 PM
So let's have a fun exercise in the vein of TJ's post.
What if the Cubs are (with roster as presently constructed) somehow hanging in the race in July. It's late July and let's say the Cubs inexplicably hold a 3-4 game lead in the division. Maybe the Cards have some crippling injuries. Maybe the Pirates are back to being the Pirates. But let's just say Cub pitching has far exceeded expectations and while they still can't hit for shit, they're just not giving up enough runs to lose.
What do you think happens?
Again it's a slim lead nearing the trade deadline and in this fake future I've created everyone's waiting for the other shoe to drop. The Cubs don't have the players to win the division. Sell? Buy? Stand pat?
I think it'd be really interesting to see what the front office would do.
Stand pat. I don't see them trading a single valuable piece of the future to back a team of Ruggiano, Schierholtz, Barney, et al.
Quote from: Eli
But every chance to win is sacred though, right Epstein?
I think it's weird that it bothers you that it bothers me that the Cubs suck.
It should bother you. It bothers me a lot.
I think any of us should be that depressed about the Cubs being irrelevant for 6+ years and embarking on a slow, methodical, painful rebuilding process that may take another 3-4 years to show any real progress on the major league level, or could backfire and result in no progress whatsoever. That's not to say it's the wrong road to take, it just sucks, and the only alternative anyone ever advocates appears to be spending a lot of money they don't have on players who aren't really deserving of it. The road they're on sucks. The other roads available to them suck. Being a Cub fan sucks.
This is where I disagree.
But I think we've already been down this road. (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=8531.msg270930#msg270930)
I say we make an "eat a dick" list for the Yellons of the world who still think blowing a fuckload (which the Rickettses have, make no mistake) on free agents which then become huge investments blocking progress of these prospects is a good idea when some of them arrive and actually start panning out
Quote from: Fork on January 18, 2014, 08:59:14 PM
I say we make an "eat a dick" list for the Yellons of the world who still think blowing a fuckload (which the Rickettses have, make no mistake) on free agents which then become huge investments blocking progress of these prospects is a good idea when some of them arrive and actually start panning out
The only reason high priced free agents block up and comers is because some parties are too cheap to cut a sunk cost once the returns are no longer positive. To date, the Ricketts have not had a problem dumping high salaries and eating the cost. What they haven't had to do yet is cut a high price and sign a replacement high price.
With the news that the Cubs have outbid everyone by 20-30 million, I figured I would post this scouting report (http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/43300/a-pitchfx-look-at-masahiro-tanaka) on Tanaka from a little earlier this month:
QuoteSo the question everyone is asking is, how do these numbers compare to other starting pitchers? According to the Baseball Prospectus Leaderboards, there are some real big names with similar stuff. In 2013, no starter touched that amount of vertical movement on their four-seam fastball. Clayton Kershaw gets the closest with 12.18 inches of "rising action," but the lefty only had 0.93 inches of horizontal movement, where Tanaka showed nearly 4 inches in the WBC. The slider, which is regarded as Tanaka's best out pitch, is probably closest to Zack Greinke's in terms of velocity and movement. In 2013, Grenke averaged 85.5 mph on the pitch, 3.87 inches of horizontal break, and 0.66 inches of vertical break. Finally, the changeup/splitter matches best with Yu Darvish, who averaged 88.8 mph on the pitch, with -6.03 inches of horizontal movement and 4.09 inches of vertical movement.
Here's another one (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/masahiro-tanaka-the-markets-best-starter/) with some gifs of his performance from the WBC.
He's almost definitely not Clayton Kershaw or maybe not even Greinke/Darvish, but if he's a legit 1/2 starter (and Theo and Jed clearly think he is, based on their offer) he could speed up the Cubs' timeline a lot.
Quote from: Eli on January 19, 2014, 09:51:00 AM
With the news that the Cubs have outbid everyone by 20-30 million
Can't tell if this is a joke.
Is this that classic dry Eli wit?
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 19, 2014, 11:21:09 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 19, 2014, 09:51:00 AM
With the news that the Cubs have outbid everyone by 20-30 million
Can't tell if this is a joke.
Is this that classic dry Eli wit?
A couple people on Twitter have posted version of this (https://twitter.com/TyYoungfelt/status/424910680223805440).
QuoteAs of a week ago, Yankees have lowest bid, D'Backs, Dodgers within +/- 8M of each other...hearing Yanks adjusted/matched-Cubs +20-30 over
Quote from: Eli on January 19, 2014, 12:00:21 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 19, 2014, 11:21:09 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 19, 2014, 09:51:00 AM
With the news that the Cubs have outbid everyone by 20-30 million
Can't tell if this is a joke.
Is this that classic dry Eli wit?
A couple people on Twitter have posted version of this (https://twitter.com/TyYoungfelt/status/424910680223805440).
QuoteAs of a week ago, Yankees have lowest bid, D'Backs, Dodgers within +/- 8M of each other...hearing Yanks adjusted/matched-Cubs +20-30 over
No mention of the White Sox.
http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2014/1/18/5323578/masahiro-tanaka-rumors-offers-diamondbacks-cubs-dodgers-yankees-white-sox
QuoteFive major league teams made formal offers to Japanese pitcher Masahiro Tanaka, per Nikkan Sports. The report says the Diamondbacks, Dodgers, Yankees, Cubs and White Sox all made offers of over $100 million for six years.
The Diamondbacks are said to have made an offer of 12 billion yen, or roughly $115 million dollars to the right-hander. Tanaka, who was posted by the Rakuten Eagles on Dec. 26, has until 5 p.m. ET on Jan. 24 to agree to a contract with an MLB team. The winning team must pay a $20 million release fee to his former NPB team.
Guess we'll have to see how it plays out.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 19, 2014, 01:38:20 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 19, 2014, 12:00:21 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 19, 2014, 11:21:09 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 19, 2014, 09:51:00 AM
With the news that the Cubs have outbid everyone by 20-30 million
Can't tell if this is a joke.
Is this that classic dry Eli wit?
A couple people on Twitter have posted version of this (https://twitter.com/TyYoungfelt/status/424910680223805440).
QuoteAs of a week ago, Yankees have lowest bid, D'Backs, Dodgers within +/- 8M of each other...hearing Yanks adjusted/matched-Cubs +20-30 over
No mention of the White Sox.
http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2014/1/18/5323578/masahiro-tanaka-rumors-offers-diamondbacks-cubs-dodgers-yankees-white-sox
QuoteFive major league teams made formal offers to Japanese pitcher Masahiro Tanaka, per Nikkan Sports. The report says the Diamondbacks, Dodgers, Yankees, Cubs and White Sox all made offers of over $100 million for six years.
The Diamondbacks are said to have made an offer of 12 billion yen, or roughly $115 million dollars to the right-hander. Tanaka, who was posted by the Rakuten Eagles on Dec. 26, has until 5 p.m. ET on Jan. 24 to agree to a contract with an MLB team. The winning team must pay a $20 million release fee to his former NPB team.
Guess we'll have to see how it plays out.
Levine says they're frontrunners. Wittenmyer says they're longshots. I just need someone to tell me if Epstink is terrible or not.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on January 19, 2014, 02:41:29 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 19, 2014, 01:38:20 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 19, 2014, 12:00:21 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 19, 2014, 11:21:09 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 19, 2014, 09:51:00 AM
With the news that the Cubs have outbid everyone by 20-30 million
Can't tell if this is a joke.
Is this that classic dry Eli wit?
A couple people on Twitter have posted version of this (https://twitter.com/TyYoungfelt/status/424910680223805440).
QuoteAs of a week ago, Yankees have lowest bid, D'Backs, Dodgers within +/- 8M of each other...hearing Yanks adjusted/matched-Cubs +20-30 over
No mention of the White Sox.
http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2014/1/18/5323578/masahiro-tanaka-rumors-offers-diamondbacks-cubs-dodgers-yankees-white-sox
QuoteFive major league teams made formal offers to Japanese pitcher Masahiro Tanaka, per Nikkan Sports. The report says the Diamondbacks, Dodgers, Yankees, Cubs and White Sox all made offers of over $100 million for six years.
The Diamondbacks are said to have made an offer of 12 billion yen, or roughly $115 million dollars to the right-hander. Tanaka, who was posted by the Rakuten Eagles on Dec. 26, has until 5 p.m. ET on Jan. 24 to agree to a contract with an MLB team. The winning team must pay a $20 million release fee to his former NPB team.
Guess we'll have to see how it plays out.
Levine says they're frontrunners. Wittenmyer says they're longshots. I just need someone to tell me if Epstink is terrible or not.
No matter what he does, he's terrible.
Quote from: PenFoe on January 17, 2014, 05:44:24 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 17, 2014, 04:50:09 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 17, 2014, 04:35:17 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 17, 2014, 04:29:41 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 17, 2014, 12:13:50 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 17, 2014, 12:04:37 PM
So let's have a fun exercise in the vein of TJ's post.
What if the Cubs are (with roster as presently constructed) somehow hanging in the race in July. It's late July and let's say the Cubs inexplicably hold a 3-4 game lead in the division. Maybe the Cards have some crippling injuries. Maybe the Pirates are back to being the Pirates. But let's just say Cub pitching has far exceeded expectations and while they still can't hit for shit, they're just not giving up enough runs to lose.
What do you think happens?
Again it's a slim lead nearing the trade deadline and in this fake future I've created everyone's waiting for the other shoe to drop. The Cubs don't have the players to win the division. Sell? Buy? Stand pat?
I think it'd be really interesting to see what the front office would do.
Stand pat. I don't see them trading a single valuable piece of the future to back a team of Ruggiano, Schierholtz, Barney, et al.
Quote from: Eli
But every chance to win is sacred though, right Epstein?
I think it's weird that it bothers you that it bothers me that the Cubs suck.
It should bother you. It bothers me a lot.
I think any of us should be that depressed about the Cubs being irrelevant for 6+ years and embarking on a slow, methodical, painful rebuilding process that may take another 3-4 years to show any real progress on the major league level, or could backfire and result in no progress whatsoever. That's not to say it's the wrong road to take, it just sucks, and the only alternative anyone ever advocates appears to be spending a lot of money they don't have on players who aren't really deserving of it. The road they're on sucks. The other roads available to them suck. Being a Cub fan sucks.
This is where I disagree.
But I think we've already been down this road. (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=8531.msg270930#msg270930)
I didn't mean it sucks in that's it's the wrong way to go. I'm sure eventually this will all payoff to some extent and they'll be competitive again, it just sucks that they have to punt who knows how many seasons before doing so.
Quote from: Bort on January 20, 2014, 07:10:17 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on January 19, 2014, 02:41:29 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 19, 2014, 01:38:20 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 19, 2014, 12:00:21 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 19, 2014, 11:21:09 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 19, 2014, 09:51:00 AM
With the news that the Cubs have outbid everyone by 20-30 million
Can't tell if this is a joke.
Is this that classic dry Eli wit?
A couple people on Twitter have posted version of this (https://twitter.com/TyYoungfelt/status/424910680223805440).
QuoteAs of a week ago, Yankees have lowest bid, D'Backs, Dodgers within +/- 8M of each other...hearing Yanks adjusted/matched-Cubs +20-30 over
No mention of the White Sox.
http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2014/1/18/5323578/masahiro-tanaka-rumors-offers-diamondbacks-cubs-dodgers-yankees-white-sox
QuoteFive major league teams made formal offers to Japanese pitcher Masahiro Tanaka, per Nikkan Sports. The report says the Diamondbacks, Dodgers, Yankees, Cubs and White Sox all made offers of over $100 million for six years.
The Diamondbacks are said to have made an offer of 12 billion yen, or roughly $115 million dollars to the right-hander. Tanaka, who was posted by the Rakuten Eagles on Dec. 26, has until 5 p.m. ET on Jan. 24 to agree to a contract with an MLB team. The winning team must pay a $20 million release fee to his former NPB team.
Guess we'll have to see how it plays out.
Levine says they're frontrunners. Wittenmyer says they're longshots. I just need someone to tell me if Epstink is terrible or not.
No matter what he does, he's terrible.
For me, it comes down to them actually bidding 160 million. That's the figure I last heard. If that's the case the fear that they have no money is baseless. They just won't waste it on guys who give them a couple wins above replacement.
It's good. I feel better if that number is accurate. Even if they lose out on Tanaka.
Quote from: Slaky on January 20, 2014, 09:34:56 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 20, 2014, 07:10:17 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on January 19, 2014, 02:41:29 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 19, 2014, 01:38:20 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 19, 2014, 12:00:21 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 19, 2014, 11:21:09 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 19, 2014, 09:51:00 AM
With the news that the Cubs have outbid everyone by 20-30 million
Can't tell if this is a joke.
Is this that classic dry Eli wit?
A couple people on Twitter have posted version of this (https://twitter.com/TyYoungfelt/status/424910680223805440).
QuoteAs of a week ago, Yankees have lowest bid, D'Backs, Dodgers within +/- 8M of each other...hearing Yanks adjusted/matched-Cubs +20-30 over
No mention of the White Sox.
http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2014/1/18/5323578/masahiro-tanaka-rumors-offers-diamondbacks-cubs-dodgers-yankees-white-sox
QuoteFive major league teams made formal offers to Japanese pitcher Masahiro Tanaka, per Nikkan Sports. The report says the Diamondbacks, Dodgers, Yankees, Cubs and White Sox all made offers of over $100 million for six years.
The Diamondbacks are said to have made an offer of 12 billion yen, or roughly $115 million dollars to the right-hander. Tanaka, who was posted by the Rakuten Eagles on Dec. 26, has until 5 p.m. ET on Jan. 24 to agree to a contract with an MLB team. The winning team must pay a $20 million release fee to his former NPB team.
Guess we'll have to see how it plays out.
Levine says they're frontrunners. Wittenmyer says they're longshots. I just need someone to tell me if Epstink is terrible or not.
No matter what he does, he's terrible.
For me, it comes down to them actually bidding 160 million. That's the figure I last heard. If that's the case the fear that they have no money is baseless. They just won't waste it on guys who give them a couple wins above replacement.
It's good. I feel better if that number is accurate. Even if they lose out on Tanaka.
Even if that particular number is off, by all accounts the Cubs
do have a $100MM+ bid in. Fair to say the hand-wringing over the Cubs' "new mid-market reality" was premature?
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 20, 2014, 10:44:42 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 20, 2014, 09:34:56 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 20, 2014, 07:10:17 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on January 19, 2014, 02:41:29 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 19, 2014, 01:38:20 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 19, 2014, 12:00:21 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 19, 2014, 11:21:09 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 19, 2014, 09:51:00 AM
With the news that the Cubs have outbid everyone by 20-30 million
Can't tell if this is a joke.
Is this that classic dry Eli wit?
A couple people on Twitter have posted version of this (https://twitter.com/TyYoungfelt/status/424910680223805440).
QuoteAs of a week ago, Yankees have lowest bid, D'Backs, Dodgers within +/- 8M of each other...hearing Yanks adjusted/matched-Cubs +20-30 over
No mention of the White Sox.
http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2014/1/18/5323578/masahiro-tanaka-rumors-offers-diamondbacks-cubs-dodgers-yankees-white-sox
QuoteFive major league teams made formal offers to Japanese pitcher Masahiro Tanaka, per Nikkan Sports. The report says the Diamondbacks, Dodgers, Yankees, Cubs and White Sox all made offers of over $100 million for six years.
The Diamondbacks are said to have made an offer of 12 billion yen, or roughly $115 million dollars to the right-hander. Tanaka, who was posted by the Rakuten Eagles on Dec. 26, has until 5 p.m. ET on Jan. 24 to agree to a contract with an MLB team. The winning team must pay a $20 million release fee to his former NPB team.
Guess we'll have to see how it plays out.
Levine says they're frontrunners. Wittenmyer says they're longshots. I just need someone to tell me if Epstink is terrible or not.
No matter what he does, he's terrible.
For me, it comes down to them actually bidding 160 million. That's the figure I last heard. If that's the case the fear that they have no money is baseless. They just won't waste it on guys who give them a couple wins above replacement.
It's good. I feel better if that number is accurate. Even if they lose out on Tanaka.
Even if that particular number is off, by all accounts the Cubs do have a $100MM+ bid in. Fair to say the hand-wringing over the Cubs' "new mid-market reality" was premature?
Or they leaked that number to shut you sheeple up knowing full well some other team will top it. Baaaaaa. Baaaaaaaaa.
Quote from: SKO on January 20, 2014, 08:17:51 AM
I didn't mean it sucks in that's it's the wrong way to go. I'm sure eventually this will all payoff to some extent and they'll be competitive again, it just sucks that they have to punt who knows how many seasons before doing so.
This. Just because a fan is frustrated with the current state of the major-league team doesn't mean they don't agree with or understand Jepstink's plan.
Quote from: Eli on January 20, 2014, 10:56:49 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 20, 2014, 08:17:51 AM
I didn't mean it sucks in that's it's the wrong way to go. I'm sure eventually this will all payoff to some extent and they'll be competitive again, it just sucks that they have to punt who knows how many seasons before doing so.
This. Just because a fan is frustrated with the current state of the major-league team doesn't mean they don't agree with or understand Jepstink's plan.
I'm just hoping they're playing a deep game Re: The Snork FIREBARN.
All accounts that aren't Gordo say it's Yankees and Cubs in a game of chicken over Tanaka.
That doesn't mean the Dodgers can't come in last minute, I guess.
Wouldn't shock me if he took less money to be in NY or LA. Of course the Yanks could just wait to hear Tanaka say "I like the Yankees but the Cubs have offered me 8/160" and Cashman would say ok here's 8/160,001
Either way I'm glad they at least have this money to offer. Plan B will be really boring but at least we know it's boring intentionally and not because they're poor.
Last night Kap reported on the radio the actual Cubs offer was nowhere near the reported 160 million.
I didn't want to believe the Cubs had a real shot at this guy and it appears I don't have to. But now I'm concerned at how much they actually did offer. I suppose as long as it's well over 100 million I'll be fine.
Nowhere near leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Though it's been suggested Kaplan is acting on behalf of someone in the Cubs org. to put out some of the smoke.
Maybe someone knows who Kap's sources are since a few of you know him personally. I think he's a clown but he's usually pretty good about breaking Cubs news.
So, basically... We'll see how it plays out on Friday.
That, or just fire up Google Translate and freak the fuck out. (http://www.mlbdailydish.com/2014/1/21/5330742/it-is-decided)
Yankees
I don't think anyone is surprised, but that's a big blow.
Quote from: Eli on January 22, 2014, 09:03:43 AM
I don't think anyone is surprised, but that's a big blow.
Yeah, it sucks. I had sugarplum visions dancing in my head of the Cubs actually having a good rotation with Tanaka, Snork, Wood, and a rebounding Edwin.
I'm going to panic, get loaded on Malort, and pray that Jepstink gives Arroyo $80m/5 with a no trade clause.
Quote from: ChuckD on January 22, 2014, 09:10:44 AM
I'm going to panic, get loaded on Malort, and pray that Jepstink gives Arroyo $80m/5 with a no trade clause.
Excited for the return of Jerome Williams. Right that wrong, Jepstink
Okay... What now, Chuck? (https://twitter.com/ivychat/status/424787670179389440)
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 22, 2014, 09:17:24 AM
Okay... What now, Chuck? (https://twitter.com/ivychat/status/424787670179389440)
"Lather, rinse, and repeat" would be the smart bet given Internet Chuck's track record.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 22, 2014, 09:17:24 AM
Okay... What now, Chuck? (https://twitter.com/ivychat/status/424787670179389440)
Yeah. What now, Chuck? (https://twitter.com/ivychat/status/425297832778551296)
I'll bet the Cubs were never seriously considered. It was worth it to kick in the offer in case the others got cold feet or went another direction so there they'd be. But my only regret is listening to some of the reports of their being a player in the Tanaka market and believing in a tiny bit of hope. This is not a kick to the balls, it's more of a glancing blow. You say, "I'm good, I'm fine." And for a second you are and then, "Aaaaww..." For about a minute and a half. And then you live your life.
At least now we don't have to read about how he's a splitter pitcher with about elevnty million miles on the odometer by age 25. Let the Yankees sweat that out. If his arm is dead or ruined before that seven years is up, we'll be glad this didn't happen.
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 22, 2014, 09:28:13 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 22, 2014, 09:17:24 AM
Okay... What now, Chuck? (https://twitter.com/ivychat/status/424787670179389440)
Yeah. What now, Chuck? (https://twitter.com/ivychat/status/425297832778551296)
David Price.
Quote from: Eli on January 22, 2014, 09:41:38 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 22, 2014, 09:37:38 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 22, 2014, 09:28:13 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 22, 2014, 09:17:24 AM
Okay... What now, Chuck? (https://twitter.com/ivychat/status/424787670179389440)
Yeah. What now, Chuck? (https://twitter.com/ivychat/status/425297832778551296)
David Price.
Never going to happen.
Yep. Not a chance in hell.
Next.
Quote from: Eli on January 22, 2014, 09:03:43 AM
I don't think anyone is surprised, but that's a big blow.
JennPex's mom said the Japanese television and interwebs have been focused on Tanaka to the Yankees for over a week. The other teams were listed as an afterthought in the reports and the Cubs were seldom if ever mentioned. I believe people over there who knew Tanaka personally understood that he wanted to pitch for the Yankees and that the negotiation process and courtship by other teams was a great big jerkoff.
Quote from: Slaky on January 22, 2014, 09:53:03 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 22, 2014, 09:41:38 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 22, 2014, 09:37:38 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 22, 2014, 09:28:13 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 22, 2014, 09:17:24 AM
Okay... What now, Chuck? (https://twitter.com/ivychat/status/424787670179389440)
Yeah. What now, Chuck? (https://twitter.com/ivychat/status/425297832778551296)
David Price.
Never going to happen.
Yep. Not a chance in hell.
Next.
I'm also not sure I want it to. Price is nearing back end of his prime, has declining velocity, will cost prospects and an extension (as you said on Twitter). Etc. No thanks.
Quote from: InternetApex on January 22, 2014, 10:06:04 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 22, 2014, 09:03:43 AM
I don't think anyone is surprised, but that's a big blow.
JennPex's mom said the Japanese television and interwebs have been focused on Tanaka to the Yankees for over a week. The other teams were listed as an afterthought in the reports and the Cubs were seldom if ever mentioned. I believe people over there who knew Tanaka personally understood that he wanted to pitch for the Yankees and that the negotiation process and courtship by other teams was a great big jerkoff.
The Cubes should invest in cable that gets international channels then. Losers.
Quote from: InternetApex on January 22, 2014, 10:06:04 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 22, 2014, 09:03:43 AM
I don't think anyone is surprised, but that's a big blow.
JennPex's mom said the Japanese television and interwebs have been focused on Tanaka to the Yankees for over a week. The other teams were listed as an afterthought in the reports and the Cubs were seldom if ever mentioned. I believe people over there who knew Tanaka personally understood that he wanted to pitch for the Yankees and that the negotiation process and courtship by other teams was a great big jerkoff.
Is she fluent in Japanese?
Quote from: Slaky on January 22, 2014, 10:31:21 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 22, 2014, 10:06:04 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 22, 2014, 09:03:43 AM
I don't think anyone is surprised, but that's a big blow.
JennPex's mom said the Japanese television and interwebs have been focused on Tanaka to the Yankees for over a week. The other teams were listed as an afterthought in the reports and the Cubs were seldom if ever mentioned. I believe people over there who knew Tanaka personally understood that he wanted to pitch for the Yankees and that the negotiation process and courtship by other teams was a great big jerkoff.
Is she fluent in Japanese?
JennPex's mom is from Japan. Jenn speaks it but can't read/write it very well.
Quote from: InternetApex on January 22, 2014, 10:50:12 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 22, 2014, 10:31:21 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 22, 2014, 10:06:04 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 22, 2014, 09:03:43 AM
I don't think anyone is surprised, but that's a big blow.
JennPex's mom said the Japanese television and interwebs have been focused on Tanaka to the Yankees for over a week. The other teams were listed as an afterthought in the reports and the Cubs were seldom if ever mentioned. I believe people over there who knew Tanaka personally understood that he wanted to pitch for the Yankees and that the negotiation process and courtship by other teams was a great big jerkoff.
Is she fluent in Japanese?
JennPex's mom is from Japan. Jenn speaks it but can't read/write it very well.
That's awesome. Glad everyone is enjoying my mini-tangent with Peck.
Thanks for reading.
Quote from: Slaky on January 22, 2014, 11:00:05 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 22, 2014, 10:50:12 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 22, 2014, 10:31:21 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 22, 2014, 10:06:04 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 22, 2014, 09:03:43 AM
I don't think anyone is surprised, but that's a big blow.
JennPex's mom said the Japanese television and interwebs have been focused on Tanaka to the Yankees for over a week. The other teams were listed as an afterthought in the reports and the Cubs were seldom if ever mentioned. I believe people over there who knew Tanaka personally understood that he wanted to pitch for the Yankees and that the negotiation process and courtship by other teams was a great big jerkoff.
Is she fluent in Japanese?
JennPex's mom is from Japan. Jenn speaks it but can't read/write it very well.
That's awesome. Glad everyone is enjoying my mini-tangent with Peck.
Thanks for reading.
As much as I love the fact that Jenn has better sources than David Kaplan, what I really want to know is why we're not hearing this insider information until now. Come on buddy.
Quote from: Slaky on January 22, 2014, 11:00:05 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 22, 2014, 10:50:12 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 22, 2014, 10:31:21 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 22, 2014, 10:06:04 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 22, 2014, 09:03:43 AM
I don't think anyone is surprised, but that's a big blow.
JennPex's mom said the Japanese television and interwebs have been focused on Tanaka to the Yankees for over a week. The other teams were listed as an afterthought in the reports and the Cubs were seldom if ever mentioned. I believe people over there who knew Tanaka personally understood that he wanted to pitch for the Yankees and that the negotiation process and courtship by other teams was a great big jerkoff.
Is she fluent in Japanese?
JennPex's mom is from Japan. Jenn speaks it but can't read/write it very well.
That's awesome. Glad everyone is enjoying my mini-tangent with Peck.
Thanks for reading.
While I can't say it was enjoyable, I can say that I found the mini-tangent difficult to wank to.
I succeeded, but it was a stretch.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on January 22, 2014, 11:56:40 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 22, 2014, 11:00:05 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 22, 2014, 10:50:12 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 22, 2014, 10:31:21 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 22, 2014, 10:06:04 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 22, 2014, 09:03:43 AM
I don't think anyone is surprised, but that's a big blow.
JennPex's mom said the Japanese television and interwebs have been focused on Tanaka to the Yankees for over a week. The other teams were listed as an afterthought in the reports and the Cubs were seldom if ever mentioned. I believe people over there who knew Tanaka personally understood that he wanted to pitch for the Yankees and that the negotiation process and courtship by other teams was a great big jerkoff.
Is she fluent in Japanese?
JennPex's mom is from Japan. Jenn speaks it but can't read/write it very well.
That's awesome. Glad everyone is enjoying my mini-tangent with Peck.
Thanks for reading.
As much as I love the fact that Jenn has better sources than David Kaplan, what I really want to know is why we're not hearing this insider information until now. Come on buddy.
I didn't want to be a Debbie Downer so I just posted a picture of his wife instead.
Sucks if this is true.
(http://i.imgur.com/nO926Ev.png)
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2014, 02:00:14 PM
Sucks if this is true.
(http://i.imgur.com/nO926Ev.png)
Which means Epstink just drove the price up to make sure the Yankees paid through the nose in luxury tax, while they still have a starting lineup almost as bad as the Cubs.
I'll sign off on that.
Quote from: Fork on January 22, 2014, 02:12:35 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2014, 02:00:14 PM
Sucks if this is true.
(http://i.imgur.com/nO926Ev.png)
Which means Epstink just drove the price up to make sure the Yankees paid through the nose in luxury tax, while they still have a starting lineup almost as bad as the Cubs.
I'll sign off on that.
The fuck do the Cubs care about the Yankees luxury tax?
Quote from: Fork on January 22, 2014, 02:12:35 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2014, 02:00:14 PM
Sucks if this is true.
(http://i.imgur.com/nO926Ev.png)
Which means Epstink just drove the price up to make sure the Yankees paid through the nose in luxury tax, while they still have a starting lineup almost as bad as the Cubs.
I'll sign off on that.
How is the yankees lineup at all as bad as the cubs?
Quote from: BH on January 22, 2014, 02:14:28 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 22, 2014, 02:12:35 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2014, 02:00:14 PM
Sucks if this is true.
(http://i.imgur.com/nO926Ev.png)
Which means Epstink just drove the price up to make sure the Yankees paid through the nose in luxury tax, while they still have a starting lineup almost as bad as the Cubs.
I'll sign off on that.
How is the yankees lineup at all as bad as the cubs?
Pretty certain nothing is as bad as the Cubs
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2014, 02:14:14 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 22, 2014, 02:12:35 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2014, 02:00:14 PM
Sucks if this is true.
(http://i.imgur.com/nO926Ev.png)
Which means Epstink just drove the price up to make sure the Yankees paid through the nose in luxury tax, while they still have a starting lineup almost as bad as the Cubs.
I'll sign off on that.
The fuck do the Cubs care about the Yankees luxury tax?
Lacked the cash to finish it? Meaning they were not prepared to outbid the Yankees, who would not and could not be outbid? I don't see how this is really surprising.
Did any of you really think the Cubs were in the running here? Be honest.
Quote from: Slaky on January 22, 2014, 02:15:51 PM
Quote from: BH on January 22, 2014, 02:14:28 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 22, 2014, 02:12:35 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2014, 02:00:14 PM
Sucks if this is true.
(http://i.imgur.com/nO926Ev.png)
Which means Epstink just drove the price up to make sure the Yankees paid through the nose in luxury tax, while they still have a starting lineup almost as bad as the Cubs.
I'll sign off on that.
How is the yankees lineup at all as bad as the cubs?
Pretty certain nothing is as bad as the Cubs
Pretty certain that you haven't looked at the Astros' depth chart lately.
Quote from: ChuckD on January 22, 2014, 02:29:15 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 22, 2014, 02:15:51 PM
Quote from: BH on January 22, 2014, 02:14:28 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 22, 2014, 02:12:35 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2014, 02:00:14 PM
Sucks if this is true.
(http://i.imgur.com/nO926Ev.png)
Which means Epstink just drove the price up to make sure the Yankees paid through the nose in luxury tax, while they still have a starting lineup almost as bad as the Cubs.
I'll sign off on that.
How is the yankees lineup at all as bad as the cubs?
Pretty certain nothing is as bad as the Cubs
Pretty certain that you haven't looked at the Astros' depth chart lately.
They'll be good before the Cubs are.
Quote from: Slaky on January 22, 2014, 02:30:43 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 22, 2014, 02:29:15 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 22, 2014, 02:15:51 PM
Quote from: BH on January 22, 2014, 02:14:28 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 22, 2014, 02:12:35 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2014, 02:00:14 PM
Sucks if this is true.
(http://i.imgur.com/nO926Ev.png)
Which means Epstink just drove the price up to make sure the Yankees paid through the nose in luxury tax, while they still have a starting lineup almost as bad as the Cubs.
I'll sign off on that.
How is the yankees lineup at all as bad as the cubs?
Pretty certain nothing is as bad as the Cubs
Pretty certain that you haven't looked at the Astros' depth chart lately.
They'll be good before the Cubs are.
Now you're just being butthurt. Nobody can say when either team will be good.
Quote from: InternetApex on January 22, 2014, 02:32:56 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 22, 2014, 02:30:43 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 22, 2014, 02:29:15 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 22, 2014, 02:15:51 PM
Quote from: BH on January 22, 2014, 02:14:28 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 22, 2014, 02:12:35 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2014, 02:00:14 PM
Sucks if this is true.
(http://i.imgur.com/nO926Ev.png)
Which means Epstink just drove the price up to make sure the Yankees paid through the nose in luxury tax, while they still have a starting lineup almost as bad as the Cubs.
I'll sign off on that.
How is the yankees lineup at all as bad as the cubs?
Pretty certain nothing is as bad as the Cubs
Pretty certain that you haven't looked at the Astros' depth chart lately.
They'll be good before the Cubs are.
Now you're just being butthurt. Nobody can say when either team will be good.
You're right
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2014, 02:14:14 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 22, 2014, 02:12:35 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2014, 02:00:14 PM
Sucks if this is true.
(http://i.imgur.com/nO926Ev.png)
Which means Epstink just drove the price up to make sure the Yankees paid through the nose in luxury tax, while they still have a starting lineup almost as bad as the Cubs.
I'll sign off on that.
The fuck do the Cubs care about the Yankees luxury tax?
Yeah, that's nonsense.
Quote from: Fork on January 22, 2014, 02:12:35 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2014, 02:00:14 PM
Sucks if this is true.
(http://i.imgur.com/nO926Ev.png)
Which means Epstink just drove the price up to make sure the Yankees paid through the nose in luxury tax, while they still have a starting lineup almost as bad as the Cubs.
I'll sign off on that.
Theo: Tom, can I have $155 million to sign a pitcher?
Tom: Dad says, "No."
Theo: OK, then I'll bid up the price knowing we can't win so the Yankees will pay luxury tax that's given to the small market teams.
Tom: Sounds good to me.
Yeah, that never happened.
So it could be they out bid and lost to the no trade clauses and extra stuff - or they fake bid
I can't for the life of me imagine a team just saying yeah we'll bid 150 million even though we don't have it because we know the Yankees will beat it.
That's just not real world thinking.
Quote from: Eli on January 22, 2014, 02:43:36 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2014, 02:14:14 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 22, 2014, 02:12:35 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2014, 02:00:14 PM
Sucks if this is true.
(http://i.imgur.com/nO926Ev.png)
Which means Epstink just drove the price up to make sure the Yankees paid through the nose in luxury tax, while they still have a starting lineup almost as bad as the Cubs.
I'll sign off on that.
The fuck do the Cubs care about the Yankees luxury tax?
Yeah, that's nonsense.
Maybe they thought that there was a slim chance that the deal would fall apart with the Yankees and wanted to be in the mix if that happened.
Anyway, I hope Tanaka sucks now.
Quote from: Slaky on January 22, 2014, 02:53:58 PM
So it could be they out bid and lost to the no trade clauses and extra stuff - or they fake bid
I can't for the life of me imagine a team just saying yeah we'll bid 150 million even though we don't have it because we know the Yankees will beat it.
That's just not real world thinking.
Pay no attention, it's ForkTown.
Quote from: BH on January 22, 2014, 02:14:28 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 22, 2014, 02:12:35 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2014, 02:00:14 PM
Sucks if this is true.
(http://i.imgur.com/nO926Ev.png)
Which means Epstink just drove the price up to make sure the Yankees paid through the nose in luxury tax, while they still have a starting lineup almost as bad as the Cubs.
I'll sign off on that.
How is the yankees lineup at all as bad as the cubs?
They didn't finish 4th by accident, and this year they lost Chuck's Wet Dream. Sure, maybe Soriano might be able to continue his 2013 pace after joining the Yankees, and maybe Texiera comes back. But most likely, we're looking at Beltran and a bunch of dudes.
The one thing they've got going for them is their starting pitching will be OK if Kuroda can give them another good year, and Robertson will move into the closer's role. But that's about it. A-Rod is done and Jeter needs the plug pulled.
Quote from: Fork on January 22, 2014, 03:06:00 PM
Quote from: BH on January 22, 2014, 02:14:28 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 22, 2014, 02:12:35 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2014, 02:00:14 PM
Sucks if this is true.
(http://i.imgur.com/nO926Ev.png)
Which means Epstink just drove the price up to make sure the Yankees paid through the nose in luxury tax, while they still have a starting lineup almost as bad as the Cubs.
I'll sign off on that.
How is the yankees lineup at all as bad as the cubs?
They didn't finish 4th by accident, and this year they lost Chuck's Wet Dream. Sure, maybe Soriano might be able to continue his 2013 pace after joining the Yankees, and maybe Texiera comes back. But most likely, we're looking at Beltran and a bunch of dudes.
The one thing they've got going for them is their starting pitching will be OK if Kuroda can give them another good year, and Robertson will move into the closer's role. But that's about it. A-Rod is done and Jeter needs the plug pulled.
So how is that lineup as bad as the Cubs then?
Who do the Cubs have who is as good as Ellsbury, Beltran or McCann? Start there. Then we'll have to throw out the "maybe" Texiera comes back, you dropped. He'll be available for Spring Training, I hear. They still have Soriano and Ichiro and what's left of Jeter. And they won 80 some games with less than even that last year.
Quote from: InternetApex on January 22, 2014, 03:12:47 PM
Who do the Cubs have who is as good as Ellsbury, Beltran or McCann? Start there. Then we'll have to throw out the "maybe" Texiera comes back, you dropped. He'll be available for Spring Training, I hear. They still have Soriano and Ichiro and what's left of Jeter. And they won 80 some games with less than even that last year.
While the Cubs lost two of their better hitters from an already-bad lineup.
Quote from: InternetApex on January 22, 2014, 03:12:47 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 22, 2014, 03:06:00 PM
Quote from: BH on January 22, 2014, 02:14:28 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 22, 2014, 02:12:35 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2014, 02:00:14 PM
Sucks if this is true.
(http://i.imgur.com/nO926Ev.png)
Which means Epstink just drove the price up to make sure the Yankees paid through the nose in luxury tax, while they still have a starting lineup almost as bad as the Cubs.
I'll sign off on that.
How is the yankees lineup at all as bad as the cubs?
They didn't finish 4th by accident, and this year they lost Chuck's Wet Dream. Sure, maybe Soriano might be able to continue his 2013 pace after joining the Yankees, and maybe Texiera comes back. But most likely, we're looking at Beltran and a bunch of dudes.
The one thing they've got going for them is their starting pitching will be OK if Kuroda can give them another good year, and Robertson will move into the closer's role. But that's about it. A-Rod is done and Jeter needs the plug pulled.
So how is that lineup as bad as the Cubs then?
Who do the Cubs have who is as good as Ellsbury, Beltran or McCann? Start there. Then we'll have to throw out the "maybe" Texiera comes back, you dropped. He'll be available for Spring Training, I hear. They still have Soriano and Ichiro and what's left of Jeter. And they won 80 some games with less than even that last year.
Ichiro wasn't an error of omission. 2 of the last 3 years his OBP has been under .300.
EDIT: I misread the statlines on B-R. Irregardless, last year's .297 was the fourth straight year of decline. He's done.
Quote from: Fork on January 22, 2014, 04:27:57 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 22, 2014, 03:12:47 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 22, 2014, 03:06:00 PM
Quote from: BH on January 22, 2014, 02:14:28 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 22, 2014, 02:12:35 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2014, 02:00:14 PM
Sucks if this is true.
(http://i.imgur.com/nO926Ev.png)
Which means Epstink just drove the price up to make sure the Yankees paid through the nose in luxury tax, while they still have a starting lineup almost as bad as the Cubs.
I'll sign off on that.
How is the yankees lineup at all as bad as the cubs?
They didn't finish 4th by accident, and this year they lost Chuck's Wet Dream. Sure, maybe Soriano might be able to continue his 2013 pace after joining the Yankees, and maybe Texiera comes back. But most likely, we're looking at Beltran and a bunch of dudes.
The one thing they've got going for them is their starting pitching will be OK if Kuroda can give them another good year, and Robertson will move into the closer's role. But that's about it. A-Rod is done and Jeter needs the plug pulled.
So how is that lineup as bad as the Cubs then?
Who do the Cubs have who is as good as Ellsbury, Beltran or McCann? Start there. Then we'll have to throw out the "maybe" Texiera comes back, you dropped. He'll be available for Spring Training, I hear. They still have Soriano and Ichiro and what's left of Jeter. And they won 80 some games with less than even that last year.
Ichiro wasn't an error of omission. 2 of the last 3 years his OBP has been under .300.
EDIT: I misread the statlines on B-R. Irregardless, last year's .297 was the fourth straight year of decline. He's done.
Irregardless, what about everything else he said?
Quote from: Eli on January 22, 2014, 04:32:35 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 22, 2014, 04:27:57 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 22, 2014, 03:12:47 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 22, 2014, 03:06:00 PM
Quote from: BH on January 22, 2014, 02:14:28 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 22, 2014, 02:12:35 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2014, 02:00:14 PM
Sucks if this is true.
(http://i.imgur.com/nO926Ev.png)
Which means Epstink just drove the price up to make sure the Yankees paid through the nose in luxury tax, while they still have a starting lineup almost as bad as the Cubs.
I'll sign off on that.
How is the yankees lineup at all as bad as the cubs?
They didn't finish 4th by accident, and this year they lost Chuck's Wet Dream. Sure, maybe Soriano might be able to continue his 2013 pace after joining the Yankees, and maybe Texiera comes back. But most likely, we're looking at Beltran and a bunch of dudes.
The one thing they've got going for them is their starting pitching will be OK if Kuroda can give them another good year, and Robertson will move into the closer's role. But that's about it. A-Rod is done and Jeter needs the plug pulled.
So how is that lineup as bad as the Cubs then?
Who do the Cubs have who is as good as Ellsbury, Beltran or McCann? Start there. Then we'll have to throw out the "maybe" Texiera comes back, you dropped. He'll be available for Spring Training, I hear. They still have Soriano and Ichiro and what's left of Jeter. And they won 80 some games with less than even that last year.
Ichiro wasn't an error of omission. 2 of the last 3 years his OBP has been under .300.
EDIT: I misread the statlines on B-R. Irregardless, last year's .297 was the fourth straight year of decline. He's done.
Irregardless, what about everything else he said?
And how did driving up the price to the Yankees help the Cubs set up the play action?
Quote from: Bort on January 22, 2014, 04:39:59 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 22, 2014, 04:32:35 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 22, 2014, 04:27:57 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 22, 2014, 03:12:47 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 22, 2014, 03:06:00 PM
Quote from: BH on January 22, 2014, 02:14:28 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 22, 2014, 02:12:35 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2014, 02:00:14 PM
Sucks if this is true.
(http://i.imgur.com/nO926Ev.png)
Which means Epstink just drove the price up to make sure the Yankees paid through the nose in luxury tax, while they still have a starting lineup almost as bad as the Cubs.
I'll sign off on that.
How is the yankees lineup at all as bad as the cubs?
They didn't finish 4th by accident, and this year they lost Chuck's Wet Dream. Sure, maybe Soriano might be able to continue his 2013 pace after joining the Yankees, and maybe Texiera comes back. But most likely, we're looking at Beltran and a bunch of dudes.
The one thing they've got going for them is their starting pitching will be OK if Kuroda can give them another good year, and Robertson will move into the closer's role. But that's about it. A-Rod is done and Jeter needs the plug pulled.
So how is that lineup as bad as the Cubs then?
Who do the Cubs have who is as good as Ellsbury, Beltran or McCann? Start there. Then we'll have to throw out the "maybe" Texiera comes back, you dropped. He'll be available for Spring Training, I hear. They still have Soriano and Ichiro and what's left of Jeter. And they won 80 some games with less than even that last year.
Ichiro wasn't an error of omission. 2 of the last 3 years his OBP has been under .300.
EDIT: I misread the statlines on B-R. Irregardless, last year's .297 was the fourth straight year of decline. He's done.
Irregardless, what about everything else he said?
And how did driving up the price to the Yankees help the Cubs set up the play action?
Now I understand what a "play action fake" is in baseball.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 22, 2014, 02:47:31 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 22, 2014, 02:12:35 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2014, 02:00:14 PM
Sucks if this is true.
(http://i.imgur.com/nO926Ev.png)
Which means Epstink just drove the price up to make sure the Yankees paid through the nose in luxury tax, while they still have a starting lineup almost as bad as the Cubs.
I'll sign off on that.
Theo: Tom, can I have $155 million to sign a pitcher?
Tom: Dad says, "No."
Theo: OK, then I'll bid up the price knowing we can't win so the Yankees will pay luxury tax that's given to the small market teams and since we're not a small market team that money will go directly to our competitors and help them get better, maybe better enough to beat us.
Tom: Sounds good to me.
Yeah, that never happened.
No, Chuck.
EDIT: This might have been Chuckian sarcasm, but I'm finding it hard to tell.
I admit I got my hopes up, but got over it fast. Tanaka would have been a nice piece, but there would have been a lot of risk involved too. Losing out on a bidding war with the Yankees to get a guy with a lot of wear on his arm already even if he is young isn't the end of the world. Theo can just grab him when he opts out in a few years.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on January 22, 2014, 06:11:00 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 22, 2014, 02:47:31 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 22, 2014, 02:12:35 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2014, 02:00:14 PM
Sucks if this is true.
(http://i.imgur.com/nO926Ev.png)
Which means Epstink just drove the price up to make sure the Yankees paid through the nose in luxury tax, while they still have a starting lineup almost as bad as the Cubs.
I'll sign off on that.
Theo: Tom, can I have $155 million to sign a pitcher?
Tom: Dad says, "No."
Theo: OK, then I'll bid up the price knowing we can't win so the Yankees will pay luxury tax that's given to the small market teams and since we're not a small market team that money will go directly to our competitors and help them get better, maybe better enough to beat us.
Tom: Sounds good to me.
Yeah, that never happened.
No, Chuck.
EDIT: This might have been Chuckian sarcasm, but I'm finding it hard to tell.
Oh, see, now you all look a bit stupid. Chuck looks most stupid of all, natch, but nobody comes out of this well. Ladies and germs, the Luxury Tax:
The first $5 million is withheld to cover potential refunds, and is contributed to the Industry Growth Fund (IGF) if no refunds are forthcoming. The remaining money is divided as follows: 50% funds player benefits, 25% funds developing baseball in countries without high school baseball, and 25% goes to the IGF. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_tax_%28sports%29)
Not one penny goes to any other team.
Quote from: Tonker on January 23, 2014, 02:04:02 AM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on January 22, 2014, 06:11:00 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 22, 2014, 02:47:31 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 22, 2014, 02:12:35 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 22, 2014, 02:00:14 PM
Sucks if this is true.
(http://i.imgur.com/nO926Ev.png)
Which means Epstink just drove the price up to make sure the Yankees paid through the nose in luxury tax, while they still have a starting lineup almost as bad as the Cubs.
I'll sign off on that.
Theo: Tom, can I have $155 million to sign a pitcher?
Tom: Dad says, "No."
Theo: OK, then I'll bid up the price knowing we can't win so the Yankees will pay luxury tax that's given to the small market teams and since we're not a small market team that money will go directly to our competitors and help them get better, maybe better enough to beat us.
Tom: Sounds good to me.
Yeah, that never happened.
No, Chuck.
EDIT: This might have been Chuckian sarcasm, but I'm finding it hard to tell.
Oh, see, now you all look a bit stupid. Chuck looks most stupid of all, natch, but nobody comes out of this well. Ladies and germs, the Luxury Tax:
The first $5 million is withheld to cover potential refunds, and is contributed to the Industry Growth Fund (IGF) if no refunds are forthcoming. The remaining money is divided as follows: 50% funds player benefits, 25% funds developing baseball in countries without high school baseball, and 25% goes to the IGF. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_tax_%28sports%29)
Not one penny goes to any other team.
My only contribution to this thread was making fun of Fork, so I think I come up smelling like a rose, thank you very much.
Mooney says the actual bid was 6/120.
So much for not being outbid, then?
RV and Eli are pretty disheartened by this. Your take?
EDIT: Also in not-shitty news the Cubs Top 10 Prospect list was announced by BP and not only is it the 2nd best in baseball but I could see any of the 10 guys becoming good major leaguers.
I also have a stupid baseball-crush on Alcantara but that might be born from a desire to rid this planet of Darwin Barney.
Quote from: Slaky on January 23, 2014, 09:14:19 AM
Mooney says the actual bid was 6/120.
So much for not being outbid, then?
RV and Eli are pretty disheartened by this. Your take?
Looks they offered him 20 Million dollars a year. If the Yankees were desperate enough to go well beyond that, I see absolutely no reason to be upset about this.
Quote from: InternetApex on January 23, 2014, 09:18:34 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 23, 2014, 09:14:19 AM
Mooney says the actual bid was 6/120.
So much for not being outbid, then?
RV and Eli are pretty disheartened by this. Your take?
Looks they offered him 20 Million dollars a year. If the Yankees were desperate enough to go well beyond that, I see absolutely no reason to be upset about this.
That's what I thought, too. If they have the cheese to give out 20 mil a year that just means they truly aren't interested in a lot of the FAs of this year because they aren't worth it.
Quote from: Slaky on January 23, 2014, 09:14:19 AM
Mooney says the actual bid was 6/120.
So much for not being outbid, then?
RV and Eli are pretty disheartened by this. Your take?
If he signed for $120 million, cubs fans would be complaining about how they overpaid for him. And they would probably be right.
Quote from: BH on January 23, 2014, 09:19:37 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 23, 2014, 09:14:19 AM
Mooney says the actual bid was 6/120.
So much for not being outbid, then?
RV and Eli are pretty disheartened by this. Your take?
If he signed for $120 million, cubs fans would be complaining about how they overpaid for him. And they would probably be right.
He has never thrown a Major League pitch. This guy could be the Japanese Frank Castillo for all we know.
Quote from: InternetApex on January 23, 2014, 09:22:32 AM
Quote from: BH on January 23, 2014, 09:19:37 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 23, 2014, 09:14:19 AM
Mooney says the actual bid was 6/120.
So much for not being outbid, then?
RV and Eli are pretty disheartened by this. Your take?
If he signed for $120 million, cubs fans would be complaining about how they overpaid for him. And they would probably be right.
He has never thrown a Major League pitch. This guy could be the Japanese Frank Castillo for all we know.
He's dead?
Quote from: Slaky on January 23, 2014, 09:36:07 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 23, 2014, 09:22:32 AM
Quote from: BH on January 23, 2014, 09:19:37 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 23, 2014, 09:14:19 AM
Mooney says the actual bid was 6/120.
So much for not being outbid, then?
RV and Eli are pretty disheartened by this. Your take?
If he signed for $120 million, cubs fans would be complaining about how they overpaid for him. And they would probably be right.
He has never thrown a Major League pitch. This guy could be the Japanese Frank Castillo for all we know.
He's dead?
He may not even exist.
Quote from: Slaky on January 23, 2014, 09:19:07 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 23, 2014, 09:18:34 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 23, 2014, 09:14:19 AM
Mooney says the actual bid was 6/120.
So much for not being outbid, then?
RV and Eli are pretty disheartened by this. Your take?
Looks they offered him 20 Million dollars a year. If the Yankees were desperate enough to go well beyond that, I see absolutely no reason to be upset about this.
That's what I thought, too. If they have the cheese to give out 20 mil a year that just means they truly aren't interested in a lot of the FAs of this year because they aren't worth it.
Obviously paying $20 M+ a year for ANY pitcher is a huge risk. But given the fact that there aren't any aces on the horizon in the Cubs system, they're probably going to have to acquire one from outside the organization at some point. And this seemed as good a bet/investment as anyone given that he's (a) young (b) a potential ace and (c) wouldn't cost any prospects. Any ace-type pitcher they acquire now will either cost a shit ton of cash and be 3-5 years older than Tanaka, AND/OR will cost you some really good prospects.
To some extent I'm just tired of bad news. Losing out on Darvish, Cespedes, Anibal. Castro sucking. Ownership taking a goddamn eternity to get this renovation done that I'm sick and tired of caring about. Cliff Alexander taking a dump on John Groce. Bears missing the playoffs. Bulls mired in NBA hell.
I love talking Cubs prospects because I hope to FUCKING JEEBERS 3 or 4 of the top 10 actually turn out to be studs. But that's all we have to hang our hat on at the moment. As I think SKO mentioned, I know the Cubs are absolutely doing the right thing with this but I want sports to give me some good feels post haste to replace all the bad feels.
(yes I've tried to glom on to the Hawks but I just can't do it)
Quote from: R-V on January 23, 2014, 12:38:23 PM
To some extent I'm just tired of bad news. Losing out on Darvish, Cespedes, Anibal. Castro sucking. Ownership taking a goddamn eternity to get this renovation done that I'm sick and tired of caring about. Cliff Alexander taking a dump on John Groce. Bears missing the playoffs. Bulls mired in NBA hell.
I love talking Cubs prospects because I hope to FUCKING JEEBERS 3 or 4 of the top 10 actually turn out to be studs. But that's all we have to hang our hat on at the moment. As I think SKO mentioned, I know the Cubs are absolutely doing the right thing with this but I want sports to give me some good feels post haste to replace all the bad feels.
(yes I've tried to glom on to the Hawks but I just can't do it)
I glommed onto the Heat and it's been great. Life is good.
Quote from: InternetApex on January 23, 2014, 12:51:04 PM
Quote from: R-V on January 23, 2014, 12:38:23 PM
To some extent I'm just tired of bad news. Losing out on Darvish, Cespedes, Anibal. Castro sucking. Ownership taking a goddamn eternity to get this renovation done that I'm sick and tired of caring about. Cliff Alexander taking a dump on John Groce. Bears missing the playoffs. Bulls mired in NBA hell.
I love talking Cubs prospects because I hope to FUCKING JEEBERS 3 or 4 of the top 10 actually turn out to be studs. But that's all we have to hang our hat on at the moment. As I think SKO mentioned, I know the Cubs are absolutely doing the right thing with this but I want sports to give me some good feels post haste to replace all the bad feels.
(yes I've tried to glom on to the Hawks but I just can't do it)
I glommed onto the Heat LeBron's dong and it's been great. Life is good.
smh
Quote from: InternetApex on January 23, 2014, 12:51:04 PM
Quote from: R-V on January 23, 2014, 12:38:23 PM
To some extent I'm just tired of bad news. Losing out on Darvish, Cespedes, Anibal. Castro sucking. Ownership taking a goddamn eternity to get this renovation done that I'm sick and tired of caring about. Cliff Alexander taking a dump on John Groce. Bears missing the playoffs. Bulls mired in NBA hell.
I love talking Cubs prospects because I hope to FUCKING JEEBERS 3 or 4 of the top 10 actually turn out to be studs. But that's all we have to hang our hat on at the moment. As I think SKO mentioned, I know the Cubs are absolutely doing the right thing with this but I want sports to give me some good feels post haste to replace all the bad feels.
(yes I've tried to glom on to the Hawks but I just can't do it)
I glommed onto the Heat and it's been great. Life is good.
At least CT has his beloved White Sox.
Quote from: R-V on January 23, 2014, 12:38:23 PM
To some extent I'm just tired of bad news. Losing out on Darvish, Cespedes, Anibal. Castro sucking. Ownership taking a goddamn eternity to get this renovation done that I'm sick and tired of caring about. Cliff Alexander taking a dump on John Groce. Bears missing the playoffs. Bulls mired in NBA hell.
I love talking Cubs prospects because I hope to FUCKING JEEBERS 3 or 4 of the top 10 actually turn out to be studs. But that's all we have to hang our hat on at the moment. As I think SKO mentioned, I know the Cubs are absolutely doing the right thing with this but I want sports to give me some good feels post haste to replace all the bad feels.
(yes I've tried to glom on to the Hawks but I just can't do it)
It's not all bad news. Soler was the guy from Cuba with youth and potential, the Cubs got him. The front office traded a 2 month Garza rental into 4 legit prospects. The farm system is ranked #2 in baseball - all turned around in the past few years. The Cubs should have another top pick after this years crappy season. Theo and Hoyer are good at turning mediocre talent into good prospects at the trade deadline.
Quote from: BH on January 23, 2014, 01:24:38 PM
Quote from: R-V on January 23, 2014, 12:38:23 PM
To some extent I'm just tired of bad news. Losing out on Darvish, Cespedes, Anibal. Castro sucking. Ownership taking a goddamn eternity to get this renovation done that I'm sick and tired of caring about. Cliff Alexander taking a dump on John Groce. Bears missing the playoffs. Bulls mired in NBA hell.
I love talking Cubs prospects because I hope to FUCKING JEEBERS 3 or 4 of the top 10 actually turn out to be studs. But that's all we have to hang our hat on at the moment. As I think SKO mentioned, I know the Cubs are absolutely doing the right thing with this but I want sports to give me some good feels post haste to replace all the bad feels.
(yes I've tried to glom on to the Hawks but I just can't do it)
It's not all bad news. Soler was the guy from Cuba with youth and potential, the Cubs got him. The front office traded a 2 month Garza rental into 4 legit prospects. The farm system is ranked #2 in baseball - all turned around in the past few years. The Cubs should have another top pick after this years crappy season. Theo and Hoyer are good at turning mediocre talent into good prospects at the trade deadline.
Garza goes to the Brewers for 4 years and $52 mil. (pending a physical)
Quote from: CBStew on January 23, 2014, 01:55:35 PM
Quote from: BH on January 23, 2014, 01:24:38 PM
Quote from: R-V on January 23, 2014, 12:38:23 PM
To some extent I'm just tired of bad news. Losing out on Darvish, Cespedes, Anibal. Castro sucking. Ownership taking a goddamn eternity to get this renovation done that I'm sick and tired of caring about. Cliff Alexander taking a dump on John Groce. Bears missing the playoffs. Bulls mired in NBA hell.
I love talking Cubs prospects because I hope to FUCKING JEEBERS 3 or 4 of the top 10 actually turn out to be studs. But that's all we have to hang our hat on at the moment. As I think SKO mentioned, I know the Cubs are absolutely doing the right thing with this but I want sports to give me some good feels post haste to replace all the bad feels.
(yes I've tried to glom on to the Hawks but I just can't do it)
It's not all bad news. Soler was the guy from Cuba with youth and potential, the Cubs got him. The front office traded a 2 month Garza rental into 4 legit prospects. The farm system is ranked #2 in baseball - all turned around in the past few years. The Cubs should have another top pick after this years crappy season. Theo and Hoyer are good at turning mediocre talent into good prospects at the trade deadline.
Garza goes to the Brewers for 4 years and $52 mil. (pending a physical)
Trying to shift some of the collective clubhouse hate off of Braun. Smart move.
Quote from: Bort on January 23, 2014, 01:22:29 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 23, 2014, 12:51:04 PM
Quote from: R-V on January 23, 2014, 12:38:23 PM
To some extent I'm just tired of bad news. Losing out on Darvish, Cespedes, Anibal. Castro sucking. Ownership taking a goddamn eternity to get this renovation done that I'm sick and tired of caring about. Cliff Alexander taking a dump on John Groce. Bears missing the playoffs. Bulls mired in NBA hell.
I love talking Cubs prospects because I hope to FUCKING JEEBERS 3 or 4 of the top 10 actually turn out to be studs. But that's all we have to hang our hat on at the moment. As I think SKO mentioned, I know the Cubs are absolutely doing the right thing with this but I want sports to give me some good feels post haste to replace all the bad feels.
(yes I've tried to glom on to the Hawks but I just can't do it)
I glommed onto the Heat and it's been great. Life is good.
At least CT has his beloved White Sox.
Paulie's victory tour this year is going to be epic.
Quote from: R-V on January 23, 2014, 12:38:23 PM
(yes I've tried to glom on to the Hawks but I just can't do it)
There's actually a lot of similarities between the two. While the Hawks sucked ass at the end of the Dollar Bill Era, they did some exceptional drafting, starting in 2002 with Duncan Keith, then Brent Seabrook in 2003. The big leap was made in 2007-08 when Patrick Kane and Jonathan Toews joined those two, who had been joined by Patrick Sharp through a steal of a trade.
They sucked for a good long while, but were able to build through the draft and were able to consistently flip players who were not in their long-range plans for future considerations.
They didn't go heavy on free agents (good ones anyway) until they were ready to make noise in the postseason. Campbell and Huet for 2008-09 and Hossa for 2009-10. They wound up winning it all for the first time almost half a century.
That's why, while it may be discouraging now, hanging in there a few more years will make crossing the finish line that much sweeter. Don't mind what's in front of you, look what's ahead. 7 guys in MLB's Top 100 Prospects, and the fourth pick in this year's draft.
Quote from: Fork on January 24, 2014, 08:59:26 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 23, 2014, 12:38:23 PM
(yes I've tried to glom on to the Hawks but I just can't do it)
There's actually a lot of similarities between the two. While the Hawks sucked ass at the end of the Dollar Bill Era, they did some exceptional drafting, starting in 2002 with Duncan Keith, then Brent Seabrook in 2003. The big leap was made in 2007-08 when Patrick Kane and Jonathan Toews joined those two, who had been joined by Patrick Sharp through a steal of a trade.
They sucked for a good long while, but were able to build through the draft and were able to consistently flip players who were not in their long-range plans for future considerations.
They didn't go heavy on free agents (good ones anyway) until they were ready to make noise in the postseason. Campbell and Huet for 2008-09 and Hossa for 2009-10. They wound up winning it all for the first time almost half a century.
That's why, while it may be discouraging now, hanging in there a few more years will make crossing the finish line that much sweeter. Don't mind what's in front of you, look what's ahead. 7 guys in MLB's Top 100 Prospects, and the fourth pick in this year's draft.
So, once Tom Ricketts dies, we're gold!
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 24, 2014, 09:26:29 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 24, 2014, 08:59:26 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 23, 2014, 12:38:23 PM
(yes I've tried to glom on to the Hawks but I just can't do it)
There's actually a lot of similarities between the two. While the Hawks sucked ass at the end of the Dollar Bill Era, they did some exceptional drafting, starting in 2002 with Duncan Keith, then Brent Seabrook in 2003. The big leap was made in 2007-08 when Patrick Kane and Jonathan Toews joined those two, who had been joined by Patrick Sharp through a steal of a trade.
They sucked for a good long while, but were able to build through the draft and were able to consistently flip players who were not in their long-range plans for future considerations.
They didn't go heavy on free agents (good ones anyway) until they were ready to make noise in the postseason. Campbell and Huet for 2008-09 and Hossa for 2009-10. They wound up winning it all for the first time almost half a century.
That's why, while it may be discouraging now, hanging in there a few more years will make crossing the finish line that much sweeter. Don't mind what's in front of you, look what's ahead. 7 guys in MLB's Top 100 Prospects, and the fourth pick in this year's draft.
So, once Tom Ricketts dies, we're gold!
Unless you consider the Tribune selling the Cubs to be the Wirtz Death moment.
Quote from: Fork on January 24, 2014, 08:59:26 AM
That's why, while it may be discouraging now, hanging in there a few more years will make crossing the finish line that much sweeter.
It's a nice sentiment, but I don't think Cubs fans really need additional suffering to appreciate a championship.
Quote from: Eli on January 24, 2014, 11:59:36 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 24, 2014, 08:59:26 AM
That's why, while it may be discouraging now, hanging in there a few more years will make crossing the finish line that much sweeter.
It's a nice sentiment, but I don't think Cubs fans really need additional suffering to appreciate a championship.
!
Quote from: Eli on January 24, 2014, 11:59:36 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 24, 2014, 08:59:26 AM
That's why, while it may be discouraging now, hanging in there a few more years will make crossing the finish line that much sweeter.
It's a nice sentiment, but I don't think Cubs fans really need additional suffering to appreciate a championship.
HOW MANY MORE TEARS, THEO???
Quote from: Eli on January 24, 2014, 11:59:36 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 24, 2014, 08:59:26 AM
That's why, while it may be discouraging now, hanging in there a few more years will make crossing the finish line that much sweeter.
It's a nice sentiment, but I don't think Cubs fans really need additional suffering to appreciate a championship.
Sadsack Eli.
Quote from: Eli on January 24, 2014, 11:59:36 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 24, 2014, 08:59:26 AM
That's why, while it may be discouraging now, hanging in there a few more years will make crossing the finish line that much sweeter.
It's a nice sentiment, but I don't think Cubs fans really need additional suffering to appreciate a championship.
Until you meet those Cubs fans who would appreciably suffer if/when they win a championship. Some people think that the losing is just cute and Cubbily.
Quote from: PANK! on January 24, 2014, 02:38:11 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 24, 2014, 11:59:36 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 24, 2014, 08:59:26 AM
That's why, while it may be discouraging now, hanging in there a few more years will make crossing the finish line that much sweeter.
It's a nice sentiment, but I don't think Cubs fans really need additional suffering to appreciate a championship.
Sadsack Eli.
I think it's much more sadsack to believe you'll somehow get bonus points for nobly suffering through a bunch of bad baseball teams.
Quote from: Eli on January 24, 2014, 03:33:05 PM
Quote from: PANK! on January 24, 2014, 02:38:11 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 24, 2014, 11:59:36 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 24, 2014, 08:59:26 AM
That's why, while it may be discouraging now, hanging in there a few more years will make crossing the finish line that much sweeter.
It's a nice sentiment, but I don't think Cubs fans really need additional suffering to appreciate a championship.
Sadsack Eli.
I think it's much more sadsack to believe you'll somehow get bonus points for nobly suffering through a bunch of bad baseball teams.
THA
Quote from: Eli on January 24, 2014, 03:33:05 PM
Quote from: PANK! on January 24, 2014, 02:38:11 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 24, 2014, 11:59:36 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 24, 2014, 08:59:26 AM
That's why, while it may be discouraging now, hanging in there a few more years will make crossing the finish line that much sweeter.
It's a nice sentiment, but I don't think Cubs fans really need additional suffering to appreciate a championship.
Sadsack Eli.
I think it's much more sadsack to believe you'll somehow get bonus points for nobly suffering through a bunch of bad baseball teams.
Exactly. Go Heat.
Quote from: InternetApex on January 24, 2014, 04:10:10 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 24, 2014, 03:33:05 PM
Quote from: PANK! on January 24, 2014, 02:38:11 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 24, 2014, 11:59:36 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 24, 2014, 08:59:26 AM
That's why, while it may be discouraging now, hanging in there a few more years will make crossing the finish line that much sweeter.
It's a nice sentiment, but I don't think Cubs fans really need additional suffering to appreciate a championship.
Sadsack Eli.
I think it's much more sadsack to believe you'll somehow get bonus points for nobly suffering through a bunch of bad baseball teams.
Exactly. Go Heat.
TIME TO POST
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 24, 2014, 03:22:42 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 24, 2014, 11:59:36 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 24, 2014, 08:59:26 AM
That's why, while it may be discouraging now, hanging in there a few more years will make crossing the finish line that much sweeter.
It's a nice sentiment, but I don't think Cubs fans really need additional suffering to appreciate a championship.
Until you meet those Cubs fans who would appreciably suffer if/when they win a championship. Some people think that the losing is just cute and Cubbily.
Those people need to be beaten with a blunt object.
Quote from: Armchair_QB on January 26, 2014, 10:37:19 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 24, 2014, 03:22:42 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 24, 2014, 11:59:36 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 24, 2014, 08:59:26 AM
That's why, while it may be discouraging now, hanging in there a few more years will make crossing the finish line that much sweeter.
It's a nice sentiment, but I don't think Cubs fans really need additional suffering to appreciate a championship.
Until you meet those Cubs fans who would appreciably suffer if/when they win a championship. Some people think that the losing is just cute and Cubbily.
Those people need to be beaten with a blunt object.
I don't think those people exist. I think there may be people who try to express the feeling that the long wait for a championship would make the actual feat more rewarding and in doing so are taken to mean that they like losing. If someone actually enjoys the losing even a little bit, they're not a Cubs fan.
I always thought fans of other teams invented these people as part of their criticism of our fans. Not that our fellow Cub fans aren't worthy of scorn but there's enough wrong with them already that it makes no sense to just make stuff up.
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 09:14:49 AM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on January 26, 2014, 10:37:19 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 24, 2014, 03:22:42 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 24, 2014, 11:59:36 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 24, 2014, 08:59:26 AM
That's why, while it may be discouraging now, hanging in there a few more years will make crossing the finish line that much sweeter.
It's a nice sentiment, but I don't think Cubs fans really need additional suffering to appreciate a championship.
Until you meet those Cubs fans who would appreciably suffer if/when they win a championship. Some people think that the losing is just cute and Cubbily.
Those people need to be beaten with a blunt object.
I don't think those people exist. I think there may be people who try to express the feeling that the long wait for a championship would make the actual feat more rewarding and in doing so are taken to mean that they like losing. If someone actually enjoys the losing even a little bit, they're not a Cubs fan.
I always thought fans of other teams invented these people as part of their criticism of our fans. Not that our fellow Cub fans aren't worthy of scorn but there's enough wrong with them already that it makes no sense to just make stuff up.
People who take pleasure in the Cubs' losing are typically called White Sox fans.
Quote from: ChuckD on January 27, 2014, 09:32:41 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 09:14:49 AM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on January 26, 2014, 10:37:19 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 24, 2014, 03:22:42 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 24, 2014, 11:59:36 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 24, 2014, 08:59:26 AM
That's why, while it may be discouraging now, hanging in there a few more years will make crossing the finish line that much sweeter.
It's a nice sentiment, but I don't think Cubs fans really need additional suffering to appreciate a championship.
Until you meet those Cubs fans who would appreciably suffer if/when they win a championship. Some people think that the losing is just cute and Cubbily.
Those people need to be beaten with a blunt object.
I don't think those people exist. I think there may be people who try to express the feeling that the long wait for a championship would make the actual feat more rewarding and in doing so are taken to mean that they like losing. If someone actually enjoys the losing even a little bit, they're not a Cubs fan.
I always thought fans of other teams invented these people as part of their criticism of our fans. Not that our fellow Cub fans aren't worthy of scorn but there's enough wrong with them already that it makes no sense to just make stuff up.
People who take pleasure in the Cubs' losing are typically called White Sox fans.
I was happy to see them lose down the stretch in 2006, as I was so despondent and desperate for wholesale changes from Andy MacPhail on down to Dusty Baker. Not apologizing for it, either.
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 09:14:49 AM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on January 26, 2014, 10:37:19 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 24, 2014, 03:22:42 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 24, 2014, 11:59:36 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 24, 2014, 08:59:26 AM
That's why, while it may be discouraging now, hanging in there a few more years will make crossing the finish line that much sweeter.
It's a nice sentiment, but I don't think Cubs fans really need additional suffering to appreciate a championship.
Until you meet those Cubs fans who would appreciably suffer if/when they win a championship. Some people think that the losing is just cute and Cubbily.
Those people need to be beaten with a blunt object.
I don't think those people exist. I think there may be people who try to express the feeling that the long wait for a championship would make the actual feat more rewarding and in doing so are taken to mean that they like losing. If someone actually enjoys the losing even a little bit, they're not a Cubs fan.
I always thought fans of other teams invented these people as part of their criticism of our fans. Not that our fellow Cub fans aren't worthy of scorn but there's enough wrong with them already that it makes no sense to just make stuff up.
Yeah, there's no way Chicago sports fans would get their asses chapped because their team's success would lead to "bandwagon" fans, as if their suffering through bad years somehow entitles them to some sort of exalted status. Nope. Nosiree.
Quote from: Fork on January 27, 2014, 09:44:13 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 09:14:49 AM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on January 26, 2014, 10:37:19 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 24, 2014, 03:22:42 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 24, 2014, 11:59:36 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 24, 2014, 08:59:26 AM
That's why, while it may be discouraging now, hanging in there a few more years will make crossing the finish line that much sweeter.
It's a nice sentiment, but I don't think Cubs fans really need additional suffering to appreciate a championship.
Until you meet those Cubs fans who would appreciably suffer if/when they win a championship. Some people think that the losing is just cute and Cubbily.
Those people need to be beaten with a blunt object.
I don't think those people exist. I think there may be people who try to express the feeling that the long wait for a championship would make the actual feat more rewarding and in doing so are taken to mean that they like losing. If someone actually enjoys the losing even a little bit, they're not a Cubs fan.
I always thought fans of other teams invented these people as part of their criticism of our fans. Not that our fellow Cub fans aren't worthy of scorn but there's enough wrong with them already that it makes no sense to just make stuff up.
Yeah, there's no way Chicago sports fans would get their asses chapped because their team's success would lead to "bandwagon" fans, as if their suffering through bad years somehow entitles them to some sort of exalted status. Nope. Nosiree.
You're talking about butthurt at late-arriving fans not disappointment in the fact that the team is winning.
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 10:39:25 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 27, 2014, 09:44:13 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 09:14:49 AM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on January 26, 2014, 10:37:19 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 24, 2014, 03:22:42 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 24, 2014, 11:59:36 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 24, 2014, 08:59:26 AM
That's why, while it may be discouraging now, hanging in there a few more years will make crossing the finish line that much sweeter.
It's a nice sentiment, but I don't think Cubs fans really need additional suffering to appreciate a championship.
Until you meet those Cubs fans who would appreciably suffer if/when they win a championship. Some people think that the losing is just cute and Cubbily.
Those people need to be beaten with a blunt object.
I don't think those people exist. I think there may be people who try to express the feeling that the long wait for a championship would make the actual feat more rewarding and in doing so are taken to mean that they like losing. If someone actually enjoys the losing even a little bit, they're not a Cubs fan.
I always thought fans of other teams invented these people as part of their criticism of our fans. Not that our fellow Cub fans aren't worthy of scorn but there's enough wrong with them already that it makes no sense to just make stuff up.
Yeah, there's no way Chicago sports fans would get their asses chapped because their team's success would lead to "bandwagon" fans, as if their suffering through bad years somehow entitles them to some sort of exalted status. Nope. Nosiree.
You're talking about butthurt at late-arriving fans not disappointment in the fact that the team is winning.
But the bitching's root cause is the team's success.
Quote from: Fork on January 27, 2014, 10:46:47 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 10:39:25 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 27, 2014, 09:44:13 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 09:14:49 AM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on January 26, 2014, 10:37:19 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 24, 2014, 03:22:42 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 24, 2014, 11:59:36 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 24, 2014, 08:59:26 AM
That's why, while it may be discouraging now, hanging in there a few more years will make crossing the finish line that much sweeter.
It's a nice sentiment, but I don't think Cubs fans really need additional suffering to appreciate a championship.
Until you meet those Cubs fans who would appreciably suffer if/when they win a championship. Some people think that the losing is just cute and Cubbily.
Those people need to be beaten with a blunt object.
I don't think those people exist. I think there may be people who try to express the feeling that the long wait for a championship would make the actual feat more rewarding and in doing so are taken to mean that they like losing. If someone actually enjoys the losing even a little bit, they're not a Cubs fan.
I always thought fans of other teams invented these people as part of their criticism of our fans. Not that our fellow Cub fans aren't worthy of scorn but there's enough wrong with them already that it makes no sense to just make stuff up.
Yeah, there's no way Chicago sports fans would get their asses chapped because their team's success would lead to "bandwagon" fans, as if their suffering through bad years somehow entitles them to some sort of exalted status. Nope. Nosiree.
You're talking about butthurt at late-arriving fans not disappointment in the fact that the team is winning.
But the bitching's root cause is the team's success.
But what those people want - irrational as it certainly is - would be for the Hawks to win and the bandwagon fans to fuck off and die. If you know of people who want to go back to a half-empty stadium and a losing team, well fuck. But Wrigley was packed to the gills for mediocre teams for years. If someone is going tell me that there are people who want a full stadium and a losing Cubs team, I think they're talking about Wrigley beer vendors who live in Evergreen Park. Not Cubs fans. That guy is not real.
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 10:59:07 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 27, 2014, 10:46:47 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 10:39:25 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 27, 2014, 09:44:13 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 09:14:49 AM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on January 26, 2014, 10:37:19 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 24, 2014, 03:22:42 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 24, 2014, 11:59:36 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 24, 2014, 08:59:26 AM
That's why, while it may be discouraging now, hanging in there a few more years will make crossing the finish line that much sweeter.
It's a nice sentiment, but I don't think Cubs fans really need additional suffering to appreciate a championship.
Until you meet those Cubs fans who would appreciably suffer if/when they win a championship. Some people think that the losing is just cute and Cubbily.
Those people need to be beaten with a blunt object.
I don't think those people exist. I think there may be people who try to express the feeling that the long wait for a championship would make the actual feat more rewarding and in doing so are taken to mean that they like losing. If someone actually enjoys the losing even a little bit, they're not a Cubs fan.
I always thought fans of other teams invented these people as part of their criticism of our fans. Not that our fellow Cub fans aren't worthy of scorn but there's enough wrong with them already that it makes no sense to just make stuff up.
Yeah, there's no way Chicago sports fans would get their asses chapped because their team's success would lead to "bandwagon" fans, as if their suffering through bad years somehow entitles them to some sort of exalted status. Nope. Nosiree.
You're talking about butthurt at late-arriving fans not disappointment in the fact that the team is winning.
But the bitching's root cause is the team's success.
But what those people want - irrational as it certainly is - would be for the Hawks to win and the bandwagon fans to fuck off and die. If you know of people who want to go back to a half-empty stadium and a losing team, well fuck. But Wrigley was packed to the gills for mediocre teams for years. If someone is going tell me that there are people who want a full stadium and a losing Cubs team, I think they're talking about Wrigley beer vendors who live in Evergreen Park. Not Cubs fans. That guy is not real.
The Hawks are only the current example. But there was bitching aplenty in 2008 and 2009 when Cubs playoff tickets were nowhere to be found too. And the people who bitch about the trappings of success probably do have a dark part of their psyche that would rather the Cubs be lovable losers so they can not have to fight for armrests, get cheaper nacho helmets, and have the beer vendor welcome them by name. They'd rather be a king in Hell than a rank-and-file angel.
Quote from: Fork on January 27, 2014, 11:15:20 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 10:59:07 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 27, 2014, 10:46:47 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 10:39:25 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 27, 2014, 09:44:13 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 09:14:49 AM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on January 26, 2014, 10:37:19 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 24, 2014, 03:22:42 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 24, 2014, 11:59:36 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 24, 2014, 08:59:26 AM
That's why, while it may be discouraging now, hanging in there a few more years will make crossing the finish line that much sweeter.
It's a nice sentiment, but I don't think Cubs fans really need additional suffering to appreciate a championship.
Until you meet those Cubs fans who would appreciably suffer if/when they win a championship. Some people think that the losing is just cute and Cubbily.
Those people need to be beaten with a blunt object.
I don't think those people exist. I think there may be people who try to express the feeling that the long wait for a championship would make the actual feat more rewarding and in doing so are taken to mean that they like losing. If someone actually enjoys the losing even a little bit, they're not a Cubs fan.
I always thought fans of other teams invented these people as part of their criticism of our fans. Not that our fellow Cub fans aren't worthy of scorn but there's enough wrong with them already that it makes no sense to just make stuff up.
Yeah, there's no way Chicago sports fans would get their asses chapped because their team's success would lead to "bandwagon" fans, as if their suffering through bad years somehow entitles them to some sort of exalted status. Nope. Nosiree.
You're talking about butthurt at late-arriving fans not disappointment in the fact that the team is winning.
But the bitching's root cause is the team's success.
But what those people want - irrational as it certainly is - would be for the Hawks to win and the bandwagon fans to fuck off and die. If you know of people who want to go back to a half-empty stadium and a losing team, well fuck. But Wrigley was packed to the gills for mediocre teams for years. If someone is going tell me that there are people who want a full stadium and a losing Cubs team, I think they're talking about Wrigley beer vendors who live in Evergreen Park. Not Cubs fans. That guy is not real.
The Hawks are only the current example. But there was bitching aplenty in 2008 and 2009 when Cubs playoff tickets were nowhere to be found too. And the people who bitch about the trappings of success probably do have a dark part of their psyche that would rather the Cubs be lovable losers so they can not have to fight for armrests, get cheaper nacho helmets, and have the beer vendor welcome them by name. They'd rather be a king in Hell than a rank-and-file angel.
If such a person exists, and I'm not willing to believe it's more than like 500 people worldwide, I wouldn't call them a fan of the team. Nobody was saying, I wish the Cubs wouldn't make the playoffs so I wouldn't have to stress out about finding playoff tickets. That's just a very strange, socially awkward person with a habit of attending sporting events. They don't need to be beaten with a blunt object. Leave that person alone.
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 11:22:14 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 27, 2014, 11:15:20 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 10:59:07 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 27, 2014, 10:46:47 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 10:39:25 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 27, 2014, 09:44:13 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 09:14:49 AM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on January 26, 2014, 10:37:19 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 24, 2014, 03:22:42 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 24, 2014, 11:59:36 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 24, 2014, 08:59:26 AM
That's why, while it may be discouraging now, hanging in there a few more years will make crossing the finish line that much sweeter.
It's a nice sentiment, but I don't think Cubs fans really need additional suffering to appreciate a championship.
Until you meet those Cubs fans who would appreciably suffer if/when they win a championship. Some people think that the losing is just cute and Cubbily.
Those people need to be beaten with a blunt object.
I don't think those people exist. I think there may be people who try to express the feeling that the long wait for a championship would make the actual feat more rewarding and in doing so are taken to mean that they like losing. If someone actually enjoys the losing even a little bit, they're not a Cubs fan.
I always thought fans of other teams invented these people as part of their criticism of our fans. Not that our fellow Cub fans aren't worthy of scorn but there's enough wrong with them already that it makes no sense to just make stuff up.
Yeah, there's no way Chicago sports fans would get their asses chapped because their team's success would lead to "bandwagon" fans, as if their suffering through bad years somehow entitles them to some sort of exalted status. Nope. Nosiree.
You're talking about butthurt at late-arriving fans not disappointment in the fact that the team is winning.
But the bitching's root cause is the team's success.
But what those people want - irrational as it certainly is - would be for the Hawks to win and the bandwagon fans to fuck off and die. If you know of people who want to go back to a half-empty stadium and a losing team, well fuck. But Wrigley was packed to the gills for mediocre teams for years. If someone is going tell me that there are people who want a full stadium and a losing Cubs team, I think they're talking about Wrigley beer vendors who live in Evergreen Park. Not Cubs fans. That guy is not real.
The Hawks are only the current example. But there was bitching aplenty in 2008 and 2009 when Cubs playoff tickets were nowhere to be found too. And the people who bitch about the trappings of success probably do have a dark part of their psyche that would rather the Cubs be lovable losers so they can not have to fight for armrests, get cheaper nacho helmets, and have the beer vendor welcome them by name. They'd rather be a king in Hell than a rank-and-file angel.
If such a person exists, and I'm not willing to believe it's more than like 500 people worldwide, I wouldn't call them a fan of the team. Nobody was saying, I wish the Cubs wouldn't make the playoffs so I wouldn't have to stress out about finding playoff tickets. That's just a very strange, socially awkward person with a habit of attending sporting events.
Yeah, and it's not like there's a huge group of THOSE people out there.
http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/
Quote from: CT III on January 27, 2014, 11:29:35 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 11:22:14 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 27, 2014, 11:15:20 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 10:59:07 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 27, 2014, 10:46:47 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 10:39:25 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 27, 2014, 09:44:13 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 09:14:49 AM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on January 26, 2014, 10:37:19 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 24, 2014, 03:22:42 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 24, 2014, 11:59:36 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 24, 2014, 08:59:26 AM
That's why, while it may be discouraging now, hanging in there a few more years will make crossing the finish line that much sweeter.
It's a nice sentiment, but I don't think Cubs fans really need additional suffering to appreciate a championship.
Until you meet those Cubs fans who would appreciably suffer if/when they win a championship. Some people think that the losing is just cute and Cubbily.
Those people need to be beaten with a blunt object.
I don't think those people exist. I think there may be people who try to express the feeling that the long wait for a championship would make the actual feat more rewarding and in doing so are taken to mean that they like losing. If someone actually enjoys the losing even a little bit, they're not a Cubs fan.
I always thought fans of other teams invented these people as part of their criticism of our fans. Not that our fellow Cub fans aren't worthy of scorn but there's enough wrong with them already that it makes no sense to just make stuff up.
Yeah, there's no way Chicago sports fans would get their asses chapped because their team's success would lead to "bandwagon" fans, as if their suffering through bad years somehow entitles them to some sort of exalted status. Nope. Nosiree.
You're talking about butthurt at late-arriving fans not disappointment in the fact that the team is winning.
But the bitching's root cause is the team's success.
But what those people want - irrational as it certainly is - would be for the Hawks to win and the bandwagon fans to fuck off and die. If you know of people who want to go back to a half-empty stadium and a losing team, well fuck. But Wrigley was packed to the gills for mediocre teams for years. If someone is going tell me that there are people who want a full stadium and a losing Cubs team, I think they're talking about Wrigley beer vendors who live in Evergreen Park. Not Cubs fans. That guy is not real.
The Hawks are only the current example. But there was bitching aplenty in 2008 and 2009 when Cubs playoff tickets were nowhere to be found too. And the people who bitch about the trappings of success probably do have a dark part of their psyche that would rather the Cubs be lovable losers so they can not have to fight for armrests, get cheaper nacho helmets, and have the beer vendor welcome them by name. They'd rather be a king in Hell than a rank-and-file angel.
If such a person exists, and I'm not willing to believe it's more than like 500 people worldwide, I wouldn't call them a fan of the team. Nobody was saying, I wish the Cubs wouldn't make the playoffs so I wouldn't have to stress out about finding playoff tickets. That's just a very strange, socially awkward person with a habit of attending sporting events.
Yeah, and it's not like there's a huge group of THOSE people out there.
http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/
The BCB crowd is dumb and uninteresting but I think they do want the Cubs to win very badly. Some of them even demand that management put an 81-win team on the field NOW!!! How many more tears?
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 11:31:31 AM
Quote from: CT III on January 27, 2014, 11:29:35 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 11:22:14 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 27, 2014, 11:15:20 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 10:59:07 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 27, 2014, 10:46:47 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 10:39:25 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 27, 2014, 09:44:13 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 09:14:49 AM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on January 26, 2014, 10:37:19 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 24, 2014, 03:22:42 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 24, 2014, 11:59:36 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 24, 2014, 08:59:26 AM
That's why, while it may be discouraging now, hanging in there a few more years will make crossing the finish line that much sweeter.
It's a nice sentiment, but I don't think Cubs fans really need additional suffering to appreciate a championship.
Until you meet those Cubs fans who would appreciably suffer if/when they win a championship. Some people think that the losing is just cute and Cubbily.
Those people need to be beaten with a blunt object.
I don't think those people exist. I think there may be people who try to express the feeling that the long wait for a championship would make the actual feat more rewarding and in doing so are taken to mean that they like losing. If someone actually enjoys the losing even a little bit, they're not a Cubs fan.
I always thought fans of other teams invented these people as part of their criticism of our fans. Not that our fellow Cub fans aren't worthy of scorn but there's enough wrong with them already that it makes no sense to just make stuff up.
Yeah, there's no way Chicago sports fans would get their asses chapped because their team's success would lead to "bandwagon" fans, as if their suffering through bad years somehow entitles them to some sort of exalted status. Nope. Nosiree.
You're talking about butthurt at late-arriving fans not disappointment in the fact that the team is winning.
But the bitching's root cause is the team's success.
But what those people want - irrational as it certainly is - would be for the Hawks to win and the bandwagon fans to fuck off and die. If you know of people who want to go back to a half-empty stadium and a losing team, well fuck. But Wrigley was packed to the gills for mediocre teams for years. If someone is going tell me that there are people who want a full stadium and a losing Cubs team, I think they're talking about Wrigley beer vendors who live in Evergreen Park. Not Cubs fans. That guy is not real.
The Hawks are only the current example. But there was bitching aplenty in 2008 and 2009 when Cubs playoff tickets were nowhere to be found too. And the people who bitch about the trappings of success probably do have a dark part of their psyche that would rather the Cubs be lovable losers so they can not have to fight for armrests, get cheaper nacho helmets, and have the beer vendor welcome them by name. They'd rather be a king in Hell than a rank-and-file angel.
If such a person exists, and I'm not willing to believe it's more than like 500 people worldwide, I wouldn't call them a fan of the team. Nobody was saying, I wish the Cubs wouldn't make the playoffs so I wouldn't have to stress out about finding playoff tickets. That's just a very strange, socially awkward person with a habit of attending sporting events.
Yeah, and it's not like there's a huge group of THOSE people out there.
http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/
The BCB crowd is dumb and uninteresting but I think they do want the Cubs to win very badly. Some of them even demand that management put an 81-win team on the field NOW!!! How many more tears?
Those maladjusted turdcutters will be the loudest when it comes to believing things were better when the Cubs were losing.
Quote from: Fork on January 27, 2014, 11:38:20 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 11:31:31 AM
Quote from: CT III on January 27, 2014, 11:29:35 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 11:22:14 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 27, 2014, 11:15:20 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 10:59:07 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 27, 2014, 10:46:47 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 10:39:25 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 27, 2014, 09:44:13 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 09:14:49 AM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on January 26, 2014, 10:37:19 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 24, 2014, 03:22:42 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 24, 2014, 11:59:36 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 24, 2014, 08:59:26 AM
That's why, while it may be discouraging now, hanging in there a few more years will make crossing the finish line that much sweeter.
It's a nice sentiment, but I don't think Cubs fans really need additional suffering to appreciate a championship.
Until you meet those Cubs fans who would appreciably suffer if/when they win a championship. Some people think that the losing is just cute and Cubbily.
Those people need to be beaten with a blunt object.
I don't think those people exist. I think there may be people who try to express the feeling that the long wait for a championship would make the actual feat more rewarding and in doing so are taken to mean that they like losing. If someone actually enjoys the losing even a little bit, they're not a Cubs fan.
I always thought fans of other teams invented these people as part of their criticism of our fans. Not that our fellow Cub fans aren't worthy of scorn but there's enough wrong with them already that it makes no sense to just make stuff up.
Yeah, there's no way Chicago sports fans would get their asses chapped because their team's success would lead to "bandwagon" fans, as if their suffering through bad years somehow entitles them to some sort of exalted status. Nope. Nosiree.
You're talking about butthurt at late-arriving fans not disappointment in the fact that the team is winning.
But the bitching's root cause is the team's success.
But what those people want - irrational as it certainly is - would be for the Hawks to win and the bandwagon fans to fuck off and die. If you know of people who want to go back to a half-empty stadium and a losing team, well fuck. But Wrigley was packed to the gills for mediocre teams for years. If someone is going tell me that there are people who want a full stadium and a losing Cubs team, I think they're talking about Wrigley beer vendors who live in Evergreen Park. Not Cubs fans. That guy is not real.
The Hawks are only the current example. But there was bitching aplenty in 2008 and 2009 when Cubs playoff tickets were nowhere to be found too. And the people who bitch about the trappings of success probably do have a dark part of their psyche that would rather the Cubs be lovable losers so they can not have to fight for armrests, get cheaper nacho helmets, and have the beer vendor welcome them by name. They'd rather be a king in Hell than a rank-and-file angel.
If such a person exists, and I'm not willing to believe it's more than like 500 people worldwide, I wouldn't call them a fan of the team. Nobody was saying, I wish the Cubs wouldn't make the playoffs so I wouldn't have to stress out about finding playoff tickets. That's just a very strange, socially awkward person with a habit of attending sporting events.
Yeah, and it's not like there's a huge group of THOSE people out there.
http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/
The BCB crowd is dumb and uninteresting but I think they do want the Cubs to win very badly. Some of them even demand that management put an 81-win team on the field NOW!!! How many more tears?
Those maladjusted turdcutters will be the loudest when it comes to believing things were better when the Cubs were losing.
Then we will beat them with blunt objects.
Quote from: ChuckD on January 27, 2014, 09:32:41 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 09:14:49 AM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on January 26, 2014, 10:37:19 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 24, 2014, 03:22:42 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 24, 2014, 11:59:36 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 24, 2014, 08:59:26 AM
That's why, while it may be discouraging now, hanging in there a few more years will make crossing the finish line that much sweeter.
It's a nice sentiment, but I don't think Cubs fans really need additional suffering to appreciate a championship.
Until you meet those Cubs fans who would appreciably suffer if/when they win a championship. Some people think that the losing is just cute and Cubbily.
Those people need to be beaten with a blunt object.
I don't think those people exist. I think there may be people who try to express the feeling that the long wait for a championship would make the actual feat more rewarding and in doing so are taken to mean that they like losing. If someone actually enjoys the losing even a little bit, they're not a Cubs fan.
I always thought fans of other teams invented these people as part of their criticism of our fans. Not that our fellow Cub fans aren't worthy of scorn but there's enough wrong with them already that it makes no sense to just make stuff up.
People who take pleasure in the Cubs' losing are typically called White Sox fans.
Or the proprietor of that website mentioned above, just so long as History is being made at Wrigley Field.
Or me, if the team is already horseshit and I'd rather Epstoyer have a top-five pick to play with than top-15.
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 09:14:49 AM
If someone actually enjoys the losing even a little bit, they're not a Cubs fan.
In general, yes. But I enjoyed the shit out of the 2004 team's collapse.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2014, 02:14:05 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 09:14:49 AM
If someone actually enjoys the losing even a little bit, they're not a Cubs fan.
In general, yes. But I enjoyed the shit out of the 2004 team's collapse.
Ah, Jesus, Chuck. I fucking hated that team, but I'd still have loved to see them win it all.
Quote from: Tonker on January 27, 2014, 02:14:43 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2014, 02:14:05 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 09:14:49 AM
If someone actually enjoys the losing even a little bit, they're not a Cubs fan.
In general, yes. But I enjoyed the shit out of the 2004 team's collapse.
Ah, Jesus, Chuck. I fucking hated that team, but I'd still have loved to see them win it all.
Because you're not Chuck.
Quote from: PenFoe on January 27, 2014, 02:19:15 PM
Quote from: Tonker on January 27, 2014, 02:14:43 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2014, 02:14:05 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 09:14:49 AM
If someone actually enjoys the losing even a little bit, they're not a Cubs fan.
In general, yes. But I enjoyed the shit out of the 2004 team's collapse.
Ah, Jesus, Chuck. I fucking hated that team, but I'd still have loved to see them win it all.
Because you're not Chuck.
Seriously. Get boned, Chuck.
Maybe it goes in the I Admit It thread but I didn't hate the 2004 team at all. I just hated the result. And Todd Walker.
Quote from: Tonker on January 27, 2014, 02:14:43 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2014, 02:14:05 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 09:14:49 AM
If someone actually enjoys the losing even a little bit, they're not a Cubs fan.
In general, yes. But I enjoyed the shit out of the 2004 team's collapse.
Ah, Jesus, Chuck. I fucking hated that team, but I'd still have loved to see them win it all.
Yes, I would have loved to have seen that, too. But it didn't hai. And once the shit hit the fan in Shea, I was glad to see those cocksuckers collapse. And very glad that Kent Mercker wouldn't forever be a "Cub Hero."
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2014, 02:34:14 PM
Quote from: Tonker on January 27, 2014, 02:14:43 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2014, 02:14:05 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 09:14:49 AM
If someone actually enjoys the losing even a little bit, they're not a Cubs fan.
In general, yes. But I enjoyed the shit out of the 2004 team's collapse.
Ah, Jesus, Chuck. I fucking hated that team, but I'd still have loved to see them win it all.
Yes, I would have loved to have seen that, too. But it didn't hai. And once the shit hit the fan in Shea, I was glad to see those cocksuckers collapse. And very glad that Kent Mercker wouldn't forever be a "Cub Hero."
If Tony Campana had managed to hit a GW HR in Game 7 of a World Series for the Cubs, I would gladly accept him as a "Cub Hero." Basically, I think any Cub fan would be fine with even their most hated player as a "Cub Hero" if it is because they won the WS
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2014, 02:34:14 PM
Quote from: Tonker on January 27, 2014, 02:14:43 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2014, 02:14:05 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 09:14:49 AM
If someone actually enjoys the losing even a little bit, they're not a Cubs fan.
In general, yes. But I enjoyed the shit out of the 2004 team's collapse.
Ah, Jesus, Chuck. I fucking hated that team, but I'd still have loved to see them win it all.
Yes, I would have loved to have seen that, too. But it didn't hai. And once the shit hit the fan in Shea, I was glad to see those cocksuckers collapse. And very glad that Kent Mercker wouldn't forever be a "Cub Hero."
The last word I would use to describe my feelings at the end of that season is "glad".
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2014, 02:34:14 PM
Quote from: Tonker on January 27, 2014, 02:14:43 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2014, 02:14:05 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 09:14:49 AM
If someone actually enjoys the losing even a little bit, they're not a Cubs fan.
In general, yes. But I enjoyed the shit out of the 2004 team's collapse.
Ah, Jesus, Chuck. I fucking hated that team, but I'd still have loved to see them win it all.
Yes, I would have loved to have seen that, too. But it didn't hai. And once the shit hit the fan in Shea, I was glad to see those cocksuckers collapse. And very glad that Kent Mercker wouldn't forever be a "Cub Hero."
They were still on top of the Wildcard after the Shea clufu.
It was the Reds series at Wrigley subsequent to that knocked them out.
Seriously, the fuck is wrong with you? I'm asking honestly. If you actually "enjoyed" that, while it was going on, you're a much bigger tool than I thought.
Quote from: PANK! on January 27, 2014, 02:47:20 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2014, 02:34:14 PM
Quote from: Tonker on January 27, 2014, 02:14:43 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2014, 02:14:05 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 09:14:49 AM
If someone actually enjoys the losing even a little bit, they're not a Cubs fan.
In general, yes. But I enjoyed the shit out of the 2004 team's collapse.
Ah, Jesus, Chuck. I fucking hated that team, but I'd still have loved to see them win it all.
Yes, I would have loved to have seen that, too. But it didn't hai. And once the shit hit the fan in Shea, I was glad to see those cocksuckers collapse. And very glad that Kent Mercker wouldn't forever be a "Cub Hero."
They were still on top of the Wildcard after the Shea clufu.
It was the Reds series at Wrigley subsequent to that knocked them out.
Seriously, the fuck is wrong with you? I'm asking honestly. If you actually "enjoyed" that, while it was going on, you're a much bigger tool than I thought.
If I recall, I enjoyed every loss after the infamous Mercker call to the press box and the meeting between Stone and Baker than Hendry brokered. If they were less interested in winning than what Steve Stone was saying, so was I.
So Chuck is a huge Steve Stone fan. Now it all makes sense.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2014, 03:26:26 PM
Quote from: PANK! on January 27, 2014, 02:47:20 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2014, 02:34:14 PM
Quote from: Tonker on January 27, 2014, 02:14:43 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2014, 02:14:05 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 09:14:49 AM
If someone actually enjoys the losing even a little bit, they're not a Cubs fan.
In general, yes. But I enjoyed the shit out of the 2004 team's collapse.
Ah, Jesus, Chuck. I fucking hated that team, but I'd still have loved to see them win it all.
Yes, I would have loved to have seen that, too. But it didn't hai. And once the shit hit the fan in Shea, I was glad to see those cocksuckers collapse. And very glad that Kent Mercker wouldn't forever be a "Cub Hero."
They were still on top of the Wildcard after the Shea clufu.
It was the Reds series at Wrigley subsequent to that knocked them out.
Seriously, the fuck is wrong with you? I'm asking honestly. If you actually "enjoyed" that, while it was going on, you're a much bigger tool than I thought.
If I recall, I enjoyed every loss after the infamous Mercker call to the press box and the meeting between Stone and Baker than Hendry brokered. If they were less interested in winning than what Steve Stone was saying, so was I.
You stopped rooting for the Cubs when they were 71-57?
Get fucked, seriously.
Quote from: PenFoe on January 27, 2014, 03:36:12 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2014, 03:26:26 PM
Quote from: PANK! on January 27, 2014, 02:47:20 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2014, 02:34:14 PM
Quote from: Tonker on January 27, 2014, 02:14:43 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2014, 02:14:05 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 09:14:49 AM
If someone actually enjoys the losing even a little bit, they're not a Cubs fan.
In general, yes. But I enjoyed the shit out of the 2004 team's collapse.
Ah, Jesus, Chuck. I fucking hated that team, but I'd still have loved to see them win it all.
Yes, I would have loved to have seen that, too. But it didn't hai. And once the shit hit the fan in Shea, I was glad to see those cocksuckers collapse. And very glad that Kent Mercker wouldn't forever be a "Cub Hero."
They were still on top of the Wildcard after the Shea clufu.
It was the Reds series at Wrigley subsequent to that knocked them out.
Seriously, the fuck is wrong with you? I'm asking honestly. If you actually "enjoyed" that, while it was going on, you're a much bigger tool than I thought.
If I recall, I enjoyed every loss after the infamous Mercker call to the press box and the meeting between Stone and Baker than Hendry brokered. If they were less interested in winning than what Steve Stone was saying, so was I.
You stopped rooting for the Cubs when they were 71-57?
Get fucked, seriously.
My post on the LaTroy Hawkins entry in the Bottom 126 on HJE back when Kerm was alive:
QuoteARRGG that series against the Reds at the end of September. Cubs still had a chance after losing 2 out of 3 to the Mets. Cubs win the first game back home and then proceed to lose the next 3 to Cincy (2 of them in the 12th.) I went to every one of those Reds games and after the last one on 9/30 I'm sitting in Guthries with a buddy trying to tell myself not to take it so hard, the Bears are going to be playing every Sunday so I don't need to slit my wrists. We are sitting by the front door, its open, the place is full but not packed, its kind of quiet, everbody is miserable. I look up and there are 2 big buses stuck in traffic on Addison right in front of the bar. The door to the first bus opens and out comes this big meathead. Hey thats Sean Casey! He runs up to the front door of Guthries, leans in and yells, HEY CUB FANS... SUCK IT! He turns around and runs back onto the bus and the bus door closes.
Yeah, that made me feel a lot better.
Tell me again why I watch this F#$%ing team.
My point being even though they were a bunch of jerks I was still really pulling for them all the way until the end and I didn't enjoy in any way watching them come off the rails.
What is wrong with you Chuck?
Quote from: flannj on January 27, 2014, 04:01:35 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 27, 2014, 03:36:12 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2014, 03:26:26 PM
Quote from: PANK! on January 27, 2014, 02:47:20 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2014, 02:34:14 PM
Quote from: Tonker on January 27, 2014, 02:14:43 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2014, 02:14:05 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 09:14:49 AM
If someone actually enjoys the losing even a little bit, they're not a Cubs fan.
In general, yes. But I enjoyed the shit out of the 2004 team's collapse.
Ah, Jesus, Chuck. I fucking hated that team, but I'd still have loved to see them win it all.
Yes, I would have loved to have seen that, too. But it didn't hai. And once the shit hit the fan in Shea, I was glad to see those cocksuckers collapse. And very glad that Kent Mercker wouldn't forever be a "Cub Hero."
They were still on top of the Wildcard after the Shea clufu.
It was the Reds series at Wrigley subsequent to that knocked them out.
Seriously, the fuck is wrong with you? I'm asking honestly. If you actually "enjoyed" that, while it was going on, you're a much bigger tool than I thought.
If I recall, I enjoyed every loss after the infamous Mercker call to the press box and the meeting between Stone and Baker than Hendry brokered. If they were less interested in winning than what Steve Stone was saying, so was I.
You stopped rooting for the Cubs when they were 71-57?
Get fucked, seriously.
My post on the LaTroy Hawkins entry in the Bottom 126 on HJE back when Kerm was alive:
QuoteARRGG that series against the Reds at the end of September. Cubs still had a chance after losing 2 out of 3 to the Mets. Cubs win the first game back home and then proceed to lose the next 3 to Cincy (2 of them in the 12th.) I went to every one of those Reds games and after the last one on 9/30 I'm sitting in Guthries with a buddy trying to tell myself not to take it so hard, the Bears are going to be playing every Sunday so I don't need to slit my wrists. We are sitting by the front door, its open, the place is full but not packed, its kind of quiet, everbody is miserable. I look up and there are 2 big buses stuck in traffic on Addison right in front of the bar. The door to the first bus opens and out comes this big meathead. Hey thats Sean Casey! He runs up to the front door of Guthries, leans in and yells, HEY CUB FANS... SUCK IT! He turns around and runs back onto the bus and the bus door closes.
Yeah, that made me feel a lot better.
Tell me again why I watch this F#$%ing team.
My point being even though they were a bunch of jerks I was still really pulling for them all the way until the end and I didn't enjoy in any way watching them come off the rails.
What is wrong with you Chuck?
I went to college with Sean Casey.
Great guy.
But yeah, fuck that.
The key to understanding Chuck is that he doesn't really enjoy sports.
Quote from: Yeti on January 27, 2014, 02:37:26 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2014, 02:34:14 PM
Quote from: Tonker on January 27, 2014, 02:14:43 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2014, 02:14:05 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 09:14:49 AM
If someone actually enjoys the losing even a little bit, they're not a Cubs fan.
In general, yes. But I enjoyed the shit out of the 2004 team's collapse.
Ah, Jesus, Chuck. I fucking hated that team, but I'd still have loved to see them win it all.
Yes, I would have loved to have seen that, too. But it didn't hai. And once the shit hit the fan in Shea, I was glad to see those cocksuckers collapse. And very glad that Kent Mercker wouldn't forever be a "Cub Hero."
If Tony Campana had managed to hit a GW HR in Game 7 of a World Series for the Cubs, I would gladly accept him as a "Cub Hero." Basically, I think any Cub fan would be fine with even their most hated player as a "Cub Hero" if it is because they won the WS
True, but I would still hate hypothetical Cub Hero Ryan Theriot with a passion.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2014, 02:34:14 PM
Quote from: Tonker on January 27, 2014, 02:14:43 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2014, 02:14:05 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 09:14:49 AM
If someone actually enjoys the losing even a little bit, they're not a Cubs fan.
In general, yes. But I enjoyed the shit out of the 2004 team's collapse.
Ah, Jesus, Chuck. I fucking hated that team, but I'd still have loved to see them win it all.
Yes, I would have loved to have seen that, too. But it didn't hai. And once the shit hit the fan in Shea, I was glad to see those cocksuckers collapse. And very glad that Kent Mercker wouldn't forever be a "Cub Hero."
Cocksuckers like Kerry Wood, Mark Prior, Sammy Sosa, Derrick Lee, Aramis Ramirez, Greg Maddux, Matt Clement, Nomar Garciaparra, Moises Alou etc... You were glad to see those guys collapse because something something Kent Mercker and Dusty Baker? No you weren't. I'm not buying revisionist Chuck's 2004 fantasy at all.
I was fucking DEVASTATED. It was worse for me than the 2003 loss 1.) because it was compounded and 2.) Because at least in 2003 I had the joy of seeing them win the Central and the Division Series. Also my mom died in August of 2004 and I was in a bit of a funk. Locking myself in my room with some beer and a bowl and watching or listening to the game was about all I had going on. I drove pretty far with a decent piss on after one of those losses not really caring what happened to me. Not proud of that.
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 06:02:54 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2014, 02:34:14 PM
Quote from: Tonker on January 27, 2014, 02:14:43 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2014, 02:14:05 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 27, 2014, 09:14:49 AM
If someone actually enjoys the losing even a little bit, they're not a Cubs fan.
In general, yes. But I enjoyed the shit out of the 2004 team's collapse.
Ah, Jesus, Chuck. I fucking hated that team, but I'd still have loved to see them win it all.
Yes, I would have loved to have seen that, too. But it didn't hai. And once the shit hit the fan in Shea, I was glad to see those cocksuckers collapse. And very glad that Kent Mercker wouldn't forever be a "Cub Hero."
Cocksuckers like Kerry Wood, Mark Prior, Sammy Sosa, Derrick Lee, Aramis Ramirez, Greg Maddux, Matt Clement, Nomar Garciaparra, Moises Alou etc... You were glad to see those guys collapse because something something Kent Mercker and Dusty Baker? No you weren't. I'm not buying revisionist Chuck's 2004 fantasy at all.
I was fucking DEVASTATED. It was worse for me than the 2003 loss 1.) because it was compounded and 2.) Because at least in 2003 I had the joy of seeing them win the Central and the Division Series. Also my mom died in August of 2004 and I was in a bit of a funk. Locking myself in my room with some beer and a bowl and watching or listening to the game was about all I had going on. I drove pretty far with a decent piss on after one of those losses not really caring what happened to me. Not proud of that.
It's too bad you didn't drive right through Chuck's fucking living room.
This may actually be No. 1 on BuzzFeed's list of 79 Infuriating Chuckisms You'll Never Believe.
Accompanying .gif:
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/hulksmash.gif)
Jesus fucking Christ Holy fucking Moses, Chuck. Who the fuck threw rocks at the hornets' nest you use in place of a brain when you log on to the Internet? The 2004 collapse was one of the hardest cockpunches I've had as a Cubs fan. Before it happened, what in the name of hell was so wrong with that team that you would feel schadenfreude at what happened?
I just caught up here. Only thing that I can surmise is that Chuck is lying and just gets super hard over making us all angry.
Quote from: Bort on January 27, 2014, 07:39:41 PM
The 2004 collapse was one of the hardest cockpunches I've had as a Cubs fan.
So, a team 13 games out of first when the collapse started, despite coming off a previous year division winner and adding Greg Maddux and Derrek Lee was a bigger cockpunch than Florida and San Diego? 5 outs and 12 outs from a pennant hurt LESS than losing a wild card?
Okay.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2014, 09:23:08 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 27, 2014, 07:39:41 PM
The 2004 collapse was one of the hardest cockpunches I've had as a Cubs fan.
So, a team 13 games out of first when the collapse started, despite coming off a previous year division winner and adding Greg Maddux and Derrek Lee was a bigger cockpunch than Florida and San Diego? 5 outs and 12 outs from a pennant hurt LESS than losing a wild card?
Okay.
Garza to the Algonquin's "good land" for $12.5 million/year for four years. How much of those 4 years will be spent on the DL?
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2014, 09:23:08 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 27, 2014, 07:39:41 PM
The 2004 collapse was one of the hardest cockpunches I've had as a Cubs fan.
So, a team 13 games out of first when the collapse started, despite coming off a previous year division winner and adding Greg Maddux and Derrek Lee was a bigger cockpunch than Florida and San Diego? 5 outs and 12 outs from a pennant hurt LESS than losing a wild card?
Okay.
Yeah, cuz Wild Card teams only win the World Series once every few years. Who's to say that would of been one of those years?
Quote from: R-V on January 27, 2014, 04:16:10 PM
The key to understanding Chuck is that he doesn't really enjoy sports.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 28, 2014, 12:24:18 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 27, 2014, 04:16:10 PM
The key to understanding Chuck is that he doesn't really enjoy sports.
Besides Pixar movies, I can't come up with anything he actually likes.
Quote from: Eli on January 27, 2014, 09:46:41 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2014, 09:23:08 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 27, 2014, 07:39:41 PM
The 2004 collapse was one of the hardest cockpunches I've had as a Cubs fan.
So, a team 13 games out of first when the collapse started, despite coming off a previous year division winner and adding Greg Maddux and Derrek Lee was a bigger cockpunch than Florida and San Diego? 5 outs and 12 outs from a pennant hurt LESS than losing a wild card?
Okay.
Solipsistic Chuck also assumes Bort was old enough to remember '84, which I don't believe he was.
Unless he's mining through cultural memory, in which case I'd ask him how Hack Wilson losing a ball in the sun in the '29 Series, precipitating a blown 8-0 lead rates, or where he'd put the Cubs wasting Stan Hack's leadoff triple against the Tigers in '35.
I assume that, following this...ahem..."logic"...that Chuck also enjoyed the shit out of Bartman reaching for a souvenir and Alex Gonzalez flubbing a chance to bail him out.
And Leon Durham's error in '84? Bigger celebration than his Bar Mitzvah.
#Chuckworld
Quote from: PANK! on January 28, 2014, 09:09:49 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 27, 2014, 09:46:41 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2014, 09:23:08 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 27, 2014, 07:39:41 PM
The 2004 collapse was one of the hardest cockpunches I've had as a Cubs fan.
So, a team 13 games out of first when the collapse started, despite coming off a previous year division winner and adding Greg Maddux and Derrek Lee was a bigger cockpunch than Florida and San Diego? 5 outs and 12 outs from a pennant hurt LESS than losing a wild card?
Okay.
Solipsistic Chuck also assumes Bort was old enough to remember '84, which I don't believe he was.
Unless he's mining through cultural memory, in which case I'd ask him how Hack Wilson losing a ball in the sun in the '29 Series, precipitating a blown 8-0 lead rates, or where he'd put the Cubs wasting Stan Hack's leadoff triple against the Tigers in '35.
I'm pretty sure Bort's right around the same age as me, and that he remembers it.
Quote from: CT III on January 28, 2014, 09:37:06 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 28, 2014, 09:09:49 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 27, 2014, 09:46:41 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2014, 09:23:08 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 27, 2014, 07:39:41 PM
The 2004 collapse was one of the hardest cockpunches I've had as a Cubs fan.
So, a team 13 games out of first when the collapse started, despite coming off a previous year division winner and adding Greg Maddux and Derrek Lee was a bigger cockpunch than Florida and San Diego? 5 outs and 12 outs from a pennant hurt LESS than losing a wild card?
Okay.
Solipsistic Chuck also assumes Bort was old enough to remember '84, which I don't believe he was.
Unless he's mining through cultural memory, in which case I'd ask him how Hack Wilson losing a ball in the sun in the '29 Series, precipitating a blown 8-0 lead rates, or where he'd put the Cubs wasting Stan Hack's leadoff triple against the Tigers in '35.
I'm pretty sure Bort's right around the same age as me, and that he remembers it.
I don't remember it, but had I been alive I doubt my response before game five would have been "fuck you people, you should have won game four. You deserve this fate" because I'm not a crazy evil bastard.
Quote from: CT III on January 28, 2014, 09:37:06 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 28, 2014, 09:09:49 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 27, 2014, 09:46:41 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2014, 09:23:08 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 27, 2014, 07:39:41 PM
The 2004 collapse was one of the hardest cockpunches I've had as a Cubs fan.
So, a team 13 games out of first when the collapse started, despite coming off a previous year division winner and adding Greg Maddux and Derrek Lee was a bigger cockpunch than Florida and San Diego? 5 outs and 12 outs from a pennant hurt LESS than losing a wild card?
Okay.
Solipsistic Chuck also assumes Bort was old enough to remember '84, which I don't believe he was.
Unless he's mining through cultural memory, in which case I'd ask him how Hack Wilson losing a ball in the sun in the '29 Series, precipitating a blown 8-0 lead rates, or where he'd put the Cubs wasting Stan Hack's leadoff triple against the Tigers in '35.
I'm pretty sure Bort's right around the same age as me, and that he remembers it.
I'm going to surmise that Bort was running through the hills of South Carolina, chased by his drunken whore grandmother, and that the Cubs were not on his radar in '84.
The point of the story--one on which I assume we can agree-- is that Fuck You, Chuck.
Quote from: PANK! on January 28, 2014, 09:50:05 AM
Quote from: CT III on January 28, 2014, 09:37:06 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 28, 2014, 09:09:49 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 27, 2014, 09:46:41 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2014, 09:23:08 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 27, 2014, 07:39:41 PM
The 2004 collapse was one of the hardest cockpunches I've had as a Cubs fan.
So, a team 13 games out of first when the collapse started, despite coming off a previous year division winner and adding Greg Maddux and Derrek Lee was a bigger cockpunch than Florida and San Diego? 5 outs and 12 outs from a pennant hurt LESS than losing a wild card?
Okay.
Solipsistic Chuck also assumes Bort was old enough to remember '84, which I don't believe he was.
Unless he's mining through cultural memory, in which case I'd ask him how Hack Wilson losing a ball in the sun in the '29 Series, precipitating a blown 8-0 lead rates, or where he'd put the Cubs wasting Stan Hack's leadoff triple against the Tigers in '35.
I'm pretty sure Bort's right around the same age as me, and that he remembers it.
I'm going to surmise that Bort was running through the hills of South Carolina, chased by his drunken whore grandmother, and that the Cubs were not on his radar in '84.
The point of the story--one on which I assume we can agree-- is that Fuck You, Chuck.
When DeRosa hit into a bases loaded double play on a 3-1 count against the ancient Livan Fucking Hernandez in game 3 of the 2007 NLDS Chuck uncorked his finest bottle of champagne.
Meanwhile I swore a blue streak at Jock Jones and was kicked out of Wrigley Field.
While Stew can add in the hearbreak of 1945, I think if we were to keep it to the last half century, my ranking of nutpunches would be:
The years where the Cubs had the (arguably) best team in the NL, only to see it all go into the shitter:
1. 2003
2. 1984
3. 2008
4. 2007
The years where they bled out:
5. 1969
6. 1972
7. 2004
8. 1970
The years where they gave us hope, but got outclassed:
9. 1989
10. 1998
Goddamnt. I hate this team.
Quote from: Fork on January 28, 2014, 10:10:24 AM
While Stew can add in the hearbreak of 1945, I think if we were to keep it to the last half century, my ranking of nutpunches would be:
The years where the Cubs had the (arguably) best team in the NL, only to see it all go into the shitter:
1. 2003
2. 1984
3. 2008
4. 2007
The years where they bled out:
5. 1969
6. 1972
7. 2004
8. 1970
The years where they gave us hope, but got outclassed:
9. 1989
10. 1998
Goddamnt. I hate this team.
I know you put the qualifier "arguably" in there, but the 2007 Cubs were nowhere near the best team in the NL that year. They got what was coming to 'em.
Quote from: Slaky on January 28, 2014, 10:06:17 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 28, 2014, 09:50:05 AM
Quote from: CT III on January 28, 2014, 09:37:06 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 28, 2014, 09:09:49 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 27, 2014, 09:46:41 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2014, 09:23:08 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 27, 2014, 07:39:41 PM
The 2004 collapse was one of the hardest cockpunches I've had as a Cubs fan.
So, a team 13 games out of first when the collapse started, despite coming off a previous year division winner and adding Greg Maddux and Derrek Lee was a bigger cockpunch than Florida and San Diego? 5 outs and 12 outs from a pennant hurt LESS than losing a wild card?
Okay.
Solipsistic Chuck also assumes Bort was old enough to remember '84, which I don't believe he was.
Unless he's mining through cultural memory, in which case I'd ask him how Hack Wilson losing a ball in the sun in the '29 Series, precipitating a blown 8-0 lead rates, or where he'd put the Cubs wasting Stan Hack's leadoff triple against the Tigers in '35.
I'm pretty sure Bort's right around the same age as me, and that he remembers it.
I'm going to surmise that Bort was running through the hills of South Carolina, chased by his drunken whore grandmother, and that the Cubs were not on his radar in '84.
The point of the story--one on which I assume we can agree-- is that Fuck You, Chuck.
When DeRosa hit into a bases loaded double play on a 3-1 count against the ancient Livan Fucking Hernandez in game 3 of the 2007 NLDS Chuck uncorked his finest bottle of champagne.
Meanwhile I swore a blue streak at Jock Jones and was kicked out of Wrigley Field.
When Preston Wilson went opposite-field against Flash Gordon in early September, 2001 (http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/FLO/FLO200109050.shtml), Chuck bought a round of drinks for those around him.
Quote from: SKO on January 28, 2014, 10:13:53 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 28, 2014, 10:10:24 AM
While Stew can add in the hearbreak of 1945, I think if we were to keep it to the last half century, my ranking of nutpunches would be:
The years where the Cubs had the (arguably) best team in the NL, only to see it all go into the shitter:
1. 2003
2. 1984
3. 2008
4. 2007
The years where they bled out:
5. 1969
6. 1972
7. 2004
8. 1970
The years where they gave us hope, but got outclassed:
9. 1989
10. 1998
Goddamnt. I hate this team.
I know you put the qualifier "arguably" in there, but the 2007 Cubs were nowhere near the best team in the NL that year. They got what was coming to 'em.
Yea, I'd move 2007 to the third category
Quote from: Fork on January 28, 2014, 10:10:24 AM
While Stew can add in the hearbreak of 1945, I think if we were to keep it to the last half century, my ranking of nutpunches would be:
The years where the Cubs had the (arguably) best team in the NL, only to see it all go into the shitter:
1. 2003
2. 1984
3. 2008
4. 2007
The years where they bled out:
5. 1969
6. 1972
7. 2004
8. 1970
The years where they gave us hope, but got outclassed:
9. 1989
10. 1998
Goddamnt. I hate this team.
You left the 2001 team on the "bled out" list.
That was the first time in my lifetime that the Cubs actually were in legitimate contention after Labor Day and didn't close the deal (counter to public perception of the Cubs as habitual chokers...the reality being that they were so infrequently in this position to begin with to test such a theory)
But the aforementioned Preston Wilson game, which followed Jeff Fassero serving up a turd cookie to Ryan Klesko, (http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/SDN/SDN200108020.shtml) and was followed by Shitbird Farnsworth pissing a game away against Cincinnati in the first game after the September 11th attacks (http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CIN/CIN200109180.shtml), constitute a troika of celebratory blown games for Chuck.
Quote from: PANK! on January 28, 2014, 10:23:02 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 28, 2014, 10:06:17 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 28, 2014, 09:50:05 AM
Quote from: CT III on January 28, 2014, 09:37:06 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 28, 2014, 09:09:49 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 27, 2014, 09:46:41 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2014, 09:23:08 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 27, 2014, 07:39:41 PM
The 2004 collapse was one of the hardest cockpunches I've had as a Cubs fan.
So, a team 13 games out of first when the collapse started, despite coming off a previous year division winner and adding Greg Maddux and Derrek Lee was a bigger cockpunch than Florida and San Diego? 5 outs and 12 outs from a pennant hurt LESS than losing a wild card?
Okay.
Solipsistic Chuck also assumes Bort was old enough to remember '84, which I don't believe he was.
Unless he's mining through cultural memory, in which case I'd ask him how Hack Wilson losing a ball in the sun in the '29 Series, precipitating a blown 8-0 lead rates, or where he'd put the Cubs wasting Stan Hack's leadoff triple against the Tigers in '35.
I'm pretty sure Bort's right around the same age as me, and that he remembers it.
I'm going to surmise that Bort was running through the hills of South Carolina, chased by his drunken whore grandmother, and that the Cubs were not on his radar in '84.
The point of the story--one on which I assume we can agree-- is that Fuck You, Chuck.
When DeRosa hit into a bases loaded double play on a 3-1 count against the ancient Livan Fucking Hernandez in game 3 of the 2007 NLDS Chuck uncorked his finest bottle of champagne.
Meanwhile I swore a blue streak at Jock Jones and was kicked out of Wrigley Field.
When Preston Wilson went opposite-field against Flash Gordon in early September, 2001 (http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/FLO/FLO200109050.shtml), Chuck bought a round of drinks for those around him.
When Rick Sutcliffe, Steve Trout, Dennis Eckersley and Scott Sanderson went on the DL over the course of 10 days in June 1985, Chuck partied for the next six weeks before the inevitable depression caused by the coming Bears season.
Quote from: Yeti on January 28, 2014, 10:28:11 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 28, 2014, 10:13:53 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 28, 2014, 10:10:24 AM
While Stew can add in the hearbreak of 1945, I think if we were to keep it to the last half century, my ranking of nutpunches would be:
The years where the Cubs had the (arguably) best team in the NL, only to see it all go into the shitter:
1. 2003
2. 1984
3. 2008
4. 2007
The years where they bled out:
5. 1969
6. 1972
7. 2004
8. 1970
The years where they gave us hope, but got outclassed:
9. 1989
10. 1998
Goddamnt. I hate this team.
I know you put the qualifier "arguably" in there, but the 2007 Cubs were nowhere near the best team in the NL that year. They got what was coming to 'em.
Yea, I'd move 2007 to the third category
THIS.
2007 was nice in that Piniella was able to turn the elephant around, but that team was as playoff-worthy as the '98 Cubs. They lost 4 of their last 6 (5 of their last 11) and were promptly swept out of the postseason.
Chuck stood and cheered when Hue Hollins' questionable foul call on Scottie Pippen denied the Bulls a chance to win a title without Michael.
Quote from: Yeti on January 28, 2014, 10:28:11 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 28, 2014, 10:13:53 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 28, 2014, 10:10:24 AM
While Stew can add in the hearbreak of 1945, I think if we were to keep it to the last half century, my ranking of nutpunches would be:
The years where the Cubs had the (arguably) best team in the NL, only to see it all go into the shitter:
1. 2003
2. 1984
3. 2008
4. 2007
The years where they bled out:
5. 1969
6. 1972
7. 2004
8. 1970
The years where they gave us hope, but got outclassed:
9. 1989
10. 1998
Goddamnt. I hate this team.
I know you put the qualifier "arguably" in there, but the 2007 Cubs were nowhere near the best team in the NL that year. They got what was coming to 'em.
Yea, I'd move 2007 to the third category
Yep. 2007 was the year they rebounded from a pretty awful start but still didn't quite have the goods to do something.
BUT that doesn't change the pure anger I felt during that Arizona series mostly because Marmol melted down and Augie Ojeda bulldozed Cubs pitching and everyone was upset about Lou pulling Zambrano and they, as usual, couldn't fucking hit in October
I was about to put forth my own ranking. Then I asked myself: why? We're really rehashing the horrors of 2003, 2004, 2008, etc., etc., etc. all over again?
Fuck you, Chuck.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 28, 2014, 10:35:40 AM
I was about to put forth my own ranking. Then I asked myself: why? We're really rehashing the horrors of 2003, 2004, 2008, etc., etc., etc. all over again?
Fuck you, Chuck.
We're doing it, apparently, in an effort to cheer Chuck up during these long, solitary winter days.
Quote from: PANK! on January 28, 2014, 10:37:20 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 28, 2014, 10:35:40 AM
I was about to put forth my own ranking. Then I asked myself: why? We're really rehashing the horrors of 2003, 2004, 2008, etc., etc., etc. all over again?
Fuck you, Chuck.
We're doing it, apparently, in an effort to cheer Chuck up during these long, solitary winter days.
Well, I hope he's 'enjoying the shit out of' everyone's PTSD.
Don't even get Chuck started on Aaron Rodger's 4th-and-11 TD pass last month.
Pretty sure he's still glowing over that one.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 28, 2014, 10:35:40 AM
I was about to put forth my own ranking. Then I asked myself: why? We're really rehashing the horrors of 2003, 2004, 2008, etc., etc., etc. all over again?
Fuck you, Chuck.
Don't miss my retrospective on the 10th anniversary of the 2004 Cubs on Hockeenight.com coming this summer.
I was going to say poor Chuck, but I can't imagine any other emotion than schadenfreude being expressed here. (http://ivychat.blogspot.com/2004_09_01_archive.html)
If you look at Andy's 2004 Doses (back when they were daily and not methadone-level), he projects a hopeful tone until there's no hope and then it's just black despair which is later projected into bitter, justifiable homicidal hate for the St. Louis Cardinals. If you look at the long forgotten Uncouth Sloth, it would be best not to mix with alcohol as psychotic behavior might result. But Chuck seems focused on a month of I-told-you-so.
Quote from: PANK! on January 28, 2014, 10:42:02 AM
Don't even get Chuck started on Aaron Rodger's 4th-and-11 TD pass last month.
Pretty sure he's still glowing over that one.
He covers his house in mourning bunting each time the Hawks win the Stanley Cup.
Quote from: Fork on January 28, 2014, 10:54:22 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 28, 2014, 10:42:02 AM
Don't even get Chuck started on Aaron Rodger's 4th-and-11 TD pass last month.
Pretty sure he's still glowing over that one.
He covers his house in mourning bunting each time the Hawks win the Stanley Cup.
His annoyance at the Captain having the nerve to tie Game 7 against Vancouver in the final seconds of regulations in 2011 was soon replaced by relief when Alex Burrows potted the series winner in OT.
Quote from: Brownie on January 28, 2014, 10:53:58 AM
I was going to say poor Chuck, but I can't imagine any other emotion than schadenfreude being expressed here. (http://ivychat.blogspot.com/2004_09_01_archive.html)
If you look at Andy's 2004 Doses (back when they were daily and not methadone-level), he projects a hopeful tone until there's no hope and then it's just black despair which is later projected into bitter, justifiable homicidal hate for the St. Louis Cardinals. If you look at the long forgotten Uncouth Sloth, it would be best not to mix with alcohol as psychotic behavior might result. But Chuck seems focused on a month of I-told-you-so.
On the "bright side" (http://ivychat.blogspot.com/2004/09/bright-side-if-cubs-do-choke-one-off.html), at least the 2004 collapse forced the Cubs to get their house in order for 2005 and 2006.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 28, 2014, 10:59:25 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 28, 2014, 10:53:58 AM
I was going to say poor Chuck, but I can't imagine any other emotion than schadenfreude being expressed here. (http://ivychat.blogspot.com/2004_09_01_archive.html)
If you look at Andy's 2004 Doses (back when they were daily and not methadone-level), he projects a hopeful tone until there's no hope and then it's just black despair which is later projected into bitter, justifiable homicidal hate for the St. Louis Cardinals. If you look at the long forgotten Uncouth Sloth, it would be best not to mix with alcohol as psychotic behavior might result. But Chuck seems focused on a month of I-told-you-so.
On the "bright side" (http://ivychat.blogspot.com/2004/09/bright-side-if-cubs-do-choke-one-off.html), at least the 2004 collapse forced the Cubs to get their house in order for 2005 and 2006.
Listening to Fox radio on the way to work today, Mike North said he's sure Kerry Wood, Mark Prior and Zambrano were all on performing enhancing drugs. He was positive about it. That's the cubs lost, they weren't playing the game the right way folks.
Quote from: BH on January 28, 2014, 11:48:47 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 28, 2014, 10:59:25 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 28, 2014, 10:53:58 AM
I was going to say poor Chuck, but I can't imagine any other emotion than schadenfreude being expressed here. (http://ivychat.blogspot.com/2004_09_01_archive.html)
If you look at Andy's 2004 Doses (back when they were daily and not methadone-level), he projects a hopeful tone until there's no hope and then it's just black despair which is later projected into bitter, justifiable homicidal hate for the St. Louis Cardinals. If you look at the long forgotten Uncouth Sloth, it would be best not to mix with alcohol as psychotic behavior might result. But Chuck seems focused on a month of I-told-you-so.
On the "bright side" (http://ivychat.blogspot.com/2004/09/bright-side-if-cubs-do-choke-one-off.html), at least the 2004 collapse forced the Cubs to get their house in order for 2005 and 2006.
Listening to Fox radio on the way to work today, Mike North said he's sure Kerry Wood, Mark Prior and Zambrano were all on performing enhancing drugs. He was positive about it. That's the cubs lost, they weren't playing the game the right way folks.
That's a joke right? Not what North said, but that you were listening to him.
Quote from: PANK! on January 28, 2014, 10:42:02 AM
Don't even get Chuck started on Aaron Rodger's 4th-and-11 TD pass last month.
Pretty sure he's still glowing over that one.
https://twitter.com/ivychat/status/420252164926078976
Quote from: Tony on January 28, 2014, 11:58:13 AM
Quote from: BH on January 28, 2014, 11:48:47 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 28, 2014, 10:59:25 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 28, 2014, 10:53:58 AM
I was going to say poor Chuck, but I can't imagine any other emotion than schadenfreude being expressed here. (http://ivychat.blogspot.com/2004_09_01_archive.html)
If you look at Andy's 2004 Doses (back when they were daily and not methadone-level), he projects a hopeful tone until there's no hope and then it's just black despair which is later projected into bitter, justifiable homicidal hate for the St. Louis Cardinals. If you look at the long forgotten Uncouth Sloth, it would be best not to mix with alcohol as psychotic behavior might result. But Chuck seems focused on a month of I-told-you-so.
On the "bright side" (http://ivychat.blogspot.com/2004/09/bright-side-if-cubs-do-choke-one-off.html), at least the 2004 collapse forced the Cubs to get their house in order for 2005 and 2006.
Listening to Fox radio on the way to work today, Mike North said he's sure Kerry Wood, Mark Prior and Zambrano were all on performing enhancing drugs. He was positive about it. That's the cubs lost, they weren't playing the game the right way folks.
That's a joke right? Not what North said, but that you were listening to him.
Unfortunately it's not. As bad as he is, he's still better than Mike and Mike.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 28, 2014, 12:04:07 PM
Quote from: PANK! on January 28, 2014, 10:42:02 AM
Don't even get Chuck started on Aaron Rodger's 4th-and-11 TD pass last month.
Pretty sure he's still glowing over that one.
https://twitter.com/ivychat/status/420252164926078976
Like Theo Epstein famously said, "Everyone should enjoy the shit out of watching their favorite sports team lose."
Quote from: BH on January 28, 2014, 12:13:52 PM
Quote from: Tony on January 28, 2014, 11:58:13 AM
Quote from: BH on January 28, 2014, 11:48:47 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 28, 2014, 10:59:25 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 28, 2014, 10:53:58 AM
I was going to say poor Chuck, but I can't imagine any other emotion than schadenfreude being expressed here. (http://ivychat.blogspot.com/2004_09_01_archive.html)
If you look at Andy's 2004 Doses (back when they were daily and not methadone-level), he projects a hopeful tone until there's no hope and then it's just black despair which is later projected into bitter, justifiable homicidal hate for the St. Louis Cardinals. If you look at the long forgotten Uncouth Sloth, it would be best not to mix with alcohol as psychotic behavior might result. But Chuck seems focused on a month of I-told-you-so.
On the "bright side" (http://ivychat.blogspot.com/2004/09/bright-side-if-cubs-do-choke-one-off.html), at least the 2004 collapse forced the Cubs to get their house in order for 2005 and 2006.
Listening to Fox radio on the way to work today, Mike North said he's sure Kerry Wood, Mark Prior and Zambrano were all on performing enhancing drugs. He was positive about it. That's the cubs lost, they weren't playing the game the right way folks.
That's a joke right? Not what North said, but that you were listening to him.
Unfortunately it's not. As bad as he is, he's still better than Mike and Mike.
They're both worse than music. Even Nickelback.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 28, 2014, 12:04:07 PM
Quote from: PANK! on January 28, 2014, 10:42:02 AM
Don't even get Chuck started on Aaron Rodger's 4th-and-11 TD pass last month.
Pretty sure he's still glowing over that one.
https://twitter.com/ivychat/status/420252164926078976
I don't think "making the playoffs" is the same as "middle of the road."
Quote from: Eli on January 28, 2014, 12:30:53 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 28, 2014, 12:04:07 PM
Quote from: PANK! on January 28, 2014, 10:42:02 AM
Don't even get Chuck started on Aaron Rodger's 4th-and-11 TD pass last month.
Pretty sure he's still glowing over that one.
https://twitter.com/ivychat/status/420252164926078976
I don't think "making the playoffs" is the same as "middle of the road."
Especially in the NFL, where the last several Superbowl winners before this year were all 10-6 or 9-7 teams, including one in the Giants that actually gave up more points than they scored during the regular season, proving that if you can just make it in you have a shot at winning the whole fucking thing. In Chuck's defense, having the 14th overall pick instead of the 21st and the honor of having your shit kicked in by the 49ers is a decent consolation prize, but Not wanting an NFL team to make the playoffs is horribly stupid.
For the record, I do remember 1984, but I was only tangentially caring via my dad. 1989 was my first legit disappointment.
But yes "one of" was a key qualifier.
As was the fact that Chuck's brain is clearly just an angry colony of stinging insects.
Quote from: SKO on January 28, 2014, 12:42:35 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 28, 2014, 12:30:53 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 28, 2014, 12:04:07 PM
Quote from: PANK! on January 28, 2014, 10:42:02 AM
Don't even get Chuck started on Aaron Rodger's 4th-and-11 TD pass last month.
Pretty sure he's still glowing over that one.
https://twitter.com/ivychat/status/420252164926078976
I don't think "making the playoffs" is the same as "middle of the road."
Especially in the NFL, where the last several Superbowl winners before this year were all 10-6 or 9-7 teams, including one in the Giants that actually gave up more points than they scored during the regular season, proving that if you can just make it in you have a shot at winning the whole fucking thing. In Chuck's defense, having the 14th overall pick instead of the 21st and the honor of having your shit kicked in by the 49ers is a decent consolation prize, but Not wanting an NFL team to make the playoffs is horribly stupid.
You're right, it's true in the NFL but it's also true in every sport except the NBA. Low seeded hockey teams win often, right? And the baseball playoffs are kind of a crap shoot. The NBA is the only sport where the top teams almost always win the title.
Quote from: Tony on January 28, 2014, 12:47:20 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 28, 2014, 12:42:35 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 28, 2014, 12:30:53 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 28, 2014, 12:04:07 PM
Quote from: PANK! on January 28, 2014, 10:42:02 AM
Don't even get Chuck started on Aaron Rodger's 4th-and-11 TD pass last month.
Pretty sure he's still glowing over that one.
https://twitter.com/ivychat/status/420252164926078976
I don't think "making the playoffs" is the same as "middle of the road."
Especially in the NFL, where the last several Superbowl winners before this year were all 10-6 or 9-7 teams, including one in the Giants that actually gave up more points than they scored during the regular season, proving that if you can just make it in you have a shot at winning the whole fucking thing. In Chuck's defense, having the 14th overall pick instead of the 21st and the honor of having your shit kicked in by the 49ers is a decent consolation prize, but Not wanting an NFL team to make the playoffs is horribly stupid.
You're right, it's true in the NFL but it's also true in every sport except the NBA. Low seeded hockey teams win often, right? And the baseball playoffs are kind of a crap shoot. The NBA is the only sport where the top teams almost always win the title.
Plus, sometimes it's just fun to see your favorite team make the playoffs.
Then again, Chuck doesn't like sports, so we're full circle yet again.
Quote from: Eli on January 28, 2014, 12:54:39 PM
Quote from: Tony on January 28, 2014, 12:47:20 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 28, 2014, 12:42:35 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 28, 2014, 12:30:53 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 28, 2014, 12:04:07 PM
Quote from: PANK! on January 28, 2014, 10:42:02 AM
Don't even get Chuck started on Aaron Rodger's 4th-and-11 TD pass last month.
Pretty sure he's still glowing over that one.
https://twitter.com/ivychat/status/420252164926078976
I don't think "making the playoffs" is the same as "middle of the road."
Especially in the NFL, where the last several Superbowl winners before this year were all 10-6 or 9-7 teams, including one in the Giants that actually gave up more points than they scored during the regular season, proving that if you can just make it in you have a shot at winning the whole fucking thing. In Chuck's defense, having the 14th overall pick instead of the 21st and the honor of having your shit kicked in by the 49ers is a decent consolation prize, but Not wanting an NFL team to make the playoffs is horribly stupid.
You're right, it's true in the NFL but it's also true in every sport except the NBA. Low seeded hockey teams win often, right? And the baseball playoffs are kind of a crap shoot. The NBA is the only sport where the top teams almost always win the title.
Plus, sometimes it's just fun to see your favorite team make the playoffs.
Then again, Chuck doesn't like sports, so we're full circle yet again.
And yet it was Chuck who was arguing a few short years ago that the NFL had "no great teams": http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7056.msg250538#msg250538
Which you would think would mean he'd be on board with the "just make the playoffs" theory.
Quote from: Tony on January 28, 2014, 12:47:20 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 28, 2014, 12:42:35 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 28, 2014, 12:30:53 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 28, 2014, 12:04:07 PM
Quote from: PANK! on January 28, 2014, 10:42:02 AM
Don't even get Chuck started on Aaron Rodger's 4th-and-11 TD pass last month.
Pretty sure he's still glowing over that one.
https://twitter.com/ivychat/status/420252164926078976
I don't think "making the playoffs" is the same as "middle of the road."
Especially in the NFL, where the last several Superbowl winners before this year were all 10-6 or 9-7 teams, including one in the Giants that actually gave up more points than they scored during the regular season, proving that if you can just make it in you have a shot at winning the whole fucking thing. In Chuck's defense, having the 14th overall pick instead of the 21st and the honor of having your shit kicked in by the 49ers is a decent consolation prize, but Not wanting an NFL team to make the playoffs is horribly stupid.
You're right, it's true in the NFL but it's also true in every sport except the NBA. Low seeded hockey teams win often, right? And the baseball playoffs are kind of a crap shoot. The NBA is the only sport where the top teams almost always win the title get Apex as a life-long fan.
Quote from: Tony on January 28, 2014, 12:47:20 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 28, 2014, 12:42:35 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 28, 2014, 12:30:53 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 28, 2014, 12:04:07 PM
Quote from: PANK! on January 28, 2014, 10:42:02 AM
Don't even get Chuck started on Aaron Rodger's 4th-and-11 TD pass last month.
Pretty sure he's still glowing over that one.
https://twitter.com/ivychat/status/420252164926078976
I don't think "making the playoffs" is the same as "middle of the road."
Especially in the NFL, where the last several Superbowl winners before this year were all 10-6 or 9-7 teams, including one in the Giants that actually gave up more points than they scored during the regular season, proving that if you can just make it in you have a shot at winning the whole fucking thing. In Chuck's defense, having the 14th overall pick instead of the 21st and the honor of having your shit kicked in by the 49ers is a decent consolation prize, but Not wanting an NFL team to make the playoffs is horribly stupid.
You're right, it's true in the NFL but it's also true in every sport except the NBA. Low seeded hockey teams win often, right? And the baseball playoffs are kind of a crap shoot. The NBA is the only sport where the top teams almost always win the title.
How often regular season champions win playoff titles...
NBA 16-team playoffs (1984-2013): 13/30
NHL 16-team playoffs (1980-2013): 11/33
NFL 12-team playoffs (1991-2013): 6/23
MLB 8-team playoffs (1995-2011): 3/17
MLB 10-team playoffs (2012-2013): 1/2
Compared to the expected odds for each playoff-bound team if winners in each format were decided by coin-flipping computers instead of by burly men on the field of battle...
NBA: 43% vs. 6.25%
NHL: 33% vs. 6.25%
NFL: 26% vs. 6.25% or 12.5% with a bye
MLB (8): 18% vs. 12.5%
MLB (10): 50% vs. 6.25% wild card or 12.5% division champs
Quote from: PANK! on January 28, 2014, 10:34:54 AM
Chuck stood and cheered when Hue Hollins' questionable foul call on Scottie Pippen denied the Bulls a chance to win a title without Michael.
The one questionable call that went against the Bulls during an eight-year stretch. Never forget.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 28, 2014, 01:22:03 PM
How often regular season champions win playoff titles...
NBA 16-team playoffs (1984-2013): 13/30
NHL 16-team playoffs (1980-2013): 11/33
NFL 12-team playoffs (1991-2013): 6/23
MLB 8-team playoffs (1995-2011): 3/17
MLB 10-team playoffs (2012-2013): 1/2
Compared to the expected odds for each playoff-bound team if winners in each format were decided by coin-flipping computers instead of by burly men on the field of battle...
NBA: 43% vs. 6.25%
NHL: 33% vs. 6.25%
NFL: 26% vs. 6.25% or 12.5% with a bye
MLB (8): 18% vs. 12.5%
MLB (10): 50% vs. 6.25% wild card or 12.5% division champs
Thanks for this. Similar to what I would have guessed, though the NFL is even more random than I thought it would be.
Quote from: InternetApex on January 28, 2014, 01:31:05 PM
Quote from: PANK! on January 28, 2014, 10:34:54 AM
Chuck stood and cheered when Hue Hollins' questionable foul call on Scottie Pippen denied the Bulls a chance to win a title without Michael.
The one questionable call that went against the Bulls during an eight-year stretch. Never forget.
He has a point.
With news that AJ Burnett is going to pitch I would love it if the Cubs offered him a short term deal (1 or 2 years, max) at a high rate of pay.
Pretty much just like paying for prospects if he gives you anything close to what he gave the Pirates last year.
MLB network seems to think the Orioles will be going after him.
Honest question, has free agency completely dried up in the last five years or so? Or when I was younger and dumber did I just ignore the downside of it in favor of OH COOL THEY SIGNED THIS GUY I'VE HEARD OF? Because I feel like there was a time when building an MLB team through free agency wasn't actually that terrible and there were more good players available than there are now. Now MLB free agency seems like it's come to be worse than NFL free agency, where everyone overpays for the tiny handful of truly good players and then goes bargain shopping for castoffs.
Quote from: Slaky on January 29, 2014, 09:12:03 AM
With news that AJ Burnett is going to pitch I would love it if the Cubs offered him a short term deal (1 or 2 years, max) at a high rate of pay.
Pretty much just like paying for prospects if he gives you anything close to what he gave the Pirates last year.
MLB network seems to think the Orioles will be going after him.
I don't think he's putting off retirement to pitch for a team that's about to lose 90 games.
Quote from: SKO on January 29, 2014, 09:22:53 AM
Honest question, has free agency completely dried up in the last five years or so?
Sort of. Teams are buying out star players' arbitration years and then usually extending them before they ever hit free agency. The Rays did it with Longoria and a bunch of teams have followed suit since.
Quote from: InternetApex on January 29, 2014, 09:23:55 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 29, 2014, 09:12:03 AM
With news that AJ Burnett is going to pitch I would love it if the Cubs offered him a short term deal (1 or 2 years, max) at a high rate of pay.
Pretty much just like paying for prospects if he gives you anything close to what he gave the Pirates last year.
MLB network seems to think the Orioles will be going after him.
I don't think he's putting off retirement to pitch for a team that's about to lose 90 games.
Someone put some
muscle optimism in their frappucino this morning.
Quote from: Eli on January 29, 2014, 09:43:07 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 29, 2014, 09:23:55 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 29, 2014, 09:12:03 AM
With news that AJ Burnett is going to pitch I would love it if the Cubs offered him a short term deal (1 or 2 years, max) at a high rate of pay.
Pretty much just like paying for prospects if he gives you anything close to what he gave the Pirates last year.
MLB network seems to think the Orioles will be going after him.
I don't think he's putting off retirement to pitch for a team that's about to lose 90 games.
Someone put some muscle optimism in their frappucino this morning.
90+ then?
Quote from: SKO on January 29, 2014, 09:22:53 AM
Honest question, has free agency completely dried up in the last five years or so? Or when I was younger and dumber did I just ignore the downside of it in favor of OH COOL THEY SIGNED THIS GUY I'VE HEARD OF? Because I feel like there was a time when building an MLB team through free agency wasn't actually that terrible and there were more good players available than there are now. Now MLB free agency seems like it's come to be worse than NFL free agency, where everyone overpays for the tiny handful of truly good players and then goes bargain shopping for castoffs.
Top signings from 2006 to current (top=biggest contracts):
2006: Soriano (FYC), Zito, Carlos Lee, A-Ram (same team), JD Drew, Gil Meche (BC!!!!!!!), Matsuzaka
2007: A-Rod (same team), Torii Hunter, Aaron Rowand, Jorge Posada (same team), Carlos Silva (Fuck You), Fransisco Cordero
2008: Teixeira, Sabathia, Burnett, Lowe, Dempster (same team), Manny Ramirez (same team), Fransisco Rodriguez
2009: Holliday (same team), Lackey, Bay, Figgins (YOUR FIRST NAME IS RETARDED(spelled)), Chapman, Randy Wolf (ouch)
2010: Carl Crawford, Werth (REPRESENT), Cliff Lee, Beltre, Dunn
2011: Pujols, Prince, Jose Reyes, CJ Wilson, Yu, Buehrle
2012: Greinke, JOSH HAMILTON, Anibal (same team, YOU FUCKING TEASE), BJ Upton(second thoughts?), Swisher (wow), EJAX!!!!!!!
2013: Cano, Tanakafuckyu, Ellsbury, Choo, McCann, Granderson
It should be noted that ESPN's number 4 and number 6 ranked FAs haven't signed, Ubaldo and Ervin Santana, respectively
So, yes?
I didn't do the math, but about 90% of those guys went to the Yankees.
Quote from: InternetApex on January 29, 2014, 09:23:55 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 29, 2014, 09:12:03 AM
With news that AJ Burnett is going to pitch I would love it if the Cubs offered him a short term deal (1 or 2 years, max) at a high rate of pay.
Pretty much just like paying for prospects if he gives you anything close to what he gave the Pirates last year.
MLB network seems to think the Orioles will be going after him.
I don't think he's putting off retirement to pitch for a team that's about to lose 90 games.
You don't know that. It's entirely possible he's got a shitload of alimony or child support to pay. Or he bought too many houses.
Whatever, if a team can overpay him for a short year or 2 of service it's the Cubs.
Also, like I said, going to the Cubs is actually a much safer way to get on a winning team. He'd basically get to pick his best choice halfway through the season instead of taking a leap with Baltimore, or whatever.
Quote from: Slaky on January 29, 2014, 12:26:37 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 29, 2014, 09:23:55 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 29, 2014, 09:12:03 AM
With news that AJ Burnett is going to pitch I would love it if the Cubs offered him a short term deal (1 or 2 years, max) at a high rate of pay.
Pretty much just like paying for prospects if he gives you anything close to what he gave the Pirates last year.
MLB network seems to think the Orioles will be going after him.
I don't think he's putting off retirement to pitch for a team that's about to lose 90 games.
You don't know that. It's entirely possible he's got a shitload of alimony or child support to pay. Or he bought too many houses.
Whatever, if a team can overpay him for a short year or 2 of service it's the Cubs.
Also, like I said, going to the Cubs is actually a much safer way to get on a winning team. He'd basically get to pick his best choice halfway through the season instead of taking a leap with Baltimore, or whatever.
(http://pikof.com/di/3SJO/disregard-females-acquire-currency.jpg)
All jokes aside, I do love the idea of getting Burnett.
Quote from: Yeti on January 29, 2014, 12:39:04 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 29, 2014, 12:26:37 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 29, 2014, 09:23:55 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 29, 2014, 09:12:03 AM
With news that AJ Burnett is going to pitch I would love it if the Cubs offered him a short term deal (1 or 2 years, max) at a high rate of pay.
Pretty much just like paying for prospects if he gives you anything close to what he gave the Pirates last year.
MLB network seems to think the Orioles will be going after him.
I don't think he's putting off retirement to pitch for a team that's about to lose 90 games.
You don't know that. It's entirely possible he's got a shitload of alimony or child support to pay. Or he bought too many houses.
Whatever, if a team can overpay him for a short year or 2 of service it's the Cubs.
Also, like I said, going to the Cubs is actually a much safer way to get on a winning team. He'd basically get to pick his best choice halfway through the season instead of taking a leap with Baltimore, or whatever.
(http://pikof.com/di/3SJO/disregard-females-acquire-currency.jpg)
All jokes aside, I do love the idea of getting Burnett.
I don't care about Burnett, but having more players who other teams might be willing to overpay for in July sounds good to me.
The Cubs dropped some dough on Jason Hammel (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hammeja01.shtml).
He's..uh...tall, and he brings Matt Clement's Amish Tickler back to Wrigley Field. But he's not very good at pitching.
Quote from: Fork on January 31, 2014, 12:55:18 PM
The Cubs dropped some dough on Jason Hammel (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hammeja01.shtml).
He's..uh...tall, and he brings Matt Clement's Amish Tickler back to Wrigley Field. But he's not very good at pitching.
Judging by the most similar guy to him, I think Oleg would approve.
Quote from: Fork on January 31, 2014, 12:55:18 PM
The Cubs dropped some dough on Jason Hammel (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hammeja01.shtml).
He's..uh...tall, and he brings Matt Clement's Amish Tickler back to Wrigley Field. But he's not very good at pitching.
Fangraphs (http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=4538) has him with WAR of 3.7, 3.8, 1.4, 2.6 and 0.7 in his past five seasons on the strength of a sub-4.00 FIP and xFIP in '09, '10 and '12 (and a sub-4.00 ERA in '12). Baseball-Reference is far less generous.
He apparently had issues with an elbow strain last season.
Seems like a decent enough bounce-back candidate for the Cubes at this point.
Quote from: Brownie on January 31, 2014, 01:02:10 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 31, 2014, 12:55:18 PM
The Cubs dropped some dough on Jason Hammel (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hammeja01.shtml).
He's..uh...tall, and he brings Matt Clement's Amish Tickler back to Wrigley Field. But he's not very good at pitching.
Judging by the most similar guy to him, I think Oleg would approve.
I'm not saying I LOLed, but there was an audible chuckle.
Quote from: Bort on January 31, 2014, 01:13:15 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 31, 2014, 01:02:10 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 31, 2014, 12:55:18 PM
The Cubs dropped some dough on Jason Hammel (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hammeja01.shtml).
He's..uh...tall, and he brings Matt Clement's Amish Tickler back to Wrigley Field. But he's not very good at pitching.
Judging by the most similar guy to him, I think Oleg would approve.
I'm not saying I LOLed, but there was an audible chuckle.
I grinned a big grin.
On a more serious note, as pointed out in the shoutbox, check out Hammel's #3 most similar pitcher and #4 most similar through age 30.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 31, 2014, 01:26:24 PM
On a more serious note, as pointed out in the shoutbox, check out Hammel's #3 most similar pitcher and #4 most similar through age 30.
And most similar at 27
Always a good day to see Shawn Boskie's name.
Quote from: Yeti on January 31, 2014, 01:27:56 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 31, 2014, 01:26:24 PM
On a more serious note, as pointed out in the shoutbox, check out Hammel's #3 most similar pitcher and #4 most similar through age 30.
And most similar at 27
On a more serious note.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 31, 2014, 01:33:56 PM
Quote from: Yeti on January 31, 2014, 01:27:56 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 31, 2014, 01:26:24 PM
On a more serious note, as pointed out in the shoutbox, check out Hammel's #3 most similar pitcher and #4 most similar through age 30.
And most similar at 27
On a more serious note.
Sincerely
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 31, 2014, 01:28:20 PM
Always a good day to see Shawn Boskie's name.
Quit pretending you didn't hate him.
Quote from: Yeti on January 31, 2014, 01:27:56 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 31, 2014, 01:26:24 PM
On a more serious note, as pointed out in the shoutbox, check out Hammel's #3 most similar pitcher and #4 most similar through age 30.
And most similar at 27
Boof Bonser
Dick Pole
Dave Bush
Tone Arm Jew
Lil Stoner
This guy's in really hilariously-named company. If he never pitches a meaningful inning for the Cubs, we'll always have this.
Quote from: InternetApex on January 31, 2014, 02:17:41 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 31, 2014, 01:28:20 PM
Always a good day to see Shawn Boskie's name.
Quit pretending you didn't hate him.
Back when Boskie came up, I had high hopes for him. I never hated him. Just disappointed.
James McDonald, minor league deal w/ invite. (https://twitter.com/MLBBruceLevine/status/429360133462691840)
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 31, 2014, 03:18:44 PM
James McDonald, minor league deal w/ invite. (https://twitter.com/MLBBruceLevine/status/429360133462691840)
Don't hate that but I'm assuming he's coming off some crappy injury.
EDIT: Nope he just sucked and went to the minors where was lit up.
God damn.
Quote from: Slaky on January 31, 2014, 04:00:52 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 31, 2014, 03:18:44 PM
James McDonald, minor league deal w/ invite. (https://twitter.com/MLBBruceLevine/status/429360133462691840)
Don't hate that but I'm assuming he's coming off some crappy injury.
EDIT: Nope he just sucked and went to the minors where was lit up.
God damn.
No-risk deal. Save your goddamns for later.
Quote from: Fork on January 31, 2014, 04:35:14 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 31, 2014, 04:00:52 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 31, 2014, 03:18:44 PM
James McDonald, minor league deal w/ invite. (https://twitter.com/MLBBruceLevine/status/429360133462691840)
Don't hate that but I'm assuming he's coming off some crappy injury.
EDIT: Nope he just sucked and went to the minors where was lit up.
God damn.
No-risk deal. Save your goddamns for later.
Fork is actually right.
It's downright Chuckian to be mad about this move.
Quote from: PenFoe on January 31, 2014, 04:53:43 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 31, 2014, 04:35:14 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 31, 2014, 04:00:52 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 31, 2014, 03:18:44 PM
James McDonald, minor league deal w/ invite. (https://twitter.com/MLBBruceLevine/status/429360133462691840)
Don't hate that but I'm assuming he's coming off some crappy injury.
EDIT: Nope he just sucked and went to the minors where was lit up.
God damn.
No-risk deal. Save your goddamns for later.
Fork is actually right.
It's downright Chuckian to be mad about this move.
I don't think Slak's mad about this. I assume he's merely marveling at McDonald's fall to Rookie League and High A last season.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 31, 2014, 05:28:19 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 31, 2014, 04:53:43 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 31, 2014, 04:35:14 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 31, 2014, 04:00:52 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 31, 2014, 03:18:44 PM
James McDonald, minor league deal w/ invite. (https://twitter.com/MLBBruceLevine/status/429360133462691840)
Don't hate that but I'm assuming he's coming off some crappy injury.
EDIT: Nope he just sucked and went to the minors where was lit up.
God damn.
No-risk deal. Save your goddamns for later.
Fork is actually right.
It's downright Chuckian to be mad about this move.
I don't think Slak's mad about this. I assume he's merely marveling at McDonald's fall to Rookie League and High A last season.
How about you let me decide how I think Slak feels about this for myself, pal?
Quote from: CT III on January 31, 2014, 07:10:26 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 31, 2014, 05:28:19 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 31, 2014, 04:53:43 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 31, 2014, 04:35:14 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 31, 2014, 04:00:52 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 31, 2014, 03:18:44 PM
James McDonald, minor league deal w/ invite. (https://twitter.com/MLBBruceLevine/status/429360133462691840)
Don't hate that but I'm assuming he's coming off some crappy injury.
EDIT: Nope he just sucked and went to the minors where was lit up.
God damn.
No-risk deal. Save your goddamns for later.
Fork is actually right.
It's downright Chuckian to be mad about this move.
I don't think Slak's mad about this. I assume he's merely marveling at McDonald's fall to Rookie League and High A last season.
How about you let me decide how I think Slak feels about this for myself, pal?
You guys should do a podcast together.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 31, 2014, 05:28:19 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 31, 2014, 04:53:43 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 31, 2014, 04:35:14 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 31, 2014, 04:00:52 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 31, 2014, 03:18:44 PM
James McDonald, minor league deal w/ invite. (https://twitter.com/MLBBruceLevine/status/429360133462691840)
Don't hate that but I'm assuming he's coming off some crappy injury.
EDIT: Nope he just sucked and went to the minors where was lit up.
God damn.
No-risk deal. Save your goddamns for later.
Fork is actually right.
It's downright Chuckian to be mad about this move.
I don't think Slak's mad about this. I assume he's merely marveling at McDonald's fall to Rookie League and High A last season.
I think in that case it would be more of a "gawd dayum".
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 31, 2014, 05:28:19 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 31, 2014, 04:53:43 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 31, 2014, 04:35:14 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 31, 2014, 04:00:52 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 31, 2014, 03:18:44 PM
James McDonald, minor league deal w/ invite. (https://twitter.com/MLBBruceLevine/status/429360133462691840)
Don't hate that but I'm assuming he's coming off some crappy injury.
EDIT: Nope he just sucked and went to the minors where was lit up.
God damn.
No-risk deal. Save your goddamns for later.
Fork is actually right.
It's downright Chuckian to be mad about this move.
I don't think Slak's mad about this. I assume he's merely marveling at McDonald's fall to Rookie League and High A last season.
Definitely not mad about this at all. I just didn't realize how bad he's gotten.
Grantland: Jepstink is wonderful.
http://grantland.com/features/chicago-cubs-boston-red-sox-theo-epstein/
Quote from: InternetApex on March 17, 2014, 03:06:18 PM
Grantland: Jepstink is wonderful.
http://grantland.com/features/chicago-cubs-boston-red-sox-theo-epstein/
Excellent article.
Quote from: Tonker on March 17, 2014, 03:19:55 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 17, 2014, 03:06:18 PM
Grantland: Jepstink is wonderful.
http://grantland.com/features/chicago-cubs-boston-red-sox-theo-epstein/
Excellent article.
Yeah. Right. I am really looking forward to 2018.
Quote from: CBStew on March 17, 2014, 04:06:04 PM
Quote from: Tonker on March 17, 2014, 03:19:55 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 17, 2014, 03:06:18 PM
Grantland: Jepstink is wonderful.
http://grantland.com/features/chicago-cubs-boston-red-sox-theo-epstein/
Excellent article.
Yeah. Right. I am really looking forward to 2018.
Keep reading.
Quote. The Cubs may not get past the Cardinals, but a spot in the 2015 wild-card game is worth reaching for, particularly since it would simply be the Cubs' opening salvo in what ought to be a run of contention.
Bonertime cometh.
For all those who hate the terrible that is Jepstink, Josh Byrnes is now available. Shit-canned by the Padres.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on June 22, 2014, 03:38:02 PM
For all those who hate the terrible that is Jepstink, Josh Byrnes is now available. Shit-canned by the Padres.
Another Padre? Al will be pissed
Bump.
Theo had his end-of-the-year presser today, saying the goal for 2015 is winning the division.
He also said the team was able to do five years' work in three, and they will add a top-line pitcher from outside the organization "in the next 15 months."
Buckle up guys. The Golden Age is nigh.
Quote from: Fork on September 30, 2014, 03:20:29 PM
Theo had his end-of-the-year presser today, saying the goal for 2015 is winning the division.
He also said the team was able to do five years' work in three, and they will add a top-line pitcher from outside the organization "in the next 15 months."
Theo's probably just being cautious and leaving himself an out, but there's a little bit of a disconnect between those two things.
Quote from: Eli on September 30, 2014, 03:23:06 PM
Quote from: Fork on September 30, 2014, 03:20:29 PM
Theo had his end-of-the-year presser today, saying the goal for 2015 is winning the division.
He also said the team was able to do five years' work in three, and they will add a top-line pitcher from outside the organization "in the next 15 months."
Theo's probably just being cautious and leaving himself an out, but there's a little bit of a disconnect between those two things.
The Sun Times doesn't understand. Is it 2015? 2016? 2019 when the CASH FLOW starts?
Quote from: Eli on September 30, 2014, 03:23:06 PM
Quote from: Fork on September 30, 2014, 03:20:29 PM
Theo had his end-of-the-year presser today, saying the goal for 2015 is winning the division.
He also said the team was able to do five years' work in three, and they will add a top-line pitcher from outside the organization "in the next 15 months."
Theo's probably just being cautious and leaving himself an out, but there's a little bit of a disconnect between those two things.
Not necessarily. They were 6th in overall FIP this year, and only fell to 13th in the 2nd half after the Snork/Hammel trade. Given their track record with reclamation projects, and assuming that Arrieta & Hendricks can come close to what they did this year, they don't necessarily need a "top-line pitcher" to field a top 10 pitching staff.
On the other side of the coin, the offense went from 27th in wOBA in the 1st half of the season, up to 12th in the 2nd half (when you had a lineup with guys who, for the most part, will be here next year). Factor in improvement from Baez & Alcantara, which will hopefully offset injuries and regression from guys like Coghlan and Soler, and add an outfielder and/or a catcher, and you got a stew going.
I'm not saying all of this means winning the division is likely, but it's definitely a much more realistic goal when Ricketts declared it at the beginning of this season or whenever it was, even without a Lester/Scherzer/Shields signing. Don't get me wrong though - I hope they get at least one of those bastards signed to push the possible into the realm of the more-possible.
Quote from: Eli on September 30, 2014, 03:23:06 PM
Quote from: Fork on September 30, 2014, 03:20:29 PM
Theo had his end-of-the-year presser today, saying the goal for 2015 is winning the division.
He also said the team was able to do five years' work in three, and they will add a top-line pitcher from outside the organization "in the next 15 months."
Theo's probably just being cautious and leaving himself an out, but there's a little bit of a disconnect between those two things.
A little bit, yeah. If you believe, as many of us do that winning the division in 2015 won't be possible without a top-line pitcher from outside the organization, then you'd think they have to move on that sooner than later. But saying you'll add one before next season is a recipe for disaster. And opening that up to the 2015 deadline or next offseason means that it will happen when it happens, so other GMs can't get too fucking cute with their Samardjiza for Bryant LOLfests.
Quote from: Eli on September 30, 2014, 03:23:06 PM
Quote from: Fork on September 30, 2014, 03:20:29 PM
Theo had his end-of-the-year presser today, saying the goal for 2015 is winning the division.
He also said the team was able to do five years' work in three, and they will add a top-line pitcher from outside the organization "in the next 15 months."
Theo's probably just being cautious and leaving himself an out, but there's a little bit of a disconnect between those two things.
Like you said, he's leaving himself an out. He's going to try landing Lester or one of the other FAs this season, but if he whiffs on all of them he hasn't painted himself into a corner with the media.
Even without an outside guy, full seasons of Arietta, Hendricks and Soler, plus any improvement from Baez and Alacantara, with Bryant showing up in May gets them pretty fucking close to the 15 wins or so they'll need to play in October.
Quote from: Fork on October 01, 2014, 08:03:49 AM
Quote from: Eli on September 30, 2014, 03:23:06 PM
Quote from: Fork on September 30, 2014, 03:20:29 PM
Theo had his end-of-the-year presser today, saying the goal for 2015 is winning the division.
He also said the team was able to do five years' work in three, and they will add a top-line pitcher from outside the organization "in the next 15 months."
Theo's probably just being cautious and leaving himself an out, but there's a little bit of a disconnect between those two things.
Like you said, he's leaving himself an out. He's going to try landing Lester or one of the other FAs this season, but if he whiffs on all of them he hasn't painted himself into a corner with the media.
Even without an outside guy, full seasons of Arietta, Hendricks and Soler, plus any improvement from Baez and Alacantara, with Bryant showing up in May gets them pretty fucking close to the 15 wins or so they'll need to play in October.
I still think they'll need an additional top arm to give them a reasonable shot. I'm fully on board with Arrieta as a #1 kind of guy, but Hendricks probably isn't going to have an ERA in the 2s again. He's still a key piece, but probably more of a #3/#4 than a top-of-the-rotation guy (if you're into that whole numerical ranking of starters thing).
I expect them to sign Lester, so it's a moot point.
Quote from: Fork on September 30, 2014, 03:20:29 PM
Bump.
Theo had his end-of-the-year presser today, saying the goal for 2015 is winning the division.
He also said the team was able to do five years' work in three, and they will add a top-line pitcher from outside the organization "in the next 15 months."
Buckle up guys. The Golden Age is nigh.
I am going to be Captain Obvious, but doesn't that mean that we can't expect to see Mr. Topoftheline until the 2016 season?
Quote from: CBStew on October 01, 2014, 09:30:32 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 30, 2014, 03:20:29 PM
Bump.
Theo had his end-of-the-year presser today, saying the goal for 2015 is winning the division.
He also said the team was able to do five years' work in three, and they will add a top-line pitcher from outside the organization "in the next 15 months."
Buckle up guys. The Golden Age is nigh.
I am going to be Captain Obvious, but doesn't that mean that we can't expect to see Mr. Topoftheline until the 2016 season?
I take it to mean that we can expect to see him anywhere from tomorrow (unlikely) until 15 months from now (definitely).
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 08:44:14 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 01, 2014, 08:03:49 AM
Quote from: Eli on September 30, 2014, 03:23:06 PM
Quote from: Fork on September 30, 2014, 03:20:29 PM
Theo had his end-of-the-year presser today, saying the goal for 2015 is winning the division.
He also said the team was able to do five years' work in three, and they will add a top-line pitcher from outside the organization "in the next 15 months."
Theo's probably just being cautious and leaving himself an out, but there's a little bit of a disconnect between those two things.
Like you said, he's leaving himself an out. He's going to try landing Lester or one of the other FAs this season, but if he whiffs on all of them he hasn't painted himself into a corner with the media.
Even without an outside guy, full seasons of Arietta, Hendricks and Soler, plus any improvement from Baez and Alacantara, with Bryant showing up in May gets them pretty fucking close to the 15 wins or so they'll need to play in October.
I still think they'll need an additional top arm to give them a reasonable shot. I'm fully on board with Arrieta as a #1 kind of guy, but Hendricks probably isn't going to have an ERA in the 2s again. He's still a key piece, but probably more of a #3/#4 than a top-of-the-rotation guy (if you're into that whole numerical ranking of starters thing).
I expect them to sign Lester, so it's a moot point.
I'm convincing myself that Lester is going to the Yankees or Dodgers. The Cubs can offer him a lot of money but I think those teams can offer him more. If he did go to New York it'd be disappointing on so many levels. If he chose the Dodgers I couldn't really blame him at all.
Not that it matters in the whole scheme of things, but I think I'd rather have Scherzer.
Quote from: PANK! on October 01, 2014, 10:18:46 AM
Not that it matters in the whole scheme of things, but I think I'd rather have Scherzer.
Either would be great. I just figure Lester will cost a bit less and the front office has a history with him, so it seems more likely.
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 10:24:28 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 01, 2014, 10:18:46 AM
Not that it matters in the whole scheme of things, but I think I'd rather have Scherzer.
Either would be great. I just figure Lester will cost a bit less and the front office has a history with him, so it seems more likely.
If I had to bet I might bet on Jamaican superstar Justin Masterson unless he has some kind of revival in the playoffs. He'd be cheap, especially if he gets lit up in the NLDS or whenever his next outing might be. And he's got the stuff Bosio loves - except that his fastball is losing steam.
Wouldn't be a terrible fall back option assuming he doesn't demand EJax money.
EDIT: it IS possible they go outside the box and trade for someone, say Cole Hamels. That would be fucking amazing.
Quote from: Slaky on October 01, 2014, 10:45:11 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 10:24:28 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 01, 2014, 10:18:46 AM
Not that it matters in the whole scheme of things, but I think I'd rather have Scherzer.
Either would be great. I just figure Lester will cost a bit less and the front office has a history with him, so it seems more likely.
If I had to bet I might bet on Jamaican superstar Justin Masterson unless he has some kind of revival in the playoffs. He'd be cheap, especially if he gets lit up in the NLDS or whenever his next outing might be. And he's got the stuff Bosio loves - except that his fastball is losing steam.
Wouldn't be a terrible fall back option assuming he doesn't demand EJax money.
EDIT: it IS possible they go outside the box and trade for someone, say Cole Hamels. That would be fucking amazing.
If they get Masterson, I still want them to get an actual top-of-the-rotation guy, and not a guy who pitched that like 2 out of the last 4 years.
Quote from: Slaky on October 01, 2014, 09:36:42 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 08:44:14 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 01, 2014, 08:03:49 AM
Quote from: Eli on September 30, 2014, 03:23:06 PM
Quote from: Fork on September 30, 2014, 03:20:29 PM
Theo had his end-of-the-year presser today, saying the goal for 2015 is winning the division.
He also said the team was able to do five years' work in three, and they will add a top-line pitcher from outside the organization "in the next 15 months."
Theo's probably just being cautious and leaving himself an out, but there's a little bit of a disconnect between those two things.
Like you said, he's leaving himself an out. He's going to try landing Lester or one of the other FAs this season, but if he whiffs on all of them he hasn't painted himself into a corner with the media.
Even without an outside guy, full seasons of Arietta, Hendricks and Soler, plus any improvement from Baez and Alacantara, with Bryant showing up in May gets them pretty fucking close to the 15 wins or so they'll need to play in October.
I still think they'll need an additional top arm to give them a reasonable shot. I'm fully on board with Arrieta as a #1 kind of guy, but Hendricks probably isn't going to have an ERA in the 2s again. He's still a key piece, but probably more of a #3/#4 than a top-of-the-rotation guy (if you're into that whole numerical ranking of starters thing).
I expect them to sign Lester, so it's a moot point.
I'm convincing myself that Lester is going to the Yankees or Dodgers. The Cubs can offer him a lot of money but I think those teams can offer him more. If he did go to New York it'd be disappointing on so many levels. If he chose the Dodgers I couldn't really blame him at all.
Why would it be more disappointing to see him go to the Yankees than the Dodgers? I don't understand that Slak logic at all.
David Price should be available in 15 some odd months.
Quote from: Slaky on October 01, 2014, 10:45:11 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 10:24:28 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 01, 2014, 10:18:46 AM
Not that it matters in the whole scheme of things, but I think I'd rather have Scherzer.
Either would be great. I just figure Lester will cost a bit less and the front office has a history with him, so it seems more likely.
If I had to bet I might bet on Jamaican superstar Justin Masterson unless he has some kind of revival in the playoffs. He'd be cheap, especially if he gets lit up in the NLDS or whenever his next outing might be. And he's got the stuff Bosio loves - except that his fastball is losing steam.
Wouldn't be a terrible fall back option assuming he doesn't demand EJax money.
EDIT: it IS possible they go outside the box and trade for someone, say Cole Hamels. That would be fucking amazing.
I can see both Lester and a trade. Still think one of the short stops goes in a trade.
Yesterday, Arguello threw out Baez, Vogelbach, CJ Edwards for Hamels. I'd do that.
Quote from: Slaky on October 01, 2014, 10:45:11 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 10:24:28 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 01, 2014, 10:18:46 AM
Not that it matters in the whole scheme of things, but I think I'd rather have Scherzer.
Either would be great. I just figure Lester will cost a bit less and the front office has a history with him, so it seems more likely.
If I had to bet I might bet on Jamaican superstar Justin Masterson unless he has some kind of revival in the playoffs. He'd be cheap, especially if he gets lit up in the NLDS or whenever his next outing might be. And he's got the stuff Bosio loves - except that his fastball is losing steam.
Wouldn't be a terrible fall back option assuming he doesn't demand EJax money.
EDIT: it IS possible they go outside the box and trade for someone, say Cole Hamels. That would be fucking amazing.
I don't want to see them give up any of their prospects for pitching. Fuck Cole Hamels and fuck Philadelphia with Larry Owens' dead dick. Cubs need to go out and buy one of those top pitchers that're available, let some other pissant GM try to work over Ruben Amaro.
If you're talking about acquiring Giancarlo Stanton for some of those prospects (say, Baez, Soler and Almora), I could be persuaded to change my tune, but to hell with trading off these guys for pitchers.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 01, 2014, 11:04:53 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 01, 2014, 10:45:11 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 10:24:28 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 01, 2014, 10:18:46 AM
Not that it matters in the whole scheme of things, but I think I'd rather have Scherzer.
Either would be great. I just figure Lester will cost a bit less and the front office has a history with him, so it seems more likely.
If I had to bet I might bet on Jamaican superstar Justin Masterson unless he has some kind of revival in the playoffs. He'd be cheap, especially if he gets lit up in the NLDS or whenever his next outing might be. And he's got the stuff Bosio loves - except that his fastball is losing steam.
Wouldn't be a terrible fall back option assuming he doesn't demand EJax money.
EDIT: it IS possible they go outside the box and trade for someone, say Cole Hamels. That would be fucking amazing.
I can see both Lester and a trade. Still think one of the short stops goes in a trade.
Yesterday, Arguello threw out Baez, Vogelbach, CJ Edwards for Hamels. I'd do that.
No.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 01, 2014, 11:04:53 AM
Yesterday, Arguello threw out Baez, Vogelbach, CJ Edwards for Hamels. I'd do that.
Same. I don't think the Phillies would though.
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 11:15:56 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 01, 2014, 11:04:53 AM
Yesterday, Arguello threw out Baez, Vogelbach, CJ Edwards for Hamels. I'd do that.
Same. I don't think the Phillies would though.
You'd give up three prospects, one of them elite to roll the dice on Hamels' elbow, shoulder, back not exploding? Don't.
Going after Hamels would be counter to the strategy Jepstink has shown thus far w/re to pitching. Masterson fits the mold of getting a discount on a guy who's been a bit unlucky.
Masterson ranks third in terms of ERA-xFIP and fifth in ERA-FIP (right below Jacob Turner -- and EJax, for that matter). Hamels ranks 17th/16th from last among qualifiers.
| Name | W | L | ERA | IP | K/9 | BB/9 | K/BB | BABIP | GB% | HR/FB | FIP | xFIP | FIPdiff | xFIPdiff |
| Edwin Jackson | 6 | 15 | 6.33 | 140.2 | 7.87 | 4 | 2 | 0.352 | 0.394 | 0.119 | 4.45 | 4.12 | 1.88 | 2.21 |
| Jacob Turner | 6 | 11 | 6.13 | 113 | 5.65 | 2.6 | 2.1 | 0.354 | 0.491 | 0.103 | 4.16 | 4.05 | 1.97 | 2.08 |
| Justin Masterson | 7 | 9 | 5.88 | 128.2 | 8.11 | 4.8 | 1.7 | 0.339 | 0.582 | 0.146 | 4.5 | 4.08 | 1.38 | 1.8 |
| Trevor Cahill | 3 | 12 | 5.61 | 110.2 | 8.54 | 4.5 | 1.9 | 0.35 | 0.485 | 0.101 | 3.89 | 3.83 | 1.72 | 1.78 |
| Josh Tomlin | 6 | 9 | 4.76 | 104 | 8.13 | 1.2 | 6.7 | 0.32 | 0.375 | 0.153 | 4.01 | 3.16 | 0.75 | 1.6 |
| Ricky Nolasco | 6 | 12 | 5.38 | 159 | 6.51 | 2.2 | 3 | 0.351 | 0.418 | 0.116 | 4.3 | 3.97 | 1.08 | 1.41 |
| Clay Buchholz | 8 | 11 | 5.34 | 170.1 | 6.97 | 2.9 | 2.4 | 0.315 | 0.466 | 0.092 | 4.01 | 4.04 | 1.33 | 1.3 |
| Brandon McCarthy | 10 | 15 | 4.05 | 200 | 7.88 | 1.5 | 5.3 | 0.328 | 0.526 | 0.163 | 3.55 | 2.87 | 0.5 | 1.18 |
| Tim Lincecum | 12 | 9 | 4.74 | 155.2 | 7.75 | 3.6 | 2.1 | 0.299 | 0.473 | 0.139 | 4.31 | 3.81 | 0.43 | 0.93 |
| Mike Minor | 6 | 12 | 4.77 | 145.1 | 7.43 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 0.323 | 0.406 | 0.129 | 4.39 | 3.9 | 0.38 | 0.87 |
Quote from: ChuckD on October 01, 2014, 11:28:21 AM
Going after Hamels would be counter to the strategy Jepstink has shown thus far w/re to pitching. Masterson fits the mold of getting a discount on a guy who's been a bit unlucky.
Masterson ranks third in terms of ERA-xFIP and fifth in ERA-FIP (right below Jacob Turner -- and EJax, for that matter). Hamels ranks 17th/16th from last among qualifiers.
| Name | W | L | ERA | IP | K/9 | BB/9 | K/BB | BABIP | GB% | HR/FB | FIP | xFIP | FIPdiff | xFIPdiff |
| Edwin Jackson | 6 | 15 | 6.33 | 140.2 | 7.87 | 4 | 2 | 0.352 | 0.394 | 0.119 | 4.45 | 4.12 | 1.88 | 2.21 |
| Jacob Turner | 6 | 11 | 6.13 | 113 | 5.65 | 2.6 | 2.1 | 0.354 | 0.491 | 0.103 | 4.16 | 4.05 | 1.97 | 2.08 |
| Justin Masterson | 7 | 9 | 5.88 | 128.2 | 8.11 | 4.8 | 1.7 | 0.339 | 0.582 | 0.146 | 4.5 | 4.08 | 1.38 | 1.8 |
| Trevor Cahill | 3 | 12 | 5.61 | 110.2 | 8.54 | 4.5 | 1.9 | 0.35 | 0.485 | 0.101 | 3.89 | 3.83 | 1.72 | 1.78 |
| Josh Tomlin | 6 | 9 | 4.76 | 104 | 8.13 | 1.2 | 6.7 | 0.32 | 0.375 | 0.153 | 4.01 | 3.16 | 0.75 | 1.6 |
| Ricky Nolasco | 6 | 12 | 5.38 | 159 | 6.51 | 2.2 | 3 | 0.351 | 0.418 | 0.116 | 4.3 | 3.97 | 1.08 | 1.41 |
| Clay Buchholz | 8 | 11 | 5.34 | 170.1 | 6.97 | 2.9 | 2.4 | 0.315 | 0.466 | 0.092 | 4.01 | 4.04 | 1.33 | 1.3 |
| Brandon McCarthy | 10 | 15 | 4.05 | 200 | 7.88 | 1.5 | 5.3 | 0.328 | 0.526 | 0.163 | 3.55 | 2.87 | 0.5 | 1.18 |
| Tim Lincecum | 12 | 9 | 4.74 | 155.2 | 7.75 | 3.6 | 2.1 | 0.299 | 0.473 | 0.139 | 4.31 | 3.81 | 0.43 | 0.93 |
| Mike Minor | 6 | 12 | 4.77 | 145.1 | 7.43 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 0.323 | 0.406 | 0.129 | 4.39 | 3.9 | 0.38 | 0.87 |
I'm not sure what all that statfaggotry is, but all I see is a list of guys who suck and I don't want on the Cubs.
I'll happily go with Masterson on some discounted deal, knowing he's a bit of a project with a ton of upside, but I'm still hoping he's not the ace they're getting.
Quote from: PenFoe on October 01, 2014, 11:31:35 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on October 01, 2014, 11:28:21 AM
Going after Hamels would be counter to the strategy Jepstink has shown thus far w/re to pitching. Masterson fits the mold of getting a discount on a guy who's been a bit unlucky.
Masterson ranks third in terms of ERA-xFIP and fifth in ERA-FIP (right below Jacob Turner -- and EJax, for that matter). Hamels ranks 17th/16th from last among qualifiers.
| Name | W | L | ERA | IP | K/9 | BB/9 | K/BB | BABIP | GB% | HR/FB | FIP | xFIP | FIPdiff | xFIPdiff |
| Edwin Jackson | 6 | 15 | 6.33 | 140.2 | 7.87 | 4 | 2 | 0.352 | 0.394 | 0.119 | 4.45 | 4.12 | 1.88 | 2.21 |
| Jacob Turner | 6 | 11 | 6.13 | 113 | 5.65 | 2.6 | 2.1 | 0.354 | 0.491 | 0.103 | 4.16 | 4.05 | 1.97 | 2.08 |
| Justin Masterson | 7 | 9 | 5.88 | 128.2 | 8.11 | 4.8 | 1.7 | 0.339 | 0.582 | 0.146 | 4.5 | 4.08 | 1.38 | 1.8 |
| Trevor Cahill | 3 | 12 | 5.61 | 110.2 | 8.54 | 4.5 | 1.9 | 0.35 | 0.485 | 0.101 | 3.89 | 3.83 | 1.72 | 1.78 |
| Josh Tomlin | 6 | 9 | 4.76 | 104 | 8.13 | 1.2 | 6.7 | 0.32 | 0.375 | 0.153 | 4.01 | 3.16 | 0.75 | 1.6 |
| Ricky Nolasco | 6 | 12 | 5.38 | 159 | 6.51 | 2.2 | 3 | 0.351 | 0.418 | 0.116 | 4.3 | 3.97 | 1.08 | 1.41 |
| Clay Buchholz | 8 | 11 | 5.34 | 170.1 | 6.97 | 2.9 | 2.4 | 0.315 | 0.466 | 0.092 | 4.01 | 4.04 | 1.33 | 1.3 |
| Brandon McCarthy | 10 | 15 | 4.05 | 200 | 7.88 | 1.5 | 5.3 | 0.328 | 0.526 | 0.163 | 3.55 | 2.87 | 0.5 | 1.18 |
| Tim Lincecum | 12 | 9 | 4.74 | 155.2 | 7.75 | 3.6 | 2.1 | 0.299 | 0.473 | 0.139 | 4.31 | 3.81 | 0.43 | 0.93 |
| Mike Minor | 6 | 12 | 4.77 | 145.1 | 7.43 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 0.323 | 0.406 | 0.129 | 4.39 | 3.9 | 0.38 | 0.87 |
I'm not sure what all that statfaggotry is, but all I see is a list of guys who suck and I don't want on the Cubs.
I'll happily go with Masterson on some discounted deal, knowing he's a bit of a project with a ton of upside, but I'm still hoping he's not the ace they're getting.
I'd rather they not go after Masterson or Hamels, but I'm saying that if it comes down to the two of them, pursuing Masterson is more in line with what they've done. If they're going to break the bank on a guy, I don't see why they'd do it for Hamels.
Regarding the rest of the list, Tomlin or McCarthy would be sploogeworthy. Everyone else would be pretty meh.
Quote from: PenFoe on October 01, 2014, 11:31:35 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on October 01, 2014, 11:28:21 AM
Going after Hamels would be counter to the strategy Jepstink has shown thus far w/re to pitching. Masterson fits the mold of getting a discount on a guy who's been a bit unlucky.
Masterson ranks third in terms of ERA-xFIP and fifth in ERA-FIP (right below Jacob Turner -- and EJax, for that matter). Hamels ranks 17th/16th from last among qualifiers.
| Name | W | L | ERA | IP | K/9 | BB/9 | K/BB | BABIP | GB% | HR/FB | FIP | xFIP | FIPdiff | xFIPdiff |
| Edwin Jackson | 6 | 15 | 6.33 | 140.2 | 7.87 | 4 | 2 | 0.352 | 0.394 | 0.119 | 4.45 | 4.12 | 1.88 | 2.21 |
| Jacob Turner | 6 | 11 | 6.13 | 113 | 5.65 | 2.6 | 2.1 | 0.354 | 0.491 | 0.103 | 4.16 | 4.05 | 1.97 | 2.08 |
| Justin Masterson | 7 | 9 | 5.88 | 128.2 | 8.11 | 4.8 | 1.7 | 0.339 | 0.582 | 0.146 | 4.5 | 4.08 | 1.38 | 1.8 |
| Trevor Cahill | 3 | 12 | 5.61 | 110.2 | 8.54 | 4.5 | 1.9 | 0.35 | 0.485 | 0.101 | 3.89 | 3.83 | 1.72 | 1.78 |
| Josh Tomlin | 6 | 9 | 4.76 | 104 | 8.13 | 1.2 | 6.7 | 0.32 | 0.375 | 0.153 | 4.01 | 3.16 | 0.75 | 1.6 |
| Ricky Nolasco | 6 | 12 | 5.38 | 159 | 6.51 | 2.2 | 3 | 0.351 | 0.418 | 0.116 | 4.3 | 3.97 | 1.08 | 1.41 |
| Clay Buchholz | 8 | 11 | 5.34 | 170.1 | 6.97 | 2.9 | 2.4 | 0.315 | 0.466 | 0.092 | 4.01 | 4.04 | 1.33 | 1.3 |
| Brandon McCarthy | 10 | 15 | 4.05 | 200 | 7.88 | 1.5 | 5.3 | 0.328 | 0.526 | 0.163 | 3.55 | 2.87 | 0.5 | 1.18 |
| Tim Lincecum | 12 | 9 | 4.74 | 155.2 | 7.75 | 3.6 | 2.1 | 0.299 | 0.473 | 0.139 | 4.31 | 3.81 | 0.43 | 0.93 |
| Mike Minor | 6 | 12 | 4.77 | 145.1 | 7.43 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 0.323 | 0.406 | 0.129 | 4.39 | 3.9 | 0.38 | 0.87 |
I'm not sure what all that statfaggotry is, but all I see is a list of guys who suck and I don't want on the Cubs.
I'll happily go with Masterson on some discounted deal, knowing he's a bit of a project with a ton of upside, but I'm still hoping he's not the ace they're getting.
THIS.
I'm pretty confident they'll get one of Lester, Scherzer and Shields. I would like to see them get another pitcher who might slot more into 2-3 and if Masterson fits the bill, great. Arrietta as a 2/3 and Hendricks and Wood as a 3/4 or 4/5 would be doable provided they got one of the Big 3 and a Masterson-type.
Just leave the damn prospects alone for now. I don't think the value for Baez is going to go down if they hold on to him (defensively, he looks legit, his power's unquestioned and I'm pretty confident his value will continue to maintain even if he strikes out a ton next year...and though I think he will I don't think he'll whiff at quite the same rate as he did this year). I see no reason to deal any of these guys this offseason unless, like I said, it's to rope in a legit blue-chip offensive player like a Stanton. Go to the store and buy the pitching.
Quote from: InternetApex on October 01, 2014, 11:25:23 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 11:15:56 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 01, 2014, 11:04:53 AM
Yesterday, Arguello threw out Baez, Vogelbach, CJ Edwards for Hamels. I'd do that.
Same. I don't think the Phillies would though.
You'd give up three prospects, one of them elite to roll the dice on Hamels' elbow, shoulder, back not exploding? Don't.
Vogelbach is total flotsam to the Cubs. Edwards is probably a future reliever (albeit likely a very good one). And I would miss Baez, but Hamels is still very good (and has been very durable, despite some injury questions) and basically the same age as Lester and Scherzer. What's left on his deal is a good value and shouldn't be prohibitive given how low the Cubs' payroll obligations are in the next few years.
I guess my willingness sort of depends on if they can sign Lester or Scherzer first. If they can get one of those guys, a Hamels trade becomes a go-for-it move and gives them a top three of Lester/Scherzer, Hamels and Arrieta. That makes them immediate contenders.
It's a risk, but the Cubs are going to have to take a risk at some point.
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 11:40:49 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on October 01, 2014, 11:25:23 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 11:15:56 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 01, 2014, 11:04:53 AM
Yesterday, Arguello threw out Baez, Vogelbach, CJ Edwards for Hamels. I'd do that.
Same. I don't think the Phillies would though.
You'd give up three prospects, one of them elite to roll the dice on Hamels' elbow, shoulder, back not exploding? Don't.
Vogelbach is total flotsam to the Cubs. Edwards is probably a future reliever (albeit likely a very good one). And I would miss Baez, but Hamels is still very good (and has been very durable, despite some injury questions) and basically the same age as Lester and Scherzer. What's left on his deal is a good value and shouldn't be prohibitive given how low the Cubs' payroll obligations are in the next few years.
I guess my willingness sort of depends on if they can sign Lester or Scherzer first. If they can get one of those guys, a Hamels trade becomes a go-for-it move and gives them a top three of Lester/Scherzer, Hamels and Arrieta. That makes them immediate contenders.
It's a risk, but the Cubs are going to have to take a risk at some point.
Paying for past performance is one thing I don't think Jepstink fancies. Paying in money AND assets for a guy who is bound to regress just seems extreme. A risk worth taking would involve throwing Fuck You Money at Scherzer/Lester/Shields/Price. You don't have to be risky AND stupid.
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 11:40:49 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on October 01, 2014, 11:25:23 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 11:15:56 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 01, 2014, 11:04:53 AM
Yesterday, Arguello threw out Baez, Vogelbach, CJ Edwards for Hamels. I'd do that.
Same. I don't think the Phillies would though.
You'd give up three prospects, one of them elite to roll the dice on Hamels' elbow, shoulder, back not exploding? Don't.
Vogelbach is total flotsam to the Cubs. Edwards is probably a future reliever (albeit likely a very good one). And I would miss Baez, but Hamels is still very good (and has been very durable, despite some injury questions) and basically the same age as Lester and Scherzer. What's left on his deal is a good value and shouldn't be prohibitive given how low the Cubs' payroll obligations are in the next few years.
I guess my willingness sort of depends on if they can sign Lester or Scherzer first. If they can get one of those guys, a Hamels trade becomes a go-for-it move and gives them a top three of Lester/Scherzer, Hamels and Arrieta. That makes them immediate contenders.
It's a risk, but the Cubs are going to have to take a risk at some point.
As much as I irrationally love CJ Edwards for no reason, that's a steal for the Cubs.
I'd still want them to throw money at Lester and Scherzer first, before trading anyone (as Huey says) but if that's the deal for Hamels? Yeah, I'm cool.
Quote from: InternetApex on October 01, 2014, 11:45:40 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 11:40:49 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on October 01, 2014, 11:25:23 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 11:15:56 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 01, 2014, 11:04:53 AM
Yesterday, Arguello threw out Baez, Vogelbach, CJ Edwards for Hamels. I'd do that.
Same. I don't think the Phillies would though.
You'd give up three prospects, one of them elite to roll the dice on Hamels' elbow, shoulder, back not exploding? Don't.
Vogelbach is total flotsam to the Cubs. Edwards is probably a future reliever (albeit likely a very good one). And I would miss Baez, but Hamels is still very good (and has been very durable, despite some injury questions) and basically the same age as Lester and Scherzer. What's left on his deal is a good value and shouldn't be prohibitive given how low the Cubs' payroll obligations are in the next few years.
I guess my willingness sort of depends on if they can sign Lester or Scherzer first. If they can get one of those guys, a Hamels trade becomes a go-for-it move and gives them a top three of Lester/Scherzer, Hamels and Arrieta. That makes them immediate contenders.
It's a risk, but the Cubs are going to have to take a risk at some point.
Paying for past performance is one thing I don't think Jepstink fancies. Paying in money AND assets for a guy who is bound to regress just seems extreme. A risk worth taking would involve throwing Fuck You Money at Scherzer/Lester/Shields/Price. You don't have to be risky AND stupid.
We're all going to regress, but I don't get the specific concern over Hamels.
Dude is consistently fantastic, he's *only* 30, and he's got a pretty realistic contract remaining.
Other than him seeming like a complete douche, I'll take him in a heartbeat.
One of the best moves that the Cubs could make is to simply dump Jackson. Classic example of addition by subtraction.
Quote from: PenFoe on October 01, 2014, 11:48:29 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on October 01, 2014, 11:45:40 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 11:40:49 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on October 01, 2014, 11:25:23 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 11:15:56 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 01, 2014, 11:04:53 AM
Yesterday, Arguello threw out Baez, Vogelbach, CJ Edwards for Hamels. I'd do that.
Same. I don't think the Phillies would though.
You'd give up three prospects, one of them elite to roll the dice on Hamels' elbow, shoulder, back not exploding? Don't.
Vogelbach is total flotsam to the Cubs. Edwards is probably a future reliever (albeit likely a very good one). And I would miss Baez, but Hamels is still very good (and has been very durable, despite some injury questions) and basically the same age as Lester and Scherzer. What's left on his deal is a good value and shouldn't be prohibitive given how low the Cubs' payroll obligations are in the next few years.
I guess my willingness sort of depends on if they can sign Lester or Scherzer first. If they can get one of those guys, a Hamels trade becomes a go-for-it move and gives them a top three of Lester/Scherzer, Hamels and Arrieta. That makes them immediate contenders.
It's a risk, but the Cubs are going to have to take a risk at some point.
Paying for past performance is one thing I don't think Jepstink fancies. Paying in money AND assets for a guy who is bound to regress just seems extreme. A risk worth taking would involve throwing Fuck You Money at Scherzer/Lester/Shields/Price. You don't have to be risky AND stupid.
We're all going to regress, but I don't get the specific concern over Hamels.
Dude is consistently fantastic, he's *only* 30, and he's got a pretty realistic contract remaining.
Other than him seeming like a complete douche, I'll take him in a heartbeat.
My concern is not specific to Hamels but to any pitcher with thousands of innings on his arm. I don't believe in trading top prospects for that. If you sign one as a free agent and he gets hurt, well, fuck but it's just money. Giving away that money AND assets isn't something I'm interested in. There was talk about trading for young arms like the Mets have seemingly stockpiled. That I'd think about.
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 11:40:49 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on October 01, 2014, 11:25:23 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 11:15:56 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 01, 2014, 11:04:53 AM
Yesterday, Arguello threw out Baez, Vogelbach, CJ Edwards for Hamels. I'd do that.
Same. I don't think the Phillies would though.
You'd give up three prospects, one of them elite to roll the dice on Hamels' elbow, shoulder, back not exploding? Don't.
Vogelbach is total flotsam to the Cubs. Edwards is probably a future reliever (albeit likely a very good one). And I would miss Baez, but Hamels is still very good (and has been very durable, despite some injury questions) and basically the same age as Lester and Scherzer.
I guess my willingness sort of depends on if they can sign Lester or Scherzer first. If they can get one of those guys, a Hamels trade becomes a go-for-it move and gives them a top three of Lester/Scherzer, Hamels and Arrieta. That makes them immediate contenders.
It's a risk, but the Cubs are going to have to take a risk at some point.
I'll take Scherzer and Masteron over Scherzer and Hamels if it means giving up Baez and Edwards for the latter (agreed that Vogelbach's worthless). Whose gonna bat .230 and hit 25 homeruns from second base next year if you deal Baez? Alcantara? Then who plays CF?
It seems the whole exercise of this organization is to collect power bats in a post-steroid era. Start dealing those bats for pitching--even top-tier pitching--and they lose that edge. More importantly, I don't know how adding Hamels and Lester/Scherzer/Shields suddenly makes them a contender next year anyway when they begin the season with question marks at 3B, 2B, CF and LF (under this scenario)
I'd prefer to see how this team does next year, save the risk-taking (as far as dealing goes) for 2016 and beyond. I understand you may be incurring your own risk if Baez, Soler, Russell and Schwarber all backslide and lower their value next year, but that's the kind of risk I'd prefer taking for now because I think they're all really good.
Quote from: InternetApex on October 01, 2014, 11:53:07 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on October 01, 2014, 11:48:29 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on October 01, 2014, 11:45:40 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 11:40:49 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on October 01, 2014, 11:25:23 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 11:15:56 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 01, 2014, 11:04:53 AM
Yesterday, Arguello threw out Baez, Vogelbach, CJ Edwards for Hamels. I'd do that.
Same. I don't think the Phillies would though.
You'd give up three prospects, one of them elite to roll the dice on Hamels' elbow, shoulder, back not exploding? Don't.
Vogelbach is total flotsam to the Cubs. Edwards is probably a future reliever (albeit likely a very good one). And I would miss Baez, but Hamels is still very good (and has been very durable, despite some injury questions) and basically the same age as Lester and Scherzer. What's left on his deal is a good value and shouldn't be prohibitive given how low the Cubs' payroll obligations are in the next few years.
I guess my willingness sort of depends on if they can sign Lester or Scherzer first. If they can get one of those guys, a Hamels trade becomes a go-for-it move and gives them a top three of Lester/Scherzer, Hamels and Arrieta. That makes them immediate contenders.
It's a risk, but the Cubs are going to have to take a risk at some point.
Paying for past performance is one thing I don't think Jepstink fancies. Paying in money AND assets for a guy who is bound to regress just seems extreme. A risk worth taking would involve throwing Fuck You Money at Scherzer/Lester/Shields/Price. You don't have to be risky AND stupid.
We're all going to regress, but I don't get the specific concern over Hamels.
Dude is consistently fantastic, he's *only* 30, and he's got a pretty realistic contract remaining.
Other than him seeming like a complete douche, I'll take him in a heartbeat.
My concern is not specific to Hamels but to any pitcher with thousands of innings on his arm. I don't believe in trading top prospects for that. If you sign one as a free agent and he gets hurt, well, fuck but it's just money. Giving away that money AND assets isn't something I'm interested in. There was talk about trading for young arms like the Mets have seemingly stockpiled. That I'd think about.
So, you want to pay for the guys that are either coming off of or about to get Tommy John Disease? Seems like a wash.
Quote from: PANK! on October 01, 2014, 11:53:19 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 11:40:49 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on October 01, 2014, 11:25:23 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 11:15:56 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 01, 2014, 11:04:53 AM
Yesterday, Arguello threw out Baez, Vogelbach, CJ Edwards for Hamels. I'd do that.
Same. I don't think the Phillies would though.
You'd give up three prospects, one of them elite to roll the dice on Hamels' elbow, shoulder, back not exploding? Don't.
Vogelbach is total flotsam to the Cubs. Edwards is probably a future reliever (albeit likely a very good one). And I would miss Baez, but Hamels is still very good (and has been very durable, despite some injury questions) and basically the same age as Lester and Scherzer.
I guess my willingness sort of depends on if they can sign Lester or Scherzer first. If they can get one of those guys, a Hamels trade becomes a go-for-it move and gives them a top three of Lester/Scherzer, Hamels and Arrieta. That makes them immediate contenders.
It's a risk, but the Cubs are going to have to take a risk at some point.
I'll take Scherzer and Masteron over Scherzer and Hamels if it means giving up Baez and Edwards for the latter (agreed that Vogelbach's worthless). Whose gonna bat .230 and hit 25 homeruns from second base next year if you deal Baez? Alcantara? Then who plays CF?
It seems the whole exercise of this organization is to collect power bats in a post-steroid era. Start dealing those bats for pitching--even top-tier pitching--and they lose that edge. More importantly, I don't know how adding Hamels and Lester/Scherzer/Shields suddenly makes them a contender next year anyway when they begin the season with question marks at 3B, 2B, CF and LF (under this scenario)
I'd prefer to see how this team does next year, save the risk-taking (as far as dealing goes) for 2016 and beyond. I understand you may be incurring your own risk if Baez, Soler, Russell and Schwarber all backslide and lower their value next year, but that's the kind of risk I'd prefer taking for now because I think they're all really good.
I agree with Huey. You guys want to burn the whole thing down before it's even had a chance to take full shape.
All this said, I don't want to trade any of the prospects.
I just want the Cubs to spend money.
But, if they're going to trade prospects, I'm totally cool with Cole Hamels.
But fuck it, I hope they never trade ANY of these guys and that they take the best college hitter again in next year's draft.
Quote from: PenFoe on October 01, 2014, 11:55:29 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on October 01, 2014, 11:53:07 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on October 01, 2014, 11:48:29 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on October 01, 2014, 11:45:40 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 11:40:49 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on October 01, 2014, 11:25:23 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 11:15:56 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 01, 2014, 11:04:53 AM
Yesterday, Arguello threw out Baez, Vogelbach, CJ Edwards for Hamels. I'd do that.
Same. I don't think the Phillies would though.
You'd give up three prospects, one of them elite to roll the dice on Hamels' elbow, shoulder, back not exploding? Don't.
Vogelbach is total flotsam to the Cubs. Edwards is probably a future reliever (albeit likely a very good one). And I would miss Baez, but Hamels is still very good (and has been very durable, despite some injury questions) and basically the same age as Lester and Scherzer. What's left on his deal is a good value and shouldn't be prohibitive given how low the Cubs' payroll obligations are in the next few years.
I guess my willingness sort of depends on if they can sign Lester or Scherzer first. If they can get one of those guys, a Hamels trade becomes a go-for-it move and gives them a top three of Lester/Scherzer, Hamels and Arrieta. That makes them immediate contenders.
It's a risk, but the Cubs are going to have to take a risk at some point.
Paying for past performance is one thing I don't think Jepstink fancies. Paying in money AND assets for a guy who is bound to regress just seems extreme. A risk worth taking would involve throwing Fuck You Money at Scherzer/Lester/Shields/Price. You don't have to be risky AND stupid.
We're all going to regress, but I don't get the specific concern over Hamels.
Dude is consistently fantastic, he's *only* 30, and he's got a pretty realistic contract remaining.
Other than him seeming like a complete douche, I'll take him in a heartbeat.
My concern is not specific to Hamels but to any pitcher with thousands of innings on his arm. I don't believe in trading top prospects for that. If you sign one as a free agent and he gets hurt, well, fuck but it's just money. Giving away that money AND assets isn't something I'm interested in. There was talk about trading for young arms like the Mets have seemingly stockpiled. That I'd think about.
So, you want to pay for the guys that are either coming off of or about to get Tommy John Disease? Seems like a wash.
Not if they're under your control for cheap.
Quote from: PenFoe on October 01, 2014, 11:57:46 AM
All this said, I don't want to trade any of the prospects.
I just want the Cubs to spend money.
But, if they're going to trade prospects, I'm totally cool with Cole Hamels.
But fuck it, I hope they never trade ANY of these guys and that they take the best college hitter again in next year's draft.
Realistically, they shouldn't have to trade anyone until Schwarber is 100% not a catcher and/or Almora is ready, because they can handle both Russell and Bryant in the lineup right now with openings in LF and 3B, no matter how awesome Chris Coghlan is.
Quote from: InternetApex on October 01, 2014, 11:45:40 AM
Paying for past performance is one thing I don't think Jepstink fancies. Paying in money AND assets for a guy who is bound to regress just seems extreme. A risk worth taking would involve throwing Fuck You Money at Scherzer/Lester/Shields/Price. You don't have to be risky AND stupid.
They're not paying for past performance. But his past performance gives you an indication that he's likely to be good in the future, too.
QuoteIf you sign one as a free agent and he gets hurt, well, fuck but it's just money. Giving away that money AND assets isn't something I'm interested in.
If you trade for a good player and he gets hurt, so be it. The means by which he was acquired are irrelevant and are simply a sunk cost.
Quote from: PenFoe on October 01, 2014, 11:48:29 AM
I don't get the specific concern over Hamels.
- He's due for a decline.
- He's owed $22.5M each of the next four years.
- He's never put up $22.5M worth of production.
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 12:02:35 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on October 01, 2014, 11:45:40 AM
Paying for past performance is one thing I don't think Jepstink fancies. Paying in money AND assets for a guy who is bound to regress just seems extreme. A risk worth taking would involve throwing Fuck You Money at Scherzer/Lester/Shields/Price. You don't have to be risky AND stupid.
They're not paying for past performance. But his past performance gives you an indication that he's likely to be good in the future, too.
QuoteIf you sign one as a free agent and he gets hurt, well, fuck but it's just money. Giving away that money AND assets isn't something I'm interested in.
If you trade for a good player and he gets hurt, so be it. The means by which he was acquired are irrelevant and are simply a sunk cost.
No way. Money + Prospects is a greater sunk cost than simply money. And money grows on trees.
Quote from: ChuckD on October 01, 2014, 12:05:09 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on October 01, 2014, 11:48:29 AM
I don't get the specific concern over Hamels.
- He's due for a decline.
- He's owed $22.5M each of the next four years.
- He's never put up $22.5M worth of production.
Isn't the going-rate these days about $5-6MM/win?
He's put up 27.8 WAR over the past 5 seasons.
That's an average of 5.56 WAR. At $5MM/win, that's $27.8 million.
Is my math wrong?
Dude is awesome.
I guess my question is - how/why is Hamels any more due for a decline than say, Lester or Scherzer, who will probably cost around the same annual money and probably for more years.
Quote from: InternetApex on October 01, 2014, 12:05:35 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 12:02:35 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on October 01, 2014, 11:45:40 AM
Paying for past performance is one thing I don't think Jepstink fancies. Paying in money AND assets for a guy who is bound to regress just seems extreme. A risk worth taking would involve throwing Fuck You Money at Scherzer/Lester/Shields/Price. You don't have to be risky AND stupid.
They're not paying for past performance. But his past performance gives you an indication that he's likely to be good in the future, too.
QuoteIf you sign one as a free agent and he gets hurt, well, fuck but it's just money. Giving away that money AND assets isn't something I'm interested in.
If you trade for a good player and he gets hurt, so be it. The means by which he was acquired are irrelevant and are simply a sunk cost.
No way. Money + Prospects is a greater sunk cost than simply money. And money grows on trees.
But fewer and fewer good players are available for just money. And if Hamels were a free agent, he'd get more years and dollars than the 4/$90m he's owed. Probably by a fairly large margin. So the prospects you trade are what allows you to get Hamels at a discounted cost.
There's also a risk in only signing the Mastersons and McCarthys of the world and that risk is they suck and your team isn't very good.
Eli and I are gonna get matching Hamels shirseys and it's gonna be so sweet.
Quote from: PenFoe on October 01, 2014, 12:10:26 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on October 01, 2014, 12:05:09 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on October 01, 2014, 11:48:29 AM
I don't get the specific concern over Hamels.
- He's due for a decline.
- He's owed $22.5M each of the next four years.
- He's never put up $22.5M worth of production.
Isn't the going-rate these days about $5-6MM/win?
He's put up 27.8 WAR over the past 5 seasons.
That's an average of 5.56 WAR. At $5MM/win, that's $27.8 million.
Is my math wrong?
Dude is awesome.
I guess my question is - how/why is Hamels any more due for a decline than say, Lester or Scherzer, who will probably cost around the same annual money and probably for more years.
Scherzer has pitched 600 fewer innings than Hamels. Lester has tossed about 200 fewer and has been ridden HARD (||) the past two seasons. I'm not all that excited about Lester over the length of what I expect his next deal will be. This is all just me saying don't trade Baez for a top line starter with the way that pitching injuries have affected the game in the past few years. If they are serious about testing for HgH, run, don't walk away from big money for any pitchers with high mileage.
Quote from: InternetApex on October 01, 2014, 12:21:11 PM
Scherzer has pitched 600 fewer innings than Hamels.
Mostly because he's had injuries.
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 12:23:19 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on October 01, 2014, 12:21:11 PM
Scherzer has pitched 600 fewer innings than Hamels.
Mostly because he's had injuries.
I was actually looking for this online, because I believed it to be true.
Are there are sites that will tell you how many days a guy has spend on the DL in his career/season?
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 12:23:19 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on October 01, 2014, 12:21:11 PM
Scherzer has pitched 600 fewer innings than Hamels.
Mostly because he's had injuries.
He's averaged just under 200 inning for the past six years. I'm not super thrilled about him either. He started
2009: 30
2010: 31
2011: 33
2012: 32
2013: 32
2014: 33
games.
For an oft-injured guy he sure takes the ball a shit ton.
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 12:14:33 PM
There's also a risk in only signing the Mastersons and McCarthys of the world and that risk is they suck and your team isn't very good.
There's always risk, but isn't the riskier option blowing your entire pitching budget on one guy on the hope that he doesn't suck, doesn't have an exploding rotator cuff, etc?
By pursuing undervalued pitchers you're able to procure more of them which minimizes your risk through diversification.
Quote from: ChuckD on October 01, 2014, 12:27:44 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 12:14:33 PM
There's also a risk in only signing the Mastersons and McCarthys of the world and that risk is they suck and your team isn't very good.
There's always risk, but isn't the riskier option blowing your entire pitching budget on one guy on the hope that he doesn't suck, doesn't have an exploding rotator cuff, etc?
By pursuing undervalued pitchers you're able to procure more of them which minimizes your risk through diversification.
I'm all for surplus value, but I think people have tipped too far and we're now just talking about loss aversion.
Quote from: ChuckD on October 01, 2014, 12:27:44 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 12:14:33 PM
There's also a risk in only signing the Mastersons and McCarthys of the world and that risk is they suck and your team isn't very good.
There's always risk, but isn't the riskier option blowing your entire pitching budget on one guy on the hope that he doesn't suck, doesn't have an exploding rotator cuff, etc?
By pursuing undervalued pitchers you're able to procure more of them which minimizes your risk through diversification.
But how many more guys do the Cubs need?
They currently have Arrieta, Hendricks, Wood, E-Jax, Doubront, Turner, Straily, Beeler and Jokisch in the mix.
I'm not holding my breath on a few of those guys, but it doesn't seem like they need to bring in another handful of undervalued pitchers to add to that mix, versus just bringing in 1-2 guys that you can put into the rotation without concern.
Quote from: PenFoe on October 01, 2014, 12:31:11 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on October 01, 2014, 12:27:44 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 12:14:33 PM
There's also a risk in only signing the Mastersons and McCarthys of the world and that risk is they suck and your team isn't very good.
There's always risk, but isn't the riskier option blowing your entire pitching budget on one guy on the hope that he doesn't suck, doesn't have an exploding rotator cuff, etc?
By pursuing undervalued pitchers you're able to procure more of them which minimizes your risk through diversification.
But how many more guys do the Cubs need?
They currently have Arrieta, Hendricks, Wood, E-Jax, Doubront, Turner, Straily, Beeler and Jokisch in the mix.
I'm not holding my breath on a few of those guys, but it doesn't seem like they need to bring in another handful of undervalued pitchers to add to that mix, versus just bringing in 1-2 guys that you can put into the rotation without concern.
Of those, only Arrieta, Hendricks, and Wood give me any sort of confidence at this point. So, two -- maybe three?
Quote from: PenFoe on October 01, 2014, 12:31:11 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on October 01, 2014, 12:27:44 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 12:14:33 PM
There's also a risk in only signing the Mastersons and McCarthys of the world and that risk is they suck and your team isn't very good.
There's always risk, but isn't the riskier option blowing your entire pitching budget on one guy on the hope that he doesn't suck, doesn't have an exploding rotator cuff, etc?
By pursuing undervalued pitchers you're able to procure more of them which minimizes your risk through diversification.
But how many more guys do the Cubs need?
They currently have Arrieta, Hendricks, Wood, E-Jax, Doubront, Turner, Straily, Beeler and Jokisch in the mix.
I'm not holding my breath on a few of those guys, but it doesn't seem like they need to bring in another handful of undervalued pitchers to add to that mix, versus just bringing in 1-2 guys that you can put into the rotation without concern.
Yup. It's nice to bring in undervalued assets in the hopes of a few working out long-term, but it's not a very good strategy when you need players to be good from the start of the season. You can't hope to compete by just shuffling through Strailys and Doubronts and Turners for the first 2-3 months until you figure out if any of them are going to work out.
Quote from: PenFoe on October 01, 2014, 12:31:11 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on October 01, 2014, 12:27:44 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 12:14:33 PM
There's also a risk in only signing the Mastersons and McCarthys of the world and that risk is they suck and your team isn't very good.
There's always risk, but isn't the riskier option blowing your entire pitching budget on one guy on the hope that he doesn't suck, doesn't have an exploding rotator cuff, etc?
By pursuing undervalued pitchers you're able to procure more of them which minimizes your risk through diversification.
But how many more guys do the Cubs need?
They currently have Arrieta, Hendricks, Wood, E-Jax, Doubront, Turner, Straily, Beeler and Jokisch in the mix.
I'm not holding my breath on a few of those guys, but it doesn't seem like they need to bring in another handful of undervalued pitchers to add to that mix, versus just bringing in 1-2 guys that you can put into the rotation without concern.
That's exactly what Oakland has done. They put leases on Hammel, Snork and Lester when it became prudent to do so. Now they have Snork they can flip for whatever value they can get to mitigate the loss of Russell and money freed up to get more undervalued arms such as the ones that have made up their rotation the past couple of (successful) seasons.
That plan cost them Cespedes and I'm not buying the offensive collapse being due to his absence as much as many people seem to. I think he's a guy. Otherwise, what did they lose?
Quote from: InternetApex on October 01, 2014, 12:40:08 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on October 01, 2014, 12:31:11 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on October 01, 2014, 12:27:44 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 12:14:33 PM
There's also a risk in only signing the Mastersons and McCarthys of the world and that risk is they suck and your team isn't very good.
There's always risk, but isn't the riskier option blowing your entire pitching budget on one guy on the hope that he doesn't suck, doesn't have an exploding rotator cuff, etc?
By pursuing undervalued pitchers you're able to procure more of them which minimizes your risk through diversification.
But how many more guys do the Cubs need?
They currently have Arrieta, Hendricks, Wood, E-Jax, Doubront, Turner, Straily, Beeler and Jokisch in the mix.
I'm not holding my breath on a few of those guys, but it doesn't seem like they need to bring in another handful of undervalued pitchers to add to that mix, versus just bringing in 1-2 guys that you can put into the rotation without concern.
That's exactly what Oakland has done. They put leases on Hammel, Snork and Lester when it became prudent to do so. Now they have Snork they can flip for whatever value they can get to mitigate the loss of Russell and money freed up to get more undervalued arms such as the ones that have made up their rotation the past couple of (successful) seasons.
That plan cost them Cespedes and I'm not buying the offensive collapse being due to his absence as much as many people seem to. I think he's a guy. Otherwise, what did they lose?
The playoffs again?
Quote from: PenFoe on October 01, 2014, 11:31:35 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on October 01, 2014, 11:28:21 AM
Going after Hamels would be counter to the strategy Jepstink has shown thus far w/re to pitching. Masterson fits the mold of getting a discount on a guy who's been a bit unlucky.
Masterson ranks third in terms of ERA-xFIP and fifth in ERA-FIP (right below Jacob Turner -- and EJax, for that matter). Hamels ranks 17th/16th from last among qualifiers.
| Name | W | L | ERA | IP | K/9 | BB/9 | K/BB | BABIP | GB% | HR/FB | FIP | xFIP | FIPdiff | xFIPdiff |
| Edwin Jackson | 6 | 15 | 6.33 | 140.2 | 7.87 | 4 | 2 | 0.352 | 0.394 | 0.119 | 4.45 | 4.12 | 1.88 | 2.21 |
| Jacob Turner | 6 | 11 | 6.13 | 113 | 5.65 | 2.6 | 2.1 | 0.354 | 0.491 | 0.103 | 4.16 | 4.05 | 1.97 | 2.08 |
| Justin Masterson | 7 | 9 | 5.88 | 128.2 | 8.11 | 4.8 | 1.7 | 0.339 | 0.582 | 0.146 | 4.5 | 4.08 | 1.38 | 1.8 |
| Trevor Cahill | 3 | 12 | 5.61 | 110.2 | 8.54 | 4.5 | 1.9 | 0.35 | 0.485 | 0.101 | 3.89 | 3.83 | 1.72 | 1.78 |
| Josh Tomlin | 6 | 9 | 4.76 | 104 | 8.13 | 1.2 | 6.7 | 0.32 | 0.375 | 0.153 | 4.01 | 3.16 | 0.75 | 1.6 |
| Ricky Nolasco | 6 | 12 | 5.38 | 159 | 6.51 | 2.2 | 3 | 0.351 | 0.418 | 0.116 | 4.3 | 3.97 | 1.08 | 1.41 |
| Clay Buchholz | 8 | 11 | 5.34 | 170.1 | 6.97 | 2.9 | 2.4 | 0.315 | 0.466 | 0.092 | 4.01 | 4.04 | 1.33 | 1.3 |
| Brandon McCarthy | 10 | 15 | 4.05 | 200 | 7.88 | 1.5 | 5.3 | 0.328 | 0.526 | 0.163 | 3.55 | 2.87 | 0.5 | 1.18 |
| Tim Lincecum | 12 | 9 | 4.74 | 155.2 | 7.75 | 3.6 | 2.1 | 0.299 | 0.473 | 0.139 | 4.31 | 3.81 | 0.43 | 0.93 |
| Mike Minor | 6 | 12 | 4.77 | 145.1 | 7.43 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 0.323 | 0.406 | 0.129 | 4.39 | 3.9 | 0.38 | 0.87 |
I'm not sure what all that statfaggotry is, but all I see is a list of guys who suck and I don't want on the Cubs.
I'll happily go with Masterson on some discounted deal, knowing he's a bit of a project with a ton of upside, but I'm still hoping he's not the ace they're getting.
I'm guessing Hammel, Feldman and Maholm would've been on similar lists for the last few years. Those signings worked out all right. I think we all agree that signing a Lester or a Scherzer would be great, but to dismiss signing any of these guys (McCarthy in particular) as affordable rotation depth at worst, or buy-low #2 or 3 starters at best, seems notsmart.
Quote from: PenFoe on October 01, 2014, 12:41:41 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on October 01, 2014, 12:40:08 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on October 01, 2014, 12:31:11 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on October 01, 2014, 12:27:44 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 12:14:33 PM
There's also a risk in only signing the Mastersons and McCarthys of the world and that risk is they suck and your team isn't very good.
There's always risk, but isn't the riskier option blowing your entire pitching budget on one guy on the hope that he doesn't suck, doesn't have an exploding rotator cuff, etc?
By pursuing undervalued pitchers you're able to procure more of them which minimizes your risk through diversification.
But how many more guys do the Cubs need?
They currently have Arrieta, Hendricks, Wood, E-Jax, Doubront, Turner, Straily, Beeler and Jokisch in the mix.
I'm not holding my breath on a few of those guys, but it doesn't seem like they need to bring in another handful of undervalued pitchers to add to that mix, versus just bringing in 1-2 guys that you can put into the rotation without concern.
That's exactly what Oakland has done. They put leases on Hammel, Snork and Lester when it became prudent to do so. Now they have Snork they can flip for whatever value they can get to mitigate the loss of Russell and money freed up to get more undervalued arms such as the ones that have made up their rotation the past couple of (successful) seasons.
That plan cost them Cespedes and I'm not buying the offensive collapse being due to his absence as much as many people seem to. I think he's a guy. Otherwise, what did they lose?
The playoffs again?
Are you being facetious?
Quote from: InternetApex on October 01, 2014, 12:44:08 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on October 01, 2014, 12:41:41 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on October 01, 2014, 12:40:08 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on October 01, 2014, 12:31:11 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on October 01, 2014, 12:27:44 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 12:14:33 PM
There's also a risk in only signing the Mastersons and McCarthys of the world and that risk is they suck and your team isn't very good.
There's always risk, but isn't the riskier option blowing your entire pitching budget on one guy on the hope that he doesn't suck, doesn't have an exploding rotator cuff, etc?
By pursuing undervalued pitchers you're able to procure more of them which minimizes your risk through diversification.
But how many more guys do the Cubs need?
They currently have Arrieta, Hendricks, Wood, E-Jax, Doubront, Turner, Straily, Beeler and Jokisch in the mix.
I'm not holding my breath on a few of those guys, but it doesn't seem like they need to bring in another handful of undervalued pitchers to add to that mix, versus just bringing in 1-2 guys that you can put into the rotation without concern.
That's exactly what Oakland has done. They put leases on Hammel, Snork and Lester when it became prudent to do so. Now they have Snork they can flip for whatever value they can get to mitigate the loss of Russell and money freed up to get more undervalued arms such as the ones that have made up their rotation the past couple of (successful) seasons.
That plan cost them Cespedes and I'm not buying the offensive collapse being due to his absence as much as many people seem to. I think he's a guy. Otherwise, what did they lose?
The playoffs again?
Are you being facetious?
My point is that the Cubs have shown a pretty good ability to keep taking low-risks on pitchers and cobbling together either rotation pieces or trade bait. They've shown that ability and I don't expect them to stop doing that.
But, the A's have never been even close to having the type of hitting prospects the Cubs have in the Beane Era. Also (in theory) I don't expect the Cubs to have the same financial restraints that the A's do.
So, in all those areas (smart baseball ops, great farm system of bats, money for free agents) I don't think the Cubs need to be looking at the A's at the model right now.
They have more money and more prospects to utilize which allows them to take more chances.
Again, this all assumes that Ricketts is willing to spend money, which is admittedly debatable, but have to go off that assumption for now (unless you're Chuck.)
So let's assume they sign either Lester or Scherzer this offseason. Which would it be? Lester, because he's left-handed, they know him from Boston, he's a big-game starter (last night notwithstanding), and he doesn't cost a draft pick? Or do they go with Scherzer, who has less mileage on his arm, he strikes out almost 10 chumps per nine for his career, and his career FIP is 3.39 compared to Lester's 3.58?
Or do they just sign both.
I also pretty much expect David Price to be a Cub after next season at this point. I like setting myself up for disappoint.
Quote from: ChuckD on October 01, 2014, 12:37:19 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on October 01, 2014, 12:31:11 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on October 01, 2014, 12:27:44 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 12:14:33 PM
There's also a risk in only signing the Mastersons and McCarthys of the world and that risk is they suck and your team isn't very good.
There's always risk, but isn't the riskier option blowing your entire pitching budget on one guy on the hope that he doesn't suck, doesn't have an exploding rotator cuff, etc?
By pursuing undervalued pitchers you're able to procure more of them which minimizes your risk through diversification.
But how many more guys do the Cubs need?
They currently have Arrieta, Hendricks, Wood, E-Jax, Doubront, Turner, Straily, Beeler and Jokisch in the mix.
I'm not holding my breath on a few of those guys, but it doesn't seem like they need to bring in another handful of undervalued pitchers to add to that mix, versus just bringing in 1-2 guys that you can put into the rotation without concern.
Of those, only Arrieta, Hendricks, and Wood give me any sort of confidence at this point. So, two -- maybe three?
That's funny: only Arrieta and Hendricks give me any sort of Wood.
Quote from: R-V on October 01, 2014, 12:43:25 PM
I'm guessing Hammel, Feldman and Maholm would've been on similar lists for the last few years. Those signings worked out all right. I think we all agree that signing a Lester or a Scherzer would be great, but to dismiss signing any of these guys (McCarthy in particular) as affordable rotation depth at worst, or buy-low #2 or 3 starters at best, seems notsmart.
I don't get all the McCarthy love. Is it because he's funny on Twitter? I see his value and I'm not entirely opposed to signing him because he's likely to be solid when he's on the mound. But this is the first year he's ever pitched 200 innings (and he hit that right on the nose). I think it's more likely he'll get hurt and pitch 115 mediocre innings than repeat what he did this year. He's not the kind of signing that moves the needle much closer to competing.
Again, racking up surplus value is great, but there are diminishing returns after a certain point.
Quote from: ChuckD on October 01, 2014, 11:28:21 AM
Going after Hamels would be counter to the strategy Jepstink has shown thus far w/re to pitching.
They haven't been trying to win thus far.
The strategery of the last 3 years is not what the strategery will be going forward.
Going after Hamels by trading young talent would be entirely consistent with the strategy Jepstink have shown when they were contenders with Boston.
Chuck is 100% right. (Yeah, yeah.)
The undervalued assets have been a perfect fit because the biggest risk is they're bad and don't help you win. Wins didn't matter the past three years, so there was little downside -- the Cubs grabbed a bunch of them and hoped to catch lightning in a bottle with a few. If you're trying to compete, you don't have time to throw a bunch of stuff on the field and see who turns out good or bad.
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 02:15:37 PM
Chuck is 100% right. (Yeah, yeah.)
The undervalued assets have been a perfect fit because the biggest risk is they're bad and don't help you win. Wins didn't matter the past three years, so there was little downside -- the Cubs grabbed a bunch of them and hoped to catch lightning in a bottle with a few. If you're trying to compete, you don't have time to throw a bunch of stuff on the field and see who turns out good or bad.
But even good teams with big payrolls need undervalued free agent signings - there will inevitably be underperformance/injury for your high-paid star players. I'm not suggesting you take a pass on guys like Lester & Scherzer in favor of guys like McCarthy & Masterson; I'm saying I don't see a problem with continuing to take flyers on low-cost guys while AT THE SAME TIME busting out the checkbook for a big-ticket guy like Lester. They've got the payroll flexibility to do both.
I think to some extent people are weary of ONLY seeing these value signings (I'm looking at you Eli!) and that's influencing the line of thinking about them.
Quote from: R-V on October 01, 2014, 02:29:56 PM
But even good teams with big payrolls need undervalued free agent signings - there will inevitably be underperformance/injury for your high-paid star players. I'm not suggesting you take a pass on guys like Lester & Scherzer in favor of guys like McCarthy & Masterson; I'm saying I don't see a problem with continuing to take flyers on low-cost guys while AT THE SAME TIME busting out the checkbook for a big-ticket guy like Lester. They've got the payroll flexibility to do both.
Well, you should have just said in the first place!
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 02:45:33 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 01, 2014, 02:29:56 PM
But even good teams with big payrolls need undervalued free agent signings - there will inevitably be underperformance/injury for your high-paid star players. I'm not suggesting you take a pass on guys like Lester & Scherzer in favor of guys like McCarthy & Masterson; I'm saying I don't see a problem with continuing to take flyers on low-cost guys while AT THE SAME TIME busting out the checkbook for a big-ticket guy like Lester. They've got the payroll flexibility to do both.
Well, you should have just said in the first place!
I thought I did!
Let's move on from the pitching discussion. What free agent position players would you like the Cubs to pursue, Desipiots?
Quote from: R-V on October 01, 2014, 02:48:55 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 02:45:33 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 01, 2014, 02:29:56 PM
But even good teams with big payrolls need undervalued free agent signings - there will inevitably be underperformance/injury for your high-paid star players. I'm not suggesting you take a pass on guys like Lester & Scherzer in favor of guys like McCarthy & Masterson; I'm saying I don't see a problem with continuing to take flyers on low-cost guys while AT THE SAME TIME busting out the checkbook for a big-ticket guy like Lester. They've got the payroll flexibility to do both.
Well, you should have just said in the first place!
I thought I did!
Let's move on from the pitching discussion. What free agent position players would you like the Cubs to pursue, Desipiots?
Melky.
I'd see if Koji Uehara would keep taking overpaid one-year deals until he's bad, which may never happen.
Quote from: PenFoe on October 01, 2014, 02:55:29 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 01, 2014, 02:48:55 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 02:45:33 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 01, 2014, 02:29:56 PM
But even good teams with big payrolls need undervalued free agent signings - there will inevitably be underperformance/injury for your high-paid star players. I'm not suggesting you take a pass on guys like Lester & Scherzer in favor of guys like McCarthy & Masterson; I'm saying I don't see a problem with continuing to take flyers on low-cost guys while AT THE SAME TIME busting out the checkbook for a big-ticket guy like Lester. They've got the payroll flexibility to do both.
Well, you should have just said in the first place!
I thought I did!
Let's move on from the pitching discussion. What free agent position players would you like the Cubs to pursue, Desipiots?
Melky.
Cereal. (Baby.)
Quote from: R-V on October 01, 2014, 02:29:56 PM
But even good teams with big payrolls need undervalued free agent signings
Yes. I would think that a good team makes these plays in the bullpen and the position player bench. The real value on this team will be in having Rizzo, Castro, Baez, Soler, and Bryant for less than the one year cost of Soriano. Those 5 guys are slated to make about $16mm total next year.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 01, 2014, 03:18:49 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 01, 2014, 02:29:56 PM
But even good teams with big payrolls need undervalued free agent signings
Yes. I would think that a good team makes these plays in the bullpen and the position player bench. The real value on this team will be in having Rizzo, Castro, Baez, Soler, and Bryant for less than the one year cost of Soriano. Those 5 guys are slated to make about $16mm total next year.
Paul on a bike.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 01, 2014, 03:18:49 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 01, 2014, 02:29:56 PM
But even good teams with big payrolls need undervalued free agent signings
Yes. I would think that a good team makes these plays in the bullpen and the position player bench. The real value on this team will be in having Rizzo, Castro, Baez, Soler, and Bryant for less than the one year cost of Soriano. Those 5 guys are slated to make about $16mm total next year.
And there goes the goodwill you built up from earlier this afternoon.
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 03:35:29 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 01, 2014, 03:18:49 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 01, 2014, 02:29:56 PM
But even good teams with big payrolls need undervalued free agent signings
Yes. I would think that a good team makes these plays in the bullpen and the position player bench. The real value on this team will be in having Rizzo, Castro, Baez, Soler, and Bryant for less than the one year cost of Soriano. Those 5 guys are slated to make about $16mm total next year.
And there goes the goodwill you built up from earlier this afternoon.
The fair point he's making is that like 90% of the team is "undervalued" since they're all rookies/young guys.
Meaning, they don't have to keep finding tons of Coghlans and Valbuenas to fill out the starting lineup.
Quote from: PenFoe on October 01, 2014, 03:44:09 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 03:35:29 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 01, 2014, 03:18:49 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 01, 2014, 02:29:56 PM
But even good teams with big payrolls need undervalued free agent signings
Yes. I would think that a good team makes these plays in the bullpen and the position player bench. The real value on this team will be in having Rizzo, Castro, Baez, Soler, and Bryant for less than the one year cost of Soriano. Those 5 guys are slated to make about $16mm total next year.
And there goes the goodwill you built up from earlier this afternoon.
The fair point he's making is that like 90% of the team is "undervalued" since they're all rookies/young guys.
Meaning, they don't have to keep finding tons of Coghlans and Valbuenas to fill out the starting lineup.
I'm just taking umbrage with his random Soriano shoehorn.
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 03:58:47 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on October 01, 2014, 03:44:09 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 03:35:29 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 01, 2014, 03:18:49 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 01, 2014, 02:29:56 PM
But even good teams with big payrolls need undervalued free agent signings
Yes. I would think that a good team makes these plays in the bullpen and the position player bench. The real value on this team will be in having Rizzo, Castro, Baez, Soler, and Bryant for less than the one year cost of Soriano. Those 5 guys are slated to make about $16mm total next year.
And there goes the goodwill you built up from earlier this afternoon.
The fair point he's making is that like 90% of the team is "undervalued" since they're all rookies/young guys.
Meaning, they don't have to keep finding tons of Coghlans and Valbuenas to fill out the starting lineup.
I'm just taking umbrage with his random Soriano shoehorn.
You'd be pissed at me if I DIDN'T make that reference.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 01, 2014, 04:04:27 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 03:58:47 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on October 01, 2014, 03:44:09 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 03:35:29 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 01, 2014, 03:18:49 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 01, 2014, 02:29:56 PM
But even good teams with big payrolls need undervalued free agent signings
Yes. I would think that a good team makes these plays in the bullpen and the position player bench. The real value on this team will be in having Rizzo, Castro, Baez, Soler, and Bryant for less than the one year cost of Soriano. Those 5 guys are slated to make about $16mm total next year.
And there goes the goodwill you built up from earlier this afternoon.
The fair point he's making is that like 90% of the team is "undervalued" since they're all rookies/young guys.
Meaning, they don't have to keep finding tons of Coghlans and Valbuenas to fill out the starting lineup.
I'm just taking umbrage with his random Soriano shoehorn.
You'd be pissed at me if I DIDN'T make that reference.
Wrong again.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 01, 2014, 02:03:52 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on October 01, 2014, 11:28:21 AM
Going after Hamels would be counter to the strategy Jepstink has shown thus far w/re to pitching.
They haven't been trying to win thus far.
The strategery of the last 3 years is not what the strategery will be going forward.
Going after Hamels by trading young talent would be entirely consistent with the strategy Jepstink have shown when they were contenders with Boston.
I was waiting to read this comment and it came from fucking Chuck. You're all disappointments.
Quote from: Slaky on October 01, 2014, 04:12:14 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 01, 2014, 02:03:52 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on October 01, 2014, 11:28:21 AM
Going after Hamels would be counter to the strategy Jepstink has shown thus far w/re to pitching.
They haven't been trying to win thus far.
The strategery of the last 3 years is not what the strategery will be going forward.
Going after Hamels by trading young talent would be entirely consistent with the strategy Jepstink have shown when they were contenders with Boston.
I was waiting to read this comment and it came from fucking Chuck. You're all disappointments.
You could have said it yourself. You don't always have to be so reluctant to post things on the Internet.
Quote from: PenFoe on October 01, 2014, 02:55:29 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 01, 2014, 02:48:55 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 02:45:33 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 01, 2014, 02:29:56 PM
But even good teams with big payrolls need undervalued free agent signings - there will inevitably be underperformance/injury for your high-paid star players. I'm not suggesting you take a pass on guys like Lester & Scherzer in favor of guys like McCarthy & Masterson; I'm saying I don't see a problem with continuing to take flyers on low-cost guys while AT THE SAME TIME busting out the checkbook for a big-ticket guy like Lester. They've got the payroll flexibility to do both.
Well, you should have just said in the first place!
I thought I did!
Let's move on from the pitching discussion. What free agent position players would you like the Cubs to pursue, Desipiots?
Melky.
How about Markakis? What are he and Melky expected to get contract-wise?
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 04:14:59 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 01, 2014, 04:12:14 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 01, 2014, 02:03:52 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on October 01, 2014, 11:28:21 AM
Going after Hamels would be counter to the strategy Jepstink has shown thus far w/re to pitching.
They haven't been trying to win thus far.
The strategery of the last 3 years is not what the strategery will be going forward.
Going after Hamels by trading young talent would be entirely consistent with the strategy Jepstink have shown when they were contenders with Boston.
I was waiting to read this comment and it came from fucking Chuck. You're all disappointments.
You could have said it yourself. You don't always have to be so reluctant to post things on the Internet.
They probably already have a handshake with Lester and all this talk of trading prospects is a bunch of Chuckspeak that you sheeple have adopted.
Fuck off.
Here's your list (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/02/2015-mlb-free-agents.html). If they don't sign all of them that would mean the team just isn't serious about competing and hey, who owns the Cubs, anyway?
Quote from: InternetApex on October 01, 2014, 04:16:41 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 04:14:59 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 01, 2014, 04:12:14 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 01, 2014, 02:03:52 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on October 01, 2014, 11:28:21 AM
Going after Hamels would be counter to the strategy Jepstink has shown thus far w/re to pitching.
They haven't been trying to win thus far.
The strategery of the last 3 years is not what the strategery will be going forward.
Going after Hamels by trading young talent would be entirely consistent with the strategy Jepstink have shown when they were contenders with Boston.
I was waiting to read this comment and it came from fucking Chuck. You're all disappointments.
You could have said it yourself. You don't always have to be so reluctant to post things on the Internet.
They probably already have a handshake with Lester and all this talk of trading prospects is a bunch of Chuckspeak that you sheeple have adopted.
Fuck off.
I hope they do. He's selling his Boston area home. And earlier you asked why it would be bad if he went to the Yankees and not the Dodgers - it would be bad because the Yankees are shitty and will be shitty for a while. Lester won't win them the East on his own. And it says he's out for top dollar. Hell, he's already won twice. If HE'S out for top dollar AND the Cubs aren't quite the FA attraction we like to think they're becoming that would be a bummer.
At least if he signed with the Dodgers I could say well that's a team that's going to be damn good so I get it. He knows they're going to win right away. Not maybe this year and hopefully next year.
The reason why I don't hate the idea of trading for a guy like Hamels who is locked into a contract is you don't have to hope he chooses you amidst a bunch of sharks bidding top dollar for his services. As far as players as currency goes, the Cubs are one of the richest teams there is. So no - you don't have to like the idea of trading for a guy who might get injured because he's pitched a lot. And his past performance isn't something you want to reward - but it's already been rewarded. And he's been really good for a long long time.
Like Eli said I don't think that'll just change because he's a Cub. When you trade for a guy you remove the sales pitch. Maybe the Cubs sales pitch isn't quite as good as we think it is. That's all I'm saying.
Quote from: Slaky on October 01, 2014, 04:30:13 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on October 01, 2014, 04:16:41 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 04:14:59 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 01, 2014, 04:12:14 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 01, 2014, 02:03:52 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on October 01, 2014, 11:28:21 AM
Going after Hamels would be counter to the strategy Jepstink has shown thus far w/re to pitching.
They haven't been trying to win thus far.
The strategery of the last 3 years is not what the strategery will be going forward.
Going after Hamels by trading young talent would be entirely consistent with the strategy Jepstink have shown when they were contenders with Boston.
I was waiting to read this comment and it came from fucking Chuck. You're all disappointments.
You could have said it yourself. You don't always have to be so reluctant to post things on the Internet.
They probably already have a handshake with Lester and all this talk of trading prospects is a bunch of Chuckspeak that you sheeple have adopted.
Fuck off.
I hope they do. He's selling his Boston area home. And earlier you asked why it would be bad if he went to the Yankees and not the Dodgers - it would be bad because the Yankees are shitty and will be shitty for a while. Lester won't win them the East on his own. And it says he's out for top dollar. Hell, he's already won twice. If HE'S out for top dollar AND the Cubs aren't quite the FA attraction we like to think they're becoming that would be a bummer.
At least if he signed with the Dodgers I could say well that's a team that's going to be damn good so I get it. He knows they're going to win right away. Not maybe this year and hopefully next year.
The reason why I don't hate the idea of trading for a guy like Hamels who is locked into a contract is you don't have to hope he chooses you amidst a bunch of sharks bidding top dollar for his services. As far as players as currency goes, the Cubs are one of the richest teams there is. So no - you don't have to like the idea of trading for a guy who might get injured because he's pitched a lot. And his past performance isn't something you want to reward - but it's already been rewarded. And he's been really good for a long long time.
Like Eli said I don't think that'll just change because he's a Cub. When you trade for a guy you remove the sales pitch. Maybe the Cubs sales pitch isn't quite as good as we think it is. That's all I'm saying.
All of that makes some sense. I've got a longstanding policy of waiting to see how things play out and losing my shit on the internet from time to time for the sheer thrill of it. So that's what I'm about to do.
But as for a guy choosing the Yankees, if he wants to do that, fine. I don't give a shit about Lester. I never much liked the guy really. If he pitches for the Dodgers though, that will suck more because they're in the National damn League and that.
Quote from: Slaky on October 01, 2014, 04:30:13 PM
Maybe the Cubs sales pitch isn't quite as good as we think it is. That's all I'm saying.
Given their ability to close the deal for Tanaka and Sanchez, there's nothing wrong thinking this way.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 01, 2014, 04:33:56 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 01, 2014, 04:30:13 PM
Maybe the Cubs sales pitch isn't quite as good as we think it is. That's all I'm saying.
Given their ability to close the deal for Tanaka and Sanchez, there's nothing wrong thinking this way.
True, but I feel like the pitch has to be stronger now than it was even then. There are tangible results to point to. Last offseason you couldn't even really make a great pitch for Rizzo being a building block, and now he's one of the best offensive weapons in the NL. Castro having a bounce back year helps. Soler contributing immediately helps. Baez and Alcantara have done enough things you can point to and make a strong case for them being good offensive players next year.
I get the fear, but I don't think the Tanaka/Sanchez comparison is all that relevant. The plan is far less of a fanciful dream than it was at this point last year.
Quote from: SKO on October 01, 2014, 04:52:58 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 01, 2014, 04:33:56 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 01, 2014, 04:30:13 PM
Maybe the Cubs sales pitch isn't quite as good as we think it is. That's all I'm saying.
Given their ability to close the deal for Tanaka and Sanchez, there's nothing wrong thinking this way.
True, but I feel like the pitch has to be stronger now than it was even then. There are tangible results to point to. Last offseason you couldn't even really make a great pitch for Rizzo being a building block, and now he's one of the best offensive weapons in the NL. Castro having a bounce back year helps. Soler contributing immediately helps. Baez and Alcantara have done enough things you can point to and make a strong case for them being good offensive players next year.
I get the fear, but I don't think the Tanaka/Sanchez comparison is all that relevant. The plan is far less of a fanciful dream than it was at this point last year.
And it's getting better. But there is no way to say "we're gonna be in the playoffs this year" because they finished in last place again. It's easy to say the talent is halfway there and more on the way. We all know it is. If the Dodgers offer the same money or more how the hell do you say no? You better hope Lester and Theo are thick as thieves or it's more reclamation bullshit.
Quote from: Slaky on October 01, 2014, 04:57:33 PM
Quote from: SKO on October 01, 2014, 04:52:58 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 01, 2014, 04:33:56 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 01, 2014, 04:30:13 PM
Maybe the Cubs sales pitch isn't quite as good as we think it is. That's all I'm saying.
Given their ability to close the deal for Tanaka and Sanchez, there's nothing wrong thinking this way.
True, but I feel like the pitch has to be stronger now than it was even then. There are tangible results to point to. Last offseason you couldn't even really make a great pitch for Rizzo being a building block, and now he's one of the best offensive weapons in the NL. Castro having a bounce back year helps. Soler contributing immediately helps. Baez and Alcantara have done enough things you can point to and make a strong case for them being good offensive players next year.
I get the fear, but I don't think the Tanaka/Sanchez comparison is all that relevant. The plan is far less of a fanciful dream than it was at this point last year.
And it's getting better. But there is no way to say "we're gonna be in the playoffs this year" because they finished in last place again. It's easy to say the talent is halfway there and more on the way. We all know it is. If the Dodgers offer the same money or more how the hell do you say no? You better hope Lester and Theo are thick as thieves or it's more reclamation bullshit.
Lost 103 in 2012, 96 in 2013, and 89 in 2014. Another 7 game improvement in 2015 gives them an 80 win season. It is not too much of a stretch to think that they could do a handful of games better than 80 wins, and since those could come against division competition it could mean that the Cubs play in October. How is that for "wait till next year" thinking?
Quote from: SKO on October 01, 2014, 04:52:58 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 01, 2014, 04:33:56 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 01, 2014, 04:30:13 PM
Maybe the Cubs sales pitch isn't quite as good as we think it is. That's all I'm saying.
Given their ability to close the deal for Tanaka and Sanchez, there's nothing wrong thinking this way.
True, but I feel like the pitch has to be stronger now than it was even then. There are tangible results to point to. Last offseason you couldn't even really make a great pitch for Rizzo being a building block, and now he's one of the best offensive weapons in the NL. Castro having a bounce back year helps. Soler contributing immediately helps. Baez and Alcantara have done enough things you can point to and make a strong case for them being good offensive players next year.
I get the fear, but I don't think the Tanaka/Sanchez comparison is all that relevant. The plan is far less of a fanciful dream than it was at this point last year.
Until a big free agent signs a deal offered by a Ricketts owned team, no one has ever done it. Ricketts is still, in many ways, an unknown.
That said, I think that specific unknown goes away about 12 weeks from now.
Quote from: PenFoe on October 01, 2014, 12:24:40 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 01, 2014, 12:23:19 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on October 01, 2014, 12:21:11 PM
Scherzer has pitched 600 fewer innings than Hamels.
Mostly because he's had injuries.
I was actually looking for this online, because I believed it to be true.
Are there are sites that will tell you how many days a guy has spend on the DL in his career/season?
Baseball Prospectus's player pages have their injury history (DL trips as well as other missed time).
Quote from: Slaky on October 01, 2014, 04:12:14 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 01, 2014, 02:03:52 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on October 01, 2014, 11:28:21 AM
Going after Hamels would be counter to the strategy Jepstink has shown thus far w/re to pitching.
They haven't been trying to win thus far.
The strategery of the last 3 years is not what the strategery will be going forward.
Going after Hamels by trading young talent would be entirely consistent with the strategy Jepstink have shown when they were contenders with Boston.
I was waiting to read this comment and it came from fucking Chuck. You're all disappointments.
I'm not seeing it. There's exactly one time from 2003-2011 where Jepstink traded away young talent for a top tier pitcher -- Schilling. Also, you only can count that if you stretch the definition of "young talent."
They got Schilling because a) he wanted an extension and b) Arizona was looking to unload salary (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1673350).
The Red Sox traded away Mike Goss, Casey Fossum, Brandon Lyon and Jorge De La Rosa. Lyon and Fossum were already in the MLB. Goss was thrown in as a PTBNL. That leaves De La Rosa who was the #9 prospect in a thin system -- the Red Sox had a single prospect (Hanley Ramirez) on the 2003 preseason top 100 list.
And even as insanely good as he was in the years immediately preceding that trade, 3 out of the four years he was in Arizona, Schilling's FIP was lower than his ERA. His production had outpaced his value significantly (roughly double(!) (http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=73&position=P#value)).
With Hamels, it's the opposite. He's not out-performed his contract value and his FIP has exceeded his ERA (3 out of the past 4 years). It makes little sense to go after him unless Amaro plans on picking up some of the contract (which he won't). And it doesn't make any sense to trade two top 100 prospects + a perfectly good Dan Vogelbach for him when you can acquire the same level of production through FA -- hell, even pay the same premium -- but not sacrifice the talent.
Quote from: ChuckD on October 02, 2014, 07:04:29 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 01, 2014, 04:12:14 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 01, 2014, 02:03:52 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on October 01, 2014, 11:28:21 AM
Going after Hamels would be counter to the strategy Jepstink has shown thus far w/re to pitching.
They haven't been trying to win thus far.
The strategery of the last 3 years is not what the strategery will be going forward.
Going after Hamels by trading young talent would be entirely consistent with the strategy Jepstink have shown when they were contenders with Boston.
I was waiting to read this comment and it came from fucking Chuck. You're all disappointments.
I'm not seeing it. There's exactly one time from 2003-2011 where Jepstink traded away young talent for a top tier pitcher -- Schilling. Also, you only can count that if you stretch the definition of "young talent."
They got Schilling because a) he wanted an extension and b) Arizona was looking to unload salary (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1673350).
The Red Sox traded away Mike Goss, Casey Fossum, Brandon Lyon and Jorge De La Rosa. Lyon and Fossum were already in the MLB. Goss was thrown in as a PTBNL. That leaves De La Rosa who was the #9 prospect in a thin system -- the Red Sox had a single prospect (Hanley Ramirez) on the 2003 preseason top 100 list.
And even as insanely good as he was in the years immediately preceding that trade, 3 out of the four years he was in Arizona, Schilling's FIP was lower than his ERA. His production had outpaced his value significantly (roughly double(!) (http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=73&position=P#value)).
With Hamels, it's the opposite. He's not out-performed his contract value and his FIP has exceeded his ERA (3 out of the past 4 years). It makes little sense to go after him unless Amaro plans on picking up some of the contract (which he won't). And it doesn't make any sense to trade two top 100 prospects + a perfectly good Dan Vogelbach for him when you can acquire the same level of production through FA -- hell, even pay the same premium -- but not sacrifice the talent.
That is very thorough and excellent stuff.
I guess that still doesn't alleviate my concern that the Cubs just don't have enough to entice a Lester through FA. Hoping Theo's charm wins him over.
Quote from: Slaky on October 02, 2014, 08:30:34 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on October 02, 2014, 07:04:29 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 01, 2014, 04:12:14 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 01, 2014, 02:03:52 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on October 01, 2014, 11:28:21 AM
Going after Hamels would be counter to the strategy Jepstink has shown thus far w/re to pitching.
They haven't been trying to win thus far.
The strategery of the last 3 years is not what the strategery will be going forward.
Going after Hamels by trading young talent would be entirely consistent with the strategy Jepstink have shown when they were contenders with Boston.
I was waiting to read this comment and it came from fucking Chuck. You're all disappointments.
I'm not seeing it. There's exactly one time from 2003-2011 where Jepstink traded away young talent for a top tier pitcher -- Schilling. Also, you only can count that if you stretch the definition of "young talent."
They got Schilling because a) he wanted an extension and b) Arizona was looking to unload salary (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1673350).
The Red Sox traded away Mike Goss, Casey Fossum, Brandon Lyon and Jorge De La Rosa. Lyon and Fossum were already in the MLB. Goss was thrown in as a PTBNL. That leaves De La Rosa who was the #9 prospect in a thin system -- the Red Sox had a single prospect (Hanley Ramirez) on the 2003 preseason top 100 list.
And even as insanely good as he was in the years immediately preceding that trade, 3 out of the four years he was in Arizona, Schilling's FIP was lower than his ERA. His production had outpaced his value significantly (roughly double(!) (http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=73&position=P#value)).
With Hamels, it's the opposite. He's not out-performed his contract value and his FIP has exceeded his ERA (3 out of the past 4 years). It makes little sense to go after him unless Amaro plans on picking up some of the contract (which he won't). And it doesn't make any sense to trade two top 100 prospects + a perfectly good Dan Vogelbach for him when you can acquire the same level of production through FA -- hell, even pay the same premium -- but not sacrifice the talent.
That is very thorough and excellent stuff.
I guess that still doesn't alleviate my concern that the Cubs just don't have enough to entice a Lester through FA. Hoping Theo's charm wins him over.
Me, personally, I'm equally fine with Scherzer and, to a very slightly lesser degree, Shields.
Cubs will get 1 of those 3, preferably 1 of the first 2. Are you saying it doesn't matter if they don't get Lester?
Quote from: Slaky on October 02, 2014, 08:30:34 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on October 02, 2014, 07:04:29 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 01, 2014, 04:12:14 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 01, 2014, 02:03:52 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on October 01, 2014, 11:28:21 AM
Going after Hamels would be counter to the strategy Jepstink has shown thus far w/re to pitching.
They haven't been trying to win thus far.
The strategery of the last 3 years is not what the strategery will be going forward.
Going after Hamels by trading young talent would be entirely consistent with the strategy Jepstink have shown when they were contenders with Boston.
I was waiting to read this comment and it came from fucking Chuck. You're all disappointments.
I'm not seeing it. There's exactly one time from 2003-2011 where Jepstink traded away young talent for a top tier pitcher -- Schilling. Also, you only can count that if you stretch the definition of "young talent."
They got Schilling because a) he wanted an extension and b) Arizona was looking to unload salary (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1673350).
The Red Sox traded away Mike Goss, Casey Fossum, Brandon Lyon and Jorge De La Rosa. Lyon and Fossum were already in the MLB. Goss was thrown in as a PTBNL. That leaves De La Rosa who was the #9 prospect in a thin system -- the Red Sox had a single prospect (Hanley Ramirez) on the 2003 preseason top 100 list.
And even as insanely good as he was in the years immediately preceding that trade, 3 out of the four years he was in Arizona, Schilling's FIP was lower than his ERA. His production had outpaced his value significantly (roughly double(!) (http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=73&position=P#value)).
With Hamels, it's the opposite. He's not out-performed his contract value and his FIP has exceeded his ERA (3 out of the past 4 years). It makes little sense to go after him unless Amaro plans on picking up some of the contract (which he won't). And it doesn't make any sense to trade two top 100 prospects + a perfectly good Dan Vogelbach for him when you can acquire the same level of production through FA -- hell, even pay the same premium -- but not sacrifice the talent.
That is very thorough and excellent stuff.
I guess that still doesn't alleviate my concern that the Cubs just don't have enough to entice a Lester through FA. Hoping Theo's charm wins him over.
It just dawned on me that I overlooked one other trade. Jepstink did trade for Beckett (and Lowell) in 2006 -- and gave up some elite prospects in Hanley and Anibal Sanchez. So perhaps
that's the trade that Chuck is considering as the "trend."
There again though, Beckett's FIP was pretty well below his ERA from 2002-2005 indicating he was undervalued; his production had outpaced his contract (he was still young and cheap); and was on the right side of the aging curve. They signed him to an advantageous contract and got a 5 WAR/yr pitcher who was just entering the prime of his career for well-below the market rate.
Quote from: ChuckD on October 02, 2014, 07:04:29 AM
With Hamels, it's the opposite. He's not out-performed his contract value and his FIP has exceeded his ERA (3 out of the past 4 years).
It's not like there's a massive difference between his FIP and his ERA. Lots of guys with low ERAs consistently pitch better than their FIP indicates (Clayton Kershaw, every year of his career; Chris Sale, every year of his career). Plus, those last four FIPs have been the best four of his career. His fastball velocity is actually trending
up (90.9 to 91.3 to 92.1). Other than the fact that he's a pitcher and all pitchers are terrifying, I don't see any signs he's due for an immediate decline.
As for him outperforming his contract, this gets into that surplus value conversation again. It's hard for highly-paid players to be efficient. Hamels has underperformed by about $1-3 million per season. Who gives a shit? You need efficiency at various roster spots to build a good team, but the Cubs have already plenty of that built in with Rizzo and Castro's indentured servant contracts, plus the young, cost-controlled guys coming up. They're in a unique position to absorb several still-good but slightly-inefficient players. At this point, I'd rather the Cubs pay a guy $22 million and only get $19 million of Dave Cameron's Proprietary Player Value than pay someone $2 million and get $5 million of said value.
QuoteIt makes little sense to go after him unless Amaro plans on picking up some of the contract (which he won't). And it doesn't make any sense to trade two top 100 prospects + a perfectly good Dan Vogelbach for him when you can acquire the same level of production through FA -- hell, even pay the same premium -- but not sacrifice the talent.
Trading for Hamels isn't my ideal Plan A. But like Slaky said, if you trade for him, he's yours. Ideally they'd just open the wallet and outbid everyone else for Lester and Scherzer (I think I'd rather trade for Hamels than sign Shields) and be done with it. But that's probably not going to happen.
Quote from: Eli on October 02, 2014, 09:01:17 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on October 02, 2014, 07:04:29 AM
With Hamels, it's the opposite. He's not out-performed his contract value and his FIP has exceeded his ERA (3 out of the past 4 years).
It's not like there's a massive difference between his FIP and his ERA. Lots of guys with low ERAs consistently pitch better than their FIP indicates (Clayton Kershaw, every year of his career; Chris Sale, every year of his career). Plus, those last four FIPs have been the best four of his career. His fastball velocity is actually trending up (90.9 to 91.3 to 92.1). Other than the fact that he's a pitcher and all pitchers are terrifying, I don't see any signs he's due for an immediate decline.
As for him outperforming his contract, this gets into that surplus value conversation again. It's hard for highly-paid players to be efficient. Hamels has underperformed by about $1-3 million per season. Who gives a shit? You need efficiency at various roster spots to build a good team, but the Cubs have already plenty of that built in with Rizzo and Castro's indentured servant contracts, plus the young, cost-controlled guys coming up. They're in a unique position to absorb several still-good but slightly-inefficient players. At this point, I'd rather the Cubs pay a guy $22 million and only get $19 million of Dave Cameron's Proprietary Player Value than pay someone $2 million and get $5 million of said value.
QuoteIt makes little sense to go after him unless Amaro plans on picking up some of the contract (which he won't). And it doesn't make any sense to trade two top 100 prospects + a perfectly good Dan Vogelbach for him when you can acquire the same level of production through FA -- hell, even pay the same premium -- but not sacrifice the talent.
Trading for Hamels isn't my ideal Plan A. But like Slaky said, if you trade for him, he's yours. Ideally they'd just open the wallet and outbid everyone else for Lester and Scherzer (I think I'd rather trade for Hamels than sign Shields) and be done with it. But that's probably not going to happen.
And with Mike continually bringing up Scherzer, based on what the Cubs insiders have been saying on Twitter: the Cubs won't be pursuing him at all. That's the word. It might not be the truth but that's just what I've read.
Quote from: Eli on October 02, 2014, 09:01:17 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on October 02, 2014, 07:04:29 AM
With Hamels, it's the opposite. He's not out-performed his contract value and his FIP has exceeded his ERA (3 out of the past 4 years).
It's not like there's a massive difference between his FIP and his ERA. Lots of guys with low ERAs consistently pitch better than their FIP indicates (Clayton Kershaw, every year of his career; Chris Sale, every year of his career). Plus, those last four FIPs have been the best four of his career. His fastball velocity is actually trending up (90.9 to 91.3 to 92.1). Other than the fact that he's a pitcher and all pitchers are terrifying, I don't see any signs he's due for an immediate decline.
As for him outperforming his contract, this gets into that surplus value conversation again. It's hard for highly-paid players to be efficient. Hamels has underperformed by about $1-3 million per season. Who gives a shit? You need efficiency at various roster spots to build a good team, but the Cubs have already plenty of that built in with Rizzo and Castro's indentured servant contracts, plus the young, cost-controlled guys coming up. They're in a unique position to absorb several still-good but slightly-inefficient players. At this point, I'd rather the Cubs pay a guy $22 million and only get $19 million of Dave Cameron's Proprietary Player Value than pay someone $2 million and get $5 million of said value.
QuoteIt makes little sense to go after him unless Amaro plans on picking up some of the contract (which he won't). And it doesn't make any sense to trade two top 100 prospects + a perfectly good Dan Vogelbach for him when you can acquire the same level of production through FA -- hell, even pay the same premium -- but not sacrifice the talent.
Trading for Hamels isn't my ideal Plan A. But like Slaky said, if you trade for him, he's yours. Ideally they'd just open the wallet and outbid everyone else for Lester and Scherzer (I think I'd rather trade for Hamels than sign Shields) and be done with it. But that's probably not going to happen.
This: "Lots of guys with low ERAs consistently pitch better than their FIP indicates" is a great point. Hamels' ERA is consistently low so he could be doing something that is under- or even un-valued by FIP. And you're right that the differences over the past few years haven't been massive in terms of $.
My main point initially was that he's not the kind of pitcher (in terms of peripherals) that Jepstink has pursued. I don't think it's the end of the world if they trade for Hamels, just seems a bit abnormal. To pay him $22M a year AND give up the prospects that Arguello is putting forward seems a bit much. My main concern is that based on the average course of a pitcher's career, he's due for a decline and he has a lot of miles on his arm. Then again, maybe they're "highway" miles in the sense that he gets by primarily on FB/CH more than movement.
Anyway, these are good problems to have.
Quote from: ChuckD on October 02, 2014, 09:30:40 AM
This: "Lots of guys with low ERAs consistently pitch better than their FIP indicates" is a great point. Hamels' ERA is consistently low so he could be doing something that is under- or even un-valued by FIP. And you're right that the differences over the past few years haven't been massive in terms of $.
I think FIP is useful for finding undervalued guys, but it doesn't seem to do justice to elite pitchers. I'm not smart enough to know why that is. Probably something about guys who are good at getting weak contact? I think Matt Cain was the first guy who consistently did this (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/matt-cain-as-an-example-in-beating-the-spread/), and it was always interesting to try and figure out why (though no one did).
QuoteMy main point initially was that he's not the kind of pitcher (in terms of peripherals) that Jepstink has pursued. I don't think it's the end of the world if they trade for Hamels, just seems a bit abnormal. To pay him $22M a year AND give up the prospects that Arguello is putting forward seems a bit much. My main concern is that based on the average course of a pitcher's career, he's due for a decline and he has a lot of miles on his arm. Then again, maybe they're "highway" miles in the sense that he gets by primarily on FB/CH more than movement.
I agree that it's unlikely and I'd be surprised if they traded for him. I'm mostly just saying that I'd be OK with it if they did, and I may even prefer it over some of the non-Lester/Scherzer options.
Quote from: Eli on October 02, 2014, 09:48:49 AM
I think FIP is useful for finding undervalued guys, but it doesn't seem to do justice to elite pitchers. I'm not smart enough to know why that is. Probably something about guys who are good at getting weak contact? I think Matt Cain was the first guy who consistently did this (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/matt-cain-as-an-example-in-beating-the-spread/), and it was always interesting to try and figure out why (though no one did).
Agreed, it's definitely not cut-and-dry around the tails of the distribution -- the really elite guys and the borderline replacement players. Once exit velocity/angle data becomes available at every stadium (and hopefully freely available to the sabermetric community), it should allow for the development of better ERA estimators that don't rely on a simple categorical LD/GB/FB variable for batted ball type.
Quote from: ChuckD on October 02, 2014, 10:00:11 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 02, 2014, 09:48:49 AM
I think FIP is useful for finding undervalued guys, but it doesn't seem to do justice to elite pitchers. I'm not smart enough to know why that is. Probably something about guys who are good at getting weak contact? I think Matt Cain was the first guy who consistently did this (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/matt-cain-as-an-example-in-beating-the-spread/), and it was always interesting to try and figure out why (though no one did).
Agreed, it's definitely not cut-and-dry around the tails of the distribution -- the really elite guys and the borderline replacement players. Once exit velocity/angle data becomes available at every stadium (and hopefully freely available to the sabermetric community), it should allow for the development of better ERA estimators that don't rely on a simple categorical LD/GB/FB variable for batted ball type.
Elite pitchers are ahead in the count, they force the batter to swing at their pitch, they fool people. All of these things lead to weak contact. Also, if you run the ball effectively, you can set up the play action.
Quote from: InternetApex on October 02, 2014, 10:41:30 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on October 02, 2014, 10:00:11 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 02, 2014, 09:48:49 AM
I think FIP is useful for finding undervalued guys, but it doesn't seem to do justice to elite pitchers. I'm not smart enough to know why that is. Probably something about guys who are good at getting weak contact? I think Matt Cain was the first guy who consistently did this (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/matt-cain-as-an-example-in-beating-the-spread/), and it was always interesting to try and figure out why (though no one did).
Agreed, it's definitely not cut-and-dry around the tails of the distribution -- the really elite guys and the borderline replacement players. Once exit velocity/angle data becomes available at every stadium (and hopefully freely available to the sabermetric community), it should allow for the development of better ERA estimators that don't rely on a simple categorical LD/GB/FB variable for batted ball type.
Elite pitchers are ahead in the count, they force the batter to swing at their pitch, they fool people. All of these things lead to weak contact. Also, if you run the ball effectively, you can set up the play action.
I laffed.
Quote from: R-V on October 01, 2014, 02:48:55 PM
What free agent position players would you like the Cubs to pursue, Desipiots?
Yasmany Tomas. (http://www.baseballamerica.com/international/yasmany-tomas-declared-free-agent/)
the one thing with Lester will be that since he was traded during the season, there's no loss in draft picks if you sign him.
So the Cubs will get into a bidding war with the Yankees. How high does anyone think the Rickettses will let Jepstink go?
Quote from: Eli on October 02, 2014, 01:28:35 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 01, 2014, 02:48:55 PM
What free agent position players would you like the Cubs to pursue, Desipiots?
Yasmany Tomas. (http://www.baseballamerica.com/international/yasmany-tomas-declared-free-agent/)
I'm torn between Jeff Francouer, Donny Murphy, or Ty Wiggington. And they need another shortstop.
Quote from: Eli on October 02, 2014, 09:48:49 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on October 02, 2014, 09:30:40 AM
This: "Lots of guys with low ERAs consistently pitch better than their FIP indicates" is a great point. Hamels' ERA is consistently low so he could be doing something that is under- or even un-valued by FIP. And you're right that the differences over the past few years haven't been massive in terms of $.
I think FIP is useful for finding undervalued guys, but it doesn't seem to do justice to elite pitchers. I'm not smart enough to know why that is. Probably something about guys who are good at getting weak contact? I think Matt Cain was the first guy who consistently did this (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/matt-cain-as-an-example-in-beating-the-spread/), and it was always interesting to try and figure out why (though no one did).
QuoteMy main point initially was that he's not the kind of pitcher (in terms of peripherals) that Jepstink has pursued. I don't think it's the end of the world if they trade for Hamels, just seems a bit abnormal. To pay him $22M a year AND give up the prospects that Arguello is putting forward seems a bit much. My main concern is that based on the average course of a pitcher's career, he's due for a decline and he has a lot of miles on his arm. Then again, maybe they're "highway" miles in the sense that he gets by primarily on FB/CH more than movement.
I agree that it's unlikely and I'd be surprised if they traded for him. I'm mostly just saying that I'd be OK with it if they did, and I may even prefer it over some of the non-Lester/Scherzer options.
Some more smoke (http://www.nj.com/phillies/index.ssf/2014/10/ryan_howard_could_be_out_david_montgomery_forced_out_john_middleton_to_become_owner_per_report.html) on the Hamels front.
QuoteAccording to Howard Eskin of FOX Sports, the Phillies are about to undergo a major facelift both on-and-off the field.
The report is a doozy, and covers both a change in majority ownership, and the removal of two players who were perhaps the biggest factor in the team winning the World Series in 2008.
First baseman Ryan Howard will almost "certainly" not be back with the team, and the Phillies are willing to pay almost all of the $61 million remaining on his contract to get him out.
The Phillies will look into trading pitcher Cole Hamels for younger players. The Boston Red Sox and Chicago Cubs both are expected to make a hard push for Hamels.
Liriano should get some consideration. When he hasn't been hurt the last two seasons, he's been very good to dominant. He's proven that he can win against the division.
Of course, as soon as he puts a Cubs uniform on, he'll remain a Cubs killer, but isn't that how it almost always goes?
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on October 04, 2014, 08:47:19 PM
PITTSBURGH PIRATE Liriano should get some consideration. When he hasn't been hurt the last two seasons, he's been very good to dominant. He's proven that he can win against the division.
You'd.
Just kidding. He'd be a nice pickup.
Quote from: Eli on October 05, 2014, 09:20:11 AM
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on October 04, 2014, 08:47:19 PM
PITTSBURGH PIRATE Liriano should get some consideration. When he hasn't been hurt the last two seasons, he's been very good to dominant. He's proven that he can win against the division.
You'd.
Just kidding. He'd be a nice pickup.
I see him as a real nice #3, behind Ace-To-Be-Determined and Arietta.
Quote from: ChuckD on October 02, 2014, 10:00:11 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 02, 2014, 09:48:49 AM
I think FIP is useful for finding undervalued guys, but it doesn't seem to do justice to elite pitchers. I'm not smart enough to know why that is. Probably something about guys who are good at getting weak contact? I think Matt Cain was the first guy who consistently did this (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/matt-cain-as-an-example-in-beating-the-spread/), and it was always interesting to try and figure out why (though no one did).
Agreed, it's definitely not cut-and-dry around the tails of the distribution -- the really elite guys and the borderline replacement players. Once exit velocity/angle data becomes available at every stadium (and hopefully freely available to the sabermetric community), it should allow for the development of better ERA estimators that don't rely on a simple categorical LD/GB/FB variable for batted ball type.
FIP is nice but hardly perfect. Combine FIP with FB/HR ratio and line drive % and we may be on to something. I think this is the sort of thing y'all may be alluding to?
Also, about the only team I'd consider dealing with for pitching is The Mets. Not sure how injury history plays into any of this but if they were willing to trade Harvey or Wheeler or anyone else like that, I'd consider liking a Baez or Castro or Russell trade. But, that would need to happen next off-season, I think.
I'm also not sure they can't win without a true number 1. If they go out and get McCarthy or Tomlin to go with Arrieta and Hendricks, they'd still outscore everyone. Maybe even a trade for Minor? Beachy and Medlen coming back from TJD? Go somewhat cheap on Ervin Santana?
I'd love to see Lester or Scherzer but I'm not convinced they're necessities for the next great Cubs team.
Quote from: Oleg on October 07, 2014, 09:26:15 AM
I'm also not sure they can't win without a true number 1. If they go out and get McCarthy or Tomlin to go with Arrieta and Hendricks, they'd still outscore everyone. Maybe even a trade for Minor? Beachy and Medlen coming back from TJD? Go somewhat cheap on Ervin Santana?
There's only one guy on that entire list that I feel certain can provide 200 innings of above-league-average pitching next year. I guess Hendricks has a good shot at it, but everyone else is just a big question mark. It's fine to take fliers on guys like that, but they shouldn't be counted on. I not really sure why everyone is so eager to settle for mediocre pitching.
Quote from: Eli on October 07, 2014, 11:05:28 AM
Quote from: Oleg on October 07, 2014, 09:26:15 AM
I'm also not sure they can't win without a true number 1. If they go out and get McCarthy or Tomlin to go with Arrieta and Hendricks, they'd still outscore everyone. Maybe even a trade for Minor? Beachy and Medlen coming back from TJD? Go somewhat cheap on Ervin Santana?
There's only one guy on that entire list that I feel certain can provide 200 innings of above-league-average pitching next year. I guess Hendricks has a good shot at it, but everyone else is just a big question mark. It's fine to take fliers on guys like that, but they shouldn't be counted on. I not really sure why everyone is so eager to settle for mediocre pitching.
Nobody is settling for mediocre. People are just choosing to bet that the more above average arms you can stockpile, the more likely you are to have an above average staff. And clearing out salary for a bonafied No. 1 talent doesn't guarantee the health of that one individual will be worth the investment. Would you rather have Oakland and Detroit starting staffs or Baltimore's? Clearly you'd take the Dodgers starters over the Royals, right? I'm not so sure.
Kershaw's alarmingly poor performance in the playoffs for his career have to be due in large part to the superhuman workloads he's compiled each season. I think he'll get blown up again in Game 4 and that will be all she wrote.
If you can get an above average staff in need of one bonafied ace, you can usually rent one for the stretch run. It happens every single year. The deadline has been a buyer's market recently. But then getting to October guarantees you nothing but a fighting chance. So bet heavily on your every day players and have DEEP pitching staff that might have something in the tank come postseason. That seems to be working out at least as well as what the Tigers and Dodgers did.
Quote from: InternetApex on October 07, 2014, 11:18:53 AM
People are just choosing to bet that the more above average arms you can stockpile, the more likely you are to have an above average staff.
In theory. But how do you know which above-average arms end up in the rotation? They already have Arrieta, Hendricks, Wood, Wada, EJax, Turner, Straily, Doubront in the starter picture. That's seven interesting guys (plus EJax) who already need to shake out somewhere, which seems like plenty of depth to sift through.
Quote from: Eli on October 07, 2014, 12:02:33 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on October 07, 2014, 11:18:53 AM
People are just choosing to bet that the more above average arms you can stockpile, the more likely you are to have an above average staff.
In theory. But how do you know which above-average arms end up in the rotation? They already have Arrieta, Hendricks, Wood, Wada, EJax, Turner, Straily, Doubront in the starter picture. That's seven interesting guys (plus EJax) who already need to shake out somewhere, which seems like plenty of depth to sift through.
I honestly don't know. Fortunately for all of us it isn't up to me. Because Juan Cruz and Kevin Hart can tell you how bad I would be at that job. At least that's what I take their restraining orders against me to imply.
Quote from: Oleg on October 07, 2014, 09:26:15 AM
FIP is nice but hardly perfect. Combine FIP with FB/HR ratio and line drive % and we may be on to something. I think this is the sort of thing y'all may be alluding to?
Sort of. I mean, xFIP is sort of what you're talking about there.
Instead of using the pitcher's actual HR total (like FIP), xFIP takes the pitcher's FB rate and uses the league average HR/FB rate to get an expected HR total that should account for some luck.
What I'm more talking about is using the actual trajectory data for batted balls. There are companies who use doppler radar to record a batted balls' exit speed off the bat, launch angle, bearing, and some other stuff that can't be charted by a human. My company licenses it from Trackman, but it's the same sort of system/data that (I expect, at least) will be part of MLBAM's HitFX.
Using that sort of data should give a better value of a batted ball beyond simply LD vs GB vs FB. For instance, if you've got two FBs, those would be considered "equal" under xFIP. But if you can differentiate those two FBs to say that one was a ball with a 25 degree launch angle and an exit speed of 100mph, that will have a higher average run value than say a ball hit with a 45 degree launch angle and an exit speed of 80mph. The former would be a home run in most parks, whereas the latter is going to be a lazy fly ball (unless it's directly down the RF line at Fenway). Being able to classify those FBs and apply different weights accordingly should improve the accuracy of things like xFIP or xBABIP.
Quote from: ChuckD on October 07, 2014, 05:47:20 PM
Quote from: Oleg on October 07, 2014, 09:26:15 AM
FIP is nice but hardly perfect. Combine FIP with FB/HR ratio and line drive % and we may be on to something. I think this is the sort of thing y'all may be alluding to?
Sort of. I mean, xFIP is sort of what you're talking about there.
Instead of using the pitcher's actual HR total (like FIP), xFIP takes the pitcher's FB rate and uses the league average HR/FB rate to get an expected HR total that should account for some luck.
What I'm more talking about is using the actual trajectory data for batted balls. There are companies who use doppler radar to record a batted balls' exit speed off the bat, launch angle, bearing, and some other stuff that can't be charted by a human. My company licenses it from Trackman, but it's the same sort of system/data that (I expect, at least) will be part of MLBAM's HitFX.
Using that sort of data should give a better value of a batted ball beyond simply LD vs GB vs FB. For instance, if you've got two FBs, those would be considered "equal" under xFIP. But if you can differentiate those two FBs to say that one was a ball with a 25 degree launch angle and an exit speed of 100mph, that will have a higher average run value than say a ball hit with a 45 degree launch angle and an exit speed of 80mph. The former would be a home run in most parks, whereas the latter is going to be a lazy fly ball (unless it's directly down the RF line at Fenway). Being able to classify those FBs and apply different weights accordingly should improve the accuracy of things like xFIP or xBABIP.
Man, you're like the Freddy Mercury of statfaggery.
Quote from: PANK! on October 07, 2014, 05:57:14 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on October 07, 2014, 05:47:20 PM
Quote from: Oleg on October 07, 2014, 09:26:15 AM
FIP is nice but hardly perfect. Combine FIP with FB/HR ratio and line drive % and we may be on to something. I think this is the sort of thing y'all may be alluding to?
Sort of. I mean, xFIP is sort of what you're talking about there.
Instead of using the pitcher's actual HR total (like FIP), xFIP takes the pitcher's FB rate and uses the league average HR/FB rate to get an expected HR total that should account for some luck.
What I'm more talking about is using the actual trajectory data for batted balls. There are companies who use doppler radar to record a batted balls' exit speed off the bat, launch angle, bearing, and some other stuff that can't be charted by a human. My company licenses it from Trackman, but it's the same sort of system/data that (I expect, at least) will be part of MLBAM's HitFX.
Using that sort of data should give a better value of a batted ball beyond simply LD vs GB vs FB. For instance, if you've got two FBs, those would be considered "equal" under xFIP. But if you can differentiate those two FBs to say that one was a ball with a 25 degree launch angle and an exit speed of 100mph, that will have a higher average run value than say a ball hit with a 45 degree launch angle and an exit speed of 80mph. The former would be a home run in most parks, whereas the latter is going to be a lazy fly ball (unless it's directly down the RF line at Fenway). Being able to classify those FBs and apply different weights accordingly should improve the accuracy of things like xFIP or xBABIP.
Man, you're like the Freddy Mercury of statfaggery.
I'm pretty sure it's his job irl.
Quote from: Slaky on October 07, 2014, 07:51:22 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 07, 2014, 05:57:14 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on October 07, 2014, 05:47:20 PM
Quote from: Oleg on October 07, 2014, 09:26:15 AM
FIP is nice but hardly perfect. Combine FIP with FB/HR ratio and line drive % and we may be on to something. I think this is the sort of thing y'all may be alluding to?
Sort of. I mean, xFIP is sort of what you're talking about there.
Instead of using the pitcher's actual HR total (like FIP), xFIP takes the pitcher's FB rate and uses the league average HR/FB rate to get an expected HR total that should account for some luck.
What I'm more talking about is using the actual trajectory data for batted balls. There are companies who use doppler radar to record a batted balls' exit speed off the bat, launch angle, bearing, and some other stuff that can't be charted by a human. My company licenses it from Trackman, but it's the same sort of system/data that (I expect, at least) will be part of MLBAM's HitFX.
Using that sort of data should give a better value of a batted ball beyond simply LD vs GB vs FB. For instance, if you've got two FBs, those would be considered "equal" under xFIP. But if you can differentiate those two FBs to say that one was a ball with a 25 degree launch angle and an exit speed of 100mph, that will have a higher average run value than say a ball hit with a 45 degree launch angle and an exit speed of 80mph. The former would be a home run in most parks, whereas the latter is going to be a lazy fly ball (unless it's directly down the RF line at Fenway). Being able to classify those FBs and apply different weights accordingly should improve the accuracy of things like xFIP or xBABIP.
Man, you're like the Freddy Mercury of statfaggery.
I'm pretty sure it's his job irl.
Whatever it is, I'm totally gay for it.
Quote from: Slaky on October 07, 2014, 07:51:22 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 07, 2014, 05:57:14 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on October 07, 2014, 05:47:20 PM
Quote from: Oleg on October 07, 2014, 09:26:15 AM
FIP is nice but hardly perfect. Combine FIP with FB/HR ratio and line drive % and we may be on to something. I think this is the sort of thing y'all may be alluding to?
Sort of. I mean, xFIP is sort of what you're talking about there.
Instead of using the pitcher's actual HR total (like FIP), xFIP takes the pitcher's FB rate and uses the league average HR/FB rate to get an expected HR total that should account for some luck.
What I'm more talking about is using the actual trajectory data for batted balls. There are companies who use doppler radar to record a batted balls' exit speed off the bat, launch angle, bearing, and some other stuff that can't be charted by a human. My company licenses it from Trackman, but it's the same sort of system/data that (I expect, at least) will be part of MLBAM's HitFX.
Using that sort of data should give a better value of a batted ball beyond simply LD vs GB vs FB. For instance, if you've got two FBs, those would be considered "equal" under xFIP. But if you can differentiate those two FBs to say that one was a ball with a 25 degree launch angle and an exit speed of 100mph, that will have a higher average run value than say a ball hit with a 45 degree launch angle and an exit speed of 80mph. The former would be a home run in most parks, whereas the latter is going to be a lazy fly ball (unless it's directly down the RF line at Fenway). Being able to classify those FBs and apply different weights accordingly should improve the accuracy of things like xFIP or xBABIP.
Man, you're like the Freddy Mercury of statfaggery.
I'm pretty sure it's his job irl.
I know that it is. In fact he even refers to "my company" in the above paragraph.
I was just making a lame attempt at humor, see...
Quote from: PANK! on October 08, 2014, 12:11:17 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 07, 2014, 07:51:22 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 07, 2014, 05:57:14 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on October 07, 2014, 05:47:20 PM
Quote from: Oleg on October 07, 2014, 09:26:15 AM
FIP is nice but hardly perfect. Combine FIP with FB/HR ratio and line drive % and we may be on to something. I think this is the sort of thing y'all may be alluding to?
Sort of. I mean, xFIP is sort of what you're talking about there.
Instead of using the pitcher's actual HR total (like FIP), xFIP takes the pitcher's FB rate and uses the league average HR/FB rate to get an expected HR total that should account for some luck.
What I'm more talking about is using the actual trajectory data for batted balls. There are companies who use doppler radar to record a batted balls' exit speed off the bat, launch angle, bearing, and some other stuff that can't be charted by a human. My company licenses it from Trackman, but it's the same sort of system/data that (I expect, at least) will be part of MLBAM's HitFX.
Using that sort of data should give a better value of a batted ball beyond simply LD vs GB vs FB. For instance, if you've got two FBs, those would be considered "equal" under xFIP. But if you can differentiate those two FBs to say that one was a ball with a 25 degree launch angle and an exit speed of 100mph, that will have a higher average run value than say a ball hit with a 45 degree launch angle and an exit speed of 80mph. The former would be a home run in most parks, whereas the latter is going to be a lazy fly ball (unless it's directly down the RF line at Fenway). Being able to classify those FBs and apply different weights accordingly should improve the accuracy of things like xFIP or xBABIP.
Man, you're like the Freddy Mercury of statfaggery.
I'm pretty sure it's his job irl.
I know that it is. In fact he even refers to "my company" in the above paragraph.
I was just making a lame attempt at humor, see...
Success!
Quote from: Slaky on October 08, 2014, 09:03:31 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 08, 2014, 12:11:17 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 07, 2014, 07:51:22 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 07, 2014, 05:57:14 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on October 07, 2014, 05:47:20 PM
Quote from: Oleg on October 07, 2014, 09:26:15 AM
FIP is nice but hardly perfect. Combine FIP with FB/HR ratio and line drive % and we may be on to something. I think this is the sort of thing y'all may be alluding to?
Sort of. I mean, xFIP is sort of what you're talking about there.
Instead of using the pitcher's actual HR total (like FIP), xFIP takes the pitcher's FB rate and uses the league average HR/FB rate to get an expected HR total that should account for some luck.
What I'm more talking about is using the actual trajectory data for batted balls. There are companies who use doppler radar to record a batted balls' exit speed off the bat, launch angle, bearing, and some other stuff that can't be charted by a human. My company licenses it from Trackman, but it's the same sort of system/data that (I expect, at least) will be part of MLBAM's HitFX.
Using that sort of data should give a better value of a batted ball beyond simply LD vs GB vs FB. For instance, if you've got two FBs, those would be considered "equal" under xFIP. But if you can differentiate those two FBs to say that one was a ball with a 25 degree launch angle and an exit speed of 100mph, that will have a higher average run value than say a ball hit with a 45 degree launch angle and an exit speed of 80mph. The former would be a home run in most parks, whereas the latter is going to be a lazy fly ball (unless it's directly down the RF line at Fenway). Being able to classify those FBs and apply different weights accordingly should improve the accuracy of things like xFIP or xBABIP.
Man, you're like the Freddy Mercury of statfaggery.
I'm pretty sure it's his job irl.
I know that it is. In fact he even refers to "my company" in the above paragraph.
I was just making a lame attempt at humor, see...
Success!
*furiously claps hands*
George Ofman on Twitter:
QuoteAre the Dodgers shopping Puig? You bet and the Cubs are of of a number of teams interested.
No idea what that would even take (probably one of Bryant or Russell, plus others), but I'm envisioning some sort of Cuban neo-bash brothers sitcom starring Puig and Soler where they torment Cardinals fans for the next decade.
Quote from: Eli on October 10, 2014, 09:27:14 AM
George Ofman on Twitter:
QuoteAre the Dodgers shopping Puig? You bet and the Cubs are of of a number of teams interested.
No idea what that would even take (probably one of Bryant or Russell, plus others), but I'm envisioning some sort of Cuban neo-bash brothers sitcom starring Puig and Soler where they torment Cardinals fans for the next decade.
If the Dodgers are crazy/dumb enough to trade a guy with his skillset who is making $6 million/per until 2018, then fuck yeah Jepstink should be all over that.
I think it's more of Ofman just offering a hot take to keep us warm until the league championships begin.
Quote from: Fork on October 10, 2014, 09:51:42 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 10, 2014, 09:27:14 AM
George Ofman on Twitter:
QuoteAre the Dodgers shopping Puig? You bet and the Cubs are of of a number of teams interested.
No idea what that would even take (probably one of Bryant or Russell, plus others), but I'm envisioning some sort of Cuban neo-bash brothers sitcom starring Puig and Soler where they torment Cardinals fans for the next decade.
If the Dodgers are crazy/dumb enough to trade a guy with his skillset who is making $6 million/per until 2018, then fuck yeah Jepstink should be all over that.
I think it's more of Ofman just offering a hot take to keep us warm until the league championships begin.
Hey Apex check out Puig's comps on Baseball Ref:
QuoteSimilar Batters
View Similar Player Links in Pop-up
Compare Stats to Similars
Ben Paschal (962)
Len Koenecke (945)
Corey Dickerson (939)
Hack Miller (938)
John O'Rourke (936)
Ike Boone (933)
Fred Nicholson (932)
Mark Quinn (931)
Charlie Blackmon (930)
Matt Murton (924)
Quote from: R-V on October 10, 2014, 09:56:55 AM
QuoteSimilar Batters
View Similar Player Links in Pop-up
Compare Stats to Similars
Ben Paschal (962)
Len Koenecke (945)
Corey Dickerson (939)
Hack Miller (938)
John O'Rourke (936)
Ike Boone (933)
Fred Nicholson (932)
Mark Quinn (931)
Charlie Blackmon (930)
Matt Murton (924)
Good algorithm, guys.
Quote from: Eli on October 10, 2014, 10:07:01 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 10, 2014, 09:56:55 AM
QuoteSimilar Batters
View Similar Player Links in Pop-up
Compare Stats to Similars
Ben Paschal (962)
Len Koenecke (945)
Corey Dickerson (939)
Hack Miller (938)
John O'Rourke (936)
Ike Boone (933)
Fred Nicholson (932)
Mark Quinn (931)
Charlie Blackmon (930)
Matt Murton (924)
Good algorithm, guys.
Wow! I mean, I knew the guy was getting more patient at the plate but this is even better news than I'd thought. The Dodgers with Colletti on his last leg and Mattingly not far behind are not trading Yasiel Puig. That's just completely fucking stupid. If Mattingly and Colletti hate Puig and told somebody they would hear offers that's one thing. But they'll be sitting next to Bo Porter and Harold Reynolds in about a month so offer them anything you can stand to part with and hope for a miracle I guess.
Quote from: Eli on October 10, 2014, 09:27:14 AM
George Ofman on Twitter:
QuoteAre the Dodgers shopping Puig? You bet and the Cubs are of of a number of teams interested.
No idea what that would even take (probably one of Bryant or Russell, plus others), but I'm envisioning some sort of Cuban neo-bash brothers sitcom starring Puig and Soler where they torment Cardinals fans for the next decade.
Is Stanton still supposedly available for a price? I think I'd rather have him. Would probably take Bryant or Russel,
and Soler but...
Quote from: PANK! on October 10, 2014, 10:24:25 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 10, 2014, 09:27:14 AM
George Ofman on Twitter:
QuoteAre the Dodgers shopping Puig? You bet and the Cubs are of of a number of teams interested.
No idea what that would even take (probably one of Bryant or Russell, plus others), but I'm envisioning some sort of Cuban neo-bash brothers sitcom starring Puig and Soler where they torment Cardinals fans for the next decade.
Is Stanton still supposedly available for a price? I think I'd rather have him. Would probably take Bryant or Russel, and Soler but...
We're dealing in fantasyland, of course, but I'd take Puig. He's younger and under team control for longer (though he'll surely opt into arbitration; I think he can after next year), plus he could play a passable center field for at least a few more years.
Again, the Dodgers would be insane here. Other than Trout and Harper, I can't think of many players with more trade value than Puig. Maybe McCutchen?
Quote from: Eli on October 10, 2014, 10:41:09 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 10, 2014, 10:24:25 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 10, 2014, 09:27:14 AM
George Ofman on Twitter:
QuoteAre the Dodgers shopping Puig? You bet and the Cubs are of of a number of teams interested.
No idea what that would even take (probably one of Bryant or Russell, plus others), but I'm envisioning some sort of Cuban neo-bash brothers sitcom starring Puig and Soler where they torment Cardinals fans for the next decade.
Is Stanton still supposedly available for a price? I think I'd rather have him. Would probably take Bryant or Russel, and Soler but...
We're dealing in fantasyland, of course, but I'd take Puig. He's younger and under team control for longer (though he'll surely opt into arbitration; I think he can after next year), plus he could play a passable center field for at least a few more years.
Again, the Dodgers would be insane here. Other than Trout and Harper, I can't think of many players with more trade value than Puig. Maybe McCutchen?
Huard would like you and Puig both to kindly remove yourselves from his lawn. Now.
Quote from: InternetApex on October 10, 2014, 10:48:07 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 10, 2014, 10:41:09 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 10, 2014, 10:24:25 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 10, 2014, 09:27:14 AM
George Ofman on Twitter:
QuoteAre the Dodgers shopping Puig? You bet and the Cubs are of of a number of teams interested.
No idea what that would even take (probably one of Bryant or Russell, plus others), but I'm envisioning some sort of Cuban neo-bash brothers sitcom starring Puig and Soler where they torment Cardinals fans for the next decade.
Is Stanton still supposedly available for a price? I think I'd rather have him. Would probably take Bryant or Russel, and Soler but...
We're dealing in fantasyland, of course, but I'd take Puig. He's younger and under team control for longer (though he'll surely opt into arbitration; I think he can after next year), plus he could play a passable center field for at least a few more years.
Again, the Dodgers would be insane here. Other than Trout and Harper, I can't think of many players with more trade value than Puig. Maybe McCutchen?
Huard would like you and Puig both to kindly remove yourselves from his lawn. Now.
(http://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/assets/4617311/Puig-bat-flip_medium.gif)
Quote from: Eli on October 10, 2014, 10:57:11 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on October 10, 2014, 10:48:07 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 10, 2014, 10:41:09 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 10, 2014, 10:24:25 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 10, 2014, 09:27:14 AM
George Ofman on Twitter:
QuoteAre the Dodgers shopping Puig? You bet and the Cubs are of of a number of teams interested.
No idea what that would even take (probably one of Bryant or Russell, plus others), but I'm envisioning some sort of Cuban neo-bash brothers sitcom starring Puig and Soler where they torment Cardinals fans for the next decade.
Is Stanton still supposedly available for a price? I think I'd rather have him. Would probably take Bryant or Russel, and Soler but...
We're dealing in fantasyland, of course, but I'd take Puig. He's younger and under team control for longer (though he'll surely opt into arbitration; I think he can after next year), plus he could play a passable center field for at least a few more years.
Again, the Dodgers would be insane here. Other than Trout and Harper, I can't think of many players with more trade value than Puig. Maybe McCutchen?
Huard would like you and Puig both to kindly remove yourselves from his lawn. Now.
(http://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/assets/4617311/Puig-bat-flip_medium.gif)
♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥
Quote from: InternetApex on October 10, 2014, 10:48:07 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 10, 2014, 10:41:09 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 10, 2014, 10:24:25 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 10, 2014, 09:27:14 AM
George Ofman on Twitter:
QuoteAre the Dodgers shopping Puig? You bet and the Cubs are of of a number of teams interested.
No idea what that would even take (probably one of Bryant or Russell, plus others), but I'm envisioning some sort of Cuban neo-bash brothers sitcom starring Puig and Soler where they torment Cardinals fans for the next decade.
Is Stanton still supposedly available for a price? I think I'd rather have him. Would probably take Bryant or Russel, and Soler but...
We're dealing in fantasyland, of course, but I'd take Puig. He's younger and under team control for longer (though he'll surely opt into arbitration; I think he can after next year), plus he could play a passable center field for at least a few more years.
Again, the Dodgers would be insane here. Other than Trout and Harper, I can't think of many players with more trade value than Puig. Maybe McCutchen?
Huard would like you and Puig both to kindly remove yourselves from his lawn. Now.
Bearing in mind the fuss some of you lot made about Michael Barrett's boneheaded decisions, Yasiel Puig would probably give you all a grabber.
Quote from: Tonker on October 10, 2014, 11:55:52 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on October 10, 2014, 10:48:07 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 10, 2014, 10:41:09 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 10, 2014, 10:24:25 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 10, 2014, 09:27:14 AM
George Ofman on Twitter:
QuoteAre the Dodgers shopping Puig? You bet and the Cubs are of of a number of teams interested.
No idea what that would even take (probably one of Bryant or Russell, plus others), but I'm envisioning some sort of Cuban neo-bash brothers sitcom starring Puig and Soler where they torment Cardinals fans for the next decade.
Is Stanton still supposedly available for a price? I think I'd rather have him. Would probably take Bryant or Russel, and Soler but...
We're dealing in fantasyland, of course, but I'd take Puig. He's younger and under team control for longer (though he'll surely opt into arbitration; I think he can after next year), plus he could play a passable center field for at least a few more years.
Again, the Dodgers would be insane here. Other than Trout and Harper, I can't think of many players with more trade value than Puig. Maybe McCutchen?
Huard would like you and Puig both to kindly remove yourselves from his lawn. Now.
Bearing in mind the fuss some of you lot made about Michael Barrett's boneheaded decisions, Yasiel Puig would probably give you all a grabber.
He's 23. He's getting better. He does not play catcher. He has more baseball talent in one piece of pubic lice than Michael Barrett had in his entire frame.
But you're right of course.
Quote from: Eli on October 10, 2014, 10:41:09 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 10, 2014, 10:24:25 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 10, 2014, 09:27:14 AM
George Ofman on Twitter:
QuoteAre the Dodgers shopping Puig? You bet and the Cubs are of of a number of teams interested.
No idea what that would even take (probably one of Bryant or Russell, plus others), but I'm envisioning some sort of Cuban neo-bash brothers sitcom starring Puig and Soler where they torment Cardinals fans for the next decade.
Is Stanton still supposedly available for a price? I think I'd rather have him. Would probably take Bryant or Russel, and Soler but...
We're dealing in fantasyland, of course, but I'd take Puig. He's younger and under team control for longer (though he'll surely opt into arbitration; I think he can after next year), plus he could play a passable center field for at least a few more years.
Again, the Dodgers would be insane here. Other than Trout and Harper, I can't think of many players with more trade value than Puig. Maybe McCutchen?
Kris Bryant.
Quote from: Fork on October 10, 2014, 01:37:25 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 10, 2014, 10:41:09 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 10, 2014, 10:24:25 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 10, 2014, 09:27:14 AM
George Ofman on Twitter:
QuoteAre the Dodgers shopping Puig? You bet and the Cubs are of of a number of teams interested.
No idea what that would even take (probably one of Bryant or Russell, plus others), but I'm envisioning some sort of Cuban neo-bash brothers sitcom starring Puig and Soler where they torment Cardinals fans for the next decade.
Is Stanton still supposedly available for a price? I think I'd rather have him. Would probably take Bryant or Russel, and Soler but...
We're dealing in fantasyland, of course, but I'd take Puig. He's younger and under team control for longer (though he'll surely opt into arbitration; I think he can after next year), plus he could play a passable center field for at least a few more years.
Again, the Dodgers would be insane here. Other than Trout and Harper, I can't think of many players with more trade value than Puig. Maybe McCutchen?
Kris Bryant.
I don't think you're being serious, but just in case: no.
According to Fangraphs (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2014-trade-value-the-top-10/).
Quote from: Oleg on October 10, 2014, 03:50:09 PM
According to Fangraphs (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2014-trade-value-the-top-10/).
So, to answer Eli: McCutchen and Goldschmidt.
Christ Brian, at 29, is the highest-rated minor leaguer (of two on the list).
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 10, 2014, 04:36:36 PM
Quote from: Oleg on October 10, 2014, 03:50:09 PM
According to Fangraphs (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2014-trade-value-the-top-10/).
So, to answer Eli: McCutchen and Goldschmidt.
Christ Brian, at 29, is the highest-rated minor leaguer (of two on the list).
It was also from July. Not that Goldschmidt's injury would matter. But, the way Bryant finished and the way Soler hit in the majors, maybe they're worth more now than then?
I find it hard to believe the Dodgers would trade Puig.
As for Stanton...how much more would Stanton cost than, say, Josh Donaldson?
And, Theo would be righting a wrong.
Also, if they trade more than one of the elite prospects, it pretty much means that all the rest would have to succeed. Trading both Bryant and Soler would mean that there's a lower margin of error for Baez and Schwarber and Russell.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 10, 2014, 04:36:36 PM
Quote from: Oleg on October 10, 2014, 03:50:09 PM
According to Fangraphs (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2014-trade-value-the-top-10/).
So, to answer Eli: McCutchen and Goldschmidt.
Christ Brian, at 29, is the highest-rated minor leaguer (of two on the list).
Seconded.
Baseball America's Southern League Top 20 Prospects ($)
1. Kris Bryant, 3b, Cubs
2. Addison Russell, ss, Cubs
3. Corey Seager, ss, Dodgers
4. Robert Stephenson, rhp, Reds
5. C.J. Edwards, rhp, Cubs
6. Jose Peraza, 2b, Braves
7. J.T. Realmuto, c, Marlins
8. D.J. Peterson, 1b/3b, Mariners
9. Jake Lamb, 3b, Diamondbacks
10. Archie Bradley, rhp, Diamondbacks
11. Aaron Blair, rhp, Diamondbacks
12. Michael Lorenzen, rhp, Reds
13. Andrew Heaney, lhp, Marlins
14. Chris Reed, lhp, Dodgers
15. Ketel Marte, ss/2b, Mariners
16. Micah Johnson, 2b, White Sox
17.Scott Schebler, of, Dodgers
18. Albert Almora, of, Cubs
19. Justin Nicolino, lhp, Marlins
20. Ben Lively, rhp, Reds
I'm kind of surprised to see Almora ahead of Schwarber.
Quote from: Fork on October 13, 2014, 03:10:47 PM
I'm kind of surprised to see Almora ahead of Schwarber.
Schwarber didn't make it to Tennessee this year. He was the number 4 prospect in the FSL, though. (http://www.baseballamerica.com/majors/2014-league-top-20-prospects-index/)
Quote from: Oleg on October 13, 2014, 02:41:51 PM
Baseball America's Southern League Top 20 Prospects ($)
1. Kris Bryant, 3b, Cubs
2. Addison Russell, ss, Cubs
3. Corey Seager, ss, Dodgers
4. Robert Stephenson, rhp, Reds
5. C.J. Edwards, rhp, Cubs
6. Jose Peraza, 2b, Braves
7. J.T. Realmuto, c, Marlins
8. D.J. Peterson, 1b/3b, Mariners
9. Jake Lamb, 3b, Diamondbacks
10. Archie Bradley, rhp, Diamondbacks
11. Aaron Blair, rhp, Diamondbacks
12. Michael Lorenzen, rhp, Reds
13. Andrew Heaney, lhp, Marlins
14. Chris Reed, lhp, Dodgers
15. Ketel Marte, ss/2b, Mariners
16. Micah Johnson, 2b, White Sox
17.Scott Schebler, of, Dodgers
18. Albert Almora, of, Cubs
19. Justin Nicolino, lhp, Marlins
20. Ben Lively, rhp, Reds
I don't know if their shine has worn off, but C.J. ahead of both Archie Bradley and Andrew Heaney (and every single other pitcher except Stephenson) is pretty awesome.
Quote from: Oleg on October 13, 2014, 03:14:16 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 13, 2014, 03:10:47 PM
I'm kind of surprised to see Almora ahead of Schwarber.
Schwarber didn't make it to Tennessee this year. He was the number 4 prospect in the FSL, though. (http://www.baseballamerica.com/majors/2014-league-top-20-prospects-index/)
Shit. Reading is a skill I haven't mastered.
Quote from: PenFoe on October 13, 2014, 05:39:09 PM
Quote from: Oleg on October 13, 2014, 02:41:51 PM
Baseball America's Southern League Top 20 Prospects ($)
1. Kris Bryant, 3b, Cubs
2. Addison Russell, ss, Cubs
3. Corey Seager, ss, Dodgers
4. Robert Stephenson, rhp, Reds
5. C.J. Edwards, rhp, Cubs
6. Jose Peraza, 2b, Braves
7. J.T. Realmuto, c, Marlins
8. D.J. Peterson, 1b/3b, Mariners
9. Jake Lamb, 3b, Diamondbacks
10. Archie Bradley, rhp, Diamondbacks
11. Aaron Blair, rhp, Diamondbacks
12. Michael Lorenzen, rhp, Reds
13. Andrew Heaney, lhp, Marlins
14. Chris Reed, lhp, Dodgers
15. Ketel Marte, ss/2b, Mariners
16. Micah Johnson, 2b, White Sox
17.Scott Schebler, of, Dodgers
18. Albert Almora, of, Cubs
19. Justin Nicolino, lhp, Marlins
20. Ben Lively, rhp, Reds
I don't know if their shine has worn off, but C.J. ahead of both Archie Bradley and Andrew Heaney (and every single other pitcher except Stephenson) is pretty awesome.
This year will be interesting for Edwards - see if a) he can stay healthy, and b) how he does going anywhere close to 200 innings.
Quote from: Fork on October 14, 2014, 12:25:58 AM
This year will be interesting for Edwards - see if a) he can stay healthy, and b) how he does going anywhere close to 200 innings.
I think they should just put him on the reliever track now. I think there's almost no chance he holds up over 200 innings, year after year. The other benefit is that if he's in the pen, he could probably come up in 2015 and contribute right away.
ETA: And I don't think waiting around to see if he can pitch 200 innings (which will take another at least 2 years if they want to build him up to that) is worth the downside of inevitable pitcher aging. (http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/72512952/major-league-baseball-pitchers-velocity-peaks-at-an-early-age) Might as well start using those bullets now.
Quote from: Eli on October 14, 2014, 08:55:44 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 14, 2014, 12:25:58 AM
This year will be interesting for Edwards - see if a) he can stay healthy, and b) how he does going anywhere close to 200 innings.
I think they should just put him on the reliever track now. I think there's almost no chance he holds up over 200 innings, year after year. The other benefit is that if he's in the pen, he could probably come up in 2015 and contribute right away.
ETA: And I don't think waiting around to see if he can pitch 200 innings (which will take another at least 2 years if they want to build him up to that) is worth the downside of inevitable pitcher aging. (http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/72512952/major-league-baseball-pitchers-velocity-peaks-at-an-early-age) Might as well start using those bullets now.
Him in the bullpen with the guys they have, plus Riviero, is almost unfair.
Quote from: Fork on October 14, 2014, 10:25:50 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 14, 2014, 08:55:44 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 14, 2014, 12:25:58 AM
This year will be interesting for Edwards - see if a) he can stay healthy, and b) how he does going anywhere close to 200 innings.
I think they should just put him on the reliever track now. I think there's almost no chance he holds up over 200 innings, year after year. The other benefit is that if he's in the pen, he could probably come up in 2015 and contribute right away.
ETA: And I don't think waiting around to see if he can pitch 200 innings (which will take another at least 2 years if they want to build him up to that) is worth the downside of inevitable pitcher aging. (http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/72512952/major-league-baseball-pitchers-velocity-peaks-at-an-early-age) Might as well start using those bullets now.
Him in the bullpen with the guys they have, plus Riviero, is almost unfair.
Agreed. Watching the Royals has made me want that sort of pen for the Cubs. Dayton Moore has done a lot of dumb things, but the way he's built up that bullpen is impressive.
Quote from: Eli on October 14, 2014, 10:48:26 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 14, 2014, 10:25:50 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 14, 2014, 08:55:44 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 14, 2014, 12:25:58 AM
This year will be interesting for Edwards - see if a) he can stay healthy, and b) how he does going anywhere close to 200 innings.
I think they should just put him on the reliever track now. I think there's almost no chance he holds up over 200 innings, year after year. The other benefit is that if he's in the pen, he could probably come up in 2015 and contribute right away.
ETA: And I don't think waiting around to see if he can pitch 200 innings (which will take another at least 2 years if they want to build him up to that) is worth the downside of inevitable pitcher aging. (http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/72512952/major-league-baseball-pitchers-velocity-peaks-at-an-early-age) Might as well start using those bullets now.
Him in the bullpen with the guys they have, plus Riviero, is almost unfair.
Agreed. Watching the Royals has made me want that sort of pen for the Cubs. Dayton Moore has done a lot of dumb things, but the way he's built up that bullpen is impressive.
Teams that hit for power and have nasty bullpens seem to do alright in the postseason. Of course, having a bunch of power hitters is no guarantee it'll work in the small sample bizarro world of the playoffs. I can't wait for the Cubs to hit 700 home runs in the regular season only to get outslugged by a team like the slapdick hitting Royals in the playoffs.
Question about the playoffs - has anyone done any work on how younger players vs. older players perform in the postseason as compared to their regular season numbers? I'm wondering if the Hosmer/Moustakas/Harper post-hype postseason breakout thing is an actual thing or just more small sample noise.
Quote from: Eli on October 14, 2014, 10:48:26 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 14, 2014, 10:25:50 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 14, 2014, 08:55:44 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 14, 2014, 12:25:58 AM
This year will be interesting for Edwards - see if a) he can stay healthy, and b) how he does going anywhere close to 200 innings.
I think they should just put him on the reliever track now. I think there's almost no chance he holds up over 200 innings, year after year. The other benefit is that if he's in the pen, he could probably come up in 2015 and contribute right away.
ETA: And I don't think waiting around to see if he can pitch 200 innings (which will take another at least 2 years if they want to build him up to that) is worth the downside of inevitable pitcher aging. (http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/72512952/major-league-baseball-pitchers-velocity-peaks-at-an-early-age) Might as well start using those bullets now.
Him in the bullpen with the guys they have, plus Riviero, is almost unfair.
Agreed. Watching the Royals has made me want that sort of pen for the Cubs. Dayton Moore has done a lot of dumb things, but the way he's built up that bullpen is impressive.
Teams that have had beastly bullpens make it a 6-inning game, which can not only save your better pitchers but also increase the margin of error for your not-better ones. Specfic to the Cubs, seeing guys ratchet it up after Hendricks gives up the ball will be fung.
Great stuff here (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/evaluating-the-prospects-chicago-cubs/).
Particularly this.
"14. Jake Stinnett, RHP Video: Stinnett pitched for the first time mid-way through his junior year at Maryland and was good enough to get drafted, but took off in his senior year, flashing three above average pitches and hitting 96 mph from an athletic delivery, which prompted the Cubs to take him near the top of the 2nd round. The stuff varied in the spring as Stinnett's arm wasn't used to the workload, but he was at his best in instructs, has mid-rotation upside and a very fresh arm for a 22-year-old. After signing and before being sent to an affiliate, Stinnett had a freak accident in Arizona on a funky hop from a fungo during PFP (pitcher fielding practice) hit him in the nuts; he needed surgery and nearly lost his testicle but I'm told he has a good sense of humor about the episode."
Quote from: BH on October 17, 2014, 11:46:31 AM
Great stuff here (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/evaluating-the-prospects-chicago-cubs/).
Particularly this.
"14. Jake Stinnett, RHP Video: Stinnett pitched for the first time mid-way through his junior year at Maryland and was good enough to get drafted, but took off in his senior year, flashing three above average pitches and hitting 96 mph from an athletic delivery, which prompted the Cubs to take him near the top of the 2nd round. The stuff varied in the spring as Stinnett's arm wasn't used to the workload, but he was at his best in instructs, has mid-rotation upside and a very fresh arm for a 22-year-old. After signing and before being sent to an affiliate, Stinnett had a freak accident in Arizona on a funky hop from a fungo during PFP (pitcher fielding practice) hit him in the nuts; he needed surgery and nearly lost his testicle but I'm told he has a good sense of humor about the episode."
So much porn in there
Baseball America thinks The Cubs had the 4th best 2014 draft.
Quote from: Baseball America Draft Report Card
QUICK TAKE
The Cubs executed a plan deftly, getting the consensus top bat in Schwarber and saving enough to add needed million-dollar arms in Stinnett, Sands, Steele and Cease.
Quote from: More BA Draft Report Card
Best Pure Hitter: Several scouting directors contacted for this feature called C/OF Kyle Schwarber (1) the best hitter in the draft, wowed by his combination of strength, short swing and confident presence in the box. » Best Power Hitter: Schwarber has plus power from pole to pole and made hitting home runs look easy in his debut, mashing 18 over three regular season levels (and one more in the high Class A Florida State League playoffs) after hitting 14 in the spring for Indiana. » Fastest Runner: Five-foot-9, 170-pound OF Calvin Graves (27) has no power to speak of but is an aggressive 60 runner who stole 92 bases in four seasons at Division II Franklin Pierce (N.H.). » Best Defensive Player: 2B Andrew Ely (32) was an all-league defender in the Pacific-12 Conference with sure hands, good range and instincts to spare.
Best Fastball: RHP James Norwood (7) and RHP Jake Stinnett (2) have the best present fastballs, with the Cubs giving Norwood a slight edge. Both reach 97 mph regularly as starters, and pitch in the 92-95 mph range as starters. RHP Dylan Cease (6) came out of the gate hitting 98 mph this spring but got hurt and needed Tommy John surgery after signing in July » Best Secondary Pitch: Stinnett has improved his feel for a hard, late slider that has power in the 78-83 mph range.
Best Pro Debut: Schwarber made pro ball look too easy, hitting .344/.428/.634 with 18 homers and a 39-57 walk-strikeout ratio in 262 at-bats. He struggled more with the defensive part of the game. OF Kevonte Mitchell (13) hit .294/.374/.371 in the Rookie-level Arizona League, showing a more advanced swing than expected and stealing 19 bases in 20 tries. » Best Athlete: At 6-foot-4, 185 pounds, Mitchell was a first-team all-Missouri basketball player as a junior, but he was committed to play baseball at Southeast Missouri State. » Most Intriguing Background: OF Joey Martarano (22) was one of Idaho's top prep players in 2013 but didn't sign and attended Boise State to play football. The Cubs drafted him in 2014 and signed him while allowing him to continue playing linebacker for the Broncos. LHP Carson Sands (4) has a younger brother Cole who is a priority follow for the 2015 draft. » Closest to Majors: Schwarber's arrival will depend mostly on his ability to catch. If the Cubs decide to stick him in left field, he'll be in Wrigley Field in 2015. » Best Late-Round Pick: RHP Jeremy Null (15) had back problems in the spring and saw his velocity drop into the mid-to-upper 80s. The 6-foot-8, 230-pounder threw the ball better this summer after signing and was back up to reaching 93 mph with good downhill plane. » The One Who Got Away: Athletic OF Isiah Gilliam (23) was ruled ineligible this spring at Parkview High in Lilburn, Ga., limiting looks at the athletic switch-hitter. He'll make up for lost time at Chipola (Fla.) JC.
Quote from: Oleg on October 20, 2014, 04:59:14 PM
Baseball America thinks The Cubs had the 4th best 2014 draft.
Quote from: Baseball America Draft Report Card
QUICK TAKE
The Cubs executed a plan deftly, getting the consensus top bat in Schwarber and saving enough to add needed million-dollar arms in Stinnett, Sands, Steele and Cease.
Quote from: More BA Draft Report Card
Best Pure Hitter: Several scouting directors contacted for this feature called C/OF Kyle Schwarber (1) the best hitter in the draft, wowed by his combination of strength, short swing and confident presence in the box. » Best Power Hitter: Schwarber has plus power from pole to pole and made hitting home runs look easy in his debut, mashing 18 over three regular season levels (and one more in the high Class A Florida State League playoffs) after hitting 14 in the spring for Indiana. » Fastest Runner: Five-foot-9, 170-pound OF Calvin Graves (27) has no power to speak of but is an aggressive 60 runner who stole 92 bases in four seasons at Division II Franklin Pierce (N.H.). » Best Defensive Player: 2B Andrew Ely (32) was an all-league defender in the Pacific-12 Conference with sure hands, good range and instincts to spare.
Best Fastball: RHP James Norwood (7) and RHP Jake Stinnett (2) have the best present fastballs, with the Cubs giving Norwood a slight edge. Both reach 97 mph regularly as starters, and pitch in the 92-95 mph range as starters. RHP Dylan Cease (6) came out of the gate hitting 98 mph this spring but got hurt and needed Tommy John surgery after signing in July » Best Secondary Pitch: Stinnett has improved his feel for a hard, late slider that has power in the 78-83 mph range.
Best Pro Debut: Schwarber made pro ball look too easy, hitting .344/.428/.634 with 18 homers and a 39-57 walk-strikeout ratio in 262 at-bats. He struggled more with the defensive part of the game. OF Kevonte Mitchell (13) hit .294/.374/.371 in the Rookie-level Arizona League, showing a more advanced swing than expected and stealing 19 bases in 20 tries. » Best Athlete: At 6-foot-4, 185 pounds, Mitchell was a first-team all-Missouri basketball player as a junior, but he was committed to play baseball at Southeast Missouri State. » Most Intriguing Background: OF Joey Martarano (22) was one of Idaho's top prep players in 2013 but didn't sign and attended Boise State to play football. The Cubs drafted him in 2014 and signed him while allowing him to continue playing linebacker for the Broncos. LHP Carson Sands (4) has a younger brother Cole who is a priority follow for the 2015 draft. » Closest to Majors: Schwarber's arrival will depend mostly on his ability to catch. If the Cubs decide to stick him in left field, he'll be in Wrigley Field in 2015. » Best Late-Round Pick: RHP Jeremy Null (15) had back problems in the spring and saw his velocity drop into the mid-to-upper 80s. The 6-foot-8, 230-pounder threw the ball better this summer after signing and was back up to reaching 93 mph with good downhill plane. » The One Who Got Away: Athletic OF Isiah Gilliam (23) was ruled ineligible this spring at Parkview High in Lilburn, Ga., limiting looks at the athletic switch-hitter. He'll make up for lost time at Chipola (Fla.) JC.
Whoa.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 20, 2014, 05:22:27 PM
Quote from: Oleg on October 20, 2014, 04:59:14 PM
Baseball America thinks The Cubs had the 4th best 2014 draft.
Quote from: Baseball America Draft Report Card
QUICK TAKE
The Cubs executed a plan deftly, getting the consensus top bat in Schwarber and saving enough to add needed million-dollar arms in Stinnett, Sands, Steele and Cease.
Quote from: More BA Draft Report Card
Best Pure Hitter: Several scouting directors contacted for this feature called C/OF Kyle Schwarber (1) the best hitter in the draft, wowed by his combination of strength, short swing and confident presence in the box. » Best Power Hitter: Schwarber has plus power from pole to pole and made hitting home runs look easy in his debut, mashing 18 over three regular season levels (and one more in the high Class A Florida State League playoffs) after hitting 14 in the spring for Indiana. » Fastest Runner: Five-foot-9, 170-pound OF Calvin Graves (27) has no power to speak of but is an aggressive 60 runner who stole 92 bases in four seasons at Division II Franklin Pierce (N.H.). » Best Defensive Player: 2B Andrew Ely (32) was an all-league defender in the Pacific-12 Conference with sure hands, good range and instincts to spare.
Best Fastball: RHP James Norwood (7) and RHP Jake Stinnett (2) have the best present fastballs, with the Cubs giving Norwood a slight edge. Both reach 97 mph regularly as starters, and pitch in the 92-95 mph range as starters. RHP Dylan Cease (6) came out of the gate hitting 98 mph this spring but got hurt and needed Tommy John surgery after signing in July » Best Secondary Pitch: Stinnett has improved his feel for a hard, late slider that has power in the 78-83 mph range.
Best Pro Debut: Schwarber made pro ball look too easy, hitting .344/.428/.634 with 18 homers and a 39-57 walk-strikeout ratio in 262 at-bats. He struggled more with the defensive part of the game. OF Kevonte Mitchell (13) hit .294/.374/.371 in the Rookie-level Arizona League, showing a more advanced swing than expected and stealing 19 bases in 20 tries. » Best Athlete: At 6-foot-4, 185 pounds, Mitchell was a first-team all-Missouri basketball player as a junior, but he was committed to play baseball at Southeast Missouri State. » Most Intriguing Background: OF Joey Martarano (22) was one of Idaho's top prep players in 2013 but didn't sign and attended Boise State to play football. The Cubs drafted him in 2014 and signed him while allowing him to continue playing linebacker for the Broncos. LHP Carson Sands (4) has a younger brother Cole who is a priority follow for the 2015 draft. » Closest to Majors: Schwarber's arrival will depend mostly on his ability to catch. If the Cubs decide to stick him in left field, he'll be in Wrigley Field in 2015. » Best Late-Round Pick: RHP Jeremy Null (15) had back problems in the spring and saw his velocity drop into the mid-to-upper 80s. The 6-foot-8, 230-pounder threw the ball better this summer after signing and was back up to reaching 93 mph with good downhill plane. » The One Who Got Away: Athletic OF Isiah Gilliam (23) was ruled ineligible this spring at Parkview High in Lilburn, Ga., limiting looks at the athletic switch-hitter. He'll make up for lost time at Chipola (Fla.) JC.
Whoa.
I can't see Schwarber having a faster timeline than Bryant.
Quote from: Eli on October 20, 2014, 05:44:07 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 20, 2014, 05:22:27 PM
Quote from: Oleg on October 20, 2014, 04:59:14 PM
Baseball America thinks The Cubs had the 4th best 2014 draft.
Quote from: Baseball America Draft Report Card
QUICK TAKE
The Cubs executed a plan deftly, getting the consensus top bat in Schwarber and saving enough to add needed million-dollar arms in Stinnett, Sands, Steele and Cease.
Quote from: More BA Draft Report Card
Best Pure Hitter: Several scouting directors contacted for this feature called C/OF Kyle Schwarber (1) the best hitter in the draft, wowed by his combination of strength, short swing and confident presence in the box. » Best Power Hitter: Schwarber has plus power from pole to pole and made hitting home runs look easy in his debut, mashing 18 over three regular season levels (and one more in the high Class A Florida State League playoffs) after hitting 14 in the spring for Indiana. » Fastest Runner: Five-foot-9, 170-pound OF Calvin Graves (27) has no power to speak of but is an aggressive 60 runner who stole 92 bases in four seasons at Division II Franklin Pierce (N.H.). » Best Defensive Player: 2B Andrew Ely (32) was an all-league defender in the Pacific-12 Conference with sure hands, good range and instincts to spare.
Best Fastball: RHP James Norwood (7) and RHP Jake Stinnett (2) have the best present fastballs, with the Cubs giving Norwood a slight edge. Both reach 97 mph regularly as starters, and pitch in the 92-95 mph range as starters. RHP Dylan Cease (6) came out of the gate hitting 98 mph this spring but got hurt and needed Tommy John surgery after signing in July » Best Secondary Pitch: Stinnett has improved his feel for a hard, late slider that has power in the 78-83 mph range.
Best Pro Debut: Schwarber made pro ball look too easy, hitting .344/.428/.634 with 18 homers and a 39-57 walk-strikeout ratio in 262 at-bats. He struggled more with the defensive part of the game. OF Kevonte Mitchell (13) hit .294/.374/.371 in the Rookie-level Arizona League, showing a more advanced swing than expected and stealing 19 bases in 20 tries. » Best Athlete: At 6-foot-4, 185 pounds, Mitchell was a first-team all-Missouri basketball player as a junior, but he was committed to play baseball at Southeast Missouri State. » Most Intriguing Background: OF Joey Martarano (22) was one of Idaho's top prep players in 2013 but didn't sign and attended Boise State to play football. The Cubs drafted him in 2014 and signed him while allowing him to continue playing linebacker for the Broncos. LHP Carson Sands (4) has a younger brother Cole who is a priority follow for the 2015 draft. » Closest to Majors: Schwarber's arrival will depend mostly on his ability to catch. If the Cubs decide to stick him in left field, he'll be in Wrigley Field in 2015. » Best Late-Round Pick: RHP Jeremy Null (15) had back problems in the spring and saw his velocity drop into the mid-to-upper 80s. The 6-foot-8, 230-pounder threw the ball better this summer after signing and was back up to reaching 93 mph with good downhill plane. » The One Who Got Away: Athletic OF Isiah Gilliam (23) was ruled ineligible this spring at Parkview High in Lilburn, Ga., limiting looks at the athletic switch-hitter. He'll make up for lost time at Chipola (Fla.) JC.
Whoa.
I can't see Schwarber having a faster timeline than Bryant.
He had a better first pro season than Bryant did.
Quote from: Fork on October 21, 2014, 10:21:02 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 20, 2014, 05:44:07 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on October 20, 2014, 05:22:27 PM
Quote from: Oleg on October 20, 2014, 04:59:14 PM
Baseball America thinks The Cubs had the 4th best 2014 draft.
Quote from: Baseball America Draft Report Card
QUICK TAKE
The Cubs executed a plan deftly, getting the consensus top bat in Schwarber and saving enough to add needed million-dollar arms in Stinnett, Sands, Steele and Cease.
Quote from: More BA Draft Report Card
Best Pure Hitter: Several scouting directors contacted for this feature called C/OF Kyle Schwarber (1) the best hitter in the draft, wowed by his combination of strength, short swing and confident presence in the box. » Best Power Hitter: Schwarber has plus power from pole to pole and made hitting home runs look easy in his debut, mashing 18 over three regular season levels (and one more in the high Class A Florida State League playoffs) after hitting 14 in the spring for Indiana. » Fastest Runner: Five-foot-9, 170-pound OF Calvin Graves (27) has no power to speak of but is an aggressive 60 runner who stole 92 bases in four seasons at Division II Franklin Pierce (N.H.). » Best Defensive Player: 2B Andrew Ely (32) was an all-league defender in the Pacific-12 Conference with sure hands, good range and instincts to spare.
Best Fastball: RHP James Norwood (7) and RHP Jake Stinnett (2) have the best present fastballs, with the Cubs giving Norwood a slight edge. Both reach 97 mph regularly as starters, and pitch in the 92-95 mph range as starters. RHP Dylan Cease (6) came out of the gate hitting 98 mph this spring but got hurt and needed Tommy John surgery after signing in July » Best Secondary Pitch: Stinnett has improved his feel for a hard, late slider that has power in the 78-83 mph range.
Best Pro Debut: Schwarber made pro ball look too easy, hitting .344/.428/.634 with 18 homers and a 39-57 walk-strikeout ratio in 262 at-bats. He struggled more with the defensive part of the game. OF Kevonte Mitchell (13) hit .294/.374/.371 in the Rookie-level Arizona League, showing a more advanced swing than expected and stealing 19 bases in 20 tries. » Best Athlete: At 6-foot-4, 185 pounds, Mitchell was a first-team all-Missouri basketball player as a junior, but he was committed to play baseball at Southeast Missouri State. » Most Intriguing Background: OF Joey Martarano (22) was one of Idaho's top prep players in 2013 but didn't sign and attended Boise State to play football. The Cubs drafted him in 2014 and signed him while allowing him to continue playing linebacker for the Broncos. LHP Carson Sands (4) has a younger brother Cole who is a priority follow for the 2015 draft. » Closest to Majors: Schwarber's arrival will depend mostly on his ability to catch. If the Cubs decide to stick him in left field, he'll be in Wrigley Field in 2015. » Best Late-Round Pick: RHP Jeremy Null (15) had back problems in the spring and saw his velocity drop into the mid-to-upper 80s. The 6-foot-8, 230-pounder threw the ball better this summer after signing and was back up to reaching 93 mph with good downhill plane. » The One Who Got Away: Athletic OF Isiah Gilliam (23) was ruled ineligible this spring at Parkview High in Lilburn, Ga., limiting looks at the athletic switch-hitter. He'll make up for lost time at Chipola (Fla.) JC.
Whoa.
I can't see Schwarber having a faster timeline than Bryant.
He had a better first pro season than Bryant did.
He's not repped by Scott Boras. He already signed under slot. Appears they aren't needing to play games with his service time like they have to with Bryant. Bryant's timeline was artificially slowed.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 21, 2014, 10:31:30 AM
He's not repped by Scott Boras. He already signed under slot. Appears they aren't needing to play games with his service time like they have to with Bryant. Bryant's timeline was artificially slowed.
I think Theo wants to maximize everyone's service time, regardless of who they're repped by.
I guess Schwarber does have the benefit of starting earlier than Bryant did, so he has a few hundred extra at-bats under his belt. I guess that makes it a bit more likely, but I still would be a little surprised.
Quote from: Eli on October 21, 2014, 10:42:13 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 21, 2014, 10:31:30 AM
He's not repped by Scott Boras. He already signed under slot. Appears they aren't needing to play games with his service time like they have to with Bryant. Bryant's timeline was artificially slowed.
I think Theo wants to maximize everyone's service time, regardless of who they're repped by.
I guess Schwarber does have the benefit of starting earlier than Bryant did, so he has a few hundred extra at-bats under his belt. I guess that makes it a bit more likely, but I still would be a little surprised.
The one thing that would really accelerate Schwarber's timeline would be showing real improvement defensively as a catcher. If the FO decides he's good enough I think they'd call him up right away. He's probably capable right now of at least equalling Castillo's offensive output.
Quote from: Slaky on October 21, 2014, 10:46:16 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 21, 2014, 10:42:13 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 21, 2014, 10:31:30 AM
He's not repped by Scott Boras. He already signed under slot. Appears they aren't needing to play games with his service time like they have to with Bryant. Bryant's timeline was artificially slowed.
I think Theo wants to maximize everyone's service time, regardless of who they're repped by.
I guess Schwarber does have the benefit of starting earlier than Bryant did, so he has a few hundred extra at-bats under his belt. I guess that makes it a bit more likely, but I still would be a little surprised.
The one thing that would really accelerate Schwarber's timeline would be showing real improvement defensively as a catcher. If the FO decides he's good enough I think they'd call him up right away. He's probably capable right now of at least equalling Castillo's offensive output.
Actually I think Schwarber being godawful at catcher is probably the scenario that gets him to Wrigley quickest. They try him there for a month, he gets hit in the nuts multiple times because he's unable to catch a cutter, they throw him in left field, he hits the shit out of the ball, and he's up here midsummer.
If he shows signs of being a good catcher I think they keep him in the minors at least through this season to let him get as comfortable as possible there. I worry about him being passable defensively at catcher in the minors, only to come up here and give up 40 stolen bases in a week, and then shit the bed at the plate because he's worried about Ned Yost pantsing him in the next half inning.
Quote from: R-V on October 21, 2014, 11:00:58 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 21, 2014, 10:46:16 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 21, 2014, 10:42:13 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 21, 2014, 10:31:30 AM
He's not repped by Scott Boras. He already signed under slot. Appears they aren't needing to play games with his service time like they have to with Bryant. Bryant's timeline was artificially slowed.
I think Theo wants to maximize everyone's service time, regardless of who they're repped by.
I guess Schwarber does have the benefit of starting earlier than Bryant did, so he has a few hundred extra at-bats under his belt. I guess that makes it a bit more likely, but I still would be a little surprised.
The one thing that would really accelerate Schwarber's timeline would be showing real improvement defensively as a catcher. If the FO decides he's good enough I think they'd call him up right away. He's probably capable right now of at least equalling Castillo's offensive output.
Actually I think Schwarber being godawful at catcher is probably the scenario that gets him to Wrigley quickest. They try him there for a month, he gets hit in the nuts multiple times because he's unable to catch a cutter, they throw him in left field, he hits the shit out of the ball, and he's up here midsummer.
If he shows signs of being a good catcher I think they keep him in the minors at least through this season to let him get as comfortable as possible there. I worry about him being passable defensively at catcher in the minors, only to come up here and give up 40 stolen bases in a week, and then shit the bed at the plate because he's worried about Ned Yost pantsing him in the next half inning.
Exactly.
Quote from: Eli on October 21, 2014, 10:42:13 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 21, 2014, 10:31:30 AM
He's not repped by Scott Boras. He already signed under slot. Appears they aren't needing to play games with his service time like they have to with Bryant. Bryant's timeline was artificially slowed.
I think Theo wants to maximize everyone's service time, regardless of who they're repped by.
While that's true, service time means if he's called up anytime after about April 20th he gets that 7th year. It's why Bryant won't be here for an extra 3 weeks. If they call us Schwarber in May or September, it's no difference to service time in terms of what year he becomes a free agent. If service time is really an issue with him (like it was for Bryant), we won't see Schwarber in Chicago until April 20th 2016.
Quote from: R-V on October 21, 2014, 11:00:58 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 21, 2014, 10:46:16 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 21, 2014, 10:42:13 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 21, 2014, 10:31:30 AM
He's not repped by Scott Boras. He already signed under slot. Appears they aren't needing to play games with his service time like they have to with Bryant. Bryant's timeline was artificially slowed.
I think Theo wants to maximize everyone's service time, regardless of who they're repped by.
I guess Schwarber does have the benefit of starting earlier than Bryant did, so he has a few hundred extra at-bats under his belt. I guess that makes it a bit more likely, but I still would be a little surprised.
The one thing that would really accelerate Schwarber's timeline would be showing real improvement defensively as a catcher. If the FO decides he's good enough I think they'd call him up right away. He's probably capable right now of at least equalling Castillo's offensive output.
Actually I think Schwarber being godawful at catcher is probably the scenario that gets him to Wrigley quickest. They try him there for a month, he gets hit in the nuts multiple times because he's unable to catch a cutter, they throw him in left field, he hits the shit out of the ball, and he's up here midsummer.
If he shows signs of being a good catcher I think they keep him in the minors at least through this season to let him get as comfortable as possible there. I worry about him being passable defensively at catcher in the minors, only to come up here and give up 40 stolen bases in a week, and then shit the bed at the plate because he's worried about Ned Yost pantsing him in the next half inning.
I really don't care to see him play catcher at all if he's really, truly Christ Fucking Brian, the short. If that's a fallback position in case he isn't quite who they think he is, then fine.
Quote from: InternetApex on October 21, 2014, 02:21:40 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 21, 2014, 11:00:58 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 21, 2014, 10:46:16 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 21, 2014, 10:42:13 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 21, 2014, 10:31:30 AM
He's not repped by Scott Boras. He already signed under slot. Appears they aren't needing to play games with his service time like they have to with Bryant. Bryant's timeline was artificially slowed.
I think Theo wants to maximize everyone's service time, regardless of who they're repped by.
I guess Schwarber does have the benefit of starting earlier than Bryant did, so he has a few hundred extra at-bats under his belt. I guess that makes it a bit more likely, but I still would be a little surprised.
The one thing that would really accelerate Schwarber's timeline would be showing real improvement defensively as a catcher. If the FO decides he's good enough I think they'd call him up right away. He's probably capable right now of at least equalling Castillo's offensive output.
Actually I think Schwarber being godawful at catcher is probably the scenario that gets him to Wrigley quickest. They try him there for a month, he gets hit in the nuts multiple times because he's unable to catch a cutter, they throw him in left field, he hits the shit out of the ball, and he's up here midsummer.
If he shows signs of being a good catcher I think they keep him in the minors at least through this season to let him get as comfortable as possible there. I worry about him being passable defensively at catcher in the minors, only to come up here and give up 40 stolen bases in a week, and then shit the bed at the plate because he's worried about Ned Yost pantsing him in the next half inning.
I really don't care to see him play catcher at all if he's really, truly Christ Fucking Brian, the short. If that's a fallback position in case he isn't quite who they think he is, then fine.
I think getting another lefty boomstick in the lineup is the first priority. If everyone develops to their potential, carrying Castillo's bat isn't that big a deal.
Quote from: Fork on October 21, 2014, 02:28:22 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on October 21, 2014, 02:21:40 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 21, 2014, 11:00:58 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 21, 2014, 10:46:16 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 21, 2014, 10:42:13 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 21, 2014, 10:31:30 AM
He's not repped by Scott Boras. He already signed under slot. Appears they aren't needing to play games with his service time like they have to with Bryant. Bryant's timeline was artificially slowed.
I think Theo wants to maximize everyone's service time, regardless of who they're repped by.
I guess Schwarber does have the benefit of starting earlier than Bryant did, so he has a few hundred extra at-bats under his belt. I guess that makes it a bit more likely, but I still would be a little surprised.
The one thing that would really accelerate Schwarber's timeline would be showing real improvement defensively as a catcher. If the FO decides he's good enough I think they'd call him up right away. He's probably capable right now of at least equalling Castillo's offensive output.
Actually I think Schwarber being godawful at catcher is probably the scenario that gets him to Wrigley quickest. They try him there for a month, he gets hit in the nuts multiple times because he's unable to catch a cutter, they throw him in left field, he hits the shit out of the ball, and he's up here midsummer.
If he shows signs of being a good catcher I think they keep him in the minors at least through this season to let him get as comfortable as possible there. I worry about him being passable defensively at catcher in the minors, only to come up here and give up 40 stolen bases in a week, and then shit the bed at the plate because he's worried about Ned Yost pantsing him in the next half inning.
I really don't care to see him play catcher at all if he's really, truly Christ Fucking Brian, the short. If that's a fallback position in case he isn't quite who they think he is, then fine.
I think getting another lefty boomstick in the lineup is the first priority. If everyone develops to their potential, carrying Castillo's bat isn't that big a deal.
Except Castillo isn't that good defensively.
Quote from: Slaky on October 21, 2014, 02:47:14 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 21, 2014, 02:28:22 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on October 21, 2014, 02:21:40 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 21, 2014, 11:00:58 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 21, 2014, 10:46:16 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 21, 2014, 10:42:13 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 21, 2014, 10:31:30 AM
He's not repped by Scott Boras. He already signed under slot. Appears they aren't needing to play games with his service time like they have to with Bryant. Bryant's timeline was artificially slowed.
I think Theo wants to maximize everyone's service time, regardless of who they're repped by.
I guess Schwarber does have the benefit of starting earlier than Bryant did, so he has a few hundred extra at-bats under his belt. I guess that makes it a bit more likely, but I still would be a little surprised.
The one thing that would really accelerate Schwarber's timeline would be showing real improvement defensively as a catcher. If the FO decides he's good enough I think they'd call him up right away. He's probably capable right now of at least equalling Castillo's offensive output.
Actually I think Schwarber being godawful at catcher is probably the scenario that gets him to Wrigley quickest. They try him there for a month, he gets hit in the nuts multiple times because he's unable to catch a cutter, they throw him in left field, he hits the shit out of the ball, and he's up here midsummer.
If he shows signs of being a good catcher I think they keep him in the minors at least through this season to let him get as comfortable as possible there. I worry about him being passable defensively at catcher in the minors, only to come up here and give up 40 stolen bases in a week, and then shit the bed at the plate because he's worried about Ned Yost pantsing him in the next half inning.
I really don't care to see him play catcher at all if he's really, truly Christ Fucking Brian, the short. If that's a fallback position in case he isn't quite who they think he is, then fine.
I think getting another lefty boomstick in the lineup is the first priority. If everyone develops to their potential, carrying Castillo's bat isn't that big a deal.
Except Castillo isn't that good defensively.
No?
Quote from: PANK! on October 21, 2014, 02:52:41 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 21, 2014, 02:47:14 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 21, 2014, 02:28:22 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on October 21, 2014, 02:21:40 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 21, 2014, 11:00:58 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 21, 2014, 10:46:16 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 21, 2014, 10:42:13 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 21, 2014, 10:31:30 AM
He's not repped by Scott Boras. He already signed under slot. Appears they aren't needing to play games with his service time like they have to with Bryant. Bryant's timeline was artificially slowed.
I think Theo wants to maximize everyone's service time, regardless of who they're repped by.
I guess Schwarber does have the benefit of starting earlier than Bryant did, so he has a few hundred extra at-bats under his belt. I guess that makes it a bit more likely, but I still would be a little surprised.
The one thing that would really accelerate Schwarber's timeline would be showing real improvement defensively as a catcher. If the FO decides he's good enough I think they'd call him up right away. He's probably capable right now of at least equalling Castillo's offensive output.
Actually I think Schwarber being godawful at catcher is probably the scenario that gets him to Wrigley quickest. They try him there for a month, he gets hit in the nuts multiple times because he's unable to catch a cutter, they throw him in left field, he hits the shit out of the ball, and he's up here midsummer.
If he shows signs of being a good catcher I think they keep him in the minors at least through this season to let him get as comfortable as possible there. I worry about him being passable defensively at catcher in the minors, only to come up here and give up 40 stolen bases in a week, and then shit the bed at the plate because he's worried about Ned Yost pantsing him in the next half inning.
I really don't care to see him play catcher at all if he's really, truly Christ Fucking Brian, the short. If that's a fallback position in case he isn't quite who they think he is, then fine.
I think getting another lefty boomstick in the lineup is the first priority. If everyone develops to their potential, carrying Castillo's bat isn't that big a deal.
Except Castillo isn't that good defensively.
No?
I'm guessing Slaky is referring to pitch framing (http://www.bleachernation.com/2014/10/13/ugly-ugly-pitch-framing-for-the-chicago-cubs-this-year-may-have-cost-them-several-wins/), which doesn't fall under the traditional definition of catcher defense (blocking pitches, throwing out runners), and the measurement of which is still tough to rely on.
Quote from: R-V on October 21, 2014, 03:25:52 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 21, 2014, 02:52:41 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 21, 2014, 02:47:14 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 21, 2014, 02:28:22 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on October 21, 2014, 02:21:40 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 21, 2014, 11:00:58 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 21, 2014, 10:46:16 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 21, 2014, 10:42:13 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 21, 2014, 10:31:30 AM
He's not repped by Scott Boras. He already signed under slot. Appears they aren't needing to play games with his service time like they have to with Bryant. Bryant's timeline was artificially slowed.
I think Theo wants to maximize everyone's service time, regardless of who they're repped by.
I guess Schwarber does have the benefit of starting earlier than Bryant did, so he has a few hundred extra at-bats under his belt. I guess that makes it a bit more likely, but I still would be a little surprised.
The one thing that would really accelerate Schwarber's timeline would be showing real improvement defensively as a catcher. If the FO decides he's good enough I think they'd call him up right away. He's probably capable right now of at least equalling Castillo's offensive output.
Actually I think Schwarber being godawful at catcher is probably the scenario that gets him to Wrigley quickest. They try him there for a month, he gets hit in the nuts multiple times because he's unable to catch a cutter, they throw him in left field, he hits the shit out of the ball, and he's up here midsummer.
If he shows signs of being a good catcher I think they keep him in the minors at least through this season to let him get as comfortable as possible there. I worry about him being passable defensively at catcher in the minors, only to come up here and give up 40 stolen bases in a week, and then shit the bed at the plate because he's worried about Ned Yost pantsing him in the next half inning.
I really don't care to see him play catcher at all if he's really, truly Christ Fucking Brian, the short. If that's a fallback position in case he isn't quite who they think he is, then fine.
I think getting another lefty boomstick in the lineup is the first priority. If everyone develops to their potential, carrying Castillo's bat isn't that big a deal.
Except Castillo isn't that good defensively.
No?
I'm guessing Slaky is referring to pitch framing (http://www.bleachernation.com/2014/10/13/ugly-ugly-pitch-framing-for-the-chicago-cubs-this-year-may-have-cost-them-several-wins/), which doesn't fall under the traditional definition of catcher defense (blocking pitches, throwing out runners), and the measurement of which is still tough to rely on.
I was going to say I thought Castillo acquitted himself well defensively. Seemed he did a good job of handling the staff, did a decent job of throwing out baserunners. I'm too lazy and/or dispassionate to look up his cERA or CS%, but I'd be willing to bet he didn't fare much worse than most NL catchers in that regard.
Quote from: PANK! on October 21, 2014, 03:35:46 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 21, 2014, 03:25:52 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 21, 2014, 02:52:41 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 21, 2014, 02:47:14 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 21, 2014, 02:28:22 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on October 21, 2014, 02:21:40 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 21, 2014, 11:00:58 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 21, 2014, 10:46:16 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 21, 2014, 10:42:13 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 21, 2014, 10:31:30 AM
He's not repped by Scott Boras. He already signed under slot. Appears they aren't needing to play games with his service time like they have to with Bryant. Bryant's timeline was artificially slowed.
I think Theo wants to maximize everyone's service time, regardless of who they're repped by.
I guess Schwarber does have the benefit of starting earlier than Bryant did, so he has a few hundred extra at-bats under his belt. I guess that makes it a bit more likely, but I still would be a little surprised.
The one thing that would really accelerate Schwarber's timeline would be showing real improvement defensively as a catcher. If the FO decides he's good enough I think they'd call him up right away. He's probably capable right now of at least equalling Castillo's offensive output.
Actually I think Schwarber being godawful at catcher is probably the scenario that gets him to Wrigley quickest. They try him there for a month, he gets hit in the nuts multiple times because he's unable to catch a cutter, they throw him in left field, he hits the shit out of the ball, and he's up here midsummer.
If he shows signs of being a good catcher I think they keep him in the minors at least through this season to let him get as comfortable as possible there. I worry about him being passable defensively at catcher in the minors, only to come up here and give up 40 stolen bases in a week, and then shit the bed at the plate because he's worried about Ned Yost pantsing him in the next half inning.
I really don't care to see him play catcher at all if he's really, truly Christ Fucking Brian, the short. If that's a fallback position in case he isn't quite who they think he is, then fine.
I think getting another lefty boomstick in the lineup is the first priority. If everyone develops to their potential, carrying Castillo's bat isn't that big a deal.
Except Castillo isn't that good defensively.
No?
I'm guessing Slaky is referring to pitch framing (http://www.bleachernation.com/2014/10/13/ugly-ugly-pitch-framing-for-the-chicago-cubs-this-year-may-have-cost-them-several-wins/), which doesn't fall under the traditional definition of catcher defense (blocking pitches, throwing out runners), and the measurement of which is still tough to rely on.
I was going to say I thought Castillo acquitted himself well defensively. Seemed he did a good job of handling the staff, did a decent job of throwing out baserunners. I'm too lazy and/or dispassionate to look up his cERA or CS%, but I'd be willing to bet he didn't fare much worse than most NL catchers in that regard.
I was really disappointed to read that from Slaky today. He may be right, I don't know. It just kind of bummed me out though is all.
Quote from: InternetApex on October 21, 2014, 04:24:35 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 21, 2014, 03:35:46 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 21, 2014, 03:25:52 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 21, 2014, 02:52:41 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 21, 2014, 02:47:14 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 21, 2014, 02:28:22 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on October 21, 2014, 02:21:40 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 21, 2014, 11:00:58 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 21, 2014, 10:46:16 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 21, 2014, 10:42:13 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 21, 2014, 10:31:30 AM
He's not repped by Scott Boras. He already signed under slot. Appears they aren't needing to play games with his service time like they have to with Bryant. Bryant's timeline was artificially slowed.
I think Theo wants to maximize everyone's service time, regardless of who they're repped by.
I guess Schwarber does have the benefit of starting earlier than Bryant did, so he has a few hundred extra at-bats under his belt. I guess that makes it a bit more likely, but I still would be a little surprised.
The one thing that would really accelerate Schwarber's timeline would be showing real improvement defensively as a catcher. If the FO decides he's good enough I think they'd call him up right away. He's probably capable right now of at least equalling Castillo's offensive output.
Actually I think Schwarber being godawful at catcher is probably the scenario that gets him to Wrigley quickest. They try him there for a month, he gets hit in the nuts multiple times because he's unable to catch a cutter, they throw him in left field, he hits the shit out of the ball, and he's up here midsummer.
If he shows signs of being a good catcher I think they keep him in the minors at least through this season to let him get as comfortable as possible there. I worry about him being passable defensively at catcher in the minors, only to come up here and give up 40 stolen bases in a week, and then shit the bed at the plate because he's worried about Ned Yost pantsing him in the next half inning.
I really don't care to see him play catcher at all if he's really, truly Christ Fucking Brian, the short. If that's a fallback position in case he isn't quite who they think he is, then fine.
I think getting another lefty boomstick in the lineup is the first priority. If everyone develops to their potential, carrying Castillo's bat isn't that big a deal.
Except Castillo isn't that good defensively.
No?
I'm guessing Slaky is referring to pitch framing (http://www.bleachernation.com/2014/10/13/ugly-ugly-pitch-framing-for-the-chicago-cubs-this-year-may-have-cost-them-several-wins/), which doesn't fall under the traditional definition of catcher defense (blocking pitches, throwing out runners), and the measurement of which is still tough to rely on.
I was going to say I thought Castillo acquitted himself well defensively. Seemed he did a good job of handling the staff, did a decent job of throwing out baserunners. I'm too lazy and/or dispassionate to look up his cERA or CS%, but I'd be willing to bet he didn't fare much worse than most NL catchers in that regard.
I was really disappointed to read that from Slaky today. He may be right, I don't know. It just kind of bummed me out though is all.
RV is right. His framing is bad. The other stuff is fine. He won't fuck the Cubs over. But you could find a better defender maybe if he's just going to be the kind of hitter he is - which I think is pretty well established as a guy who won't hit higher than 7th in any decent lineup.
Quote from: R-V on October 21, 2014, 03:25:52 PM
I'm guessing Slaky is referring to pitch framing (http://www.bleachernation.com/2014/10/13/ugly-ugly-pitch-framing-for-the-chicago-cubs-this-year-may-have-cost-them-several-wins/), which doesn't fall under the traditional definition of catcher defense (blocking pitches, throwing out runners), and the measurement of which is still tough to rely on.
The recent obsession with pitch framing metrics is bizarre. I refuse to believe any of it is reliable and I refuse to be swayed otherwise.
Quote from: Eli on October 22, 2014, 11:20:28 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 21, 2014, 03:25:52 PM
I'm guessing Slaky is referring to pitch framing (http://www.bleachernation.com/2014/10/13/ugly-ugly-pitch-framing-for-the-chicago-cubs-this-year-may-have-cost-them-several-wins/), which doesn't fall under the traditional definition of catcher defense (blocking pitches, throwing out runners), and the measurement of which is still tough to rely on.
The recent obsession with pitch framing metrics is bizarre. I refuse to believe any of it is reliable and I refuse to be swayed otherwise.
Ok well either way - do you think Castillo is a good catcher, defensively? I mean he's fine. I think they can do better.
Quote from: Slaky on October 22, 2014, 11:31:59 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 22, 2014, 11:20:28 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 21, 2014, 03:25:52 PM
I'm guessing Slaky is referring to pitch framing (http://www.bleachernation.com/2014/10/13/ugly-ugly-pitch-framing-for-the-chicago-cubs-this-year-may-have-cost-them-several-wins/), which doesn't fall under the traditional definition of catcher defense (blocking pitches, throwing out runners), and the measurement of which is still tough to rely on.
The recent obsession with pitch framing metrics is bizarre. I refuse to believe any of it is reliable and I refuse to be swayed otherwise.
Ok well either way - do you think Castillo is a good catcher, defensively? I mean he's fine. I think they can do better.
I like his on-field postgame interviews.
Quote from: Slaky on October 22, 2014, 11:31:59 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 22, 2014, 11:20:28 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 21, 2014, 03:25:52 PM
I'm guessing Slaky is referring to pitch framing (http://www.bleachernation.com/2014/10/13/ugly-ugly-pitch-framing-for-the-chicago-cubs-this-year-may-have-cost-them-several-wins/), which doesn't fall under the traditional definition of catcher defense (blocking pitches, throwing out runners), and the measurement of which is still tough to rely on.
The recent obsession with pitch framing metrics is bizarre. I refuse to believe any of it is reliable and I refuse to be swayed otherwise.
Ok well either way - do you think Castillo is a good catcher, defensively? I mean he's fine. I think they can do better.
I don't think I've watched him enough to really have an opinion. I just wanted to complain about something else.
Quote from: Slaky on October 22, 2014, 11:31:59 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 22, 2014, 11:20:28 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 21, 2014, 03:25:52 PM
I'm guessing Slaky is referring to pitch framing (http://www.bleachernation.com/2014/10/13/ugly-ugly-pitch-framing-for-the-chicago-cubs-this-year-may-have-cost-them-several-wins/), which doesn't fall under the traditional definition of catcher defense (blocking pitches, throwing out runners), and the measurement of which is still tough to rely on.
The recent obsession with pitch framing metrics is bizarre. I refuse to believe any of it is reliable and I refuse to be swayed otherwise.
Ok well either way - do you think Castillo is a good catcher, defensively? I mean he's fine. I think they can do better.
Pretty sure they can do better defensively and offensively at catcher.
Castillo is just a guy.
Quote from: PenFoe on October 22, 2014, 11:37:19 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 22, 2014, 11:31:59 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 22, 2014, 11:20:28 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 21, 2014, 03:25:52 PM
I'm guessing Slaky is referring to pitch framing (http://www.bleachernation.com/2014/10/13/ugly-ugly-pitch-framing-for-the-chicago-cubs-this-year-may-have-cost-them-several-wins/), which doesn't fall under the traditional definition of catcher defense (blocking pitches, throwing out runners), and the measurement of which is still tough to rely on.
The recent obsession with pitch framing metrics is bizarre. I refuse to believe any of it is reliable and I refuse to be swayed otherwise.
Ok well either way - do you think Castillo is a good catcher, defensively? I mean he's fine. I think they can do better.
Pretty sure they can do better defensively and offensively at catcher.
Castillo is just a guy.
Cool we agree.
I'm still all set on trading Baez and some dudes not named Bryant, Russell or Soler for Hamels.
(http://easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded/895/3858325938.jpg)
Quote from: PenFoe on October 22, 2014, 12:06:54 PM
I'm still all set on trading Baez and some dudes not named Bryant, Russell or Soler for Hamels.
(http://easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded/895/3858325938.jpg)
I'd be more impressed if he had a RHP season of 4+WAR, 175+Ks, and 130+ERA+
Quote from: PenFoe on October 22, 2014, 12:06:54 PM
I'm still all set on trading Baez and some dudes not named Bryant, Russell or Soler for Hamels.
(http://easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded/895/3858325938.jpg)
I'm glad you're not running the Cubs because you just left Eric Patterson off your untouchable list and now he's going to be a 10-time All-Star for the Phillies.
Quote from: R-V on October 22, 2014, 01:13:12 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on October 22, 2014, 12:06:54 PM
I'm still all set on trading Baez and some dudes not named Bryant, Russell or Soler for Hamels.
(http://easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded/895/3858325938.jpg)
I'm glad you're not running the Cubs because you just left Eric Patterson off your untouchable list and now he's going to be a 10-time All-Star for the Phillies.
Most of the guys on the list up there are old. Some of them are dead.
Quote from: InternetApex on October 22, 2014, 02:28:03 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 22, 2014, 01:13:12 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on October 22, 2014, 12:06:54 PM
I'm still all set on trading Baez and some dudes not named Bryant, Russell or Soler for Hamels.
(http://easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded/895/3858325938.jpg)
I'm glad you're not running the Cubs because you just left Eric Patterson off your untouchable list and now he's going to be a 10-time All-Star for the Phillies.
Most of the guys on the list up there are old. Some of them are dead.
Some?
Quote from: ChuckD on October 22, 2014, 03:07:53 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on October 22, 2014, 02:28:03 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 22, 2014, 01:13:12 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on October 22, 2014, 12:06:54 PM
I'm still all set on trading Baez and some dudes not named Bryant, Russell or Soler for Hamels.
(http://easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded/895/3858325938.jpg)
I'm glad you're not running the Cubs because you just left Eric Patterson off your untouchable list and now he's going to be a 10-time All-Star for the Phillies.
Most of the guys on the list up there are old. Some of them are dead.
Some?
Crazy Steve Carlton just put Apex on his "people to kill" list.
Quote from: PenFoe on October 22, 2014, 12:06:54 PM
I'm still all set on trading Baez and some dudes not named Bryant, Russell or Soler for Hamels.
(http://easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded/895/3858325938.jpg)
So, your point is that with 6 in the bag the expectation would be that he won't do this again?
Quote from: PenFoe on October 22, 2014, 11:37:19 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 22, 2014, 11:31:59 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 22, 2014, 11:20:28 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 21, 2014, 03:25:52 PM
I'm guessing Slaky is referring to pitch framing (http://www.bleachernation.com/2014/10/13/ugly-ugly-pitch-framing-for-the-chicago-cubs-this-year-may-have-cost-them-several-wins/), which doesn't fall under the traditional definition of catcher defense (blocking pitches, throwing out runners), and the measurement of which is still tough to rely on.
The recent obsession with pitch framing metrics is bizarre. I refuse to believe any of it is reliable and I refuse to be swayed otherwise.
Ok well either way - do you think Castillo is a good catcher, defensively? I mean he's fine. I think they can do better.
Pretty sure they can do better defensively and offensively at catcher.
Castillo is just a guy.
Somebody's gotta bat eighth.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 22, 2014, 03:51:37 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on October 22, 2014, 12:06:54 PM
I'm still all set on trading Baez and some dudes not named Bryant, Russell or Soler for Hamels.
(http://easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded/895/3858325938.jpg)
So, your point is that with 6 in the bag the expectation would be that he won't do this again?
I want the Cubs to get Hamels, so I'm not sure what you're saying.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 22, 2014, 03:51:37 PM
So, your point is that with 6 in the bag the expectation would be that he won't do this again?
No, because Pen is not you.
Quote from: ChuckD on October 22, 2014, 03:07:53 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on October 22, 2014, 02:28:03 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 22, 2014, 01:13:12 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on October 22, 2014, 12:06:54 PM
I'm still all set on trading Baez and some dudes not named Bryant, Russell or Soler for Hamels.
(http://easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded/895/3858325938.jpg)
I'm glad you're not running the Cubs because you just left Eric Patterson off your untouchable list and now he's going to be a 10-time All-Star for the Phillies.
Most of the guys on the list up there are old. Some of them are dead.
Some?
Was shocked to learn that Steve Carlton is still alive. I thought he'd died in a cave somewhere a long time ago.
Quote from: Eli on October 23, 2014, 11:03:15 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 22, 2014, 03:51:37 PM
So, your point is that with 6 in the bag the expectation would be that he won't do this again?
No, because Pen is not you.
I have been trying to parse Chuck's post since last night. I should have realized that the Rosetta Stone for understanding Chuck is to be Chuck.
I'm pretty sure this is the thread where we talk about free agency and moves and such - so today Fangraphs posted their top 55 Free Agents (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/fangraphs-crowd-the-top-55-free-agents/)and stuff.
I'm not exactly sure how to read this, but I'm sure a bunch of you are. 7/$168 for Scherzer is pretty damn high as the top one, but considering this list of attractive guys falls off awfully fast, the top couple are probably reasonable.
http://www.si.com/mlb/2015/04/29/chicago-cubs-joe-maddon-tampering-investigation
QuoteThe Chicago Cubs did not violate MLB's tampering rules when they hired manager Joe Maddon, the league announced Wednesday.
Quote from: ChuckD on April 30, 2015, 08:44:21 AM
http://www.si.com/mlb/2015/04/29/chicago-cubs-joe-maddon-tampering-investigation
QuoteThe Chicago Cubs did not violate MLB's tampering rules when they hired manager Joe Maddon, the league announced Wednesday.
No evidence found of tampering but plenty found of Tampa Bay butthurt.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on April 30, 2015, 01:51:22 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on April 30, 2015, 08:44:21 AM
http://www.si.com/mlb/2015/04/29/chicago-cubs-joe-maddon-tampering-investigation
QuoteThe Chicago Cubs did not violate MLB's tampering rules when they hired manager Joe Maddon, the league announced Wednesday.
No evidence found of tampering but plenty found of Tampa Bay butthurt.
I wish Kurt was still alive so he could make an awesome photoshop of Preparation-H with Stuart Sternberg's face on it.
And then Fork could say "Needs something big."
And then BC could say "BIG HEMORRHOIDS improve everything."
And then I could hate my internet life.
Quote from: PenFoe on April 30, 2015, 02:13:10 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on April 30, 2015, 01:51:22 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on April 30, 2015, 08:44:21 AM
http://www.si.com/mlb/2015/04/29/chicago-cubs-joe-maddon-tampering-investigation
QuoteThe Chicago Cubs did not violate MLB's tampering rules when they hired manager Joe Maddon, the league announced Wednesday.
No evidence found of tampering but plenty found of Tampa Bay butthurt.
I wish Kurt was still alive so he could make an awesome photoshop of Preparation-H with Stuart Sternberg's face on it.
And then Fork could say "Needs something big."
And then BC could say "BIG HEMORRHOIDS improve everything."
And then I could hate my internet life.
All of this.
Quote from: PenFoe on April 30, 2015, 02:13:10 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on April 30, 2015, 01:51:22 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on April 30, 2015, 08:44:21 AM
http://www.si.com/mlb/2015/04/29/chicago-cubs-joe-maddon-tampering-investigation
QuoteThe Chicago Cubs did not violate MLB's tampering rules when they hired manager Joe Maddon, the league announced Wednesday.
No evidence found of tampering but plenty found of Tampa Bay butthurt.
I wish Kurt was still alive so he could make an awesome photoshop of Preparation-H with Stuart Sternberg's face on it.
And then Fork could say "Needs something big."
And then BC could say "BIG HEMORRHOIDS improve everything."
And then I could hate my internet life.
You're forgetting:
- Veet
- Fart bubble
- drunk Patrick Kane
- Adrian Zmed
Fro is the worst.
Cola Melz? From MLBTR:
Quote"The Cubs have continued to touch base with the Phillies" about Hamels, sources tell Gordon Wittenmyer of the Chicago Sun-Times. The likes of Kris Bryant or Addison Russell are "unquestionably off the table," yet Chicago has enough prospect depth to get the Phillies' attention. Whether it's Hamels or another notable arm, Wittenmyer expects the Cubs to target starting pitching at the trade deadline.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on April 30, 2015, 03:40:55 PM
Cola Melz? From MLBTR:
Quote"The Cubs have continued to touch base with the Phillies" about Hamels, sources tell Gordon Wittenmyer of the Chicago Sun-Times. The likes of Kris Bryant or Addison Russell are "unquestionably off the table," yet Chicago has enough prospect depth to get the Phillies' attention. Whether it's Hamels or another notable arm, Wittenmyer expects the Cubs to target starting pitching at the trade deadline.
Didn't Wittenmyer also expect that Epstein would be fired and the team in Chapter 11 by now?
Quote from: CT III on April 30, 2015, 04:23:49 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on April 30, 2015, 03:40:55 PM
Cola Melz? From MLBTR:
Quote"The Cubs have continued to touch base with the Phillies" about Hamels, sources tell Gordon Wittenmyer of the Chicago Sun-Times. The likes of Kris Bryant or Addison Russell are "unquestionably off the table," yet Chicago has enough prospect depth to get the Phillies' attention. Whether it's Hamels or another notable arm, Wittenmyer expects the Cubs to target starting pitching at the trade deadline.
Didn't Wittenmyer also expect that Epstein would be fired and the team in Chapter 11 by now?
Who can forget Javy Baez and Jordan Zimmerman's contributions to the 2015 Cubs so far, either?
Quote from: CT III on April 30, 2015, 04:23:49 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on April 30, 2015, 03:40:55 PM
Cola Melz? From MLBTR:
Quote"The Cubs have continued to touch base with the Phillies" about Hamels, sources tell Gordon Wittenmyer of the Chicago Sun-Times. The likes of Kris Bryant or Addison Russell are "unquestionably off the table," yet Chicago has enough prospect depth to get the Phillies' attention. Whether it's Hamels or another notable arm, Wittenmyer expects the Cubs to target starting pitching at the trade deadline.
Didn't Wittenmyer also expect that Epstein would be fired and the team in Chapter 11 by now?
Wittenmyer has been categorically wrong on almost every single prediction he's made - notably Jon Lester. Long may he pound.
DRLP?
http://doubtingtheo.tumblr.com/
Just the tip of the iceberg, but some real gems.
I've somehow managed to avoid Peoria classhole Nick Vlahos (http://doubtingtheo.tumblr.com/tagged/Vlahos) up until today.
For which I'm thankful.
Sounds like everyone can relax about Theo bolting early. (http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2015/09/28/tom-ricketts-cubs-will-talk-extension-with-theo-epstein-pretty-soon/) As expected.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 28, 2015, 02:57:26 PM
I've somehow managed to avoid Peoria classhole Nick Vlahos (http://doubtingtheo.tumblr.com/tagged/Vlahos) up until today.
For which I'm thankful.
That guy makes being wrong into an artform. I'm not even mad.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 28, 2015, 02:55:58 PM
DRLP?
http://doubtingtheo.tumblr.com/
Just the tip of the iceberg, but some real gems.
Rather than chastise you for having vanished, I will applaud you for bringing this here. It's glorious. You can disappear for months at a time if it means you'll put out stuff like this.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 28, 2015, 02:57:26 PM
I've somehow managed to avoid Peoria classhole Nick Vlahos (http://doubtingtheo.tumblr.com/tagged/Vlahos) up until today.
For which I'm thankful.
I enjoyed the people ripping on him and his awful, awful opinions for a while because I assumed he was the Cubs guy for the Peoria Journal Star. Ripping on idiot media is one thing, but he writes about the friggin Peoria Zoning Board and is just some dumbass Cubs fan. After the first month of people angrily retweeting him and debating with him and then screencapping him once I'd filtered him out I got really tired of it. He's too stupid to deserve that much attention when he's not even Cubs media.
Quote from: SKO on September 28, 2015, 03:17:06 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 28, 2015, 02:57:26 PM
I've somehow managed to avoid Peoria classhole Nick Vlahos (http://doubtingtheo.tumblr.com/tagged/Vlahos) up until today.
For which I'm thankful.
I enjoyed the people ripping on him and his awful, awful opinions for a while because I assumed he was the Cubs guy for the Peoria Journal Star. Ripping on idiot media is one thing, but he writes about the friggin Peoria Zoning Board and is just some dumbass Cubs fan. After the first month of people angrily retweeting him and debating with him and then screencapping him once I'd filtered him out I got really tired of it. He's too stupid to deserve that much attention when he's not even Cubs media.
Viewed from another perspective, the fact that he's a fan makes it's worse. I mean, WHAT. THE FUCK. IS. THIS?
(http://40.media.tumblr.com/ae7a670c6fcc8192b5ae1e2b89075d85/tumblr_nve8nsdN2x1uhfs3jo1_500.jpg)
Quote from: PANK! on September 28, 2015, 03:21:39 PM
Quote from: SKO on September 28, 2015, 03:17:06 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 28, 2015, 02:57:26 PM
I've somehow managed to avoid Peoria classhole Nick Vlahos (http://doubtingtheo.tumblr.com/tagged/Vlahos) up until today.
For which I'm thankful.
I enjoyed the people ripping on him and his awful, awful opinions for a while because I assumed he was the Cubs guy for the Peoria Journal Star. Ripping on idiot media is one thing, but he writes about the friggin Peoria Zoning Board and is just some dumbass Cubs fan. After the first month of people angrily retweeting him and debating with him and then screencapping him once I'd filtered him out I got really tired of it. He's too stupid to deserve that much attention when he's not even Cubs media.
Viewed from another perspective, the fact that he's a fan makes it's worse. I mean, WHAT. THE FUCK. IS. THIS?
(http://40.media.tumblr.com/ae7a670c6fcc8192b5ae1e2b89075d85/tumblr_nve8nsdN2x1uhfs3jo1_500.jpg)
He's undoubtedly the worst type of fan and I have a friend in Peoria who knows him personally and says that he is, unlike Chuck, an even worse douchebag in real life than online, but still, it's been MONTHS of people going back and forth with this guy after every good things the Cubs do and even I, Patron Saint of Arguing With Strawmen and Morons, just don't see the point. If he was actually a guy paid to give his opinion on the Cubs and persisted in his wrongness, I get hammering him like we do Gordo or Morrissey, but he's just an asshole getting way too much attention for it.
Quote from: SKO on September 28, 2015, 03:24:12 PM
he's just an asshole getting way too much attention for it.
But his Twitter has a Blue Check!
So are these long time Cubs fans that hated on Theo's plan going to be able to actually enjoy a World Series win if it happens? What a sad way to experience your favorite team winning a championship. Or maybe they just prefer being miserable.
Quote from: Tony on September 28, 2015, 03:52:06 PM
So are these long time Cubs fans that hated on Theo's plan going to be able to actually enjoy a World Series win if it happens? What a sad way to experience your favorite team winning a championship. Or maybe they just prefer being miserable.
Ask McClure of The Committed Indian.
Quote from: PANK! on September 28, 2015, 03:55:15 PM
Quote from: Tony on September 28, 2015, 03:52:06 PM
So are these long time Cubs fans that hated on Theo's plan going to be able to actually enjoy a World Series win if it happens? What a sad way to experience your favorite team winning a championship. Or maybe they just prefer being miserable.
Ask McClure of The Committed Indian. Slak
Same guy
Quote from: Tony on September 28, 2015, 03:52:06 PM
So are these long time Cubs fans that hated on Theo's plan going to be able to actually enjoy a World Series win if it happens? What a sad way to experience your favorite team winning a championship. Or maybe they just prefer being miserable.
they'll either be like Al and just jump to the front of the parade, or be dickheads like Gordo who will somehow try to tell people his vigilance in holding Jepstink accountable is what made it all happen.
I feel like Theo and Jed should get a lot of props for the Clayton Richard/Trevor Cahill/Fernando Rodney reclamation projects, or maybe that's just Chris Bosio but either way, pretty good value they've gotten from dumpster diving this year.
Quote from: SKO on September 29, 2015, 08:09:26 AM
I feel like Theo and Jed should get a lot of props for the Clayton Richard/Trevor Cahill/Fernando Rodney reclamation projects, or maybe that's just Chris Bosio but either way, pretty good value they've gotten from dumpster diving this year.
They've been good at dumpster diving every year, just this year they dove at the deadline instead of before the season started.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on September 29, 2015, 08:29:21 AM
Quote from: SKO on September 29, 2015, 08:09:26 AM
I feel like Theo and Jed should get a lot of props for the Clayton Richard/Trevor Cahill/Fernando Rodney reclamation projects, or maybe that's just Chris Bosio but either way, pretty good value they've gotten from dumpster diving this year.
They've been good at dumpster diving every year, just this year they dove at the deadline instead of before the season started.
The Pirates are pretty good at this too. The Cardinals don't seem to do it as well since Dave Duncan left, but they turned shitty pitchers into viable starters a lot over the years.
Quote from: Shooter on September 29, 2015, 07:26:44 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on September 29, 2015, 08:29:21 AM
Quote from: SKO on September 29, 2015, 08:09:26 AM
I feel like Theo and Jed should get a lot of props for the Clayton Richard/Trevor Cahill/Fernando Rodney reclamation projects, or maybe that's just Chris Bosio but either way, pretty good value they've gotten from dumpster diving this year.
They've been good at dumpster diving every year, just this year they dove at the deadline instead of before the season started.
The Pirates are pretty good at this too. The Cardinals don't seem to do it as well since Dave Duncan left and took his great big bag o' steroids & HGH with him, but they turned shitty pitchers into viable starters a lot over the years.
Seems like a good time to revisit this (http://sbn.to/1ld0DPG).
Quote from: Best Cubfans in Baseball (BCB)In other words, if you think the Cubs should go in another direction, you have, probably, ten minutes or so (maybe less) to convince Tom Ricketts that he should go in a different direction. Which data points to use? Ian Stewart? Yu Darvish? Yoenis Cespedes? Edwin Jackson? Mounting losses? Sagging attendance? So many options.
Quote from: Sterling Archer on September 30, 2015, 02:49:27 PM
Seems like a good time to revisit this (http://sbn.to/1ld0DPG).
Quote from: Best Cubfans in Baseball (BCB)In other words, if you think the Cubs should go in another direction, you have, probably, ten minutes or so (maybe less) to convince Tom Ricketts that he should go in a different direction. Which data points to use? Ian Stewart? Yu Darvish? Yoenis Cespedes? Edwin Jackson? Mounting losses? Sagging attendance? So many options.
Al being extra dickish in the comments is icing on the cake.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on September 30, 2015, 03:42:54 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on September 30, 2015, 02:49:27 PM
Seems like a good time to revisit this (http://sbn.to/1ld0DPG).
Quote from: Best Cubfans in Baseball (BCB)In other words, if you think the Cubs should go in another direction, you have, probably, ten minutes or so (maybe less) to convince Tom Ricketts that he should go in a different direction. Which data points to use? Ian Stewart? Yu Darvish? Yoenis Cespedes? Edwin Jackson? Mounting losses? Sagging attendance? So many options.
Al being extra dickish in the comments is icing on the cake.
I saw that. Awesome.
Quote from: PANK! on September 30, 2015, 04:00:11 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on September 30, 2015, 03:42:54 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on September 30, 2015, 02:49:27 PM
Seems like a good time to revisit this (http://sbn.to/1ld0DPG).
Quote from: Best Cubfans in Baseball (BCB)In other words, if you think the Cubs should go in another direction, you have, probably, ten minutes or so (maybe less) to convince Tom Ricketts that he should go in a different direction. Which data points to use? Ian Stewart? Yu Darvish? Yoenis Cespedes? Edwin Jackson? Mounting losses? Sagging attendance? So many options.
Al being extra dickish in the comments is icing on the cake.
I saw that. Awesome.
Quote from: Wreckard
Well as long as you guys are clearly starting with the sensationalist headline and then filling in the article from there, i've got the next 5 stories for you
"How Theo and Jed can fix the Cubs using this one weird trick!"
"You'll get upset when you read what this Cubs blogger is recommending"
"I thought the Cubs couldn't get any worse. Then I read this shocking blog post."
"Try not to gasp when you read this Tim Huwe post. Make sure you read to the end!"
"Before you say that BCB is running out of ideas, wait til you read what this schoolteacher had to say"
Also I'd suggest changing the name of the blog to "Cubworthy".
I chortled.
Quote from: PANK! on September 30, 2015, 04:00:11 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on September 30, 2015, 03:42:54 PM
Quote from: Sterling Archer on September 30, 2015, 02:49:27 PM
Seems like a good time to revisit this (http://sbn.to/1ld0DPG).
Quote from: Best Cubfans in Baseball (BCB)In other words, if you think the Cubs should go in another direction, you have, probably, ten minutes or so (maybe less) to convince Tom Ricketts that he should go in a different direction. Which data points to use? Ian Stewart? Yu Darvish? Yoenis Cespedes? Edwin Jackson? Mounting losses? Sagging attendance? So many options.
Al being extra dickish in the comments is icing on the cake.
I saw that. Awesome.
It's a think piece.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 28, 2015, 02:57:26 PM
I've somehow managed to avoid Peoria classhole Nick Vlahos (http://doubtingtheo.tumblr.com/tagged/Vlahos) up until today.
For which I'm thankful.
Probably because he only made one post which appears to have been lost in the Rattocalypse.
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?action=profile;u=178
(http://i.imgur.com/ysEl9bT.png)
insightbb?
Quote from: ChuckD on October 01, 2015, 09:44:45 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 28, 2015, 02:57:26 PM
I've somehow managed to avoid Peoria classhole Nick Vlahos (http://doubtingtheo.tumblr.com/tagged/Vlahos) up until today.
For which I'm thankful.
Probably because he only made one post which appears to have been lost in the Rattocalypse.
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?action=profile;u=178
(http://i.imgur.com/ysEl9bT.png)
Holy shit.
Quote from: Slaky on October 01, 2015, 12:11:38 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on October 01, 2015, 09:44:45 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 28, 2015, 02:57:26 PM
I've somehow managed to avoid Peoria classhole Nick Vlahos (http://doubtingtheo.tumblr.com/tagged/Vlahos) up until today.
For which I'm thankful.
Probably because he only made one post which appears to have been lost in the Rattocalypse.
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?action=profile;u=178
(http://i.imgur.com/ysEl9bT.png)
Holy shit.
What we lost, what we never had.
Quote from: Slaky on October 01, 2015, 12:11:38 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on October 01, 2015, 09:44:45 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 28, 2015, 02:57:26 PM
I've somehow managed to avoid Peoria classhole Nick Vlahos (http://doubtingtheo.tumblr.com/tagged/Vlahos) up until today.
For which I'm thankful.
Probably because he only made one post which appears to have been lost in the Rattocalypse.
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?action=profile;u=178
(http://i.imgur.com/ysEl9bT.png)
Holy shit.
Ah Earl Cunningham. Man did he suck. He had a stint with the Chiefs back when my baseball fandom was kicking into high gear, playing alongside luminaries such as Damon Berryhill, Lance Dickson, Mike Harkey & Amaury Telemaco.
Quote from: R-V on October 01, 2015, 12:34:48 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 01, 2015, 12:11:38 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on October 01, 2015, 09:44:45 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 28, 2015, 02:57:26 PM
I've somehow managed to avoid Peoria classhole Nick Vlahos (http://doubtingtheo.tumblr.com/tagged/Vlahos) up until today.
For which I'm thankful.
Probably because he only made one post which appears to have been lost in the Rattocalypse.
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?action=profile;u=178
(http://i.imgur.com/ysEl9bT.png)
Holy shit.
Ah Earl Cunningham. Man did he suck. He had a stint with the Chiefs back when my baseball fandom was kicking into high gear, playing alongside luminaries such as Damon Berryhill, Lance Dickson, Mike Harkey & Amaury Telemaco.
Earl was the first round draft pick in '89 IIRC, when the Cubs were already stocking the major league roster with homegrown talent. We assumed at the time it would be the gift that kept on giving, and visions of Cunningham mashing the ball while succeeding Dawson filled our heads, not realizing that Jim Frey was actually in the midst of destroying what little value was left of Dallas Green's system while leaving nothing but an ashy heap in its place. Earl was Frey's second draft (Ty Griffin!) so we just hadn't realized this yet. Pretty sure that fucker never got above AA.
Quote from: R-V on October 01, 2015, 12:34:48 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 01, 2015, 12:11:38 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on October 01, 2015, 09:44:45 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 28, 2015, 02:57:26 PM
I've somehow managed to avoid Peoria classhole Nick Vlahos (http://doubtingtheo.tumblr.com/tagged/Vlahos) up until today.
For which I'm thankful.
Probably because he only made one post which appears to have been lost in the Rattocalypse.
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?action=profile;u=178
(http://i.imgur.com/ysEl9bT.png)
Holy shit.
Ah Earl Cunningham. Man did he suck. He had a stint with the Chiefs back when my baseball fandom was kicking into high gear, playing alongside luminaries such as Damon Berryhill, Lance Dickson, Mike Harkey & Amaury Telemaco.
Quote from: SKO on October 01, 2015, 12:12:30 PM
What we lost, what we never had.
Edit: I still remember Earl Cunningham because I had this card. I was
positive it was going to be worth $100 just like Griffey's '89 Upper Deck some day.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61vJpXb5GBL._SY445_.jpg)
Quote from: SKO on October 01, 2015, 12:12:30 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 01, 2015, 12:11:38 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on October 01, 2015, 09:44:45 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 28, 2015, 02:57:26 PM
I've somehow managed to avoid Peoria classhole Nick Vlahos (http://doubtingtheo.tumblr.com/tagged/Vlahos) up until today.
For which I'm thankful.
Probably because he only made one post which appears to have been lost in the Rattocalypse.
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?action=profile;u=178
(http://i.imgur.com/ysEl9bT.png)
Holy shit.
What we lost, what we never had.
I bet you his initial post was greeted with "Shut up, Paul, you're a douche" and he NOPED right out of here.
Quote from: Canadouche on October 01, 2015, 01:33:53 PM
Quote from: SKO on October 01, 2015, 12:12:30 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 01, 2015, 12:11:38 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on October 01, 2015, 09:44:45 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 28, 2015, 02:57:26 PM
I've somehow managed to avoid Peoria classhole Nick Vlahos (http://doubtingtheo.tumblr.com/tagged/Vlahos) up until today.
For which I'm thankful.
Probably because he only made one post which appears to have been lost in the Rattocalypse.
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?action=profile;u=178
(http://i.imgur.com/ysEl9bT.png)
Holy shit.
What we lost, what we never had.
I bet you his initial post was greeted with "Shut up, Paul, you're a douche" and he NOPED right out of here.
Oh man. You might be right. I'm imaging that's the truth and it's making me laugh.
Quote from: Oleg on October 01, 2015, 04:43:24 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on October 01, 2015, 01:33:53 PM
Quote from: SKO on October 01, 2015, 12:12:30 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 01, 2015, 12:11:38 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on October 01, 2015, 09:44:45 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 28, 2015, 02:57:26 PM
I've somehow managed to avoid Peoria classhole Nick Vlahos (http://doubtingtheo.tumblr.com/tagged/Vlahos) up until today.
For which I'm thankful.
Probably because he only made one post which appears to have been lost in the Rattocalypse.
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?action=profile;u=178
(http://i.imgur.com/ysEl9bT.png)
Holy shit.
What we lost, what we never had.
I bet you his initial post was greeted with "Shut up, Paul, you're a douche" and he NOPED right out of here.
Oh man. You might be right. I'm imaging that's the truth and it's making me laugh.
Pics, or it didn't happen. Literally.
Theo says free draft picks for the Cardinals are bad, gives them one by signing Lackey HEY THEO WHO YA CRAPPIN????
Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 04, 2015, 05:35:53 PM
Theo says free draft picks for the Cardinals are bad, gives them one by signing Lackey HEY THEO WHO YA CRAPPIN????
(Now please give them another for Heyward.)
So much for DARPA.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2016/09/28/levine-theo-epstein-agrees-to-5-year-extension-with-cubs/
Interesting to agree to it now. I wonder if there are escalators and/or profit participation clauses in case they win the World Series.
Quote from: Saul Goodman on September 28, 2016, 03:10:01 PM
Interesting to agree to it now. I wonder if there are escalators and/or profit participation clauses in case they win the World Series.
I prefer to believe they wanted to troll the White Sox by pairing "Cubs extending Greatest GM in Baseball History for 5 more years" with the Robin Ventura news.
Quote from: SKO on September 28, 2016, 03:13:12 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on September 28, 2016, 03:10:01 PM
Interesting to agree to it now. I wonder if there are escalators and/or profit participation clauses in case they win the World Series.
I prefer to believe they wanted to troll the White Sox by pairing "Cubs extending Greatest GM in Baseball History for 5 more years" with the Robin Ventura news.
Hold that thought. Bruce Levine just sent another Tweet.
QuoteWhite Sox Agree to Install Keurig Coffee Maker In Rick Hahn's Office; Hahn to Be Limited to Five K-Cups Per Week
Now it sounds like Hoyer and McLeod (whose contracts were previously reported to run concurrently with Theo's) were also extended. Maybe this has something to do with the Twins' interest in McLeod given the timing.
Quote from: Saul Goodman on September 28, 2016, 03:25:43 PM
Now it sounds like Hoyer and McLeod (whose contracts were previously reported to run concurrently with Theo's) were also extended. Maybe this has something to do with the Twins' interest in McLeod given the timing.
I swaw on the Twits that McLeod was out of the running with the Twins.
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on September 28, 2016, 03:45:23 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on September 28, 2016, 03:25:43 PM
Now it sounds like Hoyer and McLeod (whose contracts were previously reported to run concurrently with Theo's) were also extended. Maybe this has something to do with the Twins' interest in McLeod given the timing.
I swaw on the Twits that McLeod was out of the running with the Twins.
"Hey guys, Theo is going to give me a buttload of money to stay. Thanks for everything."
"You're out of the running. Congrats."
BUMP
Quote from: SKO on November 03, 2016, 01:38:47 PM
BUMP
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/this-is-how-dynasties-begin/ (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/this-is-how-dynasties-begin/)
Quote from: PenFoe on January 17, 2014, 01:19:22 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 17, 2014, 01:17:44 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 17, 2014, 12:55:37 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 17, 2014, 12:47:26 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 17, 2014, 12:45:31 PM
Quote from: Yeti on January 17, 2014, 12:12:57 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 17, 2014, 12:04:37 PM
So let's have a fun exercise in the vein of TJ's post.
What if the Cubs are (with roster as presently constructed) somehow hanging in the race in July. It's late July and let's say the Cubs inexplicably hold a 3-4 game lead in the division. Maybe the Cards have some crippling injuries. Maybe the Pirates are back to being the Pirates. But let's just say Cub pitching has far exceeded expectations and while they still can't hit for shit, they're just not giving up enough runs to lose.
What do you think happens?
Again it's a slim lead nearing the trade deadline and in this fake future I've created everyone's waiting for the other shoe to drop. The Cubs don't have the players to win the division. Sell? Buy? Stand pat?
I think it'd be really interesting to see what the front office would do.
I think I want them to stand pat. I'm no genius, but I feel like if they're that close with the current roster (they might have had to call someone up to be in that position, though), then 2015 should be fantastic,
At this point, the project is getting closer to fruition. Even if the Cubs conten at midsummer, there's no reason to deviate from that. The only non-pat-standing that could happen in this instance would be the addition of Baez if he tortures AAA pitching like he did to AA pitching.
So with the consensus being "stand pat" with the exception for Five Head Todd's pointless offering - imagine the shitstorm from the Haughs, Sullys, Morrisseys, Telanders, et. al. if the Cubs didn't beef up the roster with a division lead in July.
It would be just about the greatest spectacle in media history.
If we're talking about a slight division lead and the deal on the table is a player who helps now but not so much in the long run in exchange for Baez, Bryant, Almora or Soler, I think you say no. The opportunity to win the division is not worth sacrificing a player you're counting on to build your franchise. If they would be getting back someone that actually could help over the next two years - a pitcher with a decent upside, say, well, yeah. Do it probably.
I think the theory STAND PAT isn't even feasible without knowing what the deal would be. It's a more useful exercise to look at their assets and decide what they should want back in return. When I read the original hypothetical I thought it was with regard to a "white flag" type of trade. That's a question we'd have to ponder at the moment too. If the Cubs were 3 games up in July and a contending team wanted to know what they'd take for Snork, I think it'd be wise to consider what prospects they've got that can help us beyond Snork - even if it made the CubbieBlueStews of the world crap their pants.
What makes me crap my pants is that we are 5 and half weeks to go before Spring training and here we are trying to decide if we are going to the World Series this year or the year after.
Neither, Stew.
I'm sorry.
2016 though.
Consider it an 85th birthday present.
Epstein-Hoyer 2020?
Quote from: Saul Goodman on November 10, 2016, 04:21:29 PM
Epstein-Hoyer 2020?
I actually want Tim Cook to run, and I want his staff/cabinet to be primarily Apple execs. I have little logical reason for desiring this.
Quote from: SKO on November 10, 2016, 03:14:37 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 17, 2014, 01:19:22 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 17, 2014, 01:17:44 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 17, 2014, 12:55:37 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 17, 2014, 12:47:26 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 17, 2014, 12:45:31 PM
Quote from: Yeti on January 17, 2014, 12:12:57 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 17, 2014, 12:04:37 PM
So let's have a fun exercise in the vein of TJ's post.
What if the Cubs are (with roster as presently constructed) somehow hanging in the race in July. It's late July and let's say the Cubs inexplicably hold a 3-4 game lead in the division. Maybe the Cards have some crippling injuries. Maybe the Pirates are back to being the Pirates. But let's just say Cub pitching has far exceeded expectations and while they still can't hit for shit, they're just not giving up enough runs to lose.
What do you think happens?
Again it's a slim lead nearing the trade deadline and in this fake future I've created everyone's waiting for the other shoe to drop. The Cubs don't have the players to win the division. Sell? Buy? Stand pat?
I think it'd be really interesting to see what the front office would do.
I think I want them to stand pat. I'm no genius, but I feel like if they're that close with the current roster (they might have had to call someone up to be in that position, though), then 2015 should be fantastic,
At this point, the project is getting closer to fruition. Even if the Cubs conten at midsummer, there's no reason to deviate from that. The only non-pat-standing that could happen in this instance would be the addition of Baez if he tortures AAA pitching like he did to AA pitching.
So with the consensus being "stand pat" with the exception for Five Head Todd's pointless offering - imagine the shitstorm from the Haughs, Sullys, Morrisseys, Telanders, et. al. if the Cubs didn't beef up the roster with a division lead in July.
It would be just about the greatest spectacle in media history.
If we're talking about a slight division lead and the deal on the table is a player who helps now but not so much in the long run in exchange for Baez, Bryant, Almora or Soler, I think you say no. The opportunity to win the division is not worth sacrificing a player you're counting on to build your franchise. If they would be getting back someone that actually could help over the next two years - a pitcher with a decent upside, say, well, yeah. Do it probably.
I think the theory STAND PAT isn't even feasible without knowing what the deal would be. It's a more useful exercise to look at their assets and decide what they should want back in return. When I read the original hypothetical I thought it was with regard to a "white flag" type of trade. That's a question we'd have to ponder at the moment too. If the Cubs were 3 games up in July and a contending team wanted to know what they'd take for Snork, I think it'd be wise to consider what prospects they've got that can help us beyond Snork - even if it made the CubbieBlueStews of the world crap their pants.
What makes me crap my pants is that we are 5 and half weeks to go before Spring training and here we are trying to decide if we are going to the World Series this year or the year after.
Neither, Stew.
I'm sorry.
2016 though.
Consider it an 85th birthday present.
Man, talk about missing an opportunity to leave on a high note.
What
everyone I would have given for that to have been my last post ever here.
Quote from: SKO on November 10, 2016, 03:14:37 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 17, 2014, 01:19:22 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 17, 2014, 01:17:44 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 17, 2014, 12:55:37 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 17, 2014, 12:47:26 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 17, 2014, 12:45:31 PM
Quote from: Yeti on January 17, 2014, 12:12:57 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 17, 2014, 12:04:37 PM
So let's have a fun exercise in the vein of TJ's post.
What if the Cubs are (with roster as presently constructed) somehow hanging in the race in July. It's late July and let's say the Cubs inexplicably hold a 3-4 game lead in the division. Maybe the Cards have some crippling injuries. Maybe the Pirates are back to being the Pirates. But let's just say Cub pitching has far exceeded expectations and while they still can't hit for shit, they're just not giving up enough runs to lose.
What do you think happens?
Again it's a slim lead nearing the trade deadline and in this fake future I've created everyone's waiting for the other shoe to drop. The Cubs don't have the players to win the division. Sell? Buy? Stand pat?
I think it'd be really interesting to see what the front office would do.
I think I want them to stand pat. I'm no genius, but I feel like if they're that close with the current roster (they might have had to call someone up to be in that position, though), then 2015 should be fantastic,
At this point, the project is getting closer to fruition. Even if the Cubs conten at midsummer, there's no reason to deviate from that. The only non-pat-standing that could happen in this instance would be the addition of Baez if he tortures AAA pitching like he did to AA pitching.
So with the consensus being "stand pat" with the exception for Five Head Todd's pointless offering - imagine the shitstorm from the Haughs, Sullys, Morrisseys, Telanders, et. al. if the Cubs didn't beef up the roster with a division lead in July.
It would be just about the greatest spectacle in media history.
If we're talking about a slight division lead and the deal on the table is a player who helps now but not so much in the long run in exchange for Baez, Bryant, Almora or Soler, I think you say no. The opportunity to win the division is not worth sacrificing a player you're counting on to build your franchise. If they would be getting back someone that actually could help over the next two years - a pitcher with a decent upside, say, well, yeah. Do it probably.
I think the theory STAND PAT isn't even feasible without knowing what the deal would be. It's a more useful exercise to look at their assets and decide what they should want back in return. When I read the original hypothetical I thought it was with regard to a "white flag" type of trade. That's a question we'd have to ponder at the moment too. If the Cubs were 3 games up in July and a contending team wanted to know what they'd take for Snork, I think it'd be wise to consider what prospects they've got that can help us beyond Snork - even if it made the CubbieBlueStews of the world crap their pants.
What makes me crap my pants is that we are 5 and half weeks to go before Spring training and here we are trying to decide if we are going to the World Series this year or the year after.
Neither, Stew.
I'm sorry.
2016 though.
Consider it an 85th birthday present.
Hey. Not bad. Though it put a handful of extra years on me.
Quote from: Canadouche on November 10, 2016, 05:38:34 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on November 10, 2016, 04:21:29 PM
Epstein-Hoyer 2020?
I actually want Tim Cook to run, and I want his staff/cabinet to be primarily Apple execs. I have little logical reason for desiring this.
That is because this is an insane thing to desire.
Quote from: CT III on November 10, 2016, 08:43:40 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 10, 2016, 05:38:34 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on November 10, 2016, 04:21:29 PM
Epstein-Hoyer 2020?
I actually want Tim Cook to run, and I want his staff/cabinet to be primarily Apple execs. I have little logical reason for desiring this.
That is because this is an insane thing to desire.
INSANELY GREAT?
No. Just insane.
Quote from: Saul Goodman on November 10, 2016, 11:25:51 PM
Quote from: CT III on November 10, 2016, 08:43:40 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 10, 2016, 05:38:34 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on November 10, 2016, 04:21:29 PM
Epstein-Hoyer 2020?
I actually want Tim Cook to run, and I want his staff/cabinet to be primarily Apple execs. I have little logical reason for desiring this.
That is because this is an insane thing to desire.
INSANELY GREAT?
No. Just insane.
I don't know. I think there are worse things than having brilliant executives run the United States, after having a track record of already running the most successful company in the world, who have an understanding about how important it is to protect the environment, as well as the privacy rights of US citizens.
Quote from: Canadouche on November 11, 2016, 05:40:20 AM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on November 10, 2016, 11:25:51 PM
Quote from: CT III on November 10, 2016, 08:43:40 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 10, 2016, 05:38:34 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on November 10, 2016, 04:21:29 PM
Epstein-Hoyer 2020?
I actually want Tim Cook to run, and I want his staff/cabinet to be primarily Apple execs. I have little logical reason for desiring this.
That is because this is an insane thing to desire.
INSANELY GREAT?
No. Just insane.
I don't know. I think there are worse things than having brilliant executives run the United States, after having a track record of already running the most successful company in the world.
Oh good god no. Not in any way. No.
Quote from: Bort on November 11, 2016, 07:35:11 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 11, 2016, 05:40:20 AM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on November 10, 2016, 11:25:51 PM
Quote from: CT III on November 10, 2016, 08:43:40 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 10, 2016, 05:38:34 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on November 10, 2016, 04:21:29 PM
Epstein-Hoyer 2020?
I actually want Tim Cook to run, and I want his staff/cabinet to be primarily Apple execs. I have little logical reason for desiring this.
That is because this is an insane thing to desire.
INSANELY GREAT?
No. Just insane.
I don't know. I think there are worse things than having brilliant executives run the United States, after having a track record of already running the most successful company in the world.
Oh good god no. Not in any way. No.
You're right. Theo would totally be a more logical choice.
Quote from: Canadouche on November 11, 2016, 07:35:54 AM
Quote from: Bort on November 11, 2016, 07:35:11 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 11, 2016, 05:40:20 AM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on November 10, 2016, 11:25:51 PM
Quote from: CT III on November 10, 2016, 08:43:40 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 10, 2016, 05:38:34 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on November 10, 2016, 04:21:29 PM
Epstein-Hoyer 2020?
I actually want Tim Cook to run, and I want his staff/cabinet to be primarily Apple execs. I have little logical reason for desiring this.
That is because this is an insane thing to desire.
INSANELY GREAT?
No. Just insane.
I don't know. I think there are worse things than having brilliant executives run the United States, after having a track record of already running the most successful company in the world.
Oh good god no. Not in any way. No.
You're right. Theo would totally be a more logical choice.
Apple's success depends in large part on being able to manufacture their products cheaply in Chinese factories where conditions are so depressing that nets have been erected outside the buildings to catch suicidal employees.
If you think Apple executives give a tin shit about humanity, I don't know what to tell you.
I mean, at least Peter Thiel is up front about the fact that he's a fucking vampire.
Quote from: Canadouche on November 11, 2016, 07:35:54 AM
Quote from: Bort on November 11, 2016, 07:35:11 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 11, 2016, 05:40:20 AM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on November 10, 2016, 11:25:51 PM
Quote from: CT III on November 10, 2016, 08:43:40 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 10, 2016, 05:38:34 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on November 10, 2016, 04:21:29 PM
Epstein-Hoyer 2020?
I actually want Tim Cook to run, and I want his staff/cabinet to be primarily Apple execs. I have little logical reason for desiring this.
That is because this is an insane thing to desire.
INSANELY GREAT?
No. Just insane.
I don't know. I think there are worse things than having brilliant executives run the United States, after having a track record of already running the most successful company in the world.
Oh good god no. Not in any way. No.
You're right. Theo would totally be a more logical choice.
Oh good god no. Not in any way. No.
I just want to make sure I follow your logic here, Kurt: we have two choices for our next President - Theo Epstein or Tim Cook?
Quote from: R-V on November 11, 2016, 09:12:37 AM
I just want to make sure I follow your logic here, Kurt: we have two choices for our next President - Theo Epstein or Tim Cook?
Only if I'm operating with little logic.
Quote from: Canadouche on November 11, 2016, 09:30:11 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 11, 2016, 09:12:37 AM
I just want to make sure I follow your logic here, Kurt: we have two choices for our next President - Theo Epstein or Tim Cook?
Only if I'm operating with little logic.
For the record, I'd vote for Theo.
I don't even want to hear any of his platforms in case I disagree.
Quote from: Canadouche on November 11, 2016, 05:40:20 AM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on November 10, 2016, 11:25:51 PM
Quote from: CT III on November 10, 2016, 08:43:40 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 10, 2016, 05:38:34 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on November 10, 2016, 04:21:29 PM
Epstein-Hoyer 2020?
I actually want Tim Cook to run, and I want his staff/cabinet to be primarily Apple execs. I have little logical reason for desiring this.
That is because this is an insane thing to desire.
INSANELY GREAT?
No. Just insane.
I don't know. I think there are worse things than having brilliant executives run the United States, after having a track record of already running the most successful company in the world, who have an understanding about how important it is to protect the environment, as well as the privacy rights of US citizens.
Running a business is almost nothing like running a country.
Quote from: Eli on November 11, 2016, 10:30:37 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 11, 2016, 05:40:20 AM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on November 10, 2016, 11:25:51 PM
Quote from: CT III on November 10, 2016, 08:43:40 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 10, 2016, 05:38:34 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on November 10, 2016, 04:21:29 PM
Epstein-Hoyer 2020?
I actually want Tim Cook to run, and I want his staff/cabinet to be primarily Apple execs. I have little logical reason for desiring this.
That is because this is an insane thing to desire.
INSANELY GREAT?
No. Just insane.
I don't know. I think there are worse things than having brilliant executives run the United States, after having a track record of already running the most successful company in the world, who have an understanding about how important it is to protect the environment, as well as the privacy rights of US citizens.
Running a business is almost nothing like running a country.
That is encouraging, considering the mess that Trump made of his businesses.
Quote from: CBStew on November 11, 2016, 10:37:11 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 11, 2016, 10:30:37 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 11, 2016, 05:40:20 AM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on November 10, 2016, 11:25:51 PM
Quote from: CT III on November 10, 2016, 08:43:40 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 10, 2016, 05:38:34 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on November 10, 2016, 04:21:29 PM
Epstein-Hoyer 2020?
I actually want Tim Cook to run, and I want his staff/cabinet to be primarily Apple execs. I have little logical reason for desiring this.
That is because this is an insane thing to desire.
INSANELY GREAT?
No. Just insane.
I don't know. I think there are worse things than having brilliant executives run the United States, after having a track record of already running the most successful company in the world, who have an understanding about how important it is to protect the environment, as well as the privacy rights of US citizens.
Running a business is almost nothing like running a country.
That is encouraging, considering the mess that Trump made of his businesses.
I came here to say "rimshot," but then got sad.
You chucklefucks just had to ruin my nice bumping of the Theo thread. Goddamn you.
Quote from: SKO on November 11, 2016, 11:38:09 AM
You chucklefucks just had to ruin my nice bumping of the Theo thread. Goddamn you.
We seem to have determined that Theo isn't going anywhere and especially not to politics, so post your joyful positive or git out.
Quote from: Saul Goodman on November 11, 2016, 11:42:47 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 11, 2016, 11:38:09 AM
You chucklefucks just had to ruin my nice bumping of the Theo thread. Goddamn you.
We seem to have determined that Theo isn't going anywhere and especially not to politics, so post your joyful positive or git out.
I want to be perfectly clear on one thing: I'm the only one who can say "or git out" now.
Quote from: CT III on November 11, 2016, 11:56:02 AM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on November 11, 2016, 11:42:47 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 11, 2016, 11:38:09 AM
You chucklefucks just had to ruin my nice bumping of the Theo thread. Goddamn you.
We seem to have determined that Theo isn't going anywhere and especially not to politics, so post your joyful positive or git out.
I want to be perfectly clear on one thing: I'm the only one who can say "or git out" now.
(https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder461/500x/53697461.jpg)
Edit: Is that the first CT character to ever receive an Academy Award nomination?
Quote from: ChuckD on November 11, 2016, 12:19:04 PM
Quote from: CT III on November 11, 2016, 11:56:02 AM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on November 11, 2016, 11:42:47 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 11, 2016, 11:38:09 AM
You chucklefucks just had to ruin my nice bumping of the Theo thread. Goddamn you.
We seem to have determined that Theo isn't going anywhere and especially not to politics, so post your joyful positive or git out.
I want to be perfectly clear on one thing: I'm the only one who can say "or git out" now.
(https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder461/500x/53697461.jpg)
Edit: Is that the first CT character to ever receive an Academy Award nomination?
Nope.
(https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder944/500x/46132944.jpg)
Is Theo still on his bender? Because he should be.
If Almora replaces Fowler, 7 of 8 starting position players are 27 or younger.
There is an amazing amount of crap that the internet is trying to sell me because the Cubs won the World Series. Do I need or even want a red and blue Louisville Slugger bat? How about a pair of World Series sox? Of course I am buying a T shirt with a picture of the trophy on it, and a Rizzo shirt for my grandson. But I have to draw the line at the commemorative wrist watch.
Quote from: CBStew on November 11, 2016, 08:31:35 PM
There is an amazing amount of crap that the internet is trying to sell me because the Cubs won the World Series. Do I need or even want a red and blue Louisville Slugger bat? How about a pair of World Series sox? Of course I am buying a T shirt with a picture of the trophy on it, and a Rizzo shirt for my grandson. But I have to draw the line at the commemorative wrist watch.
I always pictured you as more of a commemorative pocket watch and spats type.
Quote from: Bort on November 11, 2016, 10:25:54 PM
Quote from: CBStew on November 11, 2016, 08:31:35 PM
There is an amazing amount of crap that the internet is trying to sell me because the Cubs won the World Series. Do I need or even want a red and blue Louisville Slugger bat? How about a pair of World Series sox? Of course I am buying a T shirt with a picture of the trophy on it, and a Rizzo shirt for my grandson. But I have to draw the line at the commemorative wrist watch.
I always pictured you as more of a commemorative pocket watch and spats type.
With an onion on his belt, which was the style at the time.
Quote from: Saul Goodman on November 11, 2016, 10:45:47 PM
Quote from: Bort on November 11, 2016, 10:25:54 PM
Quote from: CBStew on November 11, 2016, 08:31:35 PM
There is an amazing amount of crap that the internet is trying to sell me because the Cubs won the World Series. Do I need or even want a red and blue Louisville Slugger bat? How about a pair of World Series sox? Of course I am buying a T shirt with a picture of the trophy on it, and a Rizzo shirt for my grandson. But I have to draw the line at the commemorative wrist watch.
I always pictured you as more of a commemorative pocket watch and spats type.
With an onion on his belt, which was the style at the time.
Two-toned wingtips with taps.
-Three straight 90+ win seasons (first time since 1928-1930)
-Three straight postseason appearances (first time since 1906-1908)
-Three straight years winning at least one postseason series (not done since...ever)
-Best record in baseball since start of 2015
Oh and for what it's worth even after losing on purpose for the first 3 years of the Epstein Era the Cubs are now well over .500 in his tenure as GM anyway (492-479).
I guess this is that "sustained success" thing they were talking about.
Quote from: SKO on October 13, 2017, 02:37:49 PM
-Three straight 90+ win seasons (first time since 1928-1930)
-Three straight postseason appearances (first time since 1906-1908)
-Three straight years winning at least one postseason series (not done since...ever)
-Best record in baseball since start of 2015
Oh and for what it's worth even after losing on purpose for the first 3 years of the Epstein Era the Cubs are now well over .500 in his tenure as GM anyway (492-479).
I guess this is that "sustained success" thing they were talking about.
How's this for keeping it going for a bit...
C- Contreras (age 25)
1B - Rizzo (age 27)
2B Baez (Age 24)
SS - Russell (Age 23)
3B - Bryant (Age 25)
LF - Schwarber (Age 24)/Happ (Age 22)
CF - Almora (Age 23)
RF - Heyward (Age 27)
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on October 13, 2017, 02:53:50 PM
Quote from: SKO on October 13, 2017, 02:37:49 PM
-Three straight 90+ win seasons (first time since 1928-1930)
-Three straight postseason appearances (first time since 1906-1908)
-Three straight years winning at least one postseason series (not done since...ever)
-Best record in baseball since start of 2015
Oh and for what it's worth even after losing on purpose for the first 3 years of the Epstein Era the Cubs are now well over .500 in his tenure as GM anyway (492-479).
I guess this is that "sustained success" thing they were talking about.
How's this for keeping it going for a bit...
C- Contreras (age 25)
1B - Rizzo (age 27)
2B Baez (Age 24)
SS - Russell (Age 23)
3B - Bryant (Age 25)
LF - Schwarber (Age 24)/Happ (Age 22)
CF - Almora (Age 23)
RF - Heyward (Age 27)
That's fucking awesome. It's amazing to think that at one point we were sorta intrigued about a roster that featured Brian Dopirak and Ryan Harvey. I wonder if Brian ever took the advice re: the Bloomingdale's executive training program?
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on October 13, 2017, 02:53:50 PM
Quote from: SKO on October 13, 2017, 02:37:49 PM
-Three straight 90+ win seasons (first time since 1928-1930)
-Three straight postseason appearances (first time since 1906-1908)
-Three straight years winning at least one postseason series (not done since...ever)
-Best record in baseball since start of 2015
Oh and for what it's worth even after losing on purpose for the first 3 years of the Epstein Era the Cubs are now well over .500 in his tenure as GM anyway (492-479).
I guess this is that "sustained success" thing they were talking about.
How's this for keeping it going for a bit...
C- Contreras (age 25)
1B - Rizzo (age 27)
2B Baez (Age 24)
SS - Russell (Age 23)
3B - Bryant (Age 25)
LF - Schwarber (Age 24)/Happ (Age 22)
CF - Almora (Age 23)
RF - Heyward (Age 27)
There was a Phillies prospect dude a few weeks ago who said he hadn't seen how bad Zobrist's 2017 season had been so far and noted that the Cubs "big splashes" in free agency have sucked, also citing Lester's 2017 campaign. I found that a very weird analysis and it only really applies to Heyward, and it also only applies if you're looking at a strict Dollar/WAR thing and not looking at the Cubs FA signings in context with their payroll flexibility. They signed Zobrist to go for broke in 2016 and it worked, anything else he does is gravy and their stacked with internal options at 2B as he declines. Lackey got basically 2 years at the qualifying offer rate and delivered as a league average dude. Lester's been worth more than he's been paid so far (Fangraphs has him at 96 million in production so far, he's been paid 55 mildo). The only actual whiff has been Heyward, but again paying Heyward 23 million to produce 1.5 wins is easier to swallow when you've built a roster where Kris Bryant gets 1 million to produce almost 7 wins.
Quote from: SKO on October 13, 2017, 03:26:10 PM
... paying Heyward 23 million to produce 1.5 wins is easier to swallow when you've built a roster where Kris Bryant gets 1 million to produce almost 7 wins.
As someone whose 50+ years career has been the representation of working people, that makes me feel guilty.
Quote from: SKO on October 13, 2017, 02:37:49 PM
-Three straight 90+ win seasons (first time since 1928-1930)
-Three straight postseason appearances (first time since 1906-1908)
-Three straight years winning at least one postseason series (not done since...ever)
-Best record in baseball since start of 2015
Oh and for what it's worth even after losing on purpose for the first 3 years of the Epstein Era the Cubs are now well over .500 in his tenure as GM anyway (492-479).
I guess this is that "sustained success" thing they were talking about.
The plan sucks. How many more tears, Theo?
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on October 13, 2017, 02:53:50 PM
Quote from: SKO on October 13, 2017, 02:37:49 PM
-Three straight 90+ win seasons (first time since 1928-1930)
-Three straight postseason appearances (first time since 1906-1908)
-Three straight years winning at least one postseason series (not done since...ever)
-Best record in baseball since start of 2015
Oh and for what it's worth even after losing on purpose for the first 3 years of the Epstein Era the Cubs are now well over .500 in his tenure as GM anyway (492-479).
I guess this is that "sustained success" thing they were talking about.
How's this for keeping it going for a bit...
C- Contreras (age 25)
1B - Rizzo (age 27)
2B Baez (Age 24)
SS - Russell (Age 23)
3B - Bryant (Age 25)
LF - Schwarber (Age 24)/Happ (Age 22)
CF - Almora (Age 23)
RF - Heyward (Age 27)
Yeah -- I'm pretty sure the Cubs are fielding the youngest team in the playoffs this year.
Quote from: Canadouche on October 13, 2017, 04:10:44 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on October 13, 2017, 02:53:50 PM
Quote from: SKO on October 13, 2017, 02:37:49 PM
-Three straight 90+ win seasons (first time since 1928-1930)
-Three straight postseason appearances (first time since 1906-1908)
-Three straight years winning at least one postseason series (not done since...ever)
-Best record in baseball since start of 2015
Oh and for what it's worth even after losing on purpose for the first 3 years of the Epstein Era the Cubs are now well over .500 in his tenure as GM anyway (492-479).
I guess this is that "sustained success" thing they were talking about.
How's this for keeping it going for a bit...
C- Contreras (age 25)
1B - Rizzo (age 27)
2B Baez (Age 24)
SS - Russell (Age 23)
3B - Bryant (Age 25)
LF - Schwarber (Age 24)/Happ (Age 22)
CF - Almora (Age 23)
RF - Heyward (Age 27)
Yeah -- I'm pretty sure the Cubs are fielding the youngest team in the playoffs this year.
Guessing the pitching staff & Zobrist skew the average age pretty damn high.