It's time for change.

[dew1679666265]

That gets you *into* the post season, but it is not a measure of you belonging there.

 

Here's a question for you:

 

What are your feelings on John Schuerholz, former GM of the Braves? Would you take him over Hendry, if given the chance?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

 

 

Good teams win playoff games. Cheering and celebrating regular season records while being swept out of the playoffs is desperation. I'm not big on this "gosh gee whiz go get 'em next year guyz" lovable loser mentality. I'm more results oriented.

 

0-6 when it counted.

 

Not a good team.

 

Good teams are best proven over 162 games, not six.

 

No one here is happy about how last season ended, but to call a 97-win team not good is being obtuse at the best and mentally handicapped at the worst. They were a good team that failed when it mattered most. I'll agree with that. But frankly, over 162 games they were the best team in the National League. Build the best team over the long haul is about the only thing you can do. You cannot determine when the hot streaks will come or not come.

 

Just take this season as an example. If you judged who was better between the Cubs and Padres at this time last week, the Cubs had just finished a three game sweep in which they manhandled the Padres in every way imagineable. Fast forward to today, and everyone would say the Padres are the better team.

 

You have to take a season in its totality. The Cubs were a very good team last year. The failed at the wrong time, certainly. But stop saying they were a bad team, because you're wrong there.

[Larry Horse]

The Cubs are the epitome of a "driving range golfer". They look great until they are on the course, then they are hooking and slicing all over the place.

 

I believe this is the first golf analogy used to describe the Cubs, but it just popped into my head while reading this thread.

[Arnold Layne]

 

Good teams are best proven over 162 games, not six.

 

No one here is happy about how last season ended, but to call a 97-win team not good is being obtuse at the best and mentally handicapped at the worst. They were a good team that failed when it mattered most. I'll agree with that. But frankly, over 162 games they were the best team in the National League. Build the best team over the long haul is about the only thing you can do. You cannot determine when the hot streaks will come or not come.

 

Just take this season as an example. If you judged who was better between the Cubs and Padres at this time last week, the Cubs had just finished a three game sweep in which they manhandled the Padres in every way imagineable. Fast forward to today, and everyone would say the Padres are the better team.

 

You have to take a season in its totality. The Cubs were a very good team last year. The failed at the wrong time, certainly. But stop saying they were a bad team, because you're wrong there.

 

 

If you worked at a company and did well securing sales all year, but then every year at a certain point the contracts fell apart due to your own mishaps, would you call yourself a good salesman?

 

Wouldn't your boss ultimately demote or fire you?

 

I highly suggest anyone, *anyone* who is championing a 97 win season that resulted in getting destroyed in the NLDS please watch this clip. This is how the real world works:

 

 

You know what you keep telling me? You keep telling me "the leads are no good! But...these leads are no good!"

 

"But...but..we won 97 games!"

 

Who cares! It means nothing. It has no meaning or impact on anything.

 

Gah...we really need to get rid of this lovable loser thing. So many people are apologizing for every little aspect of the Cubs.

 

"But...97 wins!"

 

Means nothing.

 

Close the deal or enjoy the steak knives.

[A-Cal]

The Cubs are the epitome of a "driving range golfer". They look great until they are on the course, then they are hooking and slicing all over the place.

 

I believe this is the first golf analogy used to describe the Cubs, but it just popped into my head while reading this thread.

 

lol...it sure does sum up the past two seasons

 

oh and for the record, i have wanted hendry gone for quite some time now

 

his contracts are flat out ridiculous

[dew1679666265]

The Cubs are the epitome of a "driving range golfer". They look great until they are on the course, then they are hooking and slicing all over the place.

 

I believe this is the first golf analogy used to describe the Cubs, but it just popped into my head while reading this thread.

 

Great teams fail in the postseason all the time. It happens.

 

Saying last year's Cubs team wasn't good is like saying the Yankees teams of 2005-2007 (won 286 games over 3 years, but lost in the ALDS each year) were not good or that the Oakland As of the early 2000s (392 wins over 4 seasons but four ALDS losses) were not good teams. Interestingly, both those GMs (Cashman of the Yankees and Beane of the As) are still there.

 

Those were great teams that didn't catch the breaks in short series. It happens. In all sports (last year's Tennessee Titans, best record in the AFC but lost in the first game of the playoffs). It doesn't have to be anybody's fault.

Edited May 25, 2009 by dew

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

So, in your mind this team wasn't good enough because they failed in the post season. To remedy the problem we'll make a team of post season heroes.

 

We should then trade Theriot for David Eckstein. Get rid of Dempster and replace him with Suppan, because he was so good in the post season. Trade Soto to the White Sox for A.J. He played well in that one series.

 

Continue to take that mindset...and you won't have a 97 win team. Which is good, because that doesn't matter. You'll have a team full of "play-off performers." The only problem is that none of those guys will get to the post season because the 97 win team will now be an 84 win team and miss the playoffs by 6 games.

[Arnold Layne]

Great teams fail in the postseason all the time. It happens.

 

They didn't fail, they didn't even show up. It's not like they won a couple games and lost on a bad call, or even put up a fight for one game. They played the exact same two NLDS's back to back. They imploded defensively, the starting pitching was mediocre and the hitting non-existent.

 

Saying last year's Cubs team wasn't good is like saying the Yankees teams of 2005-2007 (won 286 games over 3 years, but lost in the ALDS each year) were not good or that the Oakland As of the early 2000s (392 wins over 4 seasons but four ALDS losses) were not good teams. Interestingly, both those GMs (Cashman of the Yankees and Beane of the As) are still there.

 

Sorry, I don't remember the teams that lose NL/ALDS's.

 

 

 

Those were great teams that didn't catch the breaks in short series.

 

 

You aren't implying that the Cubs are 0-6 in the NLDS because they didn't catch any breaks, are you? Because that had nothing to do with it.

[dew1679666265]

Great teams fail in the postseason all the time. It happens.

 

They didn't fail, they didn't even show up. It's not like they won a couple games and lost on a bad call, or even put up a fight for one game. They played the exact same two NLDS's back to back. They imploded defensively, the starting pitching was mediocre and the hitting non-existent.

 

This is all true. They played awful for three games. But they also played terrific for 97 games. Which is more indicative of success?

 

Saying last year's Cubs team wasn't good is like saying the Yankees teams of 2005-2007 (won 286 games over 3 years, but lost in the ALDS each year) were not good or that the Oakland As of the early 2000s (392 wins over 4 seasons but four ALDS losses) were not good teams. Interestingly, both those GMs (Cashman of the Yankees and Beane of the As) are still there.

 

Sorry, I don't remember the teams that lose NL/ALDS's.

 

You not remembering them doesn't mean they weren't great teams. They were.

 

Those were great teams that didn't catch the breaks in short series.

 

You aren't implying that the Cubs are 0-6 in the NLDS because they didn't catch any breaks, are you? Because that had nothing to do with it.

 

I'm stating they the Cubs went 0-6 in the playoffs because they hit a cold streak at the wrong time. It happens.

 

The Braves won 14 straight division titles and 1 World Series title in that stretch. They did that with Hall of Famers in the rotation (Smoltz, Maddux, Glavine), a Hall of Famer on offense (Chipper Jones) and other great players on offense (Rafael Furcal, Andruw Jones, Andres Galarraga, David Justice, Ron Gant, Brian McCann, Ryan Klesko, etc.). Those weren't great teams?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Great teams fail in the postseason all the time. It happens.

 

They didn't fail, they didn't even show up. It's not like they won a couple games and lost on a bad call, or even put up a fight for one game. They played the exact same two NLDS's back to back. They imploded defensively, the starting pitching was mediocre and the hitting non-existent.

 

This is all true. They played awful for three games. But they also played terrific for 97 games. Which is more indicative of success?

 

Saying last year's Cubs team wasn't good is like saying the Yankees teams of 2005-2007 (won 286 games over 3 years, but lost in the ALDS each year) were not good or that the Oakland As of the early 2000s (392 wins over 4 seasons but four ALDS losses) were not good teams. Interestingly, both those GMs (Cashman of the Yankees and Beane of the As) are still there.

 

Sorry, I don't remember the teams that lose NL/ALDS's.

 

You not remembering them doesn't mean they weren't great teams. They were.

 

Those were great teams that didn't catch the breaks in short series.

 

You aren't implying that the Cubs are 0-6 in the NLDS because they didn't catch any breaks, are you? Because that had nothing to do with it.

 

I'm stating they the Cubs went 0-6 in the playoffs because they hit a cold streak at the wrong time. It happens.

 

The Braves won 14 straight division titles and 1 World Series title in that stretch. They did that with Hall of Famers in the rotation (Smoltz, Maddux, Glavine), a Hall of Famer on offense (Chipper Jones) and other great players on offense (Rafael Furcal, Andruw Jones, Andres Galarraga, David Justice, Ron Gant, Brian McCann, Ryan Klesko, etc.). Those weren't great teams?

 

 

Apparently not. All those guys need to enjoy the steak knives.

[dew1679666265]

Apparently not. All those guys need to enjoy the steak knives.

 

I'd take any of those Braves teams 10 times out of 10 over the most recent 80-something win Cardinals WS team if I was trying to win a title.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Apparently not. All those guys need to enjoy the steak knives.

 

I'd take any of those Braves teams 10 times out of 10 over the most recent 80-something win Cardinals WS team if I was trying to win a title.

 

I agree. The best you can do is build for the regular season and then hope the players perform on the bigger stage.

[dew1679666265]

Apparently not. All those guys need to enjoy the steak knives.

 

I'd take any of those Braves teams 10 times out of 10 over the most recent 80-something win Cardinals WS team if I was trying to win a title.

 

I agree. The best you can do is build for the regular season and then hope the players perform on the bigger stage.

 

There's just no magic formula to have guys get hot in the postseason. If they're cold, they'll be beaten by other very good to great teams. If they're hot, they'll go a long way. In short series, there's really not much that can be done.

[Outshined_One]

Has anything substantive been proposed yet regarding how a team should be built for post-season success beyond cliches and movie clips that sparked a generation of jackass businessmen who think they can increase office productivity simply by grandstanding and threatening to fire everyone?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Oh...and I love how his "real world" clip is from a fictional movie.

 

I think from now on, I'm going to use for my "real world" example of how to build a championship baseball team the "real world" model from major league. Get an assholish owner who wants you to lose, find a manager from tire world, sign a catcher with bad knees, and then get a bunch of guys who have talent but could never make a major league roster, including a flamethrowing ex-con...and viola! World Series baby!

[Larry Horse]

I have posted this before, but I will post it again.....you can bring up the failures of the Yankees and how the Braves only won 1 WS title out of all those division winning teams, but the fact still remains somehow the Cubs have managed to go 100 years without winning a title. Which means one thing: The Cubs cannot be compared to any of those teams. Any team with one ring is one more than the Cubs have. You can post the great regular season records of the Cubs, but as the saying goes "It don't mean a thing if you ain't got that ring".

 

Now if you are a Cub fan that thinks that winning 97 games and getting swept in the playoffs is somehow a "good year", more power to you. You are the Cubs fans that keep the whole motor chugging. From the believe bracelets to the Cubs convention. Just be aware that there are Cub fans that have seen this movie before and would like something a little more than a 97 win season to be followed up by an exit from the playoffs.

 

Defending this organization doesn't make you any more or better of a Cubs fan than those of us who hold the team to a higher standard.

[Outshined_One]

Oh...and I love how his "real world" clip is from a fictional movie.

 

I think from now on, I'm going to use for my "real world" example of how to build a championship baseball team the "real world" model from major league. Get an assholish owner who wants you to lose, find a manager from tire world, sign a catcher with bad knees, and then get a bunch of guys who have talent but could never make a major league roster, including a flamethrowing ex-con...and viola! World Series baby!

 

That was Major League 2. We should do a casting call for that sucker to fill out our team that way.

 

Kosuke Fukudome can be Isuro Tanaka and Carlos Zambrano can be Rick Vaughn. Who gets the honors of Jack Parkman, Jake Taylor, Rube Baker, and Willie Mays Hayes?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Oh...and I love how his "real world" clip is from a fictional movie.

 

I think from now on, I'm going to use for my "real world" example of how to build a championship baseball team the "real world" model from major league. Get an assholish owner who wants you to lose, find a manager from tire world, sign a catcher with bad knees, and then get a bunch of guys who have talent but could never make a major league roster, including a flamethrowing ex-con...and viola! World Series baby!

 

That was Major League 2. We should do a casting call for that sucker to fill out our team that way.

 

Kosuke Fukudome can be Isuro Tanaka and Carlos Zambrano can be Rick Vaughn. Who gets the honors of Jack Parkman, Jake Taylor, Rube Baker, and Willie Mays Hayes?

 

We had Willie Mays Hays, but we sent him to Baltimore for Ryan Freel.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I have posted this before, but I will post it again.....you can bring up the failures of the Yankees and how the Braves only won 1 WS title out of all those division winning teams, but the fact still remains somehow the Cubs have managed to go 100 years without winning a title. Which means one thing: The Cubs cannot be compared to any of those teams. Any team with one ring is one more than the Cubs have. You can post the great regular season records of the Cubs, but as the saying goes "It don't mean a thing if you ain't got that ring".

 

Now if you are a Cub fan that thinks that winning 97 games and getting swept in the playoffs is somehow a "good year", more power to you. You are the Cubs fans that keep the whole motor chugging. From the believe bracelets to the Cubs convention. Just be aware that there are Cub fans that have seen this movie before and would like something a little more than a 97 win season to be followed up by an exit from the playoffs.

 

Defending this organization doesn't make you any more or better of a Cubs fan than those of us who hold the team to a higher standard.

 

Actually the only Cub fans who could have seen a team that was as strong as the 97 win team (602 winning %) would have had to be alive in 1910. That was the last time a Cub team posted a regular season winning percentage greater than the 602 of last year's team.

 

I'm not happy with the early exit either, but we've seen different Cubs teams than we have in the past. The playoffs are a crap shoot, but if management continues to put together 90+ win teams that make the post season, chances are we will see a championship, and likely more than one.

 

The reason we're at 101 years of futility has nothing to do with fans being happy with teams that win 60 percent of their games, because frankly they Cubs haven't done that. Had they consistently been winning 58% or greater of the games over that span, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

So, while I want the championship. If they continue to win divisions, we'll have one. Maybe not as soon as we'd all like, but it will happen.

 

On the other hand, if we get antsy and begin to run off the architects and players from teams who win 60% of the games in the regular season, we're likely going to wait even longer.

[NCCubFan]

The Cubs have a losing streak's best friend, a home series against the Pirates. If they're still struggling after this series then maybe it will be time to talk about changes.

[Outshined_One]

Defending this organization doesn't make you any more or better of a Cubs fan than those of us who hold the team to a higher standard.

 

I get just as pissed off as anyone else when the Cubs have choked away their postseason hopes. Cripes, check in with my landlords and ask them what damage I've done to my apartments as a result of 2003, 2004, 2007, and 2008.

 

But, there are familiar refrains that keeps popping up in my head when it comes to assembling a team that couldn't choke, especially in terms of the 2008 team...

 

1) What was Jim Hendry supposed to do differently to make the team better?

2) How could Jim Hendry make the team better within the constraints of the resources he had?

 

Hendry doesn't have an unlimited budget. To me, the only argument you can really make is that he should have thrown more after more free agents. However, if the Tribune Company told him he could not add guys like Vlad Guerrero after 2003, Carlos Beltran after 2004, Miguel Tejada after 2007, and CC Sabathia after 2008, then there's no realistic way Hendry could have done it. Moreover, even if Hendry signed every big name free agent, that's still no guarantee that they would produce in the postseason.

 

To me, I don't see the point in criticizing Hendry and the organization as a whole for not putting together a team that's choke-proof in the playoffs. You can't predict slumps and you sure as hell can't predict hot streaks.

[dew1679666265]

I have posted this before, but I will post it again.....you can bring up the failures of the Yankees and how the Braves only won 1 WS title out of all those division winning teams, but the fact still remains somehow the Cubs have managed to go 100 years without winning a title. Which means one thing: The Cubs cannot be compared to any of those teams. Any team with one ring is one more than the Cubs have. You can post the great regular season records of the Cubs, but as the saying goes "It don't mean a thing if you ain't got that ring".

 

The Cubs haven't won any championships in 100 years because they haven't made the playoffs very often in 100 years. If they had made the playoffs as often as the Braves and Yankees have in the past century, the Cubs as well would have had a title or more to their credit.

 

Before you can win championships you have to be able to win consistently in the regular season. The Cubs haven't done that very much in the past 100 years, but they have the past two seasons. If they continue on this path, it's a pretty good bet they'll a ring or rings.

 

Now if you are a Cub fan that thinks that winning 97 games and getting swept in the playoffs is somehow a "good year", more power to you. You are the Cubs fans that keep the whole motor chugging. From the believe bracelets to the Cubs convention. Just be aware that there are Cub fans that have seen this movie before and would like something a little more than a 97 win season to be followed up by an exit from the playoffs.

 

Two years ago was a decent season with a disappointing finish. Last year was a good season with another disappointing finish. Both were steps in the right direction, however, given that we are now establishing regular season success. That should lead to more playoff success and that should lead to World Series championships.

 

I think every person who has posted in this thread wants to see more than a 97-win season and an exit from the playoffs. Do you seriously think there are Cub fans here that don't crave a World Series championship?

 

The only difference between us is how much we're willing to react over a couple of terrible 3-game stretches after a couple of pretty good years.

 

Defending this organization doesn't make you any more or better of a Cubs fan than those of us who hold the team to a higher standard.

 

I hold the team to a very high standard and I think the players/coaches/front office people do as well. No one is content or happy with anything short of a World Series title. But some of us are not willing to demolish a very talented team simply because they had six bad games.

[Outshined_One]

The reason we're at 101 years of futility has nothing to do with fans being happy with teams that win 60 percent of their games, because frankly they Cubs haven't done that. Had they consistently been winning 58% or greater of the games over that span, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

Plus, let's give a clear picture of those 101 years of futility

 

From 1945 to 1966, the Chicago Cubs had three winning seasons. In that span, they finished dead last 6 times.

 

Remember 2004? Remember how everyone made a big deal about it because that was the first time since 1973 the Cubs had posted back to back winning seasons?

 

The reason why the Cubs have not won a WS since 1908 and not been to a WS since 1945 hasn't been because of some stupid curse or bad luck. It's been a result of cheap ownership, woefully terrible player development, and incompetent front office personnel. At the very least, I'm willing to give Jim Hendry and the Tribune Company credit for breaking from the past, doing their damndest to put a contender on the field, and actually making the Cubs competitive on a year to year basis.

 

Yeah, there's still work to do, but as Vance said, if you get a team out there that wins every year, they'll compete for the World Series and likely snag at least one ring. There's not much more you can do aside from putting together good teams year in, year out.

[ArthurVandalay]

I think Arnold's been watching too much ESPN...

[NCCubFan]

Remember 2004? Remember how everyone made a big deal about it because that was the first time since 1973 the Cubs had posted back to back winning seasons?

[nitpick]It was actually 1972. They had winning seasons every year from 1967 through 1972, then beginning with 1973 they didn't have another winning season until 1984 (there was one 81-81 season in that stretch). [/nitpick]