The Cubs organization=IDIOTS!

[17 Seconds]

That game did not tax our bullpen

 

Well now I'm sold. Well done.

[manbearcub]

Actually, what's "tedious" is the fact that you're so hung up on the word "completely" in his post. His point was that it burned the bullpen, which it did. Whether you want to admit it or not, extra innings pitched by ANY of your relievers at this point of the season are unwanted. Just because Heilman sucks doesn't mean his future performance is irrelevant.

No, it did not "burn" the bullpen, completely or in any other way.

 

Six guys were available to pitch the next day (Guzman Marmol Gregg Stevens Heilman Grabow).

 

By your logic, any bullpen that does not have a full complement of all seven arms available every single day is "burned". Complete and utter nonsense.

 

You keep ignoring the main point over and over again. Thisis what you constantly do. You pick and choose which facts and points you want to9 include in your posts. You railor the facts to your argument.

 

JUST BECAUSE A RELIEVER WAS AVAILABLE THE NEXT DAY DOESN'T MEAN THAT HIS INNINGS WERE IRRELEVANT.

 

I'll say this for the THIRD time. Every inning on your bullpen this late in the season is relevant. Even to your crappy relievers. This is when bullpens wear down.

 

Now let's see if you ignore it again.

 

Was it Heilman's 1 inning or Grabow's 1 inning that put the bullpen over the edge?

[Vanilla Ice]

Actually, what's "tedious" is the fact that you're so hung up on the word "completely" in his post. His point was that it burned the bullpen, which it did. Whether you want to admit it or not, extra innings pitched by ANY of your relievers at this point of the season are unwanted. Just because Heilman sucks doesn't mean his future performance is irrelevant.

No, it did not "burn" the bullpen, completely or in any other way.

 

Six guys were available to pitch the next day (Guzman Marmol Gregg Stevens Heilman Grabow).

 

By your logic, any bullpen that does not have a full complement of all seven arms available every single day is "burned". Complete and utter nonsense.

 

You keep ignoring the main point over and over again. Thisis what you constantly do. You pick and choose which facts and points you want to9 include in your posts. You railor the facts to your argument.

 

JUST BECAUSE A RELIEVER WAS AVAILABLE THE NEXT DAY DOESN'T MEAN THAT HIS INNINGS WERE IRRELEVANT.

 

I'll say this for the THIRD time. Every inning on your bullpen this late in the season is relevant. Even to your crappy relievers. This is when bullpens wear down.

 

Now let's see if you ignore it again.

 

Was it Heilman's 1 inning or Grabow's 1 inning that put the bullpen over the edge?

It was Samardzija's 4 innings. Seriously, by this logic every single game taxes our bullpen

[manbearcub]

Actually, what's "tedious" is the fact that you're so hung up on the word "completely" in his post. His point was that it burned the bullpen, which it did. Whether you want to admit it or not, extra innings pitched by ANY of your relievers at this point of the season are unwanted. Just because Heilman sucks doesn't mean his future performance is irrelevant.

No, it did not "burn" the bullpen, completely or in any other way.

 

Six guys were available to pitch the next day (Guzman Marmol Gregg Stevens Heilman Grabow).

 

By your logic, any bullpen that does not have a full complement of all seven arms available every single day is "burned". Complete and utter nonsense.

 

You keep ignoring the main point over and over again. Thisis what you constantly do. You pick and choose which facts and points you want to9 include in your posts. You railor the facts to your argument.

 

JUST BECAUSE A RELIEVER WAS AVAILABLE THE NEXT DAY DOESN'T MEAN THAT HIS INNINGS WERE IRRELEVANT.

 

I'll say this for the THIRD time. Every inning on your bullpen this late in the season is relevant. Even to your crappy relievers. This is when bullpens wear down.

 

Now let's see if you ignore it again.

 

Was it Heilman's 1 inning or Grabow's 1 inning that put the bullpen over the edge?

It was Samardzija's 4 innings. Seriously, by this logic every single game taxes our bullpen

Yeah, not sure how we would have survived without Samardzija in case of a 10 run lead the next day.

[17 Seconds]

Actually, what's "tedious" is the fact that you're so hung up on the word "completely" in his post. His point was that it burned the bullpen, which it did. Whether you want to admit it or not, extra innings pitched by ANY of your relievers at this point of the season are unwanted. Just because Heilman sucks doesn't mean his future performance is irrelevant.

No, it did not "burn" the bullpen, completely or in any other way.

 

Six guys were available to pitch the next day (Guzman Marmol Gregg Stevens Heilman Grabow).

 

By your logic, any bullpen that does not have a full complement of all seven arms available every single day is "burned". Complete and utter nonsense.

 

You keep ignoring the main point over and over again. Thisis what you constantly do. You pick and choose which facts and points you want to9 include in your posts. You railor the facts to your argument.

 

JUST BECAUSE A RELIEVER WAS AVAILABLE THE NEXT DAY DOESN'T MEAN THAT HIS INNINGS WERE IRRELEVANT.

 

I'll say this for the THIRD time. Every inning on your bullpen this late in the season is relevant. Even to your crappy relievers. This is when bullpens wear down.

 

Now let's see if you ignore it again.

 

Was it Heilman's 1 inning or Grabow's 1 inning that put the bullpen over the edge?

 

Did I say anything close to that?

 

All I said was that every inning pitched by any reliever this late in the season is relevant.

[Vanilla Ice]

So yes, every game taxes the bullpen?

[17 Seconds]

In a sense, yes.

 

I don't know what you're even trying to do here. I wasn't even the one who said it "completely burned the bullpen".

 

I'm just saying that it's foolish to say that extra innings on relievers arms this late in the season don't matter just because they suck.

[loukycub]

i've been at work for every game for this series, so i don't know if it has been mentioned or not:

 

why DIDN'T z get any treatment for his back? if z refused treatment hoping it would get better, it's the team's fault for not making him, especially if it did not get any better over the next 5 days. if the team didn't give him treatment, then they have no business being in major league baseball. in either situation, the organization is still being handled by a bunch of idiots, the only question i have is what percentage did the player play in the idiocy.

[dew1679666265]

i've been at work for every game for this series, so i don't know if it has been mentioned or not:

 

why DIDN'T z get any treatment for his back? if z refused treatment hoping it would get better, it's the team's fault for not making him, especially if it did not get any better over the next 5 days. if the team didn't give him treatment, then they have no business being in major league baseball. in either situation, the organization is still being handled by a bunch of idiots, the only question i have is what percentage did the player play in the idiocy.

 

From the sound of it, the back was not an issue all week and didn't bother him. He apparently re-aggravated it sometime before the game (probably on a BP swing or something) and couldn't pitch.

 

If that's the case, there's no sense in treating his back if it's not bothering him at all.

[loukycub]

if that's the case, then i really don't see a point to this thread. getting 4 innings out of one bullpen arm and working from there (only burning, what 3 more arms, 2 of which would have gotten the same amount of work if carlos had pitched anyway maybe?) is pretty good pen management considering the circumstances. i would have moved everyone up a day and tried to see if if or until i could find someone in the farm who could spot start either saturday, sunday, or today and keep that one on normal rest but that's just me and i'm not a baseball insider.

 

however if the title referring to signings, like for miles, or for bradley to be a power bat, or for trading derosa and not getting a quality replacement then it would be highly appropriate.

[Keener98]

i've been at work for every game for this series, so i don't know if it has been mentioned or not:

 

why DIDN'T z get any treatment for his back? if z refused treatment hoping it would get better, it's the team's fault for not making him, especially if it did not get any better over the next 5 days. if the team didn't give him treatment, then they have no business being in major league baseball. in either situation, the organization is still being handled by a bunch of idiots, the only question i have is what percentage did the player play in the idiocy.

 

From the sound of it, the back was not an issue all week and didn't bother him. He apparently re-aggravated it sometime before the game (probably on a BP swing or something) and couldn't pitch.

 

If that's the case, there's no sense in treating his back if it's not bothering him at all.

 

I disagree with that. If your ace pitcher, who you owe a lot of money too, has to leave a game early because of back problems, it only makes sense to be precautionary and give his back some treatment. I dont care if Z said he felt better than ever, injuries dont usually just disappear, so be on the safe side and give him some treatment.

[dew1679666265]

i've been at work for every game for this series, so i don't know if it has been mentioned or not:

 

why DIDN'T z get any treatment for his back? if z refused treatment hoping it would get better, it's the team's fault for not making him, especially if it did not get any better over the next 5 days. if the team didn't give him treatment, then they have no business being in major league baseball. in either situation, the organization is still being handled by a bunch of idiots, the only question i have is what percentage did the player play in the idiocy.

 

From the sound of it, the back was not an issue all week and didn't bother him. He apparently re-aggravated it sometime before the game (probably on a BP swing or something) and couldn't pitch.

 

If that's the case, there's no sense in treating his back if it's not bothering him at all.

 

I disagree with that. If your ace pitcher, who you owe a lot of money too, has to leave a game early because of back problems, it only makes sense to be precautionary and give his back some treatment. I dont care if Z said he felt better than ever, injuries dont usually just disappear, so be on the safe side and give him some treatment.

 

If there's no lasting pain, though, what do you treat? I don't know exactly what the pain was that he felt, but if it was just a twinge of pain and they decided to pull him but then it got better - what treatment should they have done?

 

And the amount of money the Cubs are paying him is rather meaningless in this. Had he gone out on the mound despite feeling some pain and then ripped some muscle in his back and was out for the year, then yeah that's being careless with him. But his back felt fine (apparently) all week, but then was re-aggravated before the game, so they didn't even let him take the mound. From what I can tell, they were being as cautious with him as they could be.

[Fred Hornkohl]

One point seems to glossed over in this discussion; the right of first refusal of medical treatment always rests with the patient. There's no way the CUBS can compel Carlos to undergo any medical treatment if he doesn't want it.

[dew1679666265]

One point seems to glossed over in this discussion; the right of first refusal of medical treatment always rests with the patient. There's no way the CUBS can compel Carlos to undergo any medical treatment if he doesn't want it.

 

That's a good point. I haven't heard if they tried or not, but if he refused, then (as you said) there's nothing the Cubs could have done.

[davearm2]

In a sense, yes.

 

I don't know what you're even trying to do here. I wasn't even the one who said it "completely burned the bullpen".

 

I'm just saying that it's foolish to say that extra innings on relievers arms this late in the season don't matter just because they suck.

BUT THERE WEREN'T EXTRA INNINGS PUT ON THE BULLPEN.

 

Marshall 2

Grabow 1

Heilman 1

Guzman 0

Marmol 0

Gregg 0

Stevens 0

 

6 of 7 arms available the following day.

 

That's much closer to a fresh bullpen than a "burned" bullpen.

 

This whole "every inning pitched by any reliever this late in the season is relevant" nonsense has been smacked straight back in your face already, so no need for me to pile on there.

[17 Seconds]

In a sense, yes.

 

I don't know what you're even trying to do here. I wasn't even the one who said it "completely burned the bullpen".

 

I'm just saying that it's foolish to say that extra innings on relievers arms this late in the season don't matter just because they suck.

BUT THERE WEREN'T EXTRA INNINGS PUT ON THE BULLPEN.

 

Marshall 2

Grabow 1

Heilman 1

Guzman 0

Marmol 0

Gregg 0

Stevens 0

 

6 of 7 arms available the following day.

 

That's much closer to a fresh bullpen than a "burned" bullpen.

 

This whole "every inning pitched by any reliever this late in the season is relevant" nonsense has been smacked straight back in your face already, so no need for me to pile on there.

 

And once again you ignore the point

 

An inning that wouldn't have been pitched if the start had avtually gone 6-7 innings= AN EXTRA INNING PITCHED

 

I really don't understand why it's so hard for you to explain. You keep bringing up the "they still could have pitched the next day" stuff over and over again, when that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

 

I don't even care though. My point wasn't to argue this, it was just to point out that you conveniently left out Marshall, because you constantly pick and choose with parts of an argument you want to mention, and then ignore the parts that hurt your argument.

 

Oh well, back to OH to talk up Jim Hendry and act like the Cubs authority

[imb]

Oh well, back to OH to talk up Jim Hendry and act like the Cubs authority

 

 

hahaha, every damn time

[17 Seconds]

what

[UMFan83]

One point seems to glossed over in this discussion; the right of first refusal of medical treatment always rests with the patient. There's no way the CUBS can compel Carlos to undergo any medical treatment if he doesn't want it.

 

It's true, but if he admits he's hurt and refuses treatment, he looks like an idiot and the real story comes to light by now.

[davearm2]

In a sense, yes.

 

I don't know what you're even trying to do here. I wasn't even the one who said it "completely burned the bullpen".

 

I'm just saying that it's foolish to say that extra innings on relievers arms this late in the season don't matter just because they suck.

BUT THERE WEREN'T EXTRA INNINGS PUT ON THE BULLPEN.

 

Marshall 2

Grabow 1

Heilman 1

Guzman 0

Marmol 0

Gregg 0

Stevens 0

 

6 of 7 arms available the following day.

 

That's much closer to a fresh bullpen than a "burned" bullpen.

 

This whole "every inning pitched by any reliever this late in the season is relevant" nonsense has been smacked straight back in your face already, so no need for me to pile on there.

 

And once again you ignore the point

 

An inning that wouldn't have been pitched if the start had avtually gone 6-7 innings= AN EXTRA INNING PITCHED

 

I really don't understand why it's so hard for you to explain. You keep bringing up the "they still could have pitched the next day" stuff over and over again, when that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

 

I don't even care though. My point wasn't to argue this, it was just to point out that you conveniently left out Marshall, because you constantly pick and choose with parts of an argument you want to mention, and then ignore the parts that hurt your argument.

 

Oh well, back to OH to talk up Jim Hendry and act like the Cubs authority

Huh? I missed the point?

 

You said, "it's foolish to say that extra innings on relievers arms this late in the season don't matter." I bolded it for you just so you're sure to see it.

 

In response to that mischaracterization, I once again corrected you by pointing out that no extra innings were put on relievers arms in the game we're discussing here. In fact three of the Cubs' best relievers didn't even appear in the game, while two other regulars pitched only one inning each.

 

So where's this crippling overuse you keep harping on?

[17 Seconds]

Let me explain this for the 28526h time

 

An inning pitched that wouldn't have been pitched = an extra inning

 

Maybe you grasp it this time

 

And I never said anything about crippling overuse.

[davearm2]

So you're back to, "every game burns the bullpen". Got it.

 

Or wait, was it "every game taxes the bullpen?" I'm sure there's an enormous difference in your head, so I want to be sure to get it straight.

[Fred Hornkohl]

This thread isn't going anywhere.

 

Good night.