Tigers sign Prince - 9/214 - Heyman

[Little Slide Rooter]

We still stinks. And Prince Fielder is not fat, he's oval shaped. But I give Theo credit here as he has stuck to his guns about rebuilding and not just paying for top tier free agents just because.

 

All that said, this could be a very, very long season or two. Kinda stinks we have to go through a long winter knowing our team is going to be horrid in 2012.

 

Yep....most definitely this guy is also Hollandsworth's Mug...lmfao...at least try to use different terminology dude

 

Wasn't the over usage of the we stinks phrase a trademark of another poster whose name eludes me that used to constantly post random images and he later turned out to be amother incarnation of CubsGM?

[Little Slide Rooter]

I'm still holding out hope that Epstein will somehow field a decent team this year. but its funny, if Hendry had made the moves Epstein has made so far everyone would be calling for his head. Thus far his moves have been head scratching material. Signing an aging right fielder as opposed to going with the guy who looks major league ready (Brett Jackson) so we can get more left handed (and yes he said that in the tribune), resigning Reed Johnson for 1.5 million when he is very unlikely to repeat the numbers he put up last year, is old, and easily replaceble with a minimum salary guy. Trading Marshall to a division rival only to get some filler prospects and sean marshall lite back? Claiming Jeff Bianchi from the royals and putting him on the 40 man roster is but another wtf move. The ian stewart move was more what I was expecting from Epstein/Hoyer.

 

I dont understand the idea of total rebuild. A few savy moves that are cost effective could easily make this team compete for the central. Kendry morales, plus a starter, and cespedes gives us a shot. beyond that the playoffs are a crap shoot and many wild card teams go very far. If they do choose to go the total rebuild route and avoid free agency there will be fireworks at the cubs convention. I just dont think they are that foolish to underestimate the fan base, ticket sales, etc. I hope I'm right

 

Claiming Bianchi wasn't so much a wtf move as the fact that we couldn't give Ryan Flaherty a roster spot but we have him one.

[CyHawk_Cub]

We still stinks. And Prince Fielder is not fat, he's oval shaped. But I give Theo credit here as he has stuck to his guns about rebuilding and not just paying for top tier free agents just because.

 

All that said, this could be a very, very long season or two. Kinda stinks we have to go through a long winter knowing our team is going to be horrid in 2012.

 

Yep....most definitely this guy is also Hollandsworth's Mug...lmfao...at least try to use different terminology dude

 

Wasn't the over usage of the we stinks phrase a trademark of another poster whose name eludes me that used to constantly post random images and he later turned out to be amother incarnation of CubsGM?

 

I bolded "oval shaped" b/c that's something HM has said over & over & over again like some sort of fixation.

[bcl412]

It's kind of frustrating that we're going the rebuilding route (if true) considering who the other teams in the division are losing. Maybe we're trying to rebuild while at the same time hoping to steal a weak division in the next couple of years. Not exactly what I want from a team of our market size but I'm just trying to remain optimistic.

[apete6]

It's kind of frustrating that we're going the rebuilding route (if true) considering who the other teams in the division are losing. Maybe we're trying to rebuild while at the same time hoping to steal a weak division in the next couple of years. Not exactly what I want from a team of our market size but I'm just trying to remain optimistic.

 

Same here. There's going to be some bad baseball played in the NL Central next year and possibly the few years after that. The Reds are probably the favorites right now.

[Little Slide Rooter]

It's kind of frustrating that we're going the rebuilding route (if true) considering who the other teams in the division are losing. Maybe we're trying to rebuild while at the same time hoping to steal a weak division in the next couple of years. Not exactly what I want from a team of our market size but I'm just trying to remain optimistic.

 

The big difference is that The Cubs should be a big fish in a small pond, not to mention the fact that they have the highest ticket prices in baseball, so good luck getting people to pay that much to see Reed Johnson, Darwin Barney, and Brian LaHair.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Same here. There's going to be some bad baseball played in the NL Central next year and possibly the few years after that. The Reds are probably the favorites right now.

 

The Brewers still look really good to me and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them win 90+ games.

[apete6]

Same here. There's going to be some bad baseball played in the NL Central next year and possibly the few years after that. The Reds are probably the favorites right now.

 

The Brewers still look really good to me and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them win 90+ games.

 

Even without 50 games of Ryan Braun?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Same here. There's going to be some bad baseball played in the NL Central next year and possibly the few years after that. The Reds are probably the favorites right now.

 

The Brewers still look really good to me and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them win 90+ games.

 

Even without 50 games of Ryan Braun?

 

Yes. The upgrades to the left side of their infield were significant, they have some nice prospects they can plug in, and they didn't lose Francisco Rodriguez like expected.

[Guest]

I'd be surprised to see them win 90+ games without Braun for 1/3 of the year and without Fielder.

 

Given his last few years, Aramis could easily tank, too.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Same here. There's going to be some bad baseball played in the NL Central next year and possibly the few years after that. The Reds are probably the favorites right now.

 

The Brewers still look really good to me and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them win 90+ games.

 

Even without 50 games of Ryan Braun?

 

Yes. The upgrades to the left side of their infield were significant, they have some nice prospects they can plug in, and they didn't lose Francisco Rodriguez like expected.

 

Even without Braun, their lineup could be something like Japanese guy, Morgan, Ramirez, Hart, Weeks, Gamel, LuCroy, Izturis. Not awe inspiring, but with a rotation of Gallardo, Greinke, Marcum, and Wolf and K Rod and Axford(assuming he doesn't turn into Kolb or Turnbow) at the end of the pen they should be able to compete and certainly keep above water until Braun comes back as especially if a good chunk of their games are against the Cubs, Pirates, Astros, and Cardinals(assuming they don't make any big acquisitions)

[woodchip2153]

This seems like the best place for this.

 

http://www.athleticsnation.com/2011/12/20/2636406/acquiring-power-isnt-more-valuable-when-a-team-has-none

 

As the headline says power isn't more valuable when team lacks it.

[Guest]

Same here. There's going to be some bad baseball played in the NL Central next year and possibly the few years after that. The Reds are probably the favorites right now.

 

The Brewers still look really good to me and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them win 90+ games.

 

Even without 50 games of Ryan Braun?

 

Yes. The upgrades to the left side of their infield were significant, they have some nice prospects they can plug in, and they didn't lose Francisco Rodriguez like expected.

 

On the whole, they've gotten worse this offseason from a 90 win pythagorean, and they aren't going to get 155 starts(155!!!!) from their top 5 starters again. I mean, it's not like the Nationals winning 90 games, but they aren't all that likely to break that threshold.

[jersey cubs fan]

This seems like the best place for this.

 

http://www.athleticsnation.com/2011/12/20/2636406/acquiring-power-isnt-more-valuable-when-a-team-has-none

 

As the headline says power isn't more valuable when team lacks it.

 

But it's still valuable. That doesn't address the issue that power is still useful and you should probably have it. All it's saying is that a weak hitting team shouldn't emphasize acquiring power more desperately than an already powerful team. But that's kind of pointless.

[woodchip2153]

This seems like the best place for this.

 

http://www.athleticsnation.com/2011/12/20/2636406/acquiring-power-isnt-more-valuable-when-a-team-has-none

 

As the headline says power isn't more valuable when team lacks it.

 

But it's still valuable. That doesn't address the issue that power is still useful and you should probably have it. All it's saying is that a weak hitting team shouldn't emphasize acquiring power more desperately than an already powerful team. But that's kind of pointless.

 

Weren't people saying in this thread that we should ignore fielder's other faults because he supplies power which this team so desperately needs? This says we need good hitters, it doesn't matter how a player gets a wOBA of .380 only that he has a wOBA of .380.

[jersey cubs fan]

This seems like the best place for this.

 

http://www.athleticsnation.com/2011/12/20/2636406/acquiring-power-isnt-more-valuable-when-a-team-has-none

 

As the headline says power isn't more valuable when team lacks it.

 

But it's still valuable. That doesn't address the issue that power is still useful and you should probably have it. All it's saying is that a weak hitting team shouldn't emphasize acquiring power more desperately than an already powerful team. But that's kind of pointless.

 

Weren't people saying in this thread that we should ignore fielder's other faults because he supplies power which this team so desperately needs? This says we need good hitters, it doesn't matter how a player gets a wOBA of .380 only that he has a wOBA of .380.

 

Nobody said ignore things. They said he's good and a perfect fit for a team that lacks a 1B of any kind.

[Little Slide Rooter]

This seems like the best place for this.

 

http://www.athleticsnation.com/2011/12/20/2636406/acquiring-power-isnt-more-valuable-when-a-team-has-none

 

As the headline says power isn't more valuable when team lacks it.

 

But it's still valuable. That doesn't address the issue that power is still useful and you should probably have it. All it's saying is that a weak hitting team shouldn't emphasize acquiring power more desperately than an already powerful team. But that's kind of pointless.

 

Weren't people saying in this thread that we should ignore fielder's other faults because he supplies power which this team so desperately needs? This says we need good hitters, it doesn't matter how a player gets a wOBA of .380 only that he has a wOBA of .380.

 

Nobody said ignore things. They said he's good and a perfect fit for a team that lacks a 1B of any kind.

 

It also doesn't emphasize the fact that The Cubs have money to build around Fielder ofer the next 2-3 years where as if The A's were to sign him they wouldn't be able to sign another free agent for the next 12 years.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Nobody said ignore things. They said he's good and a perfect fit for a team that lacks a 1B of any kind.

 

We need him because we need a good first baseman = good argument

 

We need him because we need power = bad argument.

 

I've heard both argued.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Nobody said ignore things. They said he's good and a perfect fit for a team that lacks a 1B of any kind.

 

We need him because we need a good first baseman = good argument

 

We need him because we need power = bad argument.

 

I've heard both argued.

 

But he's not a good 1st baseman but he does have power, which we need.

[Guest]

Nobody said ignore things. They said he's good and a perfect fit for a team that lacks a 1B of any kind.

 

We need him because we need a good first baseman = good argument

 

We need him because we need power = bad argument.

 

I've heard both argued.

 

 

Yep.

 

I don't care if we have a lot of power or not (obviously, I mean this in relative terms). We need good hitters. Power is one way of producing runs. A pretty good one, at that. But having productive offensive players is the bottom line.

[Guest]

Nobody said ignore things. They said he's good and a perfect fit for a team that lacks a 1B of any kind.

 

We need him because we need a good first baseman = good argument

 

We need him because we need power = bad argument.

 

I've heard both argued.

 

But he's not a good 1st baseman but he does have power, which we need.

 

We don't need or not need power. We need good hitters.

[davearm2]

Nobody said ignore things. They said he's good and a perfect fit for a team that lacks a 1B of any kind.

 

We need him because we need a good first baseman = good argument

 

We need him because we need power = bad argument.

 

I've heard both argued.

The first is not even a good argument.

 

The Cubs don't need a good first baseman, per se.

 

The Cubs need good players, period. There's no specific positional mandate, because there are average or worse players pretty much all over the field, and plenty of flexibility to move guys as needed to accommodate new additions.

[jersey cubs fan]

We don't need or not need power. We need good hitters.

 

Which is something we don't have.

[Guest]

We don't need or not need power. We need good hitters.

 

Which is something we don't have.

 

No argument here.

[Little Slide Rooter]

We don't need or not need power. We need good hitters.

 

Which is something we don't have.

 

No argument here.

 

Which Prince Fielder is as well. I guess I should have specified. Brian LaHair has power. Prince Fielder is a good hitter who has power.