4/25 Cardinals (Lynn) @ LaHair's Cubs (Volstad) 1:20 WGN

[KingCubsFan]

Yeah and I think people might sometimes forget that its possible some of these FAs didnt want to waste 1-3 years playing for a rebuilding team. If the money was right most would, but I dont see the Cubs overpaying to make a 60 win team a 65 win team.

 

By the time the justifications are over, the Cubs heading into the offseason would have been a 30-win team.

 

While I do trust the front office, an elite front office of a big market team should be able to put a winning team on the field and build a strong farm system. I suppose we could have signed Fielder and Darvish or Wilson and re-upped Ramirez to a deal like the Brewers gave him and still have had money for Beltran. All the while, the farm system would look pretty much like it does now assuming that we'd made the trades we did. Unless the money simply wasn't there, with the new IFA and overslot rules, I'm not quite sure what it was saved up for.

We wouldn't have traded for Rizzo if we signed Fielder.

[bcl412]

God I hate him.

[Smack]

63-65, at best

 

lol

 

It's really not out of the question that we could lose 97 games, I'm suprised you think this is funny. If we go up and down the roster, for every player underperforming, you could also find a player not likely to continue at this production rate. Do you really think LaHair is going lead all firstbasemen in OPS by September?

 

WATCH YOUR MOUTH ABOUT LAHAIR

[Little Slide Rooter]

Yeah and I think people might sometimes forget that its possible some of these FAs didnt want to waste 1-3 years playing for a rebuilding team. If the money was right most would, but I dont see the Cubs overpaying to make a 60 win team a 65 win team.

 

By the time the justifications are over, the Cubs heading into the offseason would have been a 30-win team.

 

While I do trust the front office, an elite front office of a big market team should be able to put a winning team on the field and build a strong farm system. I suppose we could have signed Fielder and Darvish or Wilson and re-upped Ramirez to a deal like the Brewers gave him and still have had money for Beltran. All the while, the farm system would look pretty much like it does now assuming that we'd made the trades we did. Unless the money simply wasn't there, with the new IFA and overslot rules, I'm not quite sure what it was saved up for.

We wouldn't have traded for Rizzo if we signed Fielder.

 

No, but we'd have Fielder. and maybe we could have traded Cashner for something else.

[Smack]

Shawn Camp ladies and gentlemen!

[CincyCubsFan]

Dale sure does live him some Shawn Camp!!

[Smack]

Dale sure does live him some Shawn Camp!!

 

He's got to be leading the team in appearances.

[illiniguy]

Dale sure does live him some Shawn Camp!!

 

He's got to be leading the team in appearances.

When we draft the next Strasburg next year we will all have to remember Camp.

[treebird]

Dale sure does live him some Shawn Camp!!

 

He's got to be leading the team in appearances.

 

 

yup

 

2012 Appearances, Leaders, Cubs
Shawn Camp     47
Rafael Dolis    8
Carlos Marmol   8

[Guest]

Lynn had 23 pitches in the 1st inning and then 87 pitches over the next 7 innings. Really let him off the hook.

[manbearcub]

Umps cost us this game!

[bcl412]

Nothing more irritating than a 1-2-3 9th inning.

[squally1313]

63-65, at best

 

lol

 

It's really not out of the question that we could lose 97 games, I'm suprised you think this is funny. If we go up and down the roster, for every player underperforming, you could also find a player not likely to continue at this production rate. Do you really think LaHair is going lead all firstbasemen in OPS by September?

 

Seriously, this is the kind of logic/argument I absolutely hate. You begin by saying that, at best, we can win 65 games, which would give us a record of 65-97. Then when someone dismisses this (granted, without any argument, but still), you come back with it not being out of the question that we could lose 97 games, which, about ten minutes earlier, you said was our best case scenario! Does this piss anyone else off as much as me?

[Theo]

63-65, at best

 

lol

 

It's really not out of the question that we could lose 97 games, I'm suprised you think this is funny. If we go up and down the roster, for every player underperforming, you could also find a player not likely to continue at this production rate. Do you really think LaHair is going lead all firstbasemen in OPS by September?

 

Seriously, this is the kind of logic/argument I absolutely hate. You begin by saying that, at best, we can win 65 games, which would give us a record of 65-97. Then when someone dismisses this (granted, without any argument, but still), you come back with it not being out of the question that we could lose 97 games, which, about ten minutes earlier, you said was our best case scenario! Does this piss anyone else off as much as me?

 

You should really re-consider your priorites in life if it pisses you off THAT much.

[Guancous]

I don't understand these complaints about the Cubs saving money for high value deals. It's not like cash has an expiration date. In fact, it only grows as the front office holds it.

[SouthSideRyan]

I wouldn't say it pisses me off so much as it annoys the piss out of me.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I don't understand these complaints about the Cubs saving money for high value deals. It's not like cash has an expiration date. In fact, it only grows as the front office holds it.

 

Unfortunately, the cost of baseball players seems to be outpacing inflation, so it shrinks in utility.

[squally1313]

63-65, at best

 

lol

 

It's really not out of the question that we could lose 97 games, I'm suprised you think this is funny. If we go up and down the roster, for every player underperforming, you could also find a player not likely to continue at this production rate. Do you really think LaHair is going lead all firstbasemen in OPS by September?

 

Seriously, this is the kind of logic/argument I absolutely hate. You begin by saying that, at best, we can win 65 games, which would give us a record of 65-97. Then when someone dismisses this (granted, without any argument, but still), you come back with it not being out of the question that we could lose 97 games, which, about ten minutes earlier, you said was our best case scenario! Does this piss anyone else off as much as me?

 

You should really re-consider your priorites in life if it pisses you off THAT much.

 

Good argument. Like the rest of them.

[Smack]

Fielder OPS .842

LaHair OPS 1.190

 

Fielder Salary $23,000,000

LaHair Salary $482,500

 

I know... I know...

Edited April 25, 2012 by Smack

[Ding Dong Johnson]

63-65, at best

 

lol

 

It's really not out of the question that we could lose 97 games, I'm suprised you think this is funny. If we go up and down the roster, for every player underperforming, you could also find a player not likely to continue at this production rate. Do you really think LaHair is going lead all firstbasemen in OPS by September?

 

Seriously, this is the kind of logic/argument I absolutely hate. You begin by saying that, at best, we can win 65 games, which would give us a record of 65-97. Then when someone dismisses this (granted, without any argument, but still), you come back with it not being out of the question that we could lose 97 games, which, about ten minutes earlier, you said was our best case scenario! Does this piss anyone else off as much as me?

I didn't see it the first time around, if you know what I mean.

[squally1313]

63-65, at best

 

lol

 

It's really not out of the question that we could lose 97 games, I'm suprised you think this is funny. If we go up and down the roster, for every player underperforming, you could also find a player not likely to continue at this production rate. Do you really think LaHair is going lead all firstbasemen in OPS by September?

 

Seriously, this is the kind of logic/argument I absolutely hate. You begin by saying that, at best, we can win 65 games, which would give us a record of 65-97. Then when someone dismisses this (granted, without any argument, but still), you come back with it not being out of the question that we could lose 97 games, which, about ten minutes earlier, you said was our best case scenario! Does this piss anyone else off as much as me?

I didn't see it the first time around, if you know what I mean.

Yeah, I mean, obviously there are worse offenses. I just think stuff like this makes it so much easier to throw out (usually incorrect) hyperbole without really having to defend it.

 

Edit: Ohhhhhhhhhh.....

[Bryants Disco Ball]

Fielder OPS .842

LaHair OPS 1.190

 

Fielder Salary $23,000,000

LaHair Salary $482,500

 

I know... I know...

 

Who cares about Fielder? Many people wanted the Cubs to sign Albert Pujols.

 

Oh.