5/19 sox (Danks) @ Cubs (Dempster) FOX 6:15 PM

[Schwarber Fan]

Again with this... really?

[Rizzo Smash]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[haubrich91]

Lol

[Fred Hornkohl]

CUBS are 4-4 when they hit at least 2 HRs.... 11-20 when they don't

 

 

Go CUBS !!

[Smack]

Did anyone ever start the fake rally thread?

[haubrich91]

Welcome back, Koyie Hill. When will you be DFA'd?

[Little Slide Rooter]

Well this has been a depressing little stretch.

[Sammy Sofa]

Last week, we were putting odds out on whether we could reach. 500 this year or not.

 

I think, like, 4 people were doing that.

I know that. My point is we're walking a fine line between sucking, but seeing enough positives that to me, the losses don't matter at all.

 

There are more people here who get annoyed that this team is so unnecessarily bad than were picking them to maybe be decent a week ago.

True. I'm just saying whether we lose 85, 95, or 105 games this year, we've got enough pieces to make major moves next season. And the more losses this year just means more IFA money and better draft positioning. I'm fine with it.

 

Building from an 85-loss team is pretty different than building from a 105-team. Some people here dismiss the number of losses like it's not indicative of just how bad the team actually is and how difficult it will be to improve.

[Rizzo Smash]

Fecal League Standings:

http://i.imgur.com/QLvIc.png

[XZero771679666304]

 

Building from an 85-loss team is pretty different than building from a 105-team. Some people here dismiss the number of losses like it's not indicative of just how bad the team actually is and how difficult it will be to improve.

 

W/L says a lot, but isn't the sole indicator of how good or bad a team is.

 

And this team isn't losing 105 games.

[davell]

N&G, why is it different? We could be an 80, 90, or 100 loss team this year. But we can still have the same approach to the upcoming offseason, because of the pieces we have moving forward.

[Little Slide Rooter]

 

Building from an 85-loss team is pretty different than building from a 105-team. Some people here dismiss the number of losses like it's not indicative of just how bad the team actually is and how difficult it will be to improve.

 

I don't think that anyone is going to question that building from what Theo had coming to the Cubs is going to be a lot more difficult than building from what he had from taking over the Red Sox.

 

He had a hell of a starter kit there. Here, he has a few big league ready pieces, a few trade chips, and as far as we know a fairy decent amount of money. If all these factors are properly utililized, we should be at least a .500 team next year and go from there.

Edited May 20, 2012 by Little Slide Rooter

[gocubs2118]

 

Building from an 85-loss team is pretty different than building from a 105-team. Some people here dismiss the number of losses like it's not indicative of just how bad the team actually is and how difficult it will be to improve.

 

W/L says a lot, but isn't the sole indicator of how good or bad a team is.

 

And this team isn't losing 105 games.

 

Agree, we'll be better once guys like Rizzo come up. He would have been our 3rd best hitter in tonight's lineup.

[Sammy Sofa]

 

Building from an 85-loss team is pretty different than building from a 105-team. Some people here dismiss the number of losses like it's not indicative of just how bad the team actually is and how difficult it will be to improve.

 

W/L says a lot, but isn't the sole indicator of how good or bad a team is.

 

Of course it isn't, and nowhere did I say it was, but it's silly to shrug off building from 85 losses or 105 losses like there's little difference.

[Sammy Sofa]

N&G, why is it different? We could be an 80, 90, or 100 loss team this year. But we can still have the same approach to the upcoming offseason, because of the pieces we have moving forward.

 

Because a 100-loss team is probably significantly worse than an 80-loss team and would require more money/trades/work to improve.

[XZero771679666304]

N&G, why is it different? We could be an 80, 90, or 100 loss team this year. But we can still have the same approach to the upcoming offseason, because of the pieces we have moving forward.

 

At this point my focus is on this year the performance/development of players who look to be a part of the future (Castro, Shark, Garza, Rizzo, Castillo, Clevenger, Dolis, etc.) and players who could be (Stewart).

 

If it looks like we have a good core of position players and a few strong SP, that's promising regardless of what the W-L is at the end of the year.

[davell]

N&G, why is it different? We could be an 80, 90, or 100 loss team this year. But we can still have the same approach to the upcoming offseason, because of the pieces we have moving forward.

 

Because a 100-loss team is probably significantly worse than an 80-loss team and would require more money/trades/work to improve.

I guess we'll just disagree on this. But I think with what we currently have and with what we've got coming in a month or two, a big bat, a big arm, and a few changes to the pen is more than enough to put this team into contention.

[XZero771679666304]

 

Building from an 85-loss team is pretty different than building from a 105-team. Some people here dismiss the number of losses like it's not indicative of just how bad the team actually is and how difficult it will be to improve.

 

W/L says a lot, but isn't the sole indicator of how good or bad a team is.

 

Of course it isn't, and nowhere did I say it was, but it's silly to shrug off building from 85 losses or 105 losses like there's little difference.

 

One shouldn't shrug off the W-L record, but it should be looked at subjectively.

 

For example, if Castro, Rizzo, Stewart and the catchers have strong years, Garza and Shark deal all year but the bullpen continues to be an absolute disaster and the team loses 95-100 games, I'm not much more concerned than if the bullpen had been decent and the team only lost 85 games.

[UMFan83]

In 2016 when we are enjoying the next Mark Prior, I hope everyone remembers why it was worth tanking this year.

 

We're to get a phenom pitcher that teases us with potential before suffering a series of injuries that leads to him being out of baseball by his mid-20s?

 

Tank away!

[mul21]

N&G, why is it different? We could be an 80, 90, or 100 loss team this year. But we can still have the same approach to the upcoming offseason, because of the pieces we have moving forward.

 

Because a 100-loss team is probably significantly worse than an 80-loss team and would require more money/trades/work to improve.

 

In some cases, yes. But one of the biggest problems this team has is an absolutely awful bullpen, which is something that can be turned around pretty quickly. Assuming Garza and Shark are still here and performing well, Maholm and/or Wood aren't awful, you get Rizzo up and add another piece or two in the off season and you're getting close to or actually contending.

[Little Slide Rooter]

N&G, why is it different? We could be an 80, 90, or 100 loss team this year. But we can still have the same approach to the upcoming offseason, because of the pieces we have moving forward.

 

Because a 100-loss team is probably significantly worse than an 80-loss team and would require more money/trades/work to improve.

I guess we'll just disagree on this. But I think with what we currently have and with what we've got coming in a month or two, a big bat, a big arm, and a few changes to the pen is more than enough to put this team into contention.

 

I agree with your sentiment, but it's easier said than done. The big bat is going to need to be more than Upton or Ethier. Hamilton would be great, but he'll be quite the risk at the price he'll likely command. Hamels would be beautiful, and I'd be OK paying whatever it would cost on a 6-7 year deal, but I'll be that the Yankees and Red Sox to name a few think the same thing. With the amount of payroll shed between the end of last season and this, we should have the money to make the necessary changes, but other teams do to, and what we need will be on everyone's radar.

[Sammy Sofa]

 

Building from an 85-loss team is pretty different than building from a 105-team. Some people here dismiss the number of losses like it's not indicative of just how bad the team actually is and how difficult it will be to improve.

 

W/L says a lot, but isn't the sole indicator of how good or bad a team is.

 

Of course it isn't, and nowhere did I say it was, but it's silly to shrug off building from 85 losses or 105 losses like there's little difference.

 

One shouldn't shrug off the W-L record, but it should be looked at subjectively.

 

For example, if Castro, Rizzo, Stewart and the catchers have strong years, Garza and Shark deal all year but the bullpen continues to be an absolute disaster and the team loses 95-100 games, I'm not much more concerned than if the bullpen had been decent and the team only lost 85 games.

 

I still can't figure out why this shrugs off a difference of TWENTY LOSSES, but whatever.

[mul21]

 

I still can't figure out why this shrugs off a difference of TWENTY LOSSES, but whatever.

 

Because bullpen performance has such a huge year to year variance in many cases and in his example, the pen is the issue.

[Guest]

Before the season started, I think you could point to 4 teams in the NL that (excluding the Cubs) were the least talented, or very close to it. Those teams would be Houston, Pittsburgh, San Diego, and New York. Those teams show up on the schedule 44 times this year, and after tomorrow the Cubs will have finished their 41st game without a single one of those games being played. Food for thought when extrapolating the team's current record to the total number of wins and losses.

[XZero771679666304]

Before the season started, I think you could point to 4 teams in the NL that (excluding the Cubs) were the least talented, or very close to it. Those teams would be Houston, Pittsburgh, San Diego, and New York. Those teams show up on the schedule 44 times this year, and after tomorrow the Cubs will have finished their 41st game without a single one of those games being played. Food for thought when extrapolating the team's current record to the total number of wins and losses.

 

The schedule definitely started off a lot more grueling than it will finish. That's a huge part of the reason I said there's no way the Cubs lose 100 games.