Yes Ladies and Gentlemen

[davearm2]

Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup. Anyone screaming about how they know this is a 100-loss team is a simmering, succulent meatball.

Nobody should have been predicting 100 losses, that's silly.

 

Now the people in the "Add Pujols/Fielder and Lee/Darvish and this team is a contender in the crappy NLC" camp?

 

I'd say it's pretty safe now to tweak them.

 

Fortunately, people more meatbally than that are running the Cubs now.

[Sammy Sofa]

Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup. Anyone screaming about how they know this is a 100-loss team is a simmering, succulent meatball.

Nobody should have been predicting 100 losses, that's silly.

 

Now the people in the "Add Pujols/Fielder and Lee/Darvish and this team is a contender in the crappy NLC" camp?

 

I'd say it's pretty safe now to tweak them.

 

Fortunately, people more meatbally than that are running the Cubs now.

 

Ah, another fine davearm2 WHOOOOOSH-moment.

 

Please show me a single person who wanted to sign any of them because they thought THIS year was the priority.

[flyseye]

Sorry,the "tough guy" quote was supposed to be directed at Sveum, not Baker, I worded that poorly.

 

One too many double IPA's, and another lousy game makes for a bad post.

[bhogg]

I've been a big fan for about 30 years. Yep, a 6 year old can be considered a big fan (when they can name the starting lineup of their favorite team!).

 

Anyway, in all that time, I've never felt a sense of continuity, nor have I sensed any kind of long term organizational plan. Looking back, the Dallas Green era was the closest thing, and the tribune company didn't give it enough time to grow.

 

So, that being said, I'm perfectly willing to let the new ownership / management group take the next 2-5 years to rebuild things from the ground up. If that means a few 90+ loss years, so what? In time, the Cubs have a better chance at sustaining success than they've ever had in my lifetime. I'm willing to suffer the growing pains.

 

If the plan fails, . . . . well. . . .they're the Cobs, right?

[davearm2]

Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup. Anyone screaming about how they know this is a 100-loss team is a simmering, succulent meatball.

Nobody should have been predicting 100 losses, that's silly.

 

Now the people in the "Add Pujols/Fielder and Lee/Darvish and this team is a contender in the crappy NLC" camp?

 

I'd say it's pretty safe now to tweak them.

 

Fortunately, people more meatbally than that are running the Cubs now.

 

Ah, another fine davearm2 WHOOOOOSH-moment.

 

Please show me a single person who wanted to sign any of them because they thought THIS year was the priority.

I don't care enough to go back months and find a bunch of quotes. But there were quite a few people that thought the Cubs could be contenders this year, and they voiced that opinion repeatedly during the height of the hot stove season.

 

If you can't recall that, or choose not to, then that's on you.

[Sammy Sofa]

Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup. Anyone screaming about how they know this is a 100-loss team is a simmering, succulent meatball.

Nobody should have been predicting 100 losses, that's silly.

 

Now the people in the "Add Pujols/Fielder and Lee/Darvish and this team is a contender in the crappy NLC" camp?

 

I'd say it's pretty safe now to tweak them.

 

Fortunately, people more meatbally than that are running the Cubs now.

 

Ah, another fine davearm2 WHOOOOOSH-moment.

 

Please show me a single person who wanted to sign any of them because they thought THIS year was the priority.

I don't care enough to go back months and find a bunch of quotes. But there were quite a few people that thought the Cubs could be contenders this year, and they voiced that opinion repeatedly during the height of the hot stove season.

 

If you can't recall that, or choose not to, then that's on you.

 

Ugh, you.

 

The majority of the board thought the Cubs COULD compete this year, with or without big FA signings. The people saying they could/should have been signing big names weren't saying it with any sense of "OMG, THEY HAVE TO COMPETE IN 2012 OR ELSE!!!" The idea/hope was that they'd be big players both playing for now and the long term, as a big market team ideally should be able to do. The only way you could "tweak" that is if you want to believe that the desire for such signings meant winning in 2012 was considered a major priority/necessity by those posters as opposed to a desire to see the Cubs shooting for both short term and long term success (since, y'know, signing FA's doesn't preclude them from good drafting/scouting/trading).

 

So, in short, there's no quotes for you to find. There's nobody here who wanted big name FA's signed only because they wanted the Cubs to win in 2012.

Edited June 10, 2012 by Sammy Sofa

[flyseye]

Well, yes, it "matters." It's an even more uphill battle to improve a team that loses at least 100 games as opposed to 90, but my point was more dismissing how unlikely it is that they even lose 100 games in the first place. Nuts and Gum 4/17/2012

 

erik316wttn wrote:

This team is going to lose 100 games this year, easy.

 

 

Oh, [expletive] that noise. (nuts and gum)

 

Talk about a meatball LOL.

[flyseye]

I would like to apologize to the board for dragging them all into the "Nuts and Gum" catagory, but when you have a board with only a few posters, and one of the most inane has 32,000+ posts,you tend to attribute that posters lack of knowledge to the entire board. My apologies to the rest of you. Meatball indeed.

[javy knows my name]

You should definitely stop talking.

[neely crenshaw]

If a majority of the board thought this team would contend then I now understand why certain posters are thought to be "intelligent".

I also must have missed those posts containing lots of promise for this squad.

I remember the closest thing to talking about contending was that "IF" we signed pujols or fielder we might be able to contend because of the other team losses.

 

I also think it's hilarious that people won't even admit that they could be wrong about this team losing a 100 games. It's clear that they won't give in until the 100th game is actually lost..then I can hear the excuses. I am guessing if lose our 99th with 3 weeks left some will still try to defend their stance.

we have the worst record in baseball. we are on pace now to lose 110.

there is no signs of anything or anyone getting better. Soriano is on a tear,and we are still losing. LaHair is hitting better than most though he could, we are still losing.

Dempster, Garza and Samardjiza have thrown great and we are still losing.

We will probably lose dempster and garza, and they will be replaced by much worse pitchers..but we figured that would happen at some point.

We might lose Soriano,dejesus heck even castro is possible. IF rizzo and jackson come up and produce to the point that everyone hopes, this team won't be as good as it now.

I just don't see where this team doesn't lose a 100. Seriously if the changes are made that most figure I think they may be lucky to stay on our current pace.

[javy knows my name]

Oh thank goodness.

[KaiserCesar]

If a majority of the board thought this team would contend then I now understand why certain posters are thought to be "intelligent".

I also must have missed those posts containing lots of promise for this squad.

I remember the closest thing to talking about contending was that "IF" we signed pujols or fielder we might be able to contend because of the other team losses.

 

I also think it's hilarious that people won't even admit that they could be wrong about this team losing a 100 games. It's clear that they won't give in until the 100th game is actually lost..then I can hear the excuses. I am guessing if lose our 99th with 3 weeks left some will still try to defend their stance.

we have the worst record in baseball. we are on pace now to lose 110.

there is no signs of anything or anyone getting better. Soriano is on a tear,and we are still losing. LaHair is hitting better than most though he could, we are still losing.

Dempster, Garza and Samardjiza have thrown great and we are still losing.

We will probably lose dempster and garza, and they will be replaced by much worse pitchers..but we figured that would happen at some point.

We might lose Soriano,dejesus heck even castro is possible. IF rizzo and jackson come up and produce to the point that everyone hopes, this team won't be as good as it now.

I just don't see where this team doesn't lose a 100. Seriously if the changes are made that most figure I think they may be lucky to stay on our current pace.

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/standings/

 

Looking at the adjusted standings based on run differential and the others based on expected runs, the Cubs have played just about well enough to lose 100 games even over the course of a year. So, I don't think it's quite as bad as it looks. The team has positions that could easily improve as well as get worse, so I'd expect something around that 62-100 mark.

[Sammy Sofa]

Well, yes, it "matters." It's an even more uphill battle to improve a team that loses at least 100 games as opposed to 90, but my point was more dismissing how unlikely it is that they even lose 100 games in the first place. Nuts and Gum 4/17/2012

 

erik316wttn wrote:

This team is going to lose 100 games this year, easy.

 

 

Oh, [expletive] that noise. (nuts and gum)

 

Talk about a meatball LOL.

 

Don't denigrate meatball. You don't know it works, you beefy blob of meat.

 

And yeah, pointing out the histrionics of people declaring in April, May or even June that they know a team is a lock to lose 100 or more games is the opposite of juicy meatballin'.

[Sammy Sofa]

If a majority of the board thought this team would contend then I now understand why certain posters are thought to be "intelligent".

 

COULD, you monumental spaz, not WOULD. Yes, the board was filled in the offseason with people talking about how they thought the team COULD contend for a variety of reasons.

[javy knows my name]

OK, Flyseye, you can talk again. Now I want to let this play out.

[davell]

Am I the only one here who thinks they're the only other actual poster on the board and PriortoTheo has like 8000 accounts and is just arguing with himself most of the time?

[Soul]

I hope we lose 98 games so I can hear the further debate over who was right & wrong.

[javy knows my name]

Am I the only one here who thinks they're the only other actual poster on the board and PriortoTheo has like 8000 accounts and is just arguing with himself most of the time?

 

No are not, but this isn't really his brand of cray.

[davell]

Am I the only one here who thinks they're the only other actual poster on the board and PriortoTheo has like 8000 accounts and is just arguing with himself most of the time?

 

No are not, but this isn't really his brand of cray.

For jah's sake, you had going a second.

[El Duderino]

tss... tss...

[javy knows my name]

THIS IS MY NIGHTMARE

[Sosa21MVP]

I hope we lose 98 games so I can hear the further debate over who was right & wrong.

 

How about 62-99 heading into the final game? OH THE DRAMA.

[Sosa21MVP]

I honestly don't recall anyone who insisted this team would contend, like N&G said of course the possibility of contending was discussed but to me that is normal spring training talk. I think most people were of the opinion that this team could at least win more games than the 2011 club which isn't out of the realm of possibility yet. This isn't a good team but I don't think they will continue that monstrous 4-20 losing pace that they had set prior to today's game. If they simply play .500 ball the rest of the season, that would put them at last season's record of 71-91. Not saying I expect THAT to happen but I still don't believe 100 losses is inevitable to happen this season. And if it does happen, so what? Whether this team loses 90 games or 100 games, there is much work to do on the roster either way.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Let me try to take this thread in a slightly more productive direction with a question;

 

Has this season's results to date changed anyone's opinion of the value in trying to buy low on guys with either good results in their past or good pedigrees?

 

It seems like only David DeJesus and Shawn Camp are the only hits so far.

[Clem Fandango]

We all knew the team would suck, but like someone said, the fact that they were halfway decent for a small stretch there got people's hopes up. They never should've let those hopes get that high