Yes Ladies and Gentlemen

[Sammy Sofa]

http://i.qkme.me/61ru.jpg

[wvcbxl]

Which is more likely?

 

1. This thread makes it to the end of the season

2. This thread lasts till the Cubs lose 100

3. This thread gets locked

[Little Slide Rooter]

Which is more likely?

 

1. This thread makes it to the end of the season

2. This thread lasts till the Cubs lose 100

3. This thread gets locked

 

Since the start of this thread:

 

Anthony Rizzo hit 4 home runs in 2 games

The Cubs win the Jorge Soler bid

The Cubs won a game

Starlin Castro came out of his mini slump

Alfonso Soriano went on a trade value building tear

Even Hayden Simpson had a solid outting last night.

 

To anyone seriously considering locking this thread, this losing all of that, I say [expletive] that noise. It's too loud and there are people trying to sleep.

[neely crenshaw]

No they have not lost 100 yet. However, naysayers won't even give in that there is a very,very,very good chance that will happen.

I personally have no problem with that. I would rather lose 100+ now and build base for future success than throw money at it to be average at best.

Buying low at this point was smart. You have nothing at all to lose. Obviously anyone you buy low has negatives OR teams would not give up on them.

The main point of contention on here is that many people think that because Theo's group got them, they will automatically be good.

Truth is that they probably aren't going to be good but in actuality they probably never planned on them being really good, "hoped" maybe but they knew most will fail and not be with the cubs for long.

[Sammy Sofa]

No they have not lost 100 yet. However, naysayers won't even give in that there is a very,very,very good chance that will happen.

 

Not true.

 

The main point of contention on here is that many people think that because Theo's group got them, they will automatically be good.

 

Not true.

[bukie]

What gets me is the number of people who think the only two sides to this argument are a 100 loss team or a playoff contender, and anyone who doesn't think one must think the other.

[Clem Fandango]

What gets me is the number of people who think the only two sides to this argument are a 100 loss team or a playoff contender, and anyone who doesn't think one must think the other.

 

This. Whether they lose 100 games or 99, they still lose and come in last place more than likely. With a bigger talent pool in the draft next year, I'm quite alright with a 100 loss team. Actually, I kind of hope it happens just to make sure we get the best possible player available. They aren't going to the playoffs one way or the other, so at this point the more games they lose the better it will be for the future development of the team, as far as I'm concerned.

[Guest]

What gets me is the number of people who think the only two sides to this argument are a 100 loss team or a playoff contender, and anyone who doesn't think one must think the other.

 

This. Whether they lose 100 games or 99, they still lose and come in last place more than likely. With a bigger talent pool in the draft next year, I'm quite alright with a 100 loss team. Actually, I kind of hope it happens just to make sure we get the best possible player available. They aren't going to the playoffs one way or the other, so at this point the more games they lose the better it will be for the future development of the team, as far as I'm concerned.

 

So it's better for the future development of the team for guys like Castro, Barney, Clevenger, LaHair, Rizzo, Samardzija, Garza, Wood, etc to play so poorly that the team loses as many games as possible?

[Sammy Sofa]

At this point I don't think it matters how many times/different ways you spell that out; some people are just going to refuse to get it.

[jersey cubs fan]

What gets me is the number of people who think the only two sides to this argument are a 100 loss team or a playoff contender, and anyone who doesn't think one must think the other.

 

This. Whether they lose 100 games or 99, they still lose and come in last place more than likely. With a bigger talent pool in the draft next year, I'm quite alright with a 100 loss team. Actually, I kind of hope it happens just to make sure we get the best possible player available. They aren't going to the playoffs one way or the other, so at this point the more games they lose the better it will be for the future development of the team, as far as I'm concerned.

 

So it's better for the future development of the team for guys like Castro, Barney, Clevenger, LaHair, Rizzo, Samardzija, Garza, Wood, etc to play so poorly that the team loses as many games as possible?

 

What the hell does LaHair have to do with it?

 

None of those guys are playing poorly and the team is already well on its way to 100.

[Sammy Sofa]

He's talking more along the "best player possible lines," where you have people talking like, "[expletive] it, I don't care how many they lose; the more the better."

[jersey cubs fan]

He's talking more along the "best player possible lines,"

 

I don't really know what that means.

[Sammy Sofa]

He's talking more along the "best player possible lines,"

 

I don't really know what that means.

 

Lose as many games as possible to ensure being the worst to ensure getting the #1 pick.

[jersey cubs fan]

My only concern with maintaining this losing pace at this point is Castro becoming some sort of depressed drunkard surrounded by all this incompetence. Well, other than it really sucks balls to follow a baseball team that sucks balls. I don't really buy the "all our good players will have to be bad in order to get there" mindset, since A, that's not true, and B, they are going to be what they are going to be in the future regardless of how they play the next 3.5 months. I'm not afraid of management giving up on some prospect thanks to an itchy trigger finger.

[Sammy Sofa]

Dismiss the 100 games thing; it's an arbitrary number/measurement of failure. When you get people saying they don't care how bad the team is in being the worst game in all of baseball seems to be shortsighted because, yes, there are varying degrees of "the worst." I don't think anyone is talking about a concern of the FO making rash moves in fixing the team so much as saying that the worse the team is the more work there will be to fix things. That's what some are questioning when they talk about people just not caring about how many games the Cubs lose, or saying "I hope they lose as many games as possible so they get the best pick."

[champaignchris]

Going into the season, I thought the Cubs would be about a 75 win team, plus or minus about 7 wins. I think I was with the majority of the experts and fans on that.

 

Considering that Castro has continued to be Castro, Garza has continued to be Garza, Soriano, DeJesus, and Dempster are all having solid to great bounce-back years, and Lehair and Samardjiza are both exceeding expectations, it's amazing how bad the rest of the team has really had to be for the Cubs to be only 20-40. Especially considering that the team has improved in both baserunning and defense.

 

Barney has been a plus defender and average bat. Stewart has been a plus defender and below average bat. I don't think those are big surprises.

 

What couldn't be predicted was the complete lack of production out of the catcher and center field spot. Byrd and Soto both should have been able to provide league average production for those positions. The Cubs currently have the worst OPS in the majors from their catchers and center fielders. (Obviously injuries have been a big problem with the catching - Did you know who the Cubs' 5th string catcher was at the beginning of the year?)

 

The back end of the rotation has been spotty at best. Still, the rotation is almost a half a run better in ERA this year than last. The issue has been the awful bullpen. People may have predicted that Marmol would continue to be not very good, but to absolutely fall apart? Sveum basically has two reliable options out of the bullpen right now - Russell and Camp - mainly because the most proven members of the bullpen going into the year haven't been able to get anyone out all year.

 

So, basically, if some of the holdovers from last year, K. Wood, Marmol, Byrd, and Soto, had been able to provide something close to the performances one would have expected from their career numbers, the Cubs would be significantly better.

[Guest]

I don't really buy the "all our good players will have to be bad in order to get there" mindset, since A, that's not true, and B, they are going to be what they are going to be in the future regardless of how they play the next 3.5 months. I'm not afraid of management giving up on some prospect thanks to an itchy trigger finger.

 

Doesn't that mean you don't really care if any of the players end up being good players or not? Especially at a team level, the team playing very poorly over that time would certainly mean a lower expectation from key players in future seasons, which makes it all the move harder to improve to a competitive level.

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't really buy the "all our good players will have to be bad in order to get there" mindset, since A, that's not true, and B, they are going to be what they are going to be in the future regardless of how they play the next 3.5 months. I'm not afraid of management giving up on some prospect thanks to an itchy trigger finger.

 

Doesn't that mean you don't really care if any of the players end up being good players or not? Especially at a team level, the team playing very poorly over that time would certainly mean a lower expectation from key players in future seasons, which makes it all the move harder to improve to a competitive level.

 

Not at all. The players I care about actually are playing fairly well and the team stinks. And that is something I can see continuing through the rest of the year.

[jersey cubs fan]

So, basically, if some of the holdovers from last year, K. Wood, Marmol, Byrd, and Soto, had been able to provide something close to the performances one would have expected from their career numbers, the Cubs would be significantly better.

 

Well, they did get rid of their best reliever and the guy who could have been their 2nd best reliever before the season started. I had no faith in Wood going into this season. And after that the bullpen was predictably awful. Byrd is a strange case. It was reasonable to expect him to be decent, but he's old, and his career arc was already odd. Going from awful hitter through what should have been his prime to fairly dependable piece through his post-prime years, in retrospect a fall off the cliff shouldn't have been that surprising. Soto's just a kick in the nuts.

[Guest]

I don't really buy the "all our good players will have to be bad in order to get there" mindset, since A, that's not true, and B, they are going to be what they are going to be in the future regardless of how they play the next 3.5 months. I'm not afraid of management giving up on some prospect thanks to an itchy trigger finger.

 

Doesn't that mean you don't really care if any of the players end up being good players or not? Especially at a team level, the team playing very poorly over that time would certainly mean a lower expectation from key players in future seasons, which makes it all the move harder to improve to a competitive level.

 

Not at all. The players I care about actually are playing fairly well and the team stinks. And that is something I can see continuing through the rest of the year.

 

I'm with jersey here.

 

I'm not sure I buy into the mindset that we can't want them to lose lots of games because that must mean that important players are doing poorly.

 

Both can happen simultaneously (key players doing well and team doing poorly) and they are happening right now.

[Sammy Sofa]

I don't really buy the "all our good players will have to be bad in order to get there" mindset, since A, that's not true, and B, they are going to be what they are going to be in the future regardless of how they play the next 3.5 months. I'm not afraid of management giving up on some prospect thanks to an itchy trigger finger.

 

Doesn't that mean you don't really care if any of the players end up being good players or not? Especially at a team level, the team playing very poorly over that time would certainly mean a lower expectation from key players in future seasons, which makes it all the move harder to improve to a competitive level.

 

Not at all. The players I care about actually are playing fairly well and the team stinks. And that is something I can see continuing through the rest of the year.

 

I'm with jersey here.

 

I'm not sure I buy into the mindset that we can't want them to lose lots of games because that must mean that important players are doing poorly.

 

Both can happen simultaneously (key players doing well and team doing poorly) and they are happening right now.

 

Again, there are varying degrees of "losing lots of games." Just broadly tossing out things along of the lines of "it doesn't matter how many games they lose" is shortsighted.

[jersey cubs fan]

Again, there are varying degrees of "lots of games."

 

And the Cubs are pretty much on pace for the high of of the range for losing lots of games, without damaging the future of anybody who matters.

[Sammy Sofa]

Maybe.

[jersey cubs fan]

Again, there are varying degrees of "losing lots of games." Just broadly tossing out things along of the lines of "it doesn't matter how many games they lose" is shortsighted.

 

And broadly tossing out statements like they can't lose lots of games without the Cubs better players playing poorly and damaging their futures is false.

[Little Slide Rooter]

What gets me is the number of people who think the only two sides to this argument are a 100 loss team or a playoff contender, and anyone who doesn't think one must think the other.

 

More importantly, a lot of people ignore how many stepd there are from a 100 loss team, or whatever we have now to a playoff contender. Granted, you can spend your way back to the top in one offseason, but as we've learned the long term outlook of such a thing isn't so good.

 

Additionally, "contender" is a very broad term. To some, it means be a .500 team in a weak division. I think that's very possible as soon as next season without a massive splurge fest. On the other hand, if we're being the hands on favorites to win it all like 2004 & 2008, unless we want to re load on monster contracts.