Barney DFA, Traded to Dodgers

[sneakypower]

you see, we all lose the right to have any opinions of other teams' actions because we like a team that is bad at the moment

 

not at all.

 

it's just kind of funny to see people snickering at the gm of the best team in baseball while singing the praises of the cubs' front office that has presided over multiple years of garbage. i mean, you really don't see how that seems ridiculous?

no, it'd be ridiculous if people were praising our ownership and [expletive] on theirs'...but that doesn't happen and probably never will, here

 

if i go to the store with $1000, i'm probably going to accumulate better [expletive] than the guy who went in with change he dug out from under the couch cushions, but that doesn't necessarily make me some genius shopper

[Guest]

you see, we all lose the right to have any opinions of other teams' actions because we like a team that is bad at the moment

 

not at all.

 

it's just kind of funny to see people snickering at the gm of the best team in baseball while singing the praises of the cubs' front office that has presided over multiple years of garbage. i mean, you really don't see how that seems ridiculous?

 

if we're going to use awful logic like this, then give me a ring count

 

how is that awful logic?

 

the cubs front office has presided over multiple world series championships while colletti has none so NAILED IT or something

[abuck1220]

you see, we all lose the right to have any opinions of other teams' actions because we like a team that is bad at the moment

 

not at all.

 

it's just kind of funny to see people snickering at the gm of the best team in baseball while singing the praises of the cubs' front office that has presided over multiple years of garbage. i mean, you really don't see how that seems ridiculous?

 

if we're going to use awful logic like this, then give me a ring count

 

how is that awful logic?

 

the cubs front office has presided over multiple world series championships while colletti has none so NAILED IT or something

 

whatever you want to hang your hat on, i guess.

[imb]

Only the cubs could force a group of posters complaining about being a bad baseball to look like complete imbeciles

[abuck1220]

No one was snickering at Colletti for making this move, nor was anyone singing the praises of the Cubs front office for doing the same. It's completely baffling that you took the thread to be doing so unless simply the mention of the word Dodgers triggered some sort of Pavlovian freakout.

 

I apologized for bringing up the "lol ned colletti" thing without the requisite number of posts mocking ned colletti (3 or more?). but then everyone else's pavlovian freakout kicked in and all kinds of people starting [expletive] on ned colletti.

[Guest]

 

not at all.

 

it's just kind of funny to see people snickering at the gm of the best team in baseball while singing the praises of the cubs' front office that has presided over multiple years of garbage. i mean, you really don't see how that seems ridiculous?

 

if we're going to use awful logic like this, then give me a ring count

 

how is that awful logic?

 

the cubs front office has presided over multiple world series championships while colletti has none so NAILED IT or something

 

whatever you want to hang your hat on, i guess.

 

you honestly don't see why "you like the job the cubs' FO has done so you can't criticize the job the dodgers' FO does because they are winning more games" is poor logic?

 

i'm pretty sure you do, so what exactly are you doing here?

 

we all wish we had $200M of payroll to spend but we don't.

[sneakypower]

No one was snickering at Colletti for making this move, nor was anyone singing the praises of the Cubs front office for doing the same. It's completely baffling that you took the thread to be doing so unless simply the mention of the word Dodgers triggered some sort of Pavlovian freakout.

 

I apologized for bringing up the "lol ned colletti" thing without the requisite number of posts mocking ned colletti (3 or more?). but then everyone else's pavlovian freakout kicked in and all kinds of people starting [expletive] on ned colletti.

because he's a very bad GM, even though ownership gives him enough money to spend that it doesn't really matter too much

 

why is it hard to reconcile those two ideas?

[XZero771679666304]

No one was snickering at Colletti for making this move, nor was anyone singing the praises of the Cubs front office for doing the same. It's completely baffling that you took the thread to be doing so unless simply the mention of the word Dodgers triggered some sort of Pavlovian freakout.

 

I apologized for bringing up the "lol ned colletti" thing without the requisite number of posts mocking ned colletti (3 or more?). but then everyone else's pavlovian freakout kicked in and all kinds of people starting [expletive] on ned colletti.

because he's a very bad GM, even though ownership gives him enough money to spend that it doesn't really matter too much

 

why is it hard to reconcile those two ideas?

 

Because when you are winning, all involved parties are above reproach. Duh.

[sneakypower]

he spent $30+ million on two middle relievers to be below-replacement-level!

 

i mean, [expletive]

[Guest]

you see, we all lose the right to have any opinions of other teams' actions because we like a team that is bad at the moment

 

not at all.

 

it's just kind of funny to see people snickering at the gm of the best team in baseball while singing the praises of the cubs' front office that has presided over multiple years of garbage. i mean, you really don't see how that seems ridiculous?

no, it'd be ridiculous if people were praising our ownership and [expletive] on theirs'...but that doesn't happen and probably never will, here

 

if i go to the store with $1000, i'm probably going to accumulate better [expletive] than the guy who went in with change he dug out from under the couch cushions, but that doesn't necessarily make me some genius shopper

that's a fucked up analogy about the relative positions of the Cubs and Dodgers.

[davell]

Damn, this escalated with the quickness.

[CubInOK]

This argument is stupid. GIF parties are so much more fun.

[Guest]

Do we really have to go over this again?!?

 

Does abuck not realize the Cubs were in no position to contend the past 2-3 years? Someone please link him that Cubs Den or whatever article about signing Greinke, Beltran, Upton, etc.

 

Upton...Lmao, I remember when everyone here wanted him.

[Guest]

Do we really have to go over this again?!?

 

Does abuck not realize the Cubs were in no position to contend the past 2-3 years? Someone please link him that Cubs Den or whatever article about signing Greinke, Beltran, Upton, etc.

 

Upton...Lmao, I remember when everyone here wanted him.

 

let's please never ever reference arguello when in need of credibility in an argument

 

 

there were ways the cubs could have contended the past couple of years. they were fairly unlikely (especially knowing what we know about the finances) and it's debatable as to whether the gambles required and the toll they would potentially take on the future would have been worth doing, but there were ways. it's silly to pretend otherwise, especially when we've seen it work out for a couple of other teams.

[ScrubMD]

This argument is stupid. GIF parties are so much more fun.

 

Hey, I tried.

[SouthSideRyan]

It's like, the thread was dying so pitchcs had to come in and post something dumb about it being a scientific impossibility for the Cubs to compete Edited July 29, 2014 by SouthSideRyan

[ScrubMD]

I believe that it can simultaenously be true that I would much rather have the Dodgers' record and that Colletti has done a pretty poor job with the highest payroll in baseball history. With the exception of keeping Colletti has GM, their ownership is every fan's sexy dream.

[Guest]

Do we really have to go over this again?!?

 

Does abuck not realize the Cubs were in no position to contend the past 2-3 years? Someone please link him that Cubs Den or whatever article about signing Greinke, Beltran, Upton, etc.

 

Upton...Lmao, I remember when everyone here wanted him.

 

let's please never ever reference arguello when in need of credibility in an argument

 

 

there were ways the cubs could have contended the past couple of years. they were fairly unlikely (especially knowing what we know about the finances) and it's debatable as to whether the gambles required and the toll they would potentially take on the future would have been worth doing, but there were ways. it's silly to pretend otherwise, especially when we've seen it work out for a couple of other teams.

 

There were ways to maybe be like an 85 win team and I'm not really interested in that.

[Guest]

Do we really have to go over this again?!?

 

Does abuck not realize the Cubs were in no position to contend the past 2-3 years? Someone please link him that Cubs Den or whatever article about signing Greinke, Beltran, Upton, etc.

 

Upton...Lmao, I remember when everyone here wanted him.

 

let's please never ever reference arguello when in need of credibility in an argument

 

 

there were ways the cubs could have contended the past couple of years. they were fairly unlikely (especially knowing what we know about the finances) and it's debatable as to whether the gambles required and the toll they would potentially take on the future would have been worth doing, but there were ways. it's silly to pretend otherwise, especially when we've seen it work out for a couple of other teams.

 

There were ways to maybe be like an 85 win team and I'm not really interested in that.

 

Again, no. It's not that black and white and there's no need to pretend it is.

[Guest]

Do we really have to go over this again?!?

 

Does abuck not realize the Cubs were in no position to contend the past 2-3 years? Someone please link him that Cubs Den or whatever article about signing Greinke, Beltran, Upton, etc.

 

Upton...Lmao, I remember when everyone here wanted him.

 

let's please never ever reference arguello when in need of credibility in an argument

 

 

there were ways the cubs could have contended the past couple of years. they were fairly unlikely (especially knowing what we know about the finances) and it's debatable as to whether the gambles required and the toll they would potentially take on the future would have been worth doing, but there were ways. it's silly to pretend otherwise, especially when we've seen it work out for a couple of other teams.

 

There were ways to maybe be like an 85 win team and I'm not really interested in that.

 

Again, no. It's not that black and white and there's no need to pretend it is.

 

OK Professor Cub.

[Guest]

sick burn

[davell]

I look at it like this:,For now(and until proven otherwise by guys failing) I'll take what I think our future looks like over the chances that they could have won a WS over these past 3 seasons. I don't believe it was likely we would have made the playoffs over that time without hitting on damn near everything correctly. Given our limited payroll and I won't judge our FO on taking this route poorly unless it results in failure. World Series win or bust. If they last 10 years and don't win one, I'll be unhappy. If they make the playoffs 5 times out if 10(now 5 out of 7) and leave the team in shape to make 3 of the next 5 after that, I'll be OK with this route, if they fail to bring a WS home.

[Andy]

There were ways to maybe be like an 85 win team and I'm not really interested in that.

I love when people talk about this as if A) it's such a bad thing to win 85 games and be in contention most of (if not all of) the season, and B) that you can just know when you put your team together how many wins it's going to get.

 

The Cubs are probably better off now than they would've been if they'd tried harder to not be terrible the last two years, but that doesn't mean we need to speak with such disdain about having winning seasons.

[sneakypower]

http://mymarriageworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/water-under-the-bridge-walt-reece.jpg

[imb]

when the desire to have a red hot sports take is so strong that you find yourself defending ned effing colletti, maybe its time you took the day off the internet.