i love mazzaro's line from that game - 2.1 ip, 11 h, 14 er, 3 bb, 2 k, 1 hr. wonder when was the last time a reliever gave up 14 runs (or anyone gave up 14 runs for that matter).
Or maybe we just need to consider what really happened after 2009. I know there were injuries last season, but I still find it suspicious when someone suddenly drops from a consistent .900+ OPS to the low .700's in what should be the prime of his career. he's like 5 years past the average player's peak (27)
well that's a very optimistic way of looking at things, considering that wells and cashner pitched only one game each and won them, so you're projecting a very small sample size over a very long season. nonetheless, i admire the mental gymnastics required to make it seem like the team with the fourth-worst run differential in baseball is a bad break or two away from being very good.
that's being pretty optimistic. the cubs really aren't any better than average as far as their prospect pool, and they're lacking (as they have been for years) in any sort of true impact players. jackson and mcnutt could be above average but really don't have frequent all-star ceilings.
quade is a lousy manager but earl weaver wouldn't win with this team... just keep him around until you can put a good product on the field rather than wasting money on a new manager who also won't win. as for riggins, i have no idea how you have determined after a quarter of a season that the guy is terrible.
Well that's madness. You'd rather pay a guy 15M more total for one less year? I would. I'd pay a good bit more to make sure the contract isn't more than 8 years. Although I'm not sure how necessary that will be, especially the longer he slumps this year. that makes absolutely no sense. you'd rather pay him $315M over 9 years than $300M over 10 years? if he's producing anything positive you get that 10th season at a "cost" to the team of -$15M, and if he's not producing anything positive then you just release him.
All depends on how much the Ricketts are willing to spend. Those 5 would probably be in the, what, $85 million range? well that's four players but yeah i'd say you're probably looking at $80-85m. considering that a #2 starter is pushing $15m, the cubs would be hard-pressed to have any sort of pitching staff unless they have really good home-grown pitchers (and that's not looking too promising)
i'm pretty sure that hill had to be kept on the major league roster or exposed to waivers, and being as the cubs were coming off a 98 (think that's how many they won) win season, they really weren't in a position to carry hill in their bullpen with the hopes that he could get his act together.
I said I don't hate him. I just don't view him with same mystique as others here do. You want another 6+ year contract? another? we have one. and i like how you apparently view every 6+ year contract as the same.
Exactly. Attendance is tied directly to excitement and winning. By signing Pujols you increase both of those substantially, meaning attendance will rise. Yeah, just look at the difference between 06 and 07/08. There was nobody in the ballpark for the majority of 06 but things changed completely the next two years with a couple free agent signings which didn't even come close to an Albert Pujols. Start winning and Wrigley will start to fill up day in and day out again. unless pujols settles in wheaton.