Jump to content
North Side Baseball

biittner77

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    9,035

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Joomla Posts 1

Chicago Cubs Videos

Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking

News

2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

Guides & Resources

2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

The Chicago Cubs Players Project

2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by biittner77

  1. biittner77
    if Hill had been good last year, they never would have traded for Harden I'm not so sure. A lot of people see the Harden trade as a response to the Brewers getting Sabbathia. It would have been more complicated since they would have had to unload Marquis on somebody.
  2. biittner77
    Lets say Hill comes to ST and has figured it out the Cubs can probably get something decent for him. If he comes back and remains terrible they can put him through waivers and hope that he clears. He's not young enough to be considered a prospect. If he's still walking 2 people per inning I doubt anyone will claim him on waivers since he'd have to be added to the 25 man roster. If he does get claimed it would be by a terrible team and hopefully one in the AL. If the choise is trade him for nothing or try to clear him through waivers I'd take my chances on waivers.
  3. biittner77
    It will make for some interesting smack talk around here if its an Eagles/ Ravens superbowl.
  4. biittner77
    More to the point, Isn't "getting guys that are Jerks" the theme for Hendry's offseason? I keep hearing how the Cubs need fiery leaders because Lee and Ramirez are too quiet and that's why the Cubs lost the last 2 years. To answer someone's question earlier, IIRC, Soto played a fair number of games at 1st base during his breakout year at Iowa. He has experience there and I'm sure he could handle it. The question is whether they would believe Soto and LoDuca was better than Soto and Lee.
  5. biittner77
    That's nonsense. It's one thing to leave for greener pastures in the middle of a contract, but to interview again immediately after taking a job shows a complete lack of credibility. not at all, in fact I've been in that situatin before where I accepted a posistion and later THAT DAY was offered an interview with a firm i liked more. I eventually ended up withthe firm I preferred, and eneded up appologizing to the former firm, but i had no way to predict that situation. it happens Just because you did something similar doesn't make it any less of a douche move. In fact the opposite is true. :D
  6. biittner77
    Did Burke hit all 22 of his HRs against the Cubs? Seems that way.
  7. biittner77
    I believe Nate Spears is in the Cubs system because they value a guy who went .299/.394/.438/.832 at AA. They even sent Spears to the AFL. That line is pretty much why I brought it up...generally we foam at the mouth for a guy who hits almost .300 with an OBP of almost .400...that he hits left handed, is only 23, and is basically free...well, if he can produce like that (and was also very good in the Winter league)...and won the 2008 "Best Hustler" award.. :D ... what's not to like? Wasn't there already a Nate Spears thread? I saw him at Low A Delmarva. I didn't see the type of speed that people like to lead off. His defense was solid if not spectacular. He showed not much power. I seem to remember him having the type of frame where he could maybe hit for more power later on. But he didn't really stand out when I saw him. I probably saw him play about 4 times so make of that what you will.
  8. biittner77
    They got to the superbowl because their offense was good enough to get them to that game. They won the actual Superbowl game because of their defense. Their defense was better than their offense but I do not believe that they could have made it out of the AFC on defense alone. It really comes down to this. Is it an accident that the Bears have not been able to develop a QB the last 20 years or is it because they focus the bulk of their resources on defense? Have the Bears had little offensive success because of bad coordinators or because of a lack of offensive talent? Perhaps the answer is both. So why can't the Bears get a good offensive coordinator? Why do they keep hiring Defensive guys as head coach? The Bears team philosophy hasn't changed since the days of Ditka and they have 1 superbowl victory to show for it versus many one and done playoff appearances. So if you want to say that defense wins championships thats fine by me. It just hasn't won the Bears many championships. That fact is undeniable Yet three of the four teams left in the playoffs this year were The Steelers who were number one, The Ravens who were three, and The Eagles who were four. None of those teams are the Bears. All of those teams have a QB that they drafted in the first round and supported with a good O line.
  9. biittner77
    They got to the superbowl because their offense was good enough to get them to that game. They won the actual Superbowl game because of their defense. Their defense was better than their offense but I do not believe that they could have made it out of the AFC on defense alone. It really comes down to this. Is it an accident that the Bears have not been able to develop a QB the last 20 years or is it because they focus the bulk of their resources on defense? Have the Bears had little offensive success because of bad coordinators or because of a lack of offensive talent? Perhaps the answer is both. So why can't the Bears get a good offensive coordinator? Why do they keep hiring Defensive guys as head coach? The Bears team philosophy hasn't changed since the days of Ditka and they have 1 superbowl victory to show for it versus many one and done playoff appearances. So if you want to say that defense wins championships thats fine by me. It just hasn't won the Bears many championships. That fact is undeniable
  10. biittner77
    Nowhere did I say that you could win without playing good defense. What I said was that offense first teams usually win more often than defense first teams. Teams with bad offenses don't win the superbowl. The Steelers certainly were better defensively. Their offensive were horrible in that win with Rothlesberger playing about as a bad as a QB can and still win. However, he did play well enough to get them into that position. Whoever said that the Rams were good against the run is easily mislead. Teams that score lots of points usually are good against the run because the teams they play against are playing catch up and have to throw the ball.
  11. biittner77
    I forgot about Tampa Bay winning a Superbowl in there. They did it with defense but look what they've done since- nothing. If you go back into the 1990's there are teams like the Cowboys, Packers and 49ers that were also offense first teams. So while it is possible to win the occasional superbowl with a great defense, it takes a more balanced team to be consistently good.
  12. biittner77
    wha? you serious? hahahaha Looking at the Superbowl winners from the last 10 years or so what I see are teams that were, for the most part, offense first. The Patriot teams that won did so because of Tom Brady and the offense. The Colts won because of Manning. The Rams, The Broncos and I'd say even the Steelers won because they had a good offense. On the other side of the coin there's the Ravens and last year's Giants. The Ravens are an extreme example of absolute domination on one side of the ball, much like the Superbowl XX Bears. The Giants, though they did have a very good defense, don't win without strong play from Eli Manning.
  13. biittner77
    your starting to think like me now. While the Bears have had some terrible coordinators, the real problem is the team philosophy of defense and ball control. This philosophy, when it works nets a great defense and a lousy offense. The defense gets old and ineffective and the team stinks. Then they get a good draft pick, get an impact player on defense and get back to being somewhat successful during the regular season. This formula, however, almost never works in the post season. This year's Titans are a good example. This year's Ravens team is the other side. The team the Bears always hope to have and have had twice in the last 30+ years.
  14. biittner77
    So, 20.4% of HOF voters are related to Jay Bell, owe him lots of money or confused him with someone else.
  15. biittner77
    If Fukudome falls flat, I see the Cubs either trading for a new CF or moving Bradley to CF and bringing in a new RF.
  16. biittner77
    If the Cubs get Heilman I'm going to refer to him as "Old Style". That may be reason enough to not get him. Everything I've heard about Heilman is that the M's are going to try him out as a starter. In so far as the Cubs getting him for the pen, don't they already have Gaudin for that same role? If they want to not mind trading Marshall for Peavy or whomever they ought to be looking at a LH reliever. I thought they are 100% comforatble with Cotts being their only Lefty if Marshall gets traded or goes to the rotation.
  17. biittner77
    I wonder if anyone thinks Fielder is worth a premium pitcher. His weight probably scares a lot of teams.
  18. biittner77
    I wouldn't mind Garland if he came cheap- like $5-6 million per. He could give us what Marquis was supposed to do- innings eater- but for much less money.
  19. biittner77
    So how much longer before Hendry being "the hottest chick over 3 bills" is no longer good enough?
  20. biittner77
    So the in house options are Marshall Gaudin Smardz Hill (will at least get a chance, won't he?) Atkins Hart I could see them starting the season with Smardz in the rotation until he flops and then they make a trade in late May.
  21. biittner77
    Magic? Wizard? Interesting choice of words. Certainly not the words I would use. Gandalf for GM.
  22. biittner77
    The key is 6th inning which means that they see him as the garbage time reliever.
  23. biittner77
    For every good deal or signing he's made there is a counterbalancing blunder. The playoff appearances earn him a C+. The Soriano contract alone prevents anything higher than a C+.
  24. biittner77
    Huh? They regularly had a top 5 scoring offense, and finished 1, 2 or 3 multiple times during their run. They struggled to score in the early 2000's, but offense was not always a shortcoming. Wasn't their biggest issue that their better pitchers didn't always pitch all that great in October? To be honest, I really can't remember much about the Braves during their run other than they seemed to always trade for a starting pitcher and that it seemed like Mark Liemke was their only player that could hit during the playoffs. The knock on the Braves was always that they were built for the long haul and not for the post season. I take that to mean that they had a bunch of impatient fastball hitters that feasted on crappy pitching during the regular season and got dominated during the playoffs. That might just be my perception of them or maybe me projecting the Cubs' flaws on them.
  25. biittner77
    To play devils advocate, the Brave's shortcomings always seemed to be lack of offense and lack of late inning relief. Perhaps if the Braves had altered the formula (Like say replace Sid bream with somebody with more of an impact) they may have been able to win more championships. Hendry has shown can he can evolve. 3 years ago he was saying things like "I don't pay much attention to on base percentage" and the players he signed (Jacques Jones for example) showed that he meant that. Lately he seems to have targeted OBP guys like Derosa, Kendall, Fukudome, and now Bradley.
×
×
  • Create New...