bukie
-
Posts
20,419 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
20
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
2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by bukie
-
how many voices and who were they? Obviously Javy doesn't know the names of the voices.
-
http://www.mossyoak.com/images/blogs---pro-staff/lester5_hdr.jpg?sfvrsn=0 am I crazy or is that buck still alive That's just the buck he rides while hunting. -
It took two years for a Bears ST that had been #1 for nearly a decade to fall to #32 in the NFL in efficiency.
-
Screw it, just onside kick every time. The defense won't stop anyone anyway.
-
Including Romo 21 for 25 tonight... QB completion % is at 66.7% (298/447). And this is despite facing Manuel, Geno Smith, Bridgewater and McCown this year Basically, the Bears secondary turns the opposing QB for the entire season into Peyton Manning (and I'm not joking, Manning has a 66.8% completion rate)
-
Let's put it a simpler way: I think they're losing value in both trade #1 and trade #2. #1: I know some have really soured on Baez thanks to his contact rate issues, but I still think he's more valuable in a trade than almost any pitcher, including Ross. CJ for Grandal also seems like a value sacrifice, so if we're giving up value twice to dump Wood, I'd almost rather just dump Wood for nothing, then. #2: I don't see the value in trading Castro at all, especially if they aren't getting a better player in return, which I'm not sold on for either Harvey or Syndergaard. If they're already trading Baez, there's especially no reason to trade Castro unless the return blows you away, which it doesn't on its own, let alone adding assets to send with him. As for the rest, Headley is a valuable asset if there's a need there, which there'd only be if you're creating one by dumping the existing plan. Jackson for Crawford...sure, I'd rather have Crawford as a 4th OF than Jackson as a 5th SP...but that Crawford contract goes on longer and I'm not sure how much use the Cubs would have with a 33 year old corner OF that's best asset is speed.
-
This could be the worst pass defending back seven in NFL history, though. I'm a little curious what the opponent's total completion % is against them.
-
What I'm saying is I don't think the team stockpiled young offensive assets for 4 years just to blow it all in one offseason for a catcher that can pitch frame and a bunch of recently-injured pitching. EDIT: I mean, if the Cubs' current "problem" is they have too many middle infield quality assets (which is a wonderful problem to have, since they can play anywhere) and not enough pitching and catcher depth, trading the one middle infield asset that is an established all-star level player isn't the best way to fix it.
-
So...take all the young hitter depth we have and trade it away for pitching. Seems like a solid long term strategy. We take on a total of 3 pitchers who are either coming off injury or came off injury last year, add one young pitcher in exchange for our existing young pitching, and assume Russell is ready on day one to compete this year.
-
This comment is dense as meatloaf.
-
But no mention of the Cubs. Not sure why the hell that person thinks it's the Cubs. Unless he saw CBS and thought it was a typo. Also nice job, Rotoworld: That would certainly shore up that 3rd base defense.
-
Yeah, no doubt Kershaw is on the short list of most valuable players in baseball, but nobody would trade a top 50 player to get him for half a year. Unless there was clear evidence of tampering, of course.
-
Random question: how different does everyone feel about the season right now if the Bears kick a FG to win in OT against the Bills in week 1 rather than vice versa?
-
Edmonton is 6-3-1 against the East, and 0-12-4 against the West this season.
-
2009 was really the only WS they won under the "buy all the FAs" strategy. Their successes in the late 90's were largely from a home grown operation.
-
So now a guy tweets from Chicago that he heard the Yankees gave Lester a "can't refuse" offer, nobody in NY has mentioned a thing about it, the Yankees never met with Lester, and all of a sudden there's instant teeth gnashing about it?
-
His logic is that going from 4 to 8 is bad because reasons, since the NFL has enough playoff teams that single regular season games don't matter and the best teams always get upset. Of course, that's completely different, since there are 32 NFL teams and 12 playoff teams, compared to 4 of 120 in college football. Even if you want to argue that non-big 5 conference teams (and maybe one or two independents) shouldn't be considered viable for the playoff anyway (supported by Marshall never getting a whiff of a chance at the playoff), that's still just 4 of 66 teams. Every game is still going to have meaning, even in the vaunted SEC.
-
I have to believe there's some room for a middle ground between "every word any blogger says is canonical law" and "every word any blogger says deserves preemptive derision" in the decision making process of reasonable people.
-
Certainly the logical course of action is to just preemptively mock him repeatedly so he never posts here again. That'll show him for having open communication.
-
Someone reboot David, he just blue screened.
-
Got to start driving the lane and creating easier shots. When you're 3-15 from the 3 point line it just might not be your night out there.
-
I actually don't feel too bad about my thoughts on the matter 3 years ago, just wrong with the assumptions that the Dodger FO would continue to be a mess longer than it was and that the Pirates wouldn't be able to afford McCutchen long term. Said the only special long term player they had at the time was Castro, and that Fielder for 4-5 years was a better bet than Pujols over the same time (before each got 8-9 year contracts and the Cubs traded for Rizzo, which was a move I liked better than either anyway).
-
Wow, Maddon is good.
-
Didn't get a chance to do this earlier, but here are the games in order (smallest to largest) of the odds of the B1G team winning: 17% Ohio State at Louisville 19% Rutgers at Clemson 24% Iowa at North Carolina 33% Illinois at Miami 40% Virginia at Maryland 48% Nebraska at Florida State 51% Michigan State at Notre Dame 56% Georgia Tech at Northwestern 57% Minnesota at Wake Forest 58% Pittsburgh at Indiana 62% Duke at Wisconsin 64% Syracuse at Michigan 71% NC State at Purdue 82% Virginia Tech at Penn State Red is B1G victories.
-
I guess that means Clemson is Rutgers bad.
