Sammy Sofa

Of the top 15 pitchers in the system, more than half have come through trades. .... I honestly have no idea what point you're trying to make here.

Wait, so I've missed some other trades beyond those 6 trades of players from the "old team?" Ah, so we're counting players being released or zilches who would have been gone regardless of whether the team was good or not as part of the fire sale. Good to know.

lmao Please, show me this dramatic blow up of the "old team." Byrd, Soto and Dempster traded in 2012. Soriano, Garza and Marmol traded this year. My God, it's like the post-WS Marlins in here, what with all of the flames and all.

Which mostly speaks to how crappy the system was in regards to pitching prospects. And again, where am I saying that they shouldn't have made these trades? My point is that saying they blew up the team is clearly incorrect, and that the Cubs haven't sucked for two years because of that mythical blow up.

I'm not even arguing what the FO should or shouldn't have done in terms of winning; my point is this discussion always has been that the Cubs never had to blow up an older team, nor could they have really done so since they didn't have much in the way of valuable assets, nor did they ever actually blow up the team. What is their primary way of rebuilding the farm system? It should abundantly clear that that's being done mostly via drafting and international FA signings. Most of the trades of players from the "old team" have been largely incidental or for lesser role players/long shots/bodies. Now, in no way am I saying the Cubs shouldn't have moved these players; it makes all the sense in the world that they move them. My point, again, is that they were never moved as part of a fire sale or a blow up or whatever you want to call it. It's been a prolonged, piecemeal process that's taken two full seasons. That's not a fire sale. The team has been bad because players have underperformed, not because the Cubs were suddenly without older players. Yes, you had obvious big trades like Dempster and Garza, but to point to guys like Soriano and Soto and Marmol as being parts of a fire sale is just nonsensical; they were simply at the end of their Cubs careers (and possibly baseball careers altogether) and the Cubs got bare minimum return for them. In no way was moving them critical for the team to rebuild and move forward. The current FO moving guys they signed isn't part of a blow up of the old team. Trading Cashner wasn't the move of a blow up; that's just a smart trade that a good or bad team would have done when a player like Rizzo was available (especially given his history with the current FO).

Ugh. They didn't need to blow up the team and they didn't actually blow up the team. It's been a staggered process and the team has stunk in that time because too many players have played badly, not because they intentionally tanked or blew it up or whatever other nonsense.

Very promising.

i know you don't really believe in what you post when you say something like this, that is understated and not filled with a bunch of over the top absurdity I really don't understand what you're being so defensive about here; for once none of us were going on and and on about the Cubs sucking, needlessly or otherwise. Some of us took issue with his idea that he expected the Cubs to be bad for 2-3 years because they had to clear the slate of the major league players inherited by the FO before they could start moving forward. That's simply a faulty conclusion: the rebuild is taking time because the focus is on rebuilding the farm system. That was going to occur regardless of who was on the major league team and when. He phrased it like they had to bide their time while they got rid of guys like Marmol and Soto and Soriano and Dempster, and that's simply not the case; the rebuild was going to go down largely how it has and when it has regardless of when and if players from the "old team" were traded or released (seeing as the focus has been on drafting and international signings). That he topped that off by also listing players signed by the current FO as part of the "old team" just made it even more ridiculous.

Nah. It was just picking on a silly opinion.

There's that weird obsession with Valbuena again.

And then they turn to Wright and talk to him about...Cutler running over that dude. When he wins a ring the narrative is going to be how he learned from the NFC Championship and how it taught him how to be a leader and all that [expletive]. Lord almighty, this is so right. Blech. It's like how whenever the Cubs win it it's of course going to be linked to Bartman.

And then they turn to Wright and talk to him about...Cutler running over that dude.

hey man, the way this stuff works, we should be thrilled with that. we have had bad stuff come from these sunday night games and just cutler's body language in general a number of times. if people want to correct this stuff for us for an equally arbitrary reason, i'm all for it. They should love him like we do, dammit. WITH WISDOM.

Yup: MEET THE NEW JAY CUTLER SAME AS THE OLD JAY CUTLER.

What was it, the first game of his 2nd year when he ran for a TD and got helicoptered in? Cutler has shown no fear all along. Haaaaaaaate that [expletive].

Jesus Christ, shut the [expletive] up with the meatballery, Collingsworth. This is a "different Jay Cutler" because of that run? [expletive] the [expletive] off; Cutler was throwing himself into [expletive] from day one.

How has Peppers looked? I haven't seen much outside of the BB commercial breaks and it seems like the Bears are always on offense then (though I got to see the pick 6).

This is a sexy, sexy day.

Nothing was hard to follow; he was very clear that he thought rebuilding the team was based on the necessity of shedding the older players. He even posted a list of the players he thought had to go just make sure he was super-dooper clear. The rest didn't happen (this time).

Yeah, it was a dumbass point to begin with and I was watching him squirm. Go fart out a bird cage and leave us be.

HRAMMER TIME.

Not really. They're losing him because they have a good, younger option in Castillo.

Heh-heh-heh..."mule."

So please point to how many of those "products" were obtained by "unwinding the old team."

The fact the team didn't net high ceiling prospects in return for what they were trading away speaks volumes about the quality of player they traded. When you do a one for three deal you add two players that are better than two players you have. You are elevating the level of play at every level. I don't see how that could be a bad strategy. It's just not even a strategy at all; again, you're talking about the "old team" (whatever that is) like they had to take it apart to move forward, but that's simply not true. They did it simply because it's what you tend to do when you have a terrible team and veteran players coming to the end of their deals, but it's not like rebuilding the team/organization hinged on moving older players.