Sammy Sofa

The Packers are basically laughing on the sideline at the [expletive] route Hester ran. Ridiculous indeed.

[expletive], OF COURSE it's Hester. He's nigh worthless.

SWEET.

[expletive] yes, Peppers.

Welp, there goes that momentum.

Holy [expletive], that was incredible.

I want a gif of him making that guy eat turf NOW.

MARSHALL IS STRONG LIKE ANIMAL.

So they're actually calling holding, but nobody is watching the QB get pulled down by his face mask?

ARE YOU JI JIM THOME?

Excellent.

http://lewislitjournal.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/guffaw.jpg

Neither am I; my point is that a baseline in that area can too easily become disastrous because the team is so precariously balanced to begin with because of the abundance of mediocrity. I think I had last year's team picked at something like 72 wins and said I wouldn't be surprised if they won ten more games than that or when ten fewer games than that. This seems to be cruising towards a similar expectation, but just slightly up the scale.

Well, I'M comparing the team for 2013 on 12/16 vs. one they started the season with last year, though even saying we're "WAY ahead" of the 12/16/2011 is hardly a ringing endorsement. You're right, I'm sure hoping there's more moves of actually significance to come, but I'm not terribly optimistic that there's another Rizzo deal that's going to happen between now and ST nor am I all that optimistic that they're going to sign someone like Jackson. If we get to spring training and this is still the team, then I'll be disappointed in the offseason. I still believe we will add a couple more pieces to the puzzle, though. I do, too. I just think they'll likely be pretty middling.

Well, I'M comparing the team for 2013 on 12/16 vs. one they started the season with last year, though even saying we're "WAY ahead" of the 12/16/2011 is hardly a ringing endorsement. You're right, I'm sure hoping there's more moves of actually significance to come, but I'm not terribly optimistic that there's another Rizzo deal that's going to happen between now and ST nor am I all that optimistic that they're going to sign someone like Jackson.

i think this is a fair opinion. Same here. That scares me. I hope my post helps you both feel better. Not really. It's feels like kind of a juggling the deck chairs on the Titanic-type scenario right now. A baseball team has so many working parts it's pretty easy to shuffle around arguments based on expectations whether you're arguing that the team is going to be bad or good. Last year's team wasn't actually as bad as they ended up being going into the season, but they really weren't any good, either, and this one one seems very similar. The individual expectations and questions marks obviously change, but it doesn't really add up to having an actual good baseball team. Better than last year? Sure, OK, I'm on board with that; but that's not saying much when last year's team was "ideally" about a 70 win-team and this one looks to be cruising for the 70-75 range.

I'm ready to have my mind changed, but the discussion was about the 2013 Cubs compared to the 2012 Cubs. I would certainly hope that another 12-18 months will make a difference or else the FO has been really fooling us. Actually, I think most people thought the Cubs were closer to a 75-win team last year. Hopefully they won't underproduce this year, but I would imagine there will be another sell off at the deadline which will bring the win total down again this year. You can at least be honest with us, you're not ready to have your mind changed. It's fair to point out though that many(myself included had the Cubs around 75 wins last year instead of 70. Overestimating the bullpen and underestimating how much the front office valued the service time of Rizzo and Wood were the two biggest factors there. With Marmol's pitch selection overhaul + the addition of Fujikawa, and there being no potential service time issues on this year's team aside from maybe Vizcaino(who isn't counted on by anyone right now), neither of those would be an issue for this year's squad. I am being honest. Right now I don't see this team very much improved over the preseason 2012 team. The rotation is slightly weaker, the bullpen is stronger, and the offense is basically the same as the 2012 team at this point last year. Again things can (and probably will) change in the next 3-4 months which would affect my opinion. i think this is a fair opinion. Same here. That scares me.

Dammit, get these two frowny face motherfuckers playing together.

He's not. Pulling him early has less to with his defensive ability (though it's not a completely unrelated issue) and more with keeping him healthy.

*Siiiiiiiiiigh*

Oh.

They gave it their all. Someone else just gave more. Should it have kept going until Sanchez ended up with Greinke money? I'd have loved to have Sanchez, but lets not act as though we missed out on a once in a lifetime free agent simply because he's been the first big name free agent we've actively pursued this offseason. How many strawmen can you pile into a single post? Just the first sentence is absurdly ridiculous and meaningless. If you're talking about "their all" as in the effort of actually flying to meet the guy and offer him a contract, so what? As tedious as it can get bringing up the "participation award," jokes, continually referring to their efforts as if trying hard counts as anything is just as awful. Plus the idea that you'd say they "gave it their all" when they failed to sign the guy is just patently ridiculous. Of course Sanchez isn't an amazing player, and of course I wouldn't want them to throw anything and everything at him to get him to sign, but your whole post is just...ugh.

I'm not mad; I'm just disappointed with things. In no way do I think the FO is a bust or that things are hopeless, but I'm not happy that they've put themselves in a position that I think will cost them both in who can they sign and how much they'll need to spend. it's a fair point, but i think a year ago you probably would have laughed at the notion that a losing environment would be more relevant to a free agency signing than the money itself. Yes and no; I have laughed at the notion, but that was with the expectation/hope the Cubs would be able to flex their big market muscle more than they have. And I'm not saying they're acting like a small market club, but they're clearly not at the level I think pretty much everyone here hoped. Because of those seemingly self-imposed restraints I think it'll unfortunately leave them without players they should or even need to sign, or they'll have to spend too much just to stay competitive with other teams offering. In the end it's not my money and I don't think this is a permanent situation at all; it's just unfortunate and can lead to some unfortunate deals where we're not just talking about an extra year or a few million more.

I'm not mad; I'm just disappointed with things. In no way do I think the FO is a bust or that things are hopeless, but I'm not happy that they've put themselves in a position that I think will cost them both in who can they sign and how much they'll need to spend.

One of the main things that bug me about what has been going on is that it potentially undercuts a lot of the desire to spend smarter. Maybe Sanchez never had any intention of playing for anyone else unless the offered deal blew everyone else out of the water, but you have to think that having a bad team impacts plans to be fiscally sound. Odds are you're not only going to have to really good/great FA more money to come here, but you'll have to do with the same with just good/useful players, too. You basically force yourself to have to spend even more money by being bad unless you luck out and have a bunch of prospects break through.