Sammy Sofa

"Failure on the part of the scouting system?" Which part of the scouting system is that, the spies that know what other teams' secret bids are?

Also: trading Matt Garza was apparently the holy grail of saving the farm system.

And Joe Ricketts ate "the plan." Or something.

Probably because you're making a lot of things up.

The [expletive] it doesn't. Holy [expletive], do you really believe this? No [expletive]. Nobody is saying it turn out to be a mistake to wait to try and force a better deal at the deadline. It's hardly something crippling or some kind of humiliating failure, and it's not like they still won't likely get a good return for him. Are you really THAT bothered by this? There were many more reports after that that indicated that the Rangers actually outbid everyone else by a pretty significant margin and the Blue Jays bid nowhere near $50 million. If you want to stick with the story from December, hey, great. That's not very smart. It was barely brought up before, and there was seemingly no progress before it went down, so, ooooh, huge changes on the project that will get done regardless because we're talking about a hugely valuable asset for the city. Oh, and it was brought up...by Rahm, when he said after the fact it wouldn't impact things. So I guess you only believe certain things he says when it's convenient to make you feel more sad and cranky over the Cubs. But yeah, this was really embarrassing, because there's a score kept over those things, I guess.

Yeah, that was hilariously awesome. They probably felt really terrible about trading with us though! Braves hate the Cubs...but trade with them anyway. Rahm is livid and everything falls apart...then says everything is cool. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/25/wrigley-field-renovations_n_1545382.html IT'S ALL A SHAM.

My guess is some other team signs Haren and then Theo (the terrible poster) will be chomping at the bit to post about every good start he has.

Yeah, they totally didn't trade Garza because it didn't have anything to do with the a season ending injury or anything. It was foolish and risky not to trade Garza in the spring, when his value was at its logical peak. But that's a whole other story for a whole other thread. This. And the fact that he got hurt a week before the trade deadline. You cant let that happen. There was too much risk in holding him that long and too much interest in him not to trade him before then. Oh my God. Kyle, these are your people.

Because the Cubs don't run an organization staffed by robots where you can simply switch off their voice circuits or whatever the [expletive] you want; leaks happen all the damn time when it comes to sports deals. The stick in the spokes was Dempster being relatively unusually stubborn about the whole thing. And yet there's still an excellent chance he will be an in demand player they can get an excellent return for. It's hardly like that was their only shot to get a good return for Matt Garza. Reportedly nobody was in the Ranger's ballpark. Or state. How were they "in a panic?" The press broke the story, then reported that Rahm was being Rahm and the Ricketts who actually run the team denied having anything to do with it. Then the story died and anyone who isn't a mutant sack of meatballs realized there was nothing there.

Those Braves were so pissed off that they turned around and traded with the Cubs anyway for Maholm and Johnson. This isn't grade school recess; if there are deals to be made the teams involved will make them regardless of whether or not Carlos Marmol was traded for Dan Haren. You're trying your hardest to be miserable about this for...some reason, I guess. Rahm saying "me like Boston baseball setup" is hardly anything dramatic, and it was indicative of no actual progress in negotiations. The Cubs and the city were seemingly nowhere near a resolution before the Joe Ricketts incident and seemingly nowhere near it now. It was a blip on the radar that changed next to nothing. And who gives a [expletive] what it "looks" like?

That's the only logical assumption to be made. The alternative is that in a pitching-desperate league, two cost-controlled years of an above-average starter didn't attract serious trade interest. I'm sure plenty of teams were interested. It doesn't mean those teams were willing to give up anything at the time that the FO thought was a near-lock to top what they could get moving him later in the season when some of those teams might be more desperate. It was a gamble that unfortunately didn't work out.

The Dempster "gaff" was on Dempster being an [expletive], not on the organization. Failing to trade Garza? How do you know what was being offered? Dont you think they should have told dempster and marmol not to discuss anything until it was final? Maybe they did however, in dempsters case iirc they told him he was likely to be traded the next day and would have time to approve a deal or not. Then the media got wind of it and he was like there is no trade and the Braves were miffed. Then the dodgers got pissed because Dempster was supposedly in on the gm conversations unbeknownst to Ned Colletti. As far as Garza being traded I dont know the offers there were plenty of rumors going round and he had plenty of suitors. We would have gotten a lot more back then we did for dempster because he had another full year of control. They can tell the players whatever they want; they can't actually force them to shut up and take it. Your perception of all of this seems way, way off. Dempster naysayed the initial deal to the Braves and the Cubs nixed the Dodgers deal; neither thing all that unusual or over the line. This current issue seems to have absolutely nothing to do with the Cubs announcing it or Marmol saying anything. Garza seemingly wasn't traded because they didn't like the offers they were getting before the season started, so basically you're saying you're mad at their "blunder" for not trading him simply to trade him as early possible and make you happy.

Think he's talking about Joe Ricketts Super PAC against Obama when the Cubs were negotiating with Obama's buddy Rahm Emanuel about a Wrigley renovation deal. I know what he was talking about; he's presenting it like the Cubs had some deal lined up and then Joe's political ties squashed the whole thing. That didn't happen. The Cubs were seemingly nowhere closer to getting a deal with the city than they were before that came to light; it was just political gossip fodder that didn't do much of anything to change the limbo status of the Cubs vs. Chicago. Yeah, that is why all of the other Ricketts were doing serious damage control for weeks after the story. I agree that we should give them a chance to put their stamp on the team, but so far they have been pretty much more of the same or worse. Christ, this is meatballism at its most annoying. The "damage control" was Tom publically repudiating the ad and pointing out that the other person who runs the team is a liberal lesbian who supported Obama in '08 and pointing out that, hey, we're not our dad, Mayor Dip [expletive]. If Emanuel is such a dunce that he's going to let a valuable and lucrative landmark for his broke city suffer in prolonged rehabilitation because the father of the people who run the team hates Obama then, yes, it's hopeless and the Ricketts will have to pay for the whole thing themselves.

Think he's talking about Joe Ricketts Super PAC against Obama when the Cubs were negotiating with Obama's buddy Rahm Emanuel about a Wrigley renovation deal. I know what he was talking about; he's presenting it like the Cubs had some deal lined up and then Joe's political ties squashed the whole thing. That didn't happen. The Cubs were seemingly nowhere closer to getting a deal with the city than they were before that came to light; it was just political gossip fodder that didn't do much of anything to change the limbo status of the Cubs vs. Chicago. one month before Joe Ricketts flapped his mouth everything seemed positive and seemed to be gaining steam: http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8622523 after Rahm is "livid" and "not returning calls:" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/17/rahm-emanuel-joe-ricketts-jeremiah-wright_n_1525541.html Rahm's comments in the first story were just lip service; Daley talked plenty over the years about how much Wrigley meant to the city and they wanted to support it and blah-blah-blah. There's nothing in that article that indicates things were any closer than the talk we've heard before and since. I also don't care how pissy he was over Joe; that's what Emanuel does because he's a troll. Wrigley is literally falling down and the city isn't going to let it fall apart. Everything right now is posturing, but it's not going to not happen because Joe Ricketts is a hardcore Republican. That's not how these things work. So what? Like I said, deals fall apart all the team. Teams have info announced that turns out to be incorrect all the time. How is any of this embarrassing? Missing out on Cespedes was the only mistake you've listed, and it's hardly embarrassing. Dempster fucked the deal up himself, the Rangers blew everyone else's bid out of the water and Garza got hurt. So what? How is that an embarrassing "blunder?" This isn't the "status quo," either in the sense of how things usually go or being relative with how the Cubs have been run in the past. Your entire thesis is petulant.

Think he's talking about Joe Ricketts Super PAC against Obama when the Cubs were negotiating with Obama's buddy Rahm Emanuel about a Wrigley renovation deal. I know what he was talking about; he's presenting it like the Cubs had some deal lined up and then Joe's political ties squashed the whole thing. That didn't happen. The Cubs were seemingly nowhere closer to getting a deal with the city than they were before that came to light; it was just political gossip fodder that didn't do much of anything to change the limbo status of the Cubs vs. Chicago.

What "stadium deal?" How was it "getting rolling?" Joe Ricketts can "spout off" however he wants; he has next to nothing to do with the operations of the Cubs. The Cubs didn't announce anything. So what? Teams pull out of deals all the time. This isn't unusual at all. Cespedes is about the only one I'd consider a "blunder." To act like this has been a parade of screw-ups is a reach that even Kyle would find embarrassing.

What the fudge are you babbling about.

Two deals that looked great for the Cubs, too. With as secretive as the team is with the local media, I wonder why they can't keep stuff quiet during deals. I highly doubt this had anything to do with anyone keeping things "quiet."

[expletive], I just got home; I'm not wading through anything except the last page.

You're disgusting.

Yeah, they'll start the No Cubs Club or something.

Yesssss.

Yeah, one guy inexplicably says "trade rape" and he decides he's now going to show up everyone else every time Harden has a good game.

How was that not an "original thought?"

Oh boy, he's about to break out the dictionary that exists in his head.