Sammy Sofa

So is LaHair actually injured or just terrible?

Oh man, not the truck; they'll lose all of their valuable players. Knob.

Christ, then he's a [expletive] moron and I'm sorry they ever got him. "Built this team to bottom out?" Shooting for the #1 pick like this is basketball or football? What the [expletive]? This is how we've come to rationalize things? This is baseball; if you've got good scouting/a good front office/good talent evaluation you can easily make later draft picks work and then some. Of course I didn't expect them to be world beaters, but to try and justify like they want/tolerate/tried/whatever to be the worst team in baseball is ridiculous. I guess my post did specifically say he was trying for the number 1 pick, but I didn't really mean it in a sense that he was sabotaging the team in order to ensure it was terrible. But at the same time he was not doing much to prevent it. He replaced the 2 best power hitters on the team with Ian Stewart and LaHair and traded his best bullpen arm away. That's not to say that Theo wanted them to fail. If Stewart played up to the potential that Theo saw in him then its a win for the Cubs. But I highly doubt that Theo replaces Ramirez with Stewart if the team was expected to contend. Also bottoming out doesn't mean worst team in the league. Bottoming out with regards to the Cubs rebuilding project. Dumping contracts and/or waiting for big contracts to expire, replacing his most productive hitters with big question marks with upside, trading a solid bullpen arm because he's about to get expensive and his value as an asset has probably peaked, etc. If that results in the worst record in baseball and the #1 pick, then its a success for his long term plan. Awful. A big market team like this shouldn't have to wait only for a "long term plan." Again, I wasn't expecting them to put out a world-beater this year, but I was saying it sure as [expletive] wouldn't be a stretch for this team to be worse than last year's when some people were talking like they were a lock to easily be at least or around 10 games better. I want a FO that looks to the future, but at the expense of just completely giving up a season. I'm sorry, but making your team worse just makes it that much more of an effort to improve it.

"On paper," yes, it was hardly a stretch to think the offense could be this bad. A crappy team was put on the field, and watching a big market team rebuild like this is torturous. This idea that they can't make moves until the "smoke clears" is inane.

Christ, then he's a [expletive] moron and I'm sorry they ever got him. "Built this team to bottom out?" Shooting for the #1 pick like this is basketball or football? What the [expletive]? This is how we've come to rationalize things? This is baseball; if you've got good scouting/a good front office/good talent evaluation you can easily make later draft picks work and then some. Of course I didn't expect them to be world beaters, but to try and justify like they want/tolerate/tried/whatever to be the worst team in baseball is ridiculous.

Yeah, it's not like he had the ability to try and improve the team or anything. Poor, poor Theo. The only relevance that this season has to Theo's ultimate plan is the fact that Marmol, Soto, and Byrd were supposed to be useful trade chips, and their suckage threw a wrench in those plans. other than that, pretty much everyone that can be considered a part of the future has done as expected, with the exception of Volstad. Keep suckling.

Yeah, it's not like he had the ability to try and improve the team or anything. Poor, poor Theo.

Even in a situation like this I can't help but like McCutchen.

Holy [expletive], just let them give you the out, idiot.

He tried being patient and got screwed over by a bad call. A single questionable call isn't a license to flail.

Wow. I'm trying to find more ways to describe the ineptitude.... The Cubs have scored just 5 runs over the last 50 innings where they are within 2 runs of the lead or closer (10 game span) No, it's GOOD that they're this bad; you have to be terrible before you can get better, ah-doy. It's science.

Oh, THAT explains it. Well, it explains a large part of how a terrible umpire called another terrible game. As for what your imagination imagined I was explaining, I have no idea. In the context of the loss it would appear you were attempting to attribute said loss, at least in part, to said umpiring.

Remember all the [expletive] they gave you back when you dared suggest that this could be a 100 loss team? Remember the actual reasons why? Because the team is pretty much devoid of good players (with a few exceptions?) Ironclad logic. They're a lock to join the plethora of 100-loss seasons.

Yeah, you're pretty high.

Oh, THAT explains it.

nah, lahair I still maintain he looks like a waterlogged corpse.

Sorry, wasn't trying to insult you. It's still a cool ball. I'm just really anal about my autographs lol. I agree. My parents have a ball that has autographs on it from Ryne Sandebrg (!), Bill Murray(!!!), and... Turk Wendell :( I think Wendell might be my favorite of the three. Because you're the worrrrrrrrssssssst.

No. With the knee issue there's basically no chance (not that there was much of one before) the Cubs could move him to a team looking for OF help.

Remember all the [expletive] they gave you back when you dared suggest that this could be a 100 loss team? Remember the actual reasons why?

"The bulb being on," for me, doesn't mean completely dismissing intangibles; then you're just Meph, and we all know what that leads to. I think it means minimizing them and not letting them dictate one's opinion or analysis of a player. My non-primary opinion about Castro hitting third, that could easily just be completely wrong, is that whether we like it or not players are going to look at certain spots in the lineup as having more importance than others. Hitters look at them differently, pitchers look at them differently, and maybe, just MAYBE, being put in a role that doesn't really suit him is playing to the more flawed aspects of his approach at the plate. It's not completely detrimental to him, it's not causing him to regress or stagnate, but MAYBE you're not maximizing his ability and playing to his strengths by trying to hit him in a spot that, quite frankly, he doesn't profile now or really ever. But ultimately you can subtract any intangible-based theory and still have sound reasoning for not keeping him at #3.

What if one is saying both? I've tried to make it abundantly clear that I don't think Castro hitting third is somehow critically damaging his approach or setting him up for failure in the long run; my reasons for not wanting him hitting third rest primarily in that I don't think he profiles ideally as a #3 hitter and the Cubs are, despite how good he is, selling themselves short if they want to try and shoehorn him in to that role. My concerns about how the traditional expectations of a #3 hitter might be playing to the more detrimental aspects of his approach at the plate are effectively just window dressing; they're not the main reasons I don't want him hitting there, but they are a reason down the spectrum. Now, I'm not saying this is a sure thing; I could easily be completely wrong and hitting #3 has absolutely nothing with some of the things we're seeing so far this year. Ultimately it's just another reason for me to toss on the heap of reasons why I'd rather see him hitting #2 or even leading off.

If it was an either/or situation only then you'd have a point. Plus the appeal is that he wouldn't have to be "overhauled."

A work in progress that is only signed for 4 years. Is that a bad thing? I think people went a little overboard with the whole "years of team contract" obsession this offseason. If he's a work in progress, how is it not? A "work in progress" in a sense of it'd probably take him a season or bit more to figure things out.

A work in progress that is only signed for 4 years. Is that a bad thing? I think people went a little overboard with the whole "years of team contract" obsession this offseason. Yeah, no kidding; and yes, he's older, but I'm still surprised you've got people talking like it's a surprise that he's struggling two months into his MLB career. The main selling point around him seemed to have been his raw talent and ability and how it would have be molded to succeed here. Call it backlash to the spazballs who wouldn't shut up a week into the season about how we passed on a star. I believe most of that was with tongues firmly planted in cheeks.

A work in progress that is only signed for 4 years. Is that a bad thing? I think people went a little overboard with the whole "years of team contract" obsession this offseason. Yeah, no kidding; and yes, he's older, but I'm still surprised you've got people talking like it's a surprise that he's struggling two months into his MLB career. The main selling point around him seemed to have been his raw talent and ability and how it would have be molded to succeed here.