Sammy Sofa

Bull [expletive]. Theo and co. weren't going to come here if they didn't have money to spend. I don't believe that for a second. If they're going to struggle to handle their current payroll, around $90 million, then they're in trouble for a while.

I appreciate the discussion. You're right about Wood right now, and I hope he keeps it up. LaHair I've never been sold on and I'm still not, and playing him is something that Hendry likely would have done, too. Same with signing someone like DeJesus, and starting Shark likely would have happened regardless. I appreciate the Stewart trade, but I guess it's the timing; I'll appreciate those moves more when the team isn't horrible and the guy isn't effectively replacing one of my favorite players ever.

I'm sorry, but just assuming/allowing a season to be bad isn't acceptable. It's like people are hoping that because they're so bad something good must come out of it, but sometimes a team is just bad and it just means you have an even deeper hole to dig out of. Again, it shouldn't ever be necessary for the Cubs to "tear a team down;" contrary to what is often said, it's not as if they're choked by long-term contracts for unproductive players. They have one of those. They're not beholden to the limitations of a small market team like the Royals or the Pirates. They have the luxury of having the option to rebuild AND not put a team of garbage on the field, and they failed to do so. That's not a good thing. The team being good in, say, three seasons and being horrible THIS season are not necessarily on the same path. It's not like it's a sure thing to say, "man, it's great that the Cubs are good in 2016, and it was necessary to be absolutely wretched in 2012 for it to happen!" I mean, really, what is the benefit? How does losing around 100 games put you in a better position to win sooner than losing around 80 games? Draft slots don't make that much of a difference in this game.

It's not necessarily the wrong way, but it doesn't mean we have to like it. It's inexcusable that a team with the market/resources of the Cubs are fielding this team right now. Fielding a garbage team really doesn't help you all that much when the baseball draft doesn't work like football's or basketball's and it doesn't really give you much in the way of trade-able assets. Ultimately the default is you're just bad almost for the sake of being bad, and that should never be an acceptable outcome. At the pace things are going this year is a failure, pure and simple.

Why would they possibly do that? To "save the season"? If anything it makes it less likely. Yeah, they clearly know what they're doing. Theo and myself do not enjoy this sarcasm. Obviously I'm stewing in my rage right now, but there's really little way to look at the new regime's tenure thus far as anything besides an mitigated disaster. You've got the Rizzo trade and...that's about it. Plenty of time in the coming years for them to turn it around, but as of right now they [expletive] suck.

Why would they possibly do that? To "save the season"? If anything it makes it less likely. Yeah, they clearly know what they're doing.

You're the worst. No, really...give us another list of the valuable offensive assets that the Cubs have that they'll part ways with and make them so much worse. The few good players they have they need to hold on to and the rest are garbage. Dempster is the main exception, but who knows if he'll accept a trade. DeJesus is about the only other one who could possibly net some value, but the argument could be made they'll need him back, y'know, unless next year is going to be another "oh, we're going to tank because you gotta be worst before you can the best" fun fest.

Well said.

They've been facing that many lefties in a row?

NAILED IT.

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.