Jump to content
North Side Baseball

goonys evil twin

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    13,551

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Joomla Posts 1

Chicago Cubs Videos

Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking

News

2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

Guides & Resources

2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

The Chicago Cubs Players Project

2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by goonys evil twin

  1. goonys evil twin
    I thought it was a pretty silly and pointless idea and see no problem with not keeping it open. The area around Wrigley is unlike any other ballpark/community in the country in the way it draws crowds on gamedays. There are just far too many people milling about to keep a small unobstructed street level view to the game open. It's not like this was a 100 year tradition and they are covering it up, it never was, and it never will be.
  2. goonys evil twin
    That makes two of us, I guess. This all started with me asking a simple question about the payroll, not peeing in anyone's Cheerios. Looking at the recent past with this ownership and management team in place, I do not believe we will start next season at 105. Last year, yes the payroll was right around 100, but 12.5 belonged to someone in Baltimore. The year before was not mid-90's as you keep saying but at 90.5. Without the money owed Sammy in 2005, we haven't gone into a season with a top-5 payroll since before 1990 (if ever, I don't know), and I don't see that changing for next season. The perception that this ownership group is overly cheap is just wrong. It doesn't matter if money was spent on a player that didn't play here, it was spent. And this team has consistently spent a decent amount, increasing yearly. It makes perfect sense to assume it will be a little higher this year. Who cares what it is at the open of the season? The bottom line is the whole season. The Cubs have been top 5 for a while because they add during the season.
  3. goonys evil twin
    I felt very comfortable with Farns in the seasons he was very good, and nervous in the years he was bad. But "feeling comfortable" is just a personal bias and doesn't mean a thing in real evaluation.
  4. goonys evil twin
    That's not what was being talked about. Vance said "If the spending limit is around 100, the Cubs could still add a player for roughly 5 million. My guess is they could spend up to 105 million if Hendry wanted to." I wondered why he thought 105 was a realistic guess for the upcoming season based on past history with current ownership and management. No mention of midseason moves whatsoever. At this point, I have no idea what you are talking about. The payroll has gone up steadily every year this decade. It was right around 100 last year. It was in the mid 90's before, and this year, if the trend holds, could be around 105. Midseason moves are a big part of that. It's realistic because that's what has happened consistently.
  5. goonys evil twin
    I'm comparing apples to apples. If those numbers are misleading for those reasons, your 105 is as well. Why? You just said it yourself: A prediction of a 105M payroll also does not include "midseason trades and a lot of other stuff". If the team went into past seasons with the payrolls I have indicated, what makes you think this year will be much different considering what we've already seen? No, I didn't say so myself. Thinking they might go to 105m eventually means they might add payroll later on. They are in the 90's now, might go to 100 before the season, and maybe 105 before all is said and done. That is what is being talked about, and that would be right in line with the steady growth of recent years.
  6. goonys evil twin
    I doubt it. I think he'll know when to quit.
  7. goonys evil twin
    I agree with the sentiment, but disagree with your "you guys" inference.
  8. goonys evil twin
    I'm comparing apples to apples. If those numbers are misleading for those reasons, your 105 is as well. Why?
  9. goonys evil twin
    Peanuts, but last year, they were at 99.5 with Sammy's money. 2004 was 90.5, 2003 was 79.8. They were in the 60's as recent as 2001. Link Those numbers are a little misleading. They're based on the figures that MLB uses to figure the payrolls and don't always represent total payroll figures. Those numbers often do not include buy-outs, etc. And they don't include midseason trades and a lot of other stuff.
  10. goonys evil twin
    Peanuts, but last year, they were at 99.5 with Sammy's money. 2004 was 90.5, 2003 was 79.8. They were in the 60's as recent as 2001. Link The USA Today numbers are notoriously crap. Last year they paid $16m for Sosa to play elsewhere, which easily put them over $100. 2004 was well over 90. 2003 was high 80s. During this time many other teams were declining while the Cubs were consistently increasing. In the late 90's early 00's the Cubs were about 12th in the league in payroll, but they climbed up to 5th during Hendry's time.
  11. goonys evil twin
    If I recall correctly, the 2004 and 2005 payrolls both exceeded 100. Last year's payroll looks deflated because MLB doesn't count the money we sent the Orioles to pay Sammy. When that money is added in, the Cubs were over 100 million last season as well. With the money we paid Sammy, I believe we were still under 100 (at 87 without). 2004 was 90.5, and we were in the 70's and below in 2003 and before. No they weren't. They left the 70's long ago. Last year was over 100, 2004 was in the mid 90's.
  12. goonys evil twin
    The 2003 team choked just as bad at the end as the 2004 team, and the 2004 team had a better season. I don't think expectations or a lack of expectations can be blamed or credited for the results.
  13. goonys evil twin
    But he went through that last year, one year young, and couldn't come up with the lucrative deal. He had 1 AB last year, not a healthy and productive season. But that's my point. He's even older. He could very easily be done with this type of thing. The original post said "I still can't understand why we won't sign.....". Well, I'm just pointing out, it's very possible neither of these guys have any interest in such a deal. I'd love to have one of these guys on the cheap to platoon with Jones. Of course, it wouldn't happen that way if they did sign. But there's no way to say for certain either would have any interest in doing so. Juan, for one, tried this last year, at 35, and it failed miserably. He hasn't been able to stay healthy in years, and hasn't drawn much interest for contracts in a long time. He went through the "prove it" contract and it backfired. He could easily be refusing to try it again at 36, hoping against hope that somebody would give him a big deal at 37.
  14. goonys evil twin
    But he went through that last year, one year young, and couldn't come up with the lucrative deal.
  15. goonys evil twin
    Pessimism would be saying Lee is probably going to have his worst year, Cedeno will probably get hurt, Murton will probably bust, Zambrano will probably be awful, and the team will probably lose 90 games. Pessimism is taking the worst possible scenario and ignoring the positive. Saying the offense has improved, but probably not by much, and that the team has a chance to be pretty good, but it will take a lot of things going right to be great is not pessimism. It's realism. I'm not predicting doom and gloom. I'm simply stating facts and likely predictions.
  16. goonys evil twin
    I would bet Cedeno outperforms Neifi. But I'd hesitate to bet that the Cubs 2006 SS production eclipses the Cubs 2005 SS production. Well that all depends on how much time Dustbrain gives to Cedeno over Neifster. But your statement very well might be right, since Nomar was on fire when he came back - and it's doubtful Cedeno will put up those 2nd half Nomar numbers in his first full year at SS. But much of Nomar's production was from 3rd base, after Ramirez went down. Nomar Had 34 appearances at 3B, compared to 26 at SS. He was hitting 238/297/337 on 8/26, when he made his first appearance at 3B, I believe. Yes, Nomar's SS time was pretty weak overall. In fact, I think the Cubs overall SS numbers closely resembled Neifi's overall numbers. And I still think the 2006 SS numbers could be very similar.
  17. goonys evil twin
    I find it annoying that people have to state this. Of course we're behind the Cubs and want them to succeed. You can want, wish and hope for all the success in the world and still keep your eyes open to the flaws. If they fall short, I want them to miss by a wide margin to instigate change and give them a higher draft pick. But I don't want them to fail at all. I desperately want to see another playoff appearance at the very least.
  18. goonys evil twin
    The Cubs don't really have vaunted pitching prospects right now. Prior and Zambrano were the last ones. The rest are all second class prospects. I'd like to see one of these guys given the 5th starter job instead of some 5+ ERA journeyman veteran, but I'm not counting on much from the farm helping the rotation next season.
  19. goonys evil twin
    I would bet Cedeno outperforms Neifi. But I'd hesitate to bet that the Cubs 2006 SS production eclipses the Cubs 2005 SS production.
  20. goonys evil twin
    Gonzalez played on a minor league deal last year that guaranteed him 600,000. I don't see why he wouldn't do it one more time. Hidalgo made 5 million last season which was half of the 10 million he made in 2004. I could see him being reluctant to play for less than 1.5-3 million. The fact that Gonzo went through that last year could very easily be the reason why he wouldn't this season. He's made his money. Unless he's just passionate about the game and desperate to find a team, there's little incentive to sign to such a deal.
  21. goonys evil twin
    I don't put much stock in the fat Maddux talk, the contract year stuff, or the begging out of games. I've read before that Maddux at his best did whatever he could to not have to face a guy more than 3 times in a game. When you're dominating, it's pretty easy to go 7-8 innings without having to face anybody the 4th time, which he apparantly views as the time when guys can figure you out. If you aren't walking guys, and holding teams to just a couple hits a game, you're going to go deep. Maddux just isn't that good anymore. I don't think any level of fitness would change that. Besides, Roger Clemens has been taking himself out of games for years. He never goes deep. I think he went like 4-5 years without pitching into the 9th. He's not out of shape. My problem with Maddux is the percentage of payroll allotted for him in comparison with the level of production he provides. His age and declining pattern makes it difficult to believe he can change that pattern. I don't think his workout habits, attitude or desire to succeed has anything to do with the problems he faces.
  22. goonys evil twin
    Cedeno is the same or worse than Neifi? Murton is the same or worse than Hollandsworth/Dubois/Lawton? Not in my eyes. You have to remember Cedeno won't get 700 PA at SS. Even if Cedeno outperforms Neifi circa 2005, Neifi will get significant time at SS. He could easily drag the overall SS production down to the level it was at, or near where it was at last year. Likewise, Murton will not get 700 PA. And the Cubs lack of OF depth could easily mean the overall LF production is very close to what it was last year. Remember, he doesn't have to just replace Hollandsworth/Dubois/Lawton, he has to also replace Murton and Hairston of 2005. It's about total production, not just peak production.
  23. goonys evil twin
    You're putting words into people's mouths. The offense is a problem, but it's been acknowledged it's not the worst out there. Sure it's been improved. But at least in my eyes, not nearly as much as it could and should have been improved. And perhaps the biggest problem is it shouldn't have been as bad as it's been in the recent past if the Cubs weren't so insistent on handicapping themselves with an overly aggressive offense that refuses to walk. It's not pessimism to point out weakness. It is foolish to ignore weaknesses. The offense is a problem. The health of the pitching staff is a problem. The pitching staff could conceivably be very healthy and dominant. The offense does not even offer a glimmer of hope for dominance.
  24. goonys evil twin
    You were the one who brought up last year's numbers. Regardless, you can't talk about this year's team without bringing up last year's. The runs scored/OBP/walk problem wasn't just something that crept up out of nowwhere. It's been a lingering problem year after year. And it is still a problem. The offense is better, but I doubt it'll be a whole lot better. It still won't be near the top of the league.
  25. goonys evil twin
    I'd think a big problem would be getting these guys to agree to such a deal. I'm not sure they wouldn't rather sit out the year than play for such a low guarantee, or no guarantee at all.
×
×
  • Create New...