Jump to content
North Side Baseball

imb

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    31,165

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    111

 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 imb

  1. imb
    Kyle, not your best day on the Internet. Hopefully you fared better on the other 17 messageboards you inundate.
  2. imb
    http://i.imgur.com/GxGxhhC.jpg Lmao that gif is perfect
  3. imb
    That "#1 prospect" wasn't even top 100 in BA (Hanley was though at #19) and Fossum had graduated in 2002 ETA: In fact, none of the 4 ever appeared on a top 100 in BA. Maybe in a few years, none of our prospects will be either? Consider these goalposts moved, my friends!
  4. imb
    Baez now 4-for-4 after an RBI double. 4-for-4, 2 doubles, 2 runs, 3 RBI and SB. We're in the 5th inning. He's now up to .277 in AA.
  5. imb

    Rizzo

    imb replied to Banedon's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk

    I still believe this guy is gonna be doing a few 280/375/500s relatively soon
  6. imb
    The guy Baez and crew rocked tonight is a consensus top-50 prospect with an era below 1 this year, by the way Baez now 3-for-3, also. His once unsightly batting average (in the .250s just one post ago!) is now .271.
  7. imb
    I don't think he'll pass Sano on many lists, but he'll join Sano in a lot of top 5s. That's a cool comparison, actually Sano is 20, and is .230/.344/.533 with 10 HR and a 23/42 K/BB in 135 ABs at AA Baez is 20, is .252/.317/.591 (!!!!!) with 11 HR and a 11/41 K/BB in 115 ABs at AA Considering Baez position, at this point there's really no reason not to have him immediately behind Sano in the rankings.
  8. imb
    If he finishes with good numbers in AA, it would take a more than Gallo-esque K rate to keep him out of the top 10
  9. imb
    my pants are #wet
  10. imb
    yeah not only did they stop selling certain items, they took down the search function lmao
  11. imb
    The goalposts are right where they've always been. lmao
  12. imb
    I would've signed Ramirez and suffered the horrors of being without Pierce Johnson (who I like) There has to be more than that, right? Because even with Ramirez's unexpected 2012 it wouldn't have tipped the scales, and at this point no one could possibl ywant to sign up for his injury riddled 2013 and to pay him 16 mil next year with a 4 mil buyout(they also would be less likely to discover Valbuena's value). Wilson as well. Those 2 moves wouldn't have made them a contender last year, but it would've given them a better starting point this year. cj wilson was never an option, didnt he take less money to go back home? man i'd feel a lot better about our future if i had gotten to see aramis ramirez for 20 healthy games this year or whatever
  13. imb
    I was making the point that the comparison was pointless by making a similarly inaccurate comparison in the opposite direction. Pointing to a team that had unbelievable results in homegrown development and more money than the Cubs is mirrored by pointing to teams that have had worse results and less money. this is some straight up erik moving the goalposts [expletive]
  14. imb
    Not yet, we're not. That was *my* point all along. The 1990s Yankees are a worthless example. *compares the cubs to the royals* Yes. That was the point. Do you get it now? the point you were making was that none of the examples you gave as comparisons for what the cubs are trying to do were accurate? boy, you sure do debate weird.
  15. imb
    Not yet, we're not. That was *my* point all along. The 1990s Yankees are a worthless example. *compares the cubs to the royals*
  16. imb
    is there a difference? if you're the worst team on accident, you don't get a better pick than a team that had the worst record on purpose. The Yankees had 4 losing seasons from '89-'92, wound up with 3 top 10 picks those years and got the worthless Brien Taylor, Carl Everett who they lost for nothing in the expansion draft, and Jeter. Granted Derek Jeter was a pretty [expletive] important part of the Yankees in the 90s-2000s, but to chalk up the Yankees success to their lucking out and being bad for 4 years (and really only terrible for 1) is really disingenuous. what the [expletive] are you talking about, dummy, that's not what i was saying
  17. imb
    this is great because literally everyone involved looks stupid. the ncaa is unjust - check darren rovell is still an idiot - check johnny manziel is every trustfund frat boy everyone hates - check texas am just got peter principled on a massive stage - check
  18. imb
    I'm sure he wasn't. But that's what happened. At the end of the day, we don't have a good role model for a major-market franchise just flat-out tanking in order to expedite a rebuilding. That's why so many of us were flat-out adamant that they would not be doing that when Epstein was hired. But pointing to successful teams that developed prospects isn't particularly accurate or helpful to illuminating the Cubs' position or the viability of their plan. Early 90's Yankees? Say what you will about the lap-the-field spending of the Yankees in the 2000's, but the late 90's success was predicated on the internal core of Jeter, Williams, Posada, Soriano, Pettitte, Orlando Hernandez, Rivera, etc. He already noted that the early-'90s Yankees weren't tanking for a rebuild, they were just bad. is there a difference? if you're the worst team on accident, you don't get a better pick than a team that had the worst record on purpose.
  19. imb
    No. They flat-sucked for 7 years, then they're working on their second losing season out of three when their window was supposed to be open. That would not be awesome. When the role models for your franchise's plan have broken .500 once in nine seasons, maybe it's time to take a step back and have some perspective. hey guess what we're the rays with a lot more money, frigging sweet. you have to keep couching your "examples" with situations that aren't analogous, it's worthless.
  20. imb
    We can be the Nationals with a little more money and a slightly worse prospects. am i wrong or wouldn't that be like, awesome?
  21. imb
    this means nothing to me, assuming the cubs will be operating with a cubs-like payroll when the prospects are ready. i know we all have our qualms about our ownership right now and where the money is going, but if a few of our minor league guys hit at the same time, a la the royals or whatever, i don't see the cubs operating with a royals-like payroll or going "we're only spending briefly" like the brewers
  22. imb
    2 or 3 openings? wow classy ladies
  23. imb
    get out of my sports obama
  24. imb
    Yeah, but look at that flavor of gatorade. that's berry fusion, only available in florida.
  25. imb
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-0806-sullivan-on-cubs-chicago-20130806,0,1088511.story?page=1&track=rss paul sullivan's exit interview, by darwin barney
×
×
  • Create New...