jersey cubs fan
-
Posts
67,903 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
63
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 jersey cubs fan
-
it makes me want to be drunk on south beach right now
-
that's kind of good
-
buffalo set to announce mario signing
-
buffalo set a 130 PC to announce williams
-
http://deadspin.com/5893575/sex-offenders-and-nhl-success-an-astonishingly-accurate-new-statistic
-
No. He didn't "bring up" trading Dempster. He said it was his preferred option that should be done ASAP. The follow-up responses were primarily on that very topic and you vacillated between supporting the notion that they need to trade him immediately because even one week in AAA would be a waste and realizing that the idea of forcing a trade in the next two weeks is silly. The nonsensical ramblings about "wasting" development time and throwing away years is just pointless. I can't believe all this worry about a bunch of guys who are so far from "must be in your starting rotation" pitchers in the first place. We aren't wasting Strasburg's development here. It's a flawed roster with a whole bunch of take or leave type guys. Maybe the people who went gaga for some of the moves this winter are now just realizing the makeup of the 2012 team is going to be disappointing. But you can't praise the efficient utilization of assets this winter and then insist on trading Dempster before opening day for whatever you can get because you just can't bare the thought of Chris Volstad, Travis Wood or Jeff Samardzija not getting an opportunity to make 34 starts in the major leagues this year.
-
Yep. Dusty certainly didn't help, but didn't Wood already have one elbow surgery under his belt by the time DB showed up? Lots of people have surgeries under their belt and go on to have long careers. What doesn't typically happen is that a new manager comes in and rides that surgically repaired arm into the ground with 120 pitch count game after 120 pitch count game, staying in after long rain delays. I mean, Wood threw 140+ pitches early in the season that year. He threw 130 in terribly uncomfortable conditions in Miami. He didn't do anything like that the year before. Wood never would have been the picture of durability or have a sustained career of 200 IP seasons. But there's no way you can pretend he was doomed to have his career wind down as quickly as it did if he didn't have Dusty Freaking Baker stearing the ship.
-
Yeah, well the point of this entire thread is the insistence on trading Dempster immediately. Your argument is all over the place. You say it is innapropriate to think there will be any need for a 6th starter but then backtrack. Then you inexplicably assume that a 6th guy starting the season in AAA will essentially waste a year. This makes no sense. There will be plenty of opportunity for everybody capable of making starts for the Chicago Cubs this year to get starts for the Chicago Cubs this year. There is no need to force a trade immediately to avoid a logjam (which was where this discussion started).
-
I don't understand these posts. First, there's no love affair, people are happy they resigned him (probably insteady of stupidly overpaying for some bigger name mediocrity). And he absolutely can play TE. It's not a tough position to play.
-
So you don't think it's appropriate to anticipate the need for 6 pitchers? I think it's appropriate to anticipate the need for 6 pitchers. I don't think it's ideal to have the 6th and 7th guys be pitchers with 500 MLB IP of varying success that need more MLB innings to show the front office their value for future seasons. What does ideal have to do with anything? Nothing about this organization's players is ideal at the moment. The point is there is no good reason to fret about insisting Dempster be traded before April 5th so we can keep all these guys in the rotation from the get go. There are options, so there is no reason to refuse to use them.
-
have we changed our minds about forte by bringing in Bush? Would that free up enough? They franchised him, so I'm pretty sure they owe him that no matter what.
-
So you don't think it's appropriate to anticipate the need for 6 pitchers?
-
chelsea with a fun finish
-
Nah. That whole progression of leagues where we move people along levels of ever-increasing difficulty in order to facilitate their development as players? That's pretty much just for show. They all develop the same no matter where we put them. What's *really* important is trying to showcase a 35-year-old pitcher with a $13 million contract to see if we can convince someone to give us a C+ prospect instead of a C prospect at the deadline for him. Don't see what that has to do with Jackson.
-
High A? How will he build asset value in Daytona? Let's just send him down to Boise. I mean, it's all the same thing, he can work on his approach to hitting and his swing no matter where he plays. Seems wasteful.
-
There's probably been more than a couple interactions delayed due to the smell of dead fish.
-
High A? How will he build asset value in Daytona?
-
If we're supposed to be building asset value, then we need to be taking guys like them and getting them established in the major leagues. If all they do is play in AAA, they build no trade value and don't improve as hitters. That's true, no AAA player has ever been traded for anything worth having.
-
The most important thing is that Brett Jackson needs to be on the 2012 opening day roster, nothing else matters.
-
Maybe
-
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-cubs-wont-budge-on-bringing-up-jackson-20120314,0,7246530.story Brett Jackson still not good enough for Sveum's team. Is he blind?
-
I think it could almost be done with the Forte negotiations in mind. Hey Matt we are not afraid to replace you. Look here's Michael Bush. Not that Bush is in Forte's caliber, but him and a 1st or 2nd round rookie RB would work for many teams. Or a 3rd, or a 4th, or an undrafted free agent.
-
Did the reassignment of Dewitt clear him to play at Iowa?
-
Actually, if you bring in a costly backup RB, it may make it more important to sign him to a more cap friendly extension instead of the one year franchise #.
-
I like the idea of going away from the featured back idea and more toward a shared responsibility at the position, but not when you are going to be spending that much money on the 1st guy in the first place.
