jersey cubs fan

I'd think Reinsdorf would be happy to take on the additional revenue that would come from hosting games every day of the season.

Are all the perfect players free agents next year, then? Most free agents have flaws. That's why you shouldn't rely on the free agent market very often. But guys like Napoli, Wright, Upton, Cain, Greinke, Hamels and Marcum have lesser flaws that make the contracts slightly less risky. I'm not really a fan of building through free agency anyways, so passing on the horrific contracts this offseason doesn't bother me, particularly when it seems to be Epstein's weakness. Nobody is talking about building exclusively through free agency. But not building does not equal not participating. You build your team through a variety of ways, one of which is to add free agents when you can.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/chi-reports-conference-usa-mountain-west-will-merge-20120213,0,1401026.story

It's really stupid to say that they are cutting the funding because they aren't positive enough, but they should have just said they reeavaluated their business and have better use for the money.

Actually, and I may very well be in the minority, but I think they'll end up better than last year. Granted, I don't think they're a .500 team, but I do see improvement happening. I could see 74-75 wins. I think people underestimate how many late leads we blew. I mean Marmol blew 10 games for us in the 9th. Combine that with some injury problems, and essentially being out of the division race ridiculously quick, and there's probably a few more wins we lost there due lack of motivation/preparation from being out of it so early. And in a normal year, what can you expect, 6 or those? The Cubs lost a lot of games in a lot of different ways. That's because they sucked. It's not because they weren't motivated or that Marmol ruined the season with flukey struggles.

Yeah, $18 million is all it takes to build a hell of a contender. no one said that 18 million is all it takes to be a contender. only that they arent willing to spend on a big free agent with that contract hanging around. 18 million may or may not make us a contender with this division you never know. 18 mil spent properly probably makes us more interesting to watch though. Thats all im looking for really. Field a team that has a chance to be .500. I don't think that contract has an specific bearing on their decisions this year or the next three. I think they just looked at this as an opportunity to clean house and do nothing about the 2012 team while focusing exclusively on the future. The Cubs sucked, they know they can get away with sucking again this year, so they are choosing to do so.

That's all well and good, but can we stop pretending it's perfectly awesome to miss out on everybody and that everybody else is going to regret all their signings? This has happened with every single signing where the Cubs have been rumored to be among the leaders, but didn't get the guy.

If they don't have this team dominating the division and able to afford any free agent they want to keep in 4 years than they have done a poor job.

I'd rather not sign anybody. It's ridiculous how much money professional baseball players get, it is way too risky. A lot of teams are making bad decisions right now. Really, really [expletive] bad ones. Ones which I would be [expletive] PISSED if the Cubs had made. Not speaking to Cespedes so much as Pujols and to a much larger extent, Fielder. Well, I won't lie and say I'd have been mad if we signed Pujols...but I would've been well aware that it was a pretty stupid decision. Keep telling yourself that but the Cubs best acquisitions this year have been front office staff. At some point you actually have to field a team of compensated professional athletes who make more than the 99%.

Shocker! Cubs actually offered money! Can the choir of "we want our toys" folks calm down now? Seriously people, all you people who want the Cubs to actually acquire baseball players are nothing but pie in the sky choir boys. Who needs baseball players?

The revisionist history is the other way, I think. Go back and read the thread. The initial discussion point of Wells-for-Garza not being efficient enough to help the rotation quickly turned into a discussion where posters argued Wells was just as good as Garza: --"It's really not that much of an upgrade" --"I wouldn't go past Wells alone. And it's not like I'd jump to do it either." --"Regardless, a straight swap would be an ill-advised and very shortsighted move at best. Including prospects with Wells would be incredibly dumb." --"I really don't see the positive behind dealing Wells for Garza." I have. And all of those quotes are easily read in the context of the idea that trading Wells for Garza is cutting off your nose to spite your face. The semantics of people thinking that Wells is only marginally worse or marginally + x worse than Garza(who was a buy low candidate to begin with) misses the point entirely. Sure, the context of the discussion was "trading Wells for Garza is cutting off your nose to spite your face." But no context is necessary for statements such as "it's really not that much of an upgrade." That is an explicit qualitative comparison between the two players. That's not semantics, it's the plain language of the words used in the thread. Actually there's nothing explicit about it other than the clear indication that it is an upgrade.

I'd rather not sign anybody. It's ridiculous how much money professional baseball players get, it is way too risky.

It's not that much money. And if he's any good he'll be a big trade bait. You don't think 9 mill a year is a lot for such an unproven commodity, particularly for the A's? There seems to be a good deal of reasonable debate about what numbers in Cuba translate to at the MLB level, no? Beane sort of his spent his nut (depending on how much revenue they derive from the yet unbuilt stadium) for the next couple of years, didn't he? No, it's not a lot of money. It's less than many people thought. Major league baseball teams spend lots of money on players. I don't see how this could be considered a surprising amount for them to spend.

It's not that much money. And if he's any good he'll be a big trade bait.

I would love to trade Sharp. I would have loved trading Sharp when the whole rebuild thing began. He's got value and he's among the oldest of the current players.

I wouldn't exactly call him an ex-goal scorer.

He didn't drop San Diego, they are rated #1 on his list. He did refer to top 25 when mentioning Rizzo, but he had him rated 38 last year and 36 this year, so it's tough to say what that was all about.

14 road games left / 12 home games -- just counting off the schedule. Doesn't look like much of a home run from here on out. This is pretty ugly stuff. We're missing the playoffs unless something happens to wake this club up. I have no doubt that something is happening in the next two weeks, and very likely something major. What do they have to lose at this point? I don't mean Q getting fired either, which I don't think will happen. One of the "core" guys is going -- would be nice if it was Kane. If they are trading Kane it can't be out of desperation. You have to maximize return for a guy like him.

Theo's don't exist in the nfl. There was no top notch candidate they didn't have a chance with. I find a Belichick jumping ships after an ownership pisses him off quite plausible. There certainly weren't out there to hire, but they could and will exist. You mean specifically Belichick or some theoretical Belichik clone? He was a mediocre coach with Cleveland. His timing with Brady was perfect, but I'd bet it would be quite difficult for him to replicate his success somewhere else. Remember, he won by outscheming opposition with his defense. Now his defense sucks and he relies on his HOF QB to outscore everybody

And Welker lost the Super Bowl with a drop. The point is not that drops are good or bad. Obviously nobody wants a drop. But you don't rank a WR by drops. You can certainly rank good WRs by drops (actually, drop percentage), which is exactly what I did. You can put a list together, but it doesn't tell you anything worthwhile.

And Welker lost the Super Bowl with a drop. The point is not that drops are good or bad. Obviously nobody wants a drop. But you don't rank a WR by drops.

Don't apologize, you're dead on. Dumping on a productive WR because he drops a greater percentage of passes thrown his way than some mediocre guy is pointless.

man i love khabibulin, but yeah, give me nabokov instead. Why does anybody like Khabi?

Why on earth would the Pirates reject a deal in which they's acquire an established starter, who could potentially be a front end guy for them if the price is Garrett Jones and the Yankees paying a big chunk of A.J.s salary? I'd take that deal for Bryan LaHair without thinking twice, and that's basically what Jones is. The Pirates are a dark horse for the division, but they could still contend and adding a veteran starter, who'd be going from the AL East to the NL Central could really help their cause. That really makes no sense why they would turn that deal down if all it was, was Jones straight up for Burnett with the Yankees eating a big portion of Burnett's salary. Does Jones even factor to start at an OF position or 1B for them this year? He basically has been a bench bat and has gotten 2-4 starts a week for them the last few years, iirc. Didn't it say the Yankees were offering less than 1/3rd of his contract? You are talking about Pittsburgh taking on $11m per year for two years for a guy who has been pretty crappy the last two years. Why would they want to do that?

In sports, that's about the worst argument to support an argument.