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
-
Highly doubtful. It's almost completely certain that Lovie Smith will decide who the OC is going to be this year.
-
Taking a look =/= addressing the needs. -
I don't doubt that there is a method here that will payoff in the future. I just have a problem with ignoring 2012 when it was possible to make the team competitive without ruining their chances in the future. What's competitive? 80 wins? Shooting for 85 and hoping you get lucky and make the playoffs? You loved that so much with Hendry, I'm surprised to see you advocate for it now. Are you kidding me with that garbage? 80-85 while in the process of restructuring the organization is a perfectly respectable season. My problem with Hendry is that 81 was the average over a decade. 80-85 three years into a rebuilding wouldn't be the least bit impressive.
-
So am I getting this right?
jersey cubs fan replied to vance_the_cubs_fan's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
We already knew what we had in Colvin and Baker. -
I don't doubt that there is a method here that will payoff in the future. I just have a problem with ignoring 2012 when it was possible to make the team competitive without ruining their chances in the future.
-
It's like the reverse pre-convention and ticket sale situation. They used to try and build hype in advance of those things, but instead of acquiring anybody to build that hype, they are getting rid of the ones who are most hated.
-
When are they going to start trying?
-
That is such nonsense. He's not responsible for turning this team into a juggernaut this year, but they should win more than they are in-line to win. He inherited a flawed organization. But the pieces were out there to turn this team into at least a respectable club this season without destroying any future hope for greater success. If winning 60 instead of 80 games thus year makes the team significantly better in 2013-14, it's stupid not to do it. It's stupid to suggest that is the case.
-
He said if this sitting on your hands style results in 3 years of 75 wins, then that's a problem. I see it as a problem if it results in 1 year of 75 wins, and 2 would be a disaster. I'm not sure why he's willing to wait through 3 of them. Yes. That's not the same as saying he thinks you wait 3 years to evaluate him. That's basic logic which we know TT is entitled to. Where's the logic? He's skewing a list of players to try and support the notion that the only hope for the Cubs is to build stars from within, which inevitably takes at least 3 years. He threw out the 3 years comment. You and him and a bunch of others are buying into the notion that the Cubs stood no chance of staying in contention in the NL Central in 2012 so they were justified in tanking and it's nothing but a bunch of nonsense. If this team had $135 million in guarantees locked into lost players for 2012, well, your only choice was to clean house and essentially tank. But that wasn't the situation. This team isn't/wasn't destined to suck in 2012 until you pass/passed on the one thing you had a chance of acquiring this offseason with available resources, free agents. The excuse making and retroactive justification of avoiding free agency is mind numbing.
-
That is such nonsense. He's not responsible for turning this team into a juggernaut this year, but they should win more than they are in-line to win. He inherited a flawed organization. But the pieces were out there to turn this team into at least a respectable club this season without destroying any future hope for greater success.
-
He said if this sitting on your hands style results in 3 years of 75 wins, then that's a problem. I see it as a problem if it results in 1 year of 75 wins, and 2 would be a disaster. I'm not sure why he's willing to wait through 3 of them.
-
Why limit it to just guys traded after reaching the majors? What about guys traded on the cusp of the majors? Those guys(Hanley and Wainwright, to name two) are still counted, they just get lumped in with Homegrown. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and I thought that was a simple and intuitive enough line. Doesn't that just skew unnecessarily into the "just wait for the farm to work everything out" situation? It's simple, but I'm not sure how intuitive it is to pretend trading for a ready made prospect is the same as drafting/signing/developing your own star. Your theory seems to suggest we should just wait for the farm to do it's work, but if you wait for the farm it's going to take forever. You have to acquire other people's stars if you don't want to wait that long. That is done either via trade, of budding superstars (reasonable), already established pre free agency stars (farm clearers + money), or free agency (money). The Cubs have money, they don't have a farm or the assets to trade for other teams about to arrive superstars. So right now, their only option is to sign free agents. In a couple years maybe they can trade for established stars, and a couple years after that some of their own should be coming through the system.
-
Also, as an added bonus, during those 3 years we get to waste cheap 5+ WAR seasons from Starlin Castro. If we're blowing an offseason that could have made us a playoff team or near playoff team, why are the following two seasons already written off when we've only gotten rid of expiring contracts and added guys under control for several years? You are the one that talked about waiting until after the third season to hold them accountable for a lack fo success.
-
nonsense
-
Why limit it to just guys traded after reaching the majors? What about guys traded on the cusp of the majors? If they only win 75 games this year they should be held accountable. I'm not sure why suffering through 2 years of sucking should be considered acceptable. This isn't Hendry's team anymore. They had an opportunity to improve it and they passed on that opportunity, so if the team sucks, it's on them.
-
Maybe that was the hold up in Kerry Wood resigning.
-
How is that risky? What are you risking?
-
I know this is sounding like a broken record, but the NFL is not MLB. There are not a bunch of Theo Epsteins out there ready to reshape organizations from the GM chair. The guys who makes teams in their own image are the celebrity coaches: Parcells, Belichik, Cowher, Gruden and yes, even Lovie. A coach in the NFL has far more power as to the type of players the team will acquire than a manager in MLB. Their offensive and defensive schemes dictate personel, and it's the personel man's job to get him those players. There are plenty of examples of personel men and coaches overlapping their respective tenures and not alligning.
-
No, Lovie is no GM. He's the head coach, it's his team. He's not a figure head who just puts the players on the field and let's go. NFL head coaches matter, longtenured ones have strong influence in their organizations power structure. He's not going to be making the hire, but he's got to be able to work with the guy.
-
Good potential power bat Very patient hitter World class Twitter user He was a top 20 prospects his last two years in the minors. He had a line of .290 .381 .464 in 1964 minor league PA as a young guy, with 243BB/299K. His worst lines were in minimal service time as an 18 year old in rookie and A- ball. So far in the majors, through age 23, his numbers have held up to his A/AA/AAA levels, with a few more K. And maybe Sun Life Stadium suppressed his power a bit. Presumably, he'd slot in at 1B for a few years if he was in the deal.
-
He's not latino and the powers that be don't like him.
-
Where does the commissioners office stand on signing off on these sorts of deals. I remember not too long ago they would have to sign off on any deal with $1m changing hands. They've been willing to do so, but at this level?
-
that would be interesting
-
Why?
