Jump to content
North Side Baseball

jersey cubs fan

Old-Timey Member
  • Posts

    68,026
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    64

 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

2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by jersey cubs fan

  1. I've been watching for about 3 innings and think the Cubs hitters have averaged 1.1 pitchers per PA in that time.
  2. the only thing I could think of that would be normal would be something like college football recruiting schedule, or college football betting lines.
  3. You're right, the word college would totally throw off the search and give me wrong results. Why would you add unnecessary words? You're lying or not very smart. I wouldn't search Chicago Bears National Football League schedule. You wouldn't search New Mexico State College football schedule. You'd type in New Mexico State, and football would come up automatically and unless you were afraid of not having the schedule come up in the first selection you'd stop there. But you would not enter the word college for no good reason. It would be really freaking stupid.
  4. I was referred to NSBB. I've located other Cubs message boards by, you know, googling Cubs message boards or Cubs fan sites. I've found other decent sports fan sites/forums by googling for them too. Web developers spend hours upon hours improving their SEO specifically so they'll come up higher in google searches. Oh, and if I want New Mexico State's football schedule, I'd probably search "New Mexico State college football schedule", yes. Maybe with a specific year if I wanted, say, next year's schedule. You would not arbitrarily throw the word college into that search. That would be stupid.
  5. Castro followed up a great rookie year with another nice performance. Garza. Yeah, he's been pretty good. But certainly not anything better than expected or terrific. He's pitched well enough but his terrible fielding and plate appearances are going to hurt his results.
  6. Castro followed up a great rookie year with another nice performance.
  7. What makes me sad is seeing the record and watching all the losses. It will be good to not have to see so many losses for a while.
  8. I was in northern california when they beat the 49ers wearing them.
  9. It's awful, and really Miami.
  10. How do we objectively declare that Hughes was the one who had the success?
  11. A nationally recognized brand (even if it's second or third tier) and an entire religion.
  12. Yes, if someone else had exposed themselves as ignorant and dismissive at parts of player evaluation, or if Hughes hadn't done those things, then the opinions would be different. Opinions of the Cubs would also likely be different if they currently had 95 wins too. How did have success prior to the Cubs? I'm sure those same traits will still there. Did he really have a lot of success or was it just like most "good baseball men" where all you had to do was be in the game for a long time to be considered by your peers to be a good baseball man? Maybe he did have success 20 years ago, but every business evolves and if he failed to evolve then he wasn't good at his job. Just because somebody once did something well does not mean they are currently good at doing that thing.
  13. No one's work has been good under the Cubs since '02. I have no problem with him leaving, given his age and lack of ties with the team but most likely he does still provide good evaluation skills despite the Cubs as a whole not performing up to par for the last 10 years. He's been bad at his job for 10 years, and you're disappointed to see him go? No, but I'm also not using one interview as the main parameter whether or not, I'm actually happy or sad to see him go. If Maddux or Randy Bush (who I don't like) had done something similar or had Hughes had a better interview, opinions wouldn't be like this. It's one interview but we all knew pretty much where he stood long before he ever made that interview. It wasn't an offhand comment. That's like suspecting your uncle is a bigoted homophobe and finally hearing him go off on gays and blacks and all the rest while drunk, then dismissing the comments because it was a drunken rant. We knew what Hughes was about with or without an interview.
  14. Hendry didn't create anything. That was how it was done before he took the job. It was a philosophy that Hughes himself lauded and preferred to work under. He really sucked at his job and now he is gone.
  15. Uh, Fielder and Wilson are both more valuable than Aramis, so yes, both of them easily offset his production. Unless you meant to ask "Is Wilson + Fielder - Aramis enough to make the Cubs contenders/division favorites/etc?" In which case, the answer is that with their financial restrictions, there's no clear path to being a clear-cut favorite for next year, save for somebody saving the team from Soriano's and/or Zambrano's money. But those moves make the team better for next year and the following years, so the answer is obvious. You cut Aramis loose for the opportunity to add two players younger and better than him instead of only one. That is not anywhere close to an obvious answer. Odds are you'll miss out on at least one of those players if that is the move you attempt to make. It's completely foolish and incredibly risky to limit yourself to such a strategy. The Cubs have a very good player and an easy way to keep him. They should do that and then look to add elsewhere. Pretending there are no other teams bidding on free agents and all players will be happy to accept what the Cubs offer makes no sense.
  16. It is strongly frowned upon for front office types to tell a manager who to play. There's nobody with any real power in the Cubs front office to pull off such a move anyway.
  17. This is such a ridiculous comment to make. The goal is not to break even on cost/value for every player. The goal is to be good. Ramirez is good, so he is paid a lot of money. If all you do is let every expensive guy walk and replace him with cheap guys who might break even on their production, you are going to suck. The Cubs already suck. They can't afford to let quality leave if they want to get any better. Their system isn't close to being capable of replacing somebody like Ramirez. The Cubs have needs beyond 3B and finite resources. If they are better next year with Ramirez's money spent elsewhere, they need to do it. Especially since Ramirez isn't a long term piece at this point. They won't be better. Every theory is based on longshot hopes of unrealistic production from garbage internal candidates. It's a pointless exercise.
  18. This is such a ridiculous comment to make. The goal is not to break even on cost/value for every player. The goal is to be good. Ramirez is good, so he is paid a lot of money. If all you do is let every expensive guy walk and replace him with cheap guys who might break even on their production, you are going to suck. The Cubs already suck. They can't afford to let quality leave if they want to get any better. Their system isn't close to being capable of replacing somebody like Ramirez.
  19. Some of these 3B platoon ideas are just dumb. But Vitters getting time at 3B in 2012 is beyond idiotic. It's irresponsible nonsense.
  20. I'm not sure why you would think this. The line sucks. We know it sucks. It has sucked for a while and it has the same sucky players. It will continue to suck until they get better lineman.
  21. Define "around". Soto is too old and too inexperienced fielding ground balls to stand a chance of being anything other than horrible at 3B.
  22. The point I've been making this entire thread is that we should let Aramis walk to (hopefully) free up the money to sign Wilson and one of Pujols/Fielder. Wilson is a better short and long term investment than Aramis at this point. And that isn't a very smart point to try and make. Your solutions to fill the position are garbage. My solutions are salary-based - you shoot a little higher if Ricketts bumps payroll up at all. If it stays as is, then you make do with what you have. Baker is extremely productive against lefties and as long as Flaherty/LeMaheieu is decent, we'll have above average offense at third. Why do you think an aging, injury prone 33 year old slugger is a better 3 year investment than a 31 year old elite pitcher who only has 2 years of ML starting experience under his belt for 4-5 years? Your 3B production would blow. You are talking about guys who might have a chance to be backup middle infielders.
×
×
  • Create New...