Jump to content
North Side Baseball

jersey cubs fan

Old-Timey Member
  • Posts

    68,025
  • 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. That's kind of a ridiculous claim to make. You should never trade any potential star for a Cy Young caliber pitcher? They got a very young stud arm. It's not like they traded him for an innings eater. Sure, they probably weren't expected 950 OPS seasons out of him, but pretending they had no inclinations that he was going to be good is just wrong.
  2. Yeah, if they knew he would be a star then trading for Beckett was incredibly short-sighted. They would have much rather had Hanley than Beckett the last 6 years, and that isn't even accounting for the money they would have saved to use on another pitcher. I was under the impression that Hanley was widely considered to be a star in the making at the time of the trade. Maybe they didn't think he'd be as good as he ending up being so soon, but he was star material nonetheless.
  3. The 2005 Red Sox won 95 games and were one year off from a world series title. They could afford to trade off stud prospects and were in a completely different situation than the Cubs.
  4. The problem I have with this nonsensical insistence on giving Hendry credit for good moves is that the team is freaking awful and that is all that matters. A professional baseball person with a payroll that dwarfs the competition would have to try to not make any good moves. His job isn't to make a few good moves. His job is to build a team that wins the majority of its games, and not just 50.1%.
  5. I'm saying he probably hasn't done enough yet this year to get something worthwhile right now, and unless you can get an impact player in return there's really no point in trading him. And yes, with the absolute lack of both impact bats and potential 1B in the system he has value to the team as a potential option in 2012.
  6. If he stays hot through July it shouldn't be a problem, but that is still up for debate. And you have to get more than the mediocrity they've gotten for some other veteran dumps in recent years. I just don't see the point in acquiring more filler for the system. If they can get a potential impact player, terrific. If he was blocking somebody there could be motivation for moving him for the sake of moving him, but he's not even close to blocking somebody already in the system.
  7. I just never thought there was a realistic chance they would get him. They could, sure, but they weren't going to.
  8. The Cubs have probably won the amount of games they "should" have, based on how they have played.
  9. I think you have to wait for his numbers to start looking a lot more impressive, and then think long and hard about what you are going to do at 1B next year. The Cubs were never going to get Pujols, and the likelihood probably went down with the injury. But they need a 1B next year, regardless. If you are just going to get another fringe prospect, there's really no point.
  10. The Bronson Pinchot one is good.
  11. No, they need a sweep. If they tie the team that holds it retains it.
  12. I love how people defend Hendry by pointing out players that he acquired that don't completely suck. I mean the team is 30-44, 7 games back of the freaking 4th place Pirates, but their new first baseman has 14 HR (and a 790 OPS). How dare you people complain about Hendry.
  13. The footprint is entirely adequate when you consider the underutilized corners, the implementation of more efficient internal layouts and the potential for a basement level from foul pole to foul pole, as well as facilities under the playing field. If they can do the basement and facilities under the playing field, it would be enough... But my question is though, weren't they concerned with the water table there? Like they wouldn't be able to build anything underneath cuz the water table is too high there? I thought I remember something about that... Water tables were an issue, and I don't think they will end up being able to do much under the playing field. But they don't need it.
  14. I rarely watch non-Bears primetime games, with the exception of Thanksgiving, opening night and playoff games. I will watch most Sunday games, or parts of them.
  15. Don Banks wrote that the Thursday night story might be wrong, and that Goodell and others said it hadn't been discussed recently.
  16. Maybe a little of both. They were a middling team for two decades and seemed happy to finish 3rd with a $30-$40m payroll.
  17. Why not? Once you get the free stadium, why would you continue to pretend to try? Well, it's worked wonders for Philly. The Pittsburgh model is to wait 2-3 years before stopping to pretend. Did you dictate this post to hardcore? Is it that incomprehensible? Philly pretended to try when the stadium was coming and that actually led to being really good for a long time. Pittsburgh pretended for a couple years then dumped everybody.
  18. I think people underestimate the opportunity for increased square footage both at the corner of Addison/Sheffield and where the triange building would be. There is no reason that building can't be attached to Wrigley's grandstand, either by a couple above ground walkways, or a full-on enclosed structure.
  19. Why not? Once you get the free stadium, why would you continue to pretend to try? Well, it's worked wonders for Philly. The Pittsburgh model is to wait 2-3 years before stopping to pretend.
  20. Except you didn't come across as agreeing with anything with how you responded. Yeah, it's semantics, but you obviously posed your response as a rebuttal instead of any kind of agreement or added concern. If you can't tell the difference, fine, I understand. Even if you thought I was only disagreeing there was no reason to be an [expletive] in your response.
  21. Of course it's not the only reason, but it's a perfectly legitimate reason to want it done now. The only rational decision was to do it a long time ago.
  22. For the record, you pointed out it wouldn't save this season. I agree, but noted that it would have the benefit of moving in the right direction sooner, and also pointed out the concern that he won't be fired at all.
×
×
  • Create New...