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. What the hell are you talking about? I was perfectly civil in my response and you went nuts. There are many reasons to want Hendry gone right now. I was pointing one out. If it was clear he was gone at the end of the season there would be much less reason for concern. But there are significant indications he will stay, so the sooner the better to keep that from happening.
  2. Yes, but the problem with the article and the meatball-thinking it's parroting is that firing the FO would have saved this season or might even turn it around. Firing Hendry and Co. IS the right thing to do...but no way in hell would it shut up the meatballs this year (NO, THIS ISN'T AN ARGUMENT TO KEEP HENDRY). But firing him now would start the rehab project sooner and more importantly eliminate the very real possibility that Hendry won't be fired at all. Jesus [expletive] Christ; are you [expletive] blind? Did I need to blow the final part up into gigantic neon letters? Are you illiterate? I never accused you of arguing to keep Hendry. But there is a very real chance that Hendry won't be fired at all after this season, so one of the reasons for wanting it done ASAP is making sure it gets done at all.
  3. I completely disagree. He should have had a pretty good assessment of the organization before the sale was completed, and at most the "reasonable" amount of time ran out after last season. He shouldn't need multiple seasons to assess a failing organization.
  4. Yes, but the problem with the article and the meatball-thinking it's parroting is that firing the FO would have saved this season or might even turn it around. Firing Hendry and Co. IS the right thing to do...but no way in hell would it shut up the meatballs this year (NO, THIS ISN'T AN ARGUMENT TO KEEP HENDRY). But firing him now would start the rehab project sooner and more importantly eliminate the very real possibility that Hendry won't be fired at all.
  5. Ken Tremendous (Twitter): Alright, but he's a professional.
  6. I can't believe Billy Beane directed a movie.
  7. Are you kidding me? He gets credit for the Cubs having needs?
  8. Yes. Agreed, volatile production is in no way shape or form inherently a bad thing. If he had an 800 OPS in his good years and a 600 OPS in his bad years, that could be bad. But his bad is not that bad at all. And his good is great.
  9. What justification do you have for this point? I pointed out his career line to illustrate the point that overall he's been very good. His bad years are not bad despite what some people continue to claim. And his good years are terrific. That provides insurance against black hole type production with the upside of potentially league leading production.
  10. Is this supposed to say the NFL Network?
  11. Looking at the career line seems pretty unhelpful with a guy like Soto. Like you said, he's been either tolerable or terrific (or hurt). He's never had a season that's simply good. It's always been well above or well below that. One would have to imagine that such extreme volatility would lower his value to other teams. That doesn't make any sense. He's either been terrific or tolerable. It's not like he has abysmal seasons. You have the stability of not sucking with the upside of greatness. Also, getting hurt comes with the territory if you are a catcher.
  12. I'm coming around on it a little, but the more I think about it the more I just get upset that he had to get hurt when he did. What is his status? Is there hope he returns this year?
  13. Their theoretical ceilings say nothing about how easy it will be to get above average production in 2012. The Cubs have Carlos Pena and tons of cash. Those two options are at least as likely to result in above average production at 1B in 2012.
  14. It needs to be said again, for his career his line is: .262/.355/.459 That is an OPS over 800, and takes in the best of times and worst of times of his career. His bad years represent tolerable seasons for a catcher. His good years have been terrific. His career has been very good.
  15. A pretty good prospect or two would be a terrible return on Soto.
  16. Is that really a thing that needs to be done? He's never going to hit worth a lick but if you have a good enough OF he could be a useful 5th OF/defensive replacement/pinch runner.
  17. He has been for a month and a half. They started out toward the top of that list, have been plummetting, and will go even lower once Utley registers enough PA to bump their totals. The Cubs sucked at 2B in 2009 and 2010. They could easily be on their way to sucking at 2B in 2011. There is no way you can claim they will easily fill 2B with above average production next year. That is a baseless comment. I said easiest, not necessarily easily. The Cubs prospects may bust. That doesn't mean they should block them because they're afraid of that happening. The Cubs have to identify areas that they can get cheap average to above average production at. Right now, 2B seems to be the top of the list in that department. They have close to 5 legitimate options there to start next season. And it's going to be pretty hard for the Cubs to drop much further in the rankings. Philly will pass them, but everybody else behind them is way behind them. Again, it's a baseless comment. I could say 1B will be the easiest to fill with above average production.
  18. It's not an implication, it's an assumption based on the previous post. I haven't really followed the Cubs closely in several years, so unfortunately I don't know Matt Garza of the Cubs from Joey Garza of the Larry McMurtry novel "Streets of Laredo." Regardless of whether Matt Garza is marginal, sub-marginal, or a budding superstar, I still stand by the basic premise that if you have young players who, regardless of how much raw talent they posess, will never develop into major league performers of any caliber under your system, you are probably better off trading them for the 25th man on your roster than keeping them around. Unless the 25th man you want to trade for has a miserable contract that will tie up half of your budget for several years. In that case you are better off keeping your prospects until they burn out and hiring them to sell programs at Wrigley. I don't understand any of this post.
  19. He has been for a month and a half. They started out toward the top of that list, have been plummetting, and will go even lower once Utley registers enough PA to bump their totals. The Cubs sucked at 2B in 2009 and 2010. They could easily be on their way to sucking at 2B in 2011. There is no way you can claim they will easily fill 2B with above average production next year. That is a baseless comment.
  20. They did a horrible job filling 2B in 2009 and 2010.
  21. Who specifically are you talking about? Barney, DeWitt, Baker, Lemahieu? If you want a good hitting 2B, you actually need a pretty good hitter. It's a productive position nowadays. They Cubs have been plugging holes at 2B for a while now and they have only on occasion filled it with actual production. and Flaherty and others. The Cubs system is filled with middle infield options. And 2B is still not that productive overall-most teams tend to still fill it with poor hitting players. Sure, the crappy teams have crappy 2B. But the good ones generally get actual production there. And the point is to try and be good.
  22. Who specifically are you talking about? Barney, DeWitt, Baker, Lemahieu? If you want a good hitting 2B, you actually need a pretty good hitter. It's a productive position nowadays. They Cubs have been plugging holes at 2B for a while now and they have only on occasion filled it with actual production.
  23. Overall they've been better, but the Cubs have made 4 playoff appearances post-strike while the White Sox have made 3. Although they actually capitalized on their "destiny" year and the Cubs crapped the bed. The Sox have been consistently around .500 and have had no really awful seasons, but is that really a badge of honor? It's almost easier to win in cycles of really bad and then really good than just hovering around .500 most years. I'm not sure where you're coming from. The CWS won 90+ three times in the 2000s, plus an 88 and 89 win season. They were below .500 once. They've been better than the Cubs. Still doesn't mean anyone cares, which kind of flies in the face of his "taking over Chicago" claim. Right, I understand that part. If they were going to take over Chicago, it would have happened a while ago. They've really outperformed the Cubs for a while now, but it hasn't changed things.
×
×
  • Create New...