jersey cubs fan

Oh I heard you loud and clear buddy boy.

Of all people?

Quit playing the victim with this nonsense.

Seems like a wasteful use of resources to try to be better on paper than the Yankees when you only need to be better than the Cardinals and Brewers. By being better on paper than the Yankees, you leave a lot less up to variance for a lesser Brewers or Cardinals team beating you out. Yeah, the Cubs should be in a position where they dominate this division, not just occasionally flirt with the leaderboard.

But you can't get into the World Series without making the playoffs. And you don't have to be the best playoff team to make the World Series. I agree it's going to take a while to turn this into a perennial contender, which they should be no question. But they could turn back into an 88 win team next season without a hell of a lot of work, and that's all you need to have a shot.

I think the second half of the Tribune ownership did some real things. The biggest mistakes they made was not hiring the right baseball people. But in the early 90's they went out and got a hot shot young exec in Andy MacPhail to run things and make a commitment to building through the minor league system. They also spent more and more every year on payroll, giving unprecedented resources to the team. They also laid the groundwork for the first real upgrades to Wrigley Field and got them done.

You aren't really going out on a limb saying you would trade Zambrano for the right prospects. So would I, if it was possible. But it's pretty ridiculous to preemptively blame the so-called NSBB group think for discovering that some people might actually disagree with something you say.

So he gets pissed when the team loses. What a jerk.

I don't know, but based on the Wells treatment, they should have him rehab in Iowa and let Russell/Coleman start this one instead. Wasn't Garza's injury just a bone bruise? It would seem that wouldn't require rehab versus a muscle/tendon issue where you need to rebuild strength. Taking two weeks off from starting games is an issue now matter how it happens though.

He signed an extension through 2013 last fall and has the team poised for another postseason appearance. I doubt he'll be available.

Stop saying this like it's fact. With the money coming off the books the Cubs could very easily be competitive as early as next season. No, it's by no means a lock, but that so many people have this automatic assumption that the Cubs are going to so hopelessly suck and can do nothing about it for the next 3+ seasons is absurd. It certainly isn't a fact but has there been any indication otherwise? The payroll was cut coming into this season. Attendance is WAY down this year and I think it is foolish to assume that the money coming off the books will automatically be put back into the payroll for 2012. What exactly has Ricketts done or said that makes you think he's committed to winning at all costs? Are you serious? Ricketts is going to respond to dwindling attendance by cutting the payroll by 25% and not put anything back into it? Ricketts knew when he bought the team that the payroll was right up to the limit and actually a little more than he could handle. So yeah because of moves made before he was owner, we've been struggling to do anything that adds payroll to the team. But there has been nothing said or done to indicate that Ricketts is going to randomly cut the payroll down to 80M or whatever. That's insane. All he said was that we can't assume all the money coming off the books will go back into payroll. Not any of it. I think it's still up for debate, but my assumption would be something less than 100% will be spent on big league roster. He's on record as saying they will transition some of the total money spent away from big league roster toward prospect acquisitions.

What are you talking about? This team has been terrible and he's been good. I was referring to the first half last year. So his struggles once coincided with the team's struggles, but he's pitching well while the team is nosediving. That doesn't add up to "he seems to be at his worst when the team is struggling." He was really good in 2005 and 2006, he was better than people care to admit in 2010.

I'm about ready to write him off. Or maybe see if he has any trade value. Wow, 374 OPS. I had no idea it was that bad. .223/.288/.438 for the career. (HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN STARTING AT FIRST BASE THIS SEASON!!!)

What are you talking about? This team has been terrible and he's been good.

Garza didn't do a rehab start did he? Has he just been doing side sessions?

My opinion on the matter has often been misconstrued as support for Hendry. However, I don't feel it's unreasonable to have an idea of who our alternatives are before firing him. I don't think anybody would be happy to be in a situation where the only person willing to even interview for the job was Jim Bowden. In short, it's not about firing Hendy... it's about hiring somebody better. But nobody is asking for him to be fired and then start looking into replacements. A list should have been made before the sale was completed. That list should have been narrowed down a very long time ago. It's mind boggling to me that people are so hung up on the idea that it could be worse. The Cubs lost 87 games last year and are on pace to lose 93 this season. Things already are terrible. I don't really think it's on the fans to decide who the right person is before calling for Hendry's head. It's not the fans duty to have a better idea than Hendry who to acquire before they can criticize his job acquiring players. This isn't some impatient nonsensical complaint. This isn't calling for the head of a guy who can only get the team into the playoffs but not beyond. This is an organization that has done a terrible job with the resources they have had and it's on Jim Hendry. He has to be replaced.

I find it very useful myself. I don't even bother. I just tune some people out (or try to). I tried it out, but while I might have missed the initial post that would have pissed me off, it invariably pissed off someone else who then quoted it, displaying it for me to see and then be pissed off by it. A veritable piss spiral.

I find it very useful myself. Doubtful, it seems you never miss an opportuity for conflict. I find it amusing that you have essentially tried insulting me repeatedly while complaining about how people treat others. I've got a good half dozen names on the list who I can easily avoid. If there is a discussion where I feel like they may not be an idiot, I can still read specific posts to test the waters. That's leading me to probably taking one of those guys off the list.

http://dailyherald.com/article/20110602/sports/706029870/ bruce mentions gillick and schuerholz like they're just sitting around waiting for the cubs to call and offer them a job. gillick voluntarily retired after a very successful run as GM of the phillies and is almost 74 years old. schuerholz is 70 and has been with the braves forever. it's certainly worth kicking their tires, but is schuerholz going to leave a very successful organization at his advanced age? will gillick want to come out of retirement to fix the cubs? i also don't agree with the idea that the rest of cubs management is tied to jim hendry. if you want to keep wilken around, then just offer him the money to stay. same with fleita (though he can F off as far as i'm concerned). who cares about randy bush. I agree with your second point. If you want those people you can keep them. As for the "baseball person", an older guy isn't much of a problem if you are talking about the person who is basically in charge of hiring your next GM. Kenney is running the business, the other guy is more or less an advisor you pay a chunk of change to make sure your baseaball team goes in the right direction.

I find it very useful myself.

Just to clarify, you think game threads are short because of sporcle? Uhh, no. Is that what you really took from that (rhetorical question, I know it's not)? I really don't get what you are saying. You seem to be refuting the notion that the board has struggled because of the Cubs struggles and placing the blame mostly on the decision to try out a couple failed side projects. No, I'm not. I'm saying it's a combo. Pretend to not get it again though so I can say it a few more times. I'm not pretending anything. I just don't get what you are trying to say. The way you wrote that was confusing. And I still don't get how failed side projects affected the way people post here.

Yeah, sometimes the bullying people into going away works, but I am often perplexed by how many people argue ad nauseum with people who only want to argue. If you know getting into it with a particular person will only precipitate an endless and circuitous argument, why bother? Sometimes ignoring the problem is the solution. Agreed, how do you foe someone anyway. I have a few people I could do without. click on the profile button and hit foe

Just to clarify, you think game threads are short because of sporcle? Uhh, no. Is that what you really took from that (rhetorical question, I know it's not)? I really don't get what you are saying. You seem to be refuting the notion that the board has struggled because of the Cubs struggles and placing the blame mostly on the decision to try out a couple failed side projects.

I don't know, was just noting that anybody should be top 3, so just because a guy goes there doesn't make him best available. He seems to be a decent option, a little on the safe and boring side but not completely devoid of star potential.

If the top 8 goes like that, who would you rather take? Murton never had a season even approaching what Mahtook did this year, and he had the advantage of not using the weaker bats that college guys used this year. I'm not an ESPN insider. I saw just the top 5. Who does Law have going 6-7-8? Starling is one, obviously. starling bradley ross barnes, lindor, jungmann going right after