Jump to content
North Side Baseball

jersey cubs fan

Old-Timey Member
  • Posts

    68,022
  • 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. You are taking 16 home games away from everybody. You are taking numerous "high value games" away from many teams. Boston/NYY go from playing 18 games to 6, Tampa hosts the Yankees 3 times instead of 9. This is all just incredibly unrealistic and impossible to make work. You can't force San Fran to play Washington as often as they play the Dodgers. Baseball is a business built on getting butts in seats for 6 months. This plan would kill the business model.
  2. I don't really understand what the heck this means. What makes it obsolete? It's not a piece of technology. It's 162 games because they want to get the most revenue they can out of a season, not because there is an optimal number of games needed to be played to determine the proper champions. When there were only two teams in the playoffs (AL and NL champs), a long season (154 or 162) made sense to determine who truly were the best teams in each league. Now more teams get in the playoffs and the 162 game schedule could be reduced and still get the same result of the top 4, 5, or 6 teams in each league getting in the playoffs. I'm not denying 162 is used because it's more gates and revenue but in terms of determining the best teams, it is not needed. What do you mean, "needed". If the season ended 10 games earlier this year the NL representative to the World Series wouldn't have made the playoffs. For the bulk of the time where only the two best made it, there was only 154 games and for only a brief period did they play 162 and only take 2 best. There are a lot more teams now than when they did it that way.
  3. Wow, top 5? Really? There are 10 teams with 2 wins or less and another 5 with 3 wins or less. Dallas faces 3 of those teams the rest of the year, plus a bunch of other mediocre and/or injury depleted teams. I would think only the Giants and Colts games are really scary. The league, and especially the NFC, is filled with mediocre teams. I think Dallas stands as good of a chance of picking outside the top 10 than in the top 5.
  4. I know in theory this is true, but is it a realistic concern? Managers and bench coaches aren't like QBs and backup QBs. My guess is this wouldn't actually happen that way, but the fear of it would prevent them from hiring him anyway. I'd agree if it was someone with a name that was hired. But, not to be dimissive of him...but Mike Quade is pretty much a nobody to the mainstream fans (and media), he only signed a 2 year deal, isn't making much, and if he were to be fired mid-season, there'd be nobody (or very few) that would have some serious attachment to the guy and cry for him to stay. I just think with Ryno as the bench coach, and Joe Anonymous as manager, it'd be a bad situation. Well, I guess you'll always have people complaining about it. Hell, the past couple years there were loads of fire Lou and let Trammel have the job comments, but it really doesn't resonate. I just think the Cubs have enough hated players, Ramirez, Fukudome, Soriano, Zambrano, kind of Dempster, whoever is pitching in relief, that this is where most of the vitriol will be focused regardless of coaching staff. I think Ryno could easily diffuse any such talk if it did get loud and I would bet he would in the interest of looking like the good guy.
  5. I know in theory this is true, but is it a realistic concern? Managers and bench coaches aren't like QBs and backup QBs. My guess is this wouldn't actually happen that way, but the fear of it would prevent them from hiring him anyway.
  6. Those are not the only two things that would have to happen.
  7. Why does it make sense to rank a Prior or a Strasburg compared to Golden, especially when those reports are supposedly worthless? How is this a serious question from somebody who pays as much attention to player development as you? All I want to know is what you think separates the firsthand reports for a lot of these guys (as you put it) and the firsthand reports for someone like Prior or Strasburg. It's not just firsthand reports. It's meaningful quantifiable facts over the report of some guy that saw some guy practice a little bit. I think it's kind of crazy and a complete waste of time to try and rank a lot of these guys who have at most played a little short season ball.
  8. I had no idea Kirk Gibson was the AZ manager.
  9. as what?
  10. Why does it make sense to rank a Prior or a Strasburg compared to Golden, especially when those reports are supposedly worthless? How is this a serious question from somebody who pays as much attention to player development as you?
  11. These guys are well aware that poor performance is going to lead to lower revenues, it already does. I'm not sure what the point is of reinforcing that with a season where they have zero revenues. If they run the risk of an empty stadium they aren't going to be as willing to spend, because they are risking more money. We know they can't afford to compete like the Yankees, which is really the only way to guarantee success (spending much more than everybody), if spending the 3rd or 4th or 5th most doesn't guarantee you success, why the hell would you spend that much if you run the risk of losing a ton of cash thanks to fans staying away in droves. You are better off rewarding good behavior, spend lots of money when they do well, than punishing them for doing pretty much the only think ownership can do, which is spend. Yes, they can also hire the right management team, but that is more longterm in nature.
  12. I don't really understand what the heck this means. What makes it obsolete? It's not a piece of technology. It's 162 games because they want to get the most revenue they can out of a season, not because there is an optimal number of games needed to be played to determine the proper champions.
  13. There will be nearly as many and they will just take place earlier. There were 14 teams at least 10 games behind in their divisions by August 31. 18 teams were at least 8 games behind for the wildcard. You mean to tell me that shortening the season by even 10 games won't reduce the number of inconsequential games in September? You are just going to make the meaningless games happen sooner, since instead of having X number of games to make up ground you will have X-10 and be eliminated sooner.
  14. The only one who hasn't played yet is Hayden Simpson. Everyone else has logged substantial time with the short season teams and/or in Instructs. We have scouting reports and firsthand accounts from those stints, in addition to their numbers. Furthermore, in most cases, we have extensive reports and accounts of those players from their amateur days, which provide enough of a picture of our draftees that we know what we can reasonably expect from them. Besides, most of these prospects haven't even played in the majors yet. Why the heck should we rank these guys at all if they, too, haven't played yet? That's quite the strawman to throw into the discussion. It is pretty silly for people to be ranking a lot of these guys. You can pretend you have extensive first hand reports, but it's all pretty worthless. It makes sense to rank a Mark Prior or Strasburg, but Reggie Golden is an 18 year old who hasn't done anything.
  15. There will be nearly as many and they will just take place earlier.
  16. I'm all for expanding playoffs to keep more fan bases interested but without dragging them on past a month. The excitement peaked in the league championship series and now it's dead. When was the last time somebody played a game?
  17. So if the season is shortened those meaningless games will just take place in August.
  18. ya know..... back in the early 60's when the CUBS were losing 100+ games a year with revolving managers the stands were virtually empty. Annual attendance was in the 600,000 range, and the upper deck was closed most weekdays. That caused us to get so much better.... from '67-'72 we went 515-449 (0.534) with zero post season appearances. Then it was back in the toilet again. Just what is it about going backward that is going to get us where we want to go ?? I've never understood the stands need to be empty mentality.
  19. Somebody other than the ref on the field decides, right? I like that, but I hate that they review so frequently.
  20. It didn't have to come to that scenario. Lovie has a history of incompetence with replay challenges. It is part of the game and he sucks at it and the team lost because of it. I really don't think this has to be a referendum on the system itself, that takes far too much away from where all the blame should be, on Lovie's shoulders.
  21. Watching live I saw TD, but when I saw the second replay clearly showed he was down, I was upset. You can't make that decision based on gut instincts.
  22. That is why you don't waste challenges on stupid ones where the result is either touchdown or you have the ball first and goal on the 1, and you use it on the important ones when the result is either touchdown for the other freaking team has the ball. There's nothing "unfair" about only getting two challenges. Use them wisely and it's no problem. Use them when the play matters.
  23. Man, I'd hate to find out. I think 7 wins and they stay, and 6 is just no-man's land.
  24. It was a lot less absurd than it could have been.
  25. Damn, I would not be surprised with just 1.
×
×
  • Create New...