jersey cubs fan

The black cat happened during 1969 right? Your theory is that if the Cubs went on to win the World Series that year, that in the ensuing decades people would go back to something that happened before they won the WS and talk about that event being related to the fact that they haven't won another since, except for the one they won that year? I truly cannot understand how you can possibly think that last sentence is true. It was the fall of Boston/Chicago possibly meeting up and neither made it. It reiterated to everybody that wanted to believe it that these two doomed franchises would never win. Had the Cubs won in 1969, that's not a story.

I guess I don't understand what is confusing. I don't WANT to trade Starlin Castro, but I'd rather have the package he would net than an .800 OPS 2nd baseman. I've love to have an 800 OPS 2B, but I'd prefer Castro.

It's not all that long ago that the system was very highly regarded. I would consider almost a decade ago to be a very long time in baseball. Okay then. So to you, "in the past" means 5-8 years ago?

It's not all that long ago that the system was very highly regarded.

Yes, I know. But someone dying without having seen a WS is moot in terms of my personal experience. That's my point. To me my team not having won it all in 102 years or 35 years is redundant because either way it occurred outside of my lifetime. If they had won it a year before I was born and grandpa got to bask in it, hey, great, good for him; I still haven't been witness to one. From my perspective it's meaningless since the end result is still me without having seen my team win it all. Someone saying "haw-haw, your team hasn't won in 35 years" is the same to me as "haw-haw, your team hasn't won in 102 years." It's just personal perspective. I wouldn't "feel" better about the lifetime of Cubs' crappy baseball that I'VE witnessed if they had won a WS in 1969 or even just a year before I was born. It's not in your personal experience, but witnessing an old man go through his entire life, into old age and dying without seeing one is a lot different than knowing your older brother got to stay up late and watch the WS while you were in Mommy's belly.

You're nuts. If a cat showed up and they won anyway people would be freaking out?' You're nuts.

Ahhhh, the sweet smell of average.

If your team won a world series when you were 3 months old, that is different than if your grandfather died at 85 years old and never saw them win one. It just is. We don't live our lives in a solitary bubble. We have 10 year olds that haven't seen it, 25 year olds, 40 year olds, 60 year olds, 90 year olds. None of us know a single person that has seen the Cubs win the world series. Pittsburgh won twice in the 70's. Most of them have at least a couple relatives who saw it three times.

Well, I did not say it wouldn't be a big deal. I'm saying it would not have been nearly as big a deal if they won in '69. 95% of that postseason's discussion was about the 97 year drought. It's simply a much bigger deal than a 33 year drought. Certainly they would talk about the Cubs as a team looking to win for the first time in a very long time. Houston, San Diego, Seattle and others have dealt with similarly long droughts but it has not come close to the discussion of the Cubs at 100. There's a difference, and it is significant. But the difference you're talking about here is with the teams involved, not the drought. I agree there's a difference in the grand scheme of things between 97 and 34 years, but at that moment in 2003 there wouldn't be, or it would be so insignificant that it wouldn't matter, unless you have convinced yourself that as things played out enough fans and players would have told themselves right then and there "ah, this sucks, but hey, at least the Cubs won it all 34 years ago!" Personally, I think once a team has gone 25 years without a championship they've crossed the threshold into "wow, it's been a long ass time since we won it all." And comparing the emotions of the Cubs' fanbase to those other teams with much, much smaller fanbases and whose collective years of existence aren't much older than the Cubs WS drought doesn't really ring all that true. Those are relatively young teams with far fewer fans. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth here. 33 is either the same as 97 or it is not. What does a 30 year old care if his team has only been in existence for 40 years? Had the Cubs won in 1969 the reaction in 2003 and current feelings about 2003 would be different. I don't see how anybody can think otherwise. Once you are past 25 year it's been a long time, sure. But 100 is a hell of a lot longer.

I think it is more than just smart to start him in the minors, it's almost an imperative. If he finishes 2010 in the majors he's looking at maybe a 105 inning season, and no starts since May. I would not be all that comfortable putting him in the rotation next April.

Well, I did not say it wouldn't be a big deal. I'm saying it would not have been nearly as big a deal if they won in '69. 95% of that postseason's discussion was about the 97 year drought. It's simply a much bigger deal than a 33 year drought. Certainly they would talk about the Cubs as a team looking to win for the first time in a very long time. Houston, San Diego, Seattle and others have dealt with similarly long droughts but it has not come close to the discussion of the Cubs at 100. There's a difference, and it is significant.

what are your feelings on wells?

You don't have to be 80. Pitt last won in 1979, you can be in your 30's and have enjoyed that, while generations of Cubs fans have come and gone without one. It's pretty crazy to suggest only 80 year olds know the difference. I'm talking about from the perspective of most of the people on this board in terms of the ages they generally fall under. I'd say with relatively few exceptions most of us fall in the 20-40 range. So let's say that in 1969 the Cubs had actually won the WS. Everything leading up to that is exactly the same as in "real life" everything since then has played out exactly the same as we've known it in "real life." Is anything really "better" in terms of being a Cubs fan born after that compared to not having won a WS in 102 years? Does anyone think that crap like Bartman still wouldn't be obsessed over if the "futility" had been for 34 years instead of 95? About the only difference I could really see is you wouldn't hear anything about the goat because, really, when you get down to it is a 40-year WS drought really any better than 102 years considering most of the fans here wouldn't have been alive? Hell, even if it had been in 1979 like the Pirates, if you were too young to know anything about it or were born after, is it really that much worse? I don't think what I'm suggesting is crazy at all. Personally, it wouldn't make a difference to me if they had won one when I was several months old if I went through the same lifetime of Cubs losing. It would not even be close to what it has been. We'd barely remember Bartman's name if they won it all in '69. You are talking about 2 different things though. 80 year olds and people born in 1979. A 30 year old Pirate fan may not know the difference, but a 40 year old definitely does. A 30 year old Pirates fan and a 30 year old Cubs fan may have dealt with similar frustration, but you don't have to get to 80 year olds before you see the difference.

If they sent him down today, what sort of schedule do you think he could still get? Start Sunday for 3 innings and then they got 22 more days of games in regular season. Maybe get back to 5 innings per start after 2 starts. Yeah, it's getting late, but it is definitely enough time to make it worth their while. He's thrown 4 inning in August. My guess is they have him pencilled into next year's bullpen for now.

That's more impressive than his earlier work. http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kxw500ooJP1qzatf1o1_500.png

You don't have to be 80. Pitt last won in 1979, you can be in your 30's and have enjoyed that, while generations of Cubs fans have come and gone without one. It's pretty crazy to suggest only 80 year olds know the difference.

there is a printed schedule right in front of my face and I had no idea they were playing SF again today.

I think it's a foolish venture to try to attribute anything from a 3 game set to an intangible factor like this. If we're going to, I see 2 issues with it: The Cardinals went down relatively quietly in the first 3 innings. If there was to be a carry-over effect from the comments and the fight, wouldn't it have been immediate? If any pitcher were to be affected by the fight, it would be Carpenter, since he was actually pitching that day while being involved in the skirmish. You think Cueto's involvement in the fight so rattled him that it threw him off his game a day later? And like the Cardinals the day before on tape delay, this time til the 6th inning when he started to get hit hard? WHAT ABOUT THE WOODSHED? How do you account for that robofan?

If it's clear that Lee is the better defensive SS and Castro's offense wouldn't be adversely affected by a move to 2B, then having Lee play SS would clearly be the best move for the team. If Lee struggles offensively after being called up, there's no reason why they couldn't just move Castro back to SS and send Lee to AAA. Changing positions does carry with it a heightened injury risk. So if you're gonna make a move, you only want to make it once. There is no reason to move castro off short, move him back when Lee struggles, move him off again when Lee gets another shot, and so on and so forth until we know whether Lee will be a ML caliber hitter. I guess I can buy some of what you are saying, but there can't be that much injury risk of having Castro go from short to second and back to short.

It's not about maximizing an individual's value. If the Cubs are better off with Lee (or whomever) at SS and Castro at 2B rather than vice-versa, you go with it. I disagree. I think trading Castro for a king's ransom is better than making him a slightly above average 2nd baseman. A good hitting 2nd baseman can be a huge advantage to a team. Not the same as a SS, but still big.

I wonder how much is financially motivated. Revenues have to be down. Nobody is watching games. Seats are empty. Less beer is being sold.

Mentions Jay and Jeff, that's it. Lilly isn't a big contract coming off the books? He's not on the team. And he might be resigned. But the point is it's not really a state of the farm system, it is very light on info.

I just remembered last night Patrick Kane showed up in my dream. He was walking down the street drunk as a skunk and he autographed some stuff for me and took a picture.

There's definitely some upside, given the fact that they aren't all 34 years old. But there's huge downside. I'm going to assume this Louis guy is going to fail miserably because as much as Tice might be a good coach, this is still a Jerry Angelo O line.

I empathize.