jersey cubs fan

Talking about the great trades Hendry had made doesn't have to mean that you're a fan of his. I don't see a problem with it. It's absurd. It's like talking about the great outings Shawn Estes had. Sure, he had a couple gems, but he sucked. So if a player, coach or executive isn't good overall you can't discuss the good points about him? That doesn't make much sense. Hendry hasn't been good overall, but I see no reason why we should be forbidden from discussing some of the good things he's done. I see no reason why I can't point out how stupid it is to focus on a couple individual deals when the big picture is so much more informative.

Talking about the great trades Hendry had made doesn't have to mean that you're a fan of his. I don't see a problem with it. It's absurd. It's like talking about the great outings Shawn Estes had. Sure, he had a couple gems, but he sucked.

How awesome is a trade when you get a half a season of use out of a guy? The trade also got us Murton and, in turn, a piece for the Harden deal. A guy who pitched 200 innings for the Cubs over 1.5 seasons and left for nothing. Not that I didn't want the guy, but how awesome can these deals be if all it does is create a team that wins 83 games a year?

How awesome is a trade when you get a half a season of use out of a guy? And again, it really doesn't matter if he has awesome trades on his resume. He has to be judged by the wins and losses of the team over the 8 years he's been in charge, and in comparison to reasonable expectations, he's fallen way short. There's no good reason why the Cardinals should have averaged 6.5 more wins per season than the Cubs during his tenure.

Yeah, the Oilers are a slightly younger expansion team, but I think they are more of a storied franchise. The Kings are meaningless outside of their home city. Your penalty shot idea is absolutely crazy, but very interesting.

Screw 'em. We don't even know the game and we're better than them at it. SHOOT THE PUCK! WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR? SHOOT IT!

by beating the Wings they already have kind of ruined it, could have been all 4 teams. If we wanted to have the most traditional semi finals and finals we would have something like Blackhawks/Blues, Red Wings/Kings, Rangers/Bruins, Maple Leafs/Canadiens, then the Blackhawks/Red Wings, Bruins/Canadiens in the semis and whoever wins those ones in the finals. What a great postseason for hockey traditionalists. I would replace the Kings with the Oilers.

No I agree, bring the bandwagon on. Put like you identified, my point was stop yelling things out like you know what your talking about. I still followed the Hawks during the bad years. I could name the top line and then some other players here and there on the team. I didn't go out of my way to watch very many of the games, but I generally knew how the team was doing on a week to week sometimes day to day basis, and I watched all sorts of hockey during that time (I went to UNH for a couple of years which is a huge hockey school who was really good at the time). But yeah, I can't confidently say "I stood by the team during the bad years" like I did with the Bulls, or the Bears in the early 00's, or the Cubs when they have a bad year. Does that make me less of a fan than those stodgy die hards? Maybe, probably. Does it make me enjoy it less knowing that? Not one bit. This stuff happens at every hockey arena in the USA. I've sat next to people in MSG who literally had the game explained to them the entire time. It's the nature of a major sport that is played by only a tiny fraction of the population. In Phoenix the only thing I heard the entire time was "HIT HIM!" when the Blackhawks had the puck, and "Shoot! Shoot it!" when the Coyotes had the puck. If I went to a futbol or cricket match, I'd probably spend the entire time asking people about situations.

I'm impossible to talk with because I refuted your half assed defense of Hendry. You said you were ambivalent toward him. That makes no sense. The most important person in the organization is the GM, Hendry is the one constant over the past 15+ years of this organization. He was involved in some good things as far as rebuilding the minors early on, but fell flat on his face as GM. It does not matter that there are some good deals he has made. Every failed GM has to have a good deal or two under his belt, especially if they are given 8 years at the helm, ever increasing payrolls and the ability to always take on more money in transactions. If he was the one that had to dump Lee and Ramirez due to payroll problems, I'm sure he wouldn't look as good.

Another thing is, a couple of those Hawks-Sharks games in the regular season were "spotlight" games that people were really looking at as measuring sticks for both teams. And when the pressure was on, SJ got dominated. I don't think we want to overplay the "choker" card with that team, but playing against the best competition they've seen all season over a long series, I think it will show. The Blackhawks crapped the bed on some spotlight games as well, like Washington on NBC, Game 1 vs Nashville and Game 1 vs Vancouver. The only thing that makes me feel good about this series is that the Blackhawks are good, all these side issues are meaningless to me.

So accept mediocrity instead of risking failure while you try to actually be great. Hasn't that been the defining principle of the Cubs for decades? Take the proven veteran who you know won't get the job done. Yes, that's exactly what I said. How is it not? You are afraid the next guy will be worse and justifying your faith in Hendry because some things have actually worked out even though the big picture proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he's terrible at his job.

How so? What talent has he found? He doesn't draft, he doesn't sign international free agents. The most involved he's been finding talent in recent history has to be Jeff Samardzija. He signs and trades for established big league players with easily discernible track records.

So accept mediocrity instead of risking failure while you try to actually be great. Hasn't that been the defining principle of the Cubs for decades? Take the proven veteran who you know won't get the job done.

Kyle Farnsworth says..... :sleep: The "napping incident" happens in every clubhouse. The only reason it's an issue is because of who was caught napping. I think it's an issue when you lose a lot.

I can't see that either, but I don't know much about basketball.

I haven't chosen one, but I'm at least considering neither. In fact, the only one of the four I'm not considering is Hendry alone. I would agree that their performance to date should make both of them not feel very safe and their firing would be deserved. why? He's been given chance after chance and has failed.

two days ago called.... :-) Who called it The Scores? It's just Scores.

I did not know that.

Rereading the 2008 draft thread, there were lots of unhappy people. In fact, it's a very amusing read now, considering that's turned out to be a pretty great draft so far. I was re-reading that thread, too. It's hilarious. Cubs fans don't have knee jerk negative reactions at all. No, never, never. Cubs fans never overhype prospects based on short-term minor league success either.

It was a 50 year history in a dump that teams couldn't wait to leave, the only reason it was lamented was because it was in NY.

Apples and oranges. MSG was a name carried to multiple sites, but the Polo Grounds, in all incarnations, was always located at the base of Coogan's Bluff. That's not apples and oranges, it's more like Granny Smith and Red Delicious. The Yankee Stadium that was recently torn down was more original than the 50 year old dump that was torn down in the 60's.

This is only true depending on the type of team you have. The Hawks, who can score 5-6 goals a game could be ok without an elite goalie but the Canadiens for example, would have been gone in round one. Sure, a great goalie can push an otherwise mediocre-to-bad team deep into the playoffs. Without him there's no way the 8 seed gets that far. But that's different from saying you need an elite goalie to win. A goalie who wins a Stanley Cup is going to make lots of money, but the team that signs a goalie who has won a Stanley Cup is probably going to be overpaying for that accomplishment.

I'm still amused by Pittsburgh's loss last night. People obsessed with playoff goaltending over and above all else have insisted guys like Fleury can be counted on to get the job done while for some reason Niemi can't. Fleury had some sort of really good record after a playoff loss, which my friend kept repeating to me when explaining how important he is. But when your team goes to back to back finals and wins one, they aren't going to have too many back to back losses anyway.

Is it really messing with him? I don't see the big deal.

In the Cubs eyes he's definitely a starter. It remains to be seen where he winds up in the majors, and not just in terms of how he breaks in. He has definitely done everything right, however, in making the transition to starter so far.