jersey cubs fan

Except the 83 win cards normally wouldn't even make a playoffs, and the Blackhawks are one of the best teams in the league. Even if they fail to win the cup it won't necessarily be a wasted season. The core would still be intact and young. If they flame out in the first or second round, sure, have at it. But making it to the western conference finals would still be an accomplishment worth enjoying this year.

Wait, wait, wait, I got one. Jeff Moe is going to do something to somebody

I think the plan has merit, but ultimately is far too risky and unnecessarily limited. It's why I wanted to draft Tex over Prior. Pitchers are just risky investments. It made no sense to try to do what Atlanta did by drafting and developing pitchers, for multiple reasons: Atlanta didn't draft and develop two of their best pitchers (Maddux/Smoltz), Atlanta produced plenty of bats through their own system and Atlanta's run of success and stable pitching was both unprecedented and impossible to duplicate. Perhaps if they weren't such backwards thinking slaves to conventional wisdom it would have worked, and maybe you can say if it wasn't for Baker it would have worked. I disagree with that assessment, especially when you consider Baker was hardly the first pitcher abusing champion of small ball tactics they employed, and also when you consider that the offense sucked for so many years. It's obvious they failed miserably in acquiring "outside" bats. They have been a mediocre-to-bad offense almost every year. So, maybe it had some merit and maybe it could have worked, but the fact of the matter is the plan did not work, it did not come close to working, and it was an abject failure. The record speaks for itself. The plan was implemented 16 years ago, there have been 15 seasons played, the record is well under .500. They made the playoffs once in the first 8 years (and that was a wild card), twice in the first 12 years and just 4 times overall. They lost 90+ more than twice as often as they won 90+. It failed.

Hendry and Wasserstrom have been framing the stats all along.

But pitchers get hurt all the time, which is why it's risky to count on pitchers to carry your franchise. The plan did not work fine. The plan was to designed to make the Cubs as successful as the Braves, and they weren't even close. It is absolutely absurd to suggest the plan worked fine from any standpoint. They failed. They had a miserable record and were terrible far more frequently than they were good.

Niemi has been given a chance on multiple occasions this year, and each time it looked like he might be the guy, he stumbled. I say go back to Huet now, let Niemi get in some action and basically make it Huet's job to lose.

I'd be fine with Peppers, but I hate the idea of them being desperate to sign him. I guess if there's no cap, fine, but they've got more pressing needs.

I think the solution to Soriano's decline is much more likely to come from making him stop being an aging player with a horrible approach at the plate than in switching him to 1B.

It would help to have a 1B who can actually hit though, especially if they bring nothing to the table defensively.

There's no reason you would be effective. It's two very different ways of playing defense in the secondary.

The plan was to build the Braves 2.0, a team that would win consistently. They failed miserably. The fact that they actually did get a good amount of arms is meaningless. That was only part of the plan, and it didn't lead to consistent winning. They had 5 90+ loss season, only 2 90+ win seasons (and one required a 163rd game). Even discounting the first few seasons under this plan, they were 1032-1073 in 13 seasons after the plan was in place. It was a failure, no ifs ands or buts. Since 2003 They've made the ploffs 3 times and finished 2nd twice. That's not reaching the ultimate goal but it's not utter failure either. This is a ridiculous reply to what I wrote. The plan was implemented in 1994, it failed. The new plan in 2007/2008 was just to spend a ton of cash and hope for the best, it worked moderately, but still left them well short of being Braves 2.0. Seriously, it's moronic to pretend the plan was anything but a failure. In 1994 they decided to try and emulate the Braves by concentrating all theirs efforts on pitchers and trading the excess for bats. It failed. Miserably.

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/03/cubs-on-verge-of-signing-cuban-defector.html

The plan was to build the Braves 2.0, a team that would win consistently. They failed miserably. The fact that they actually did get a good amount of arms is meaningless. That was only part of the plan, and it didn't lead to consistent winning. They had 5 90+ loss season, only 2 90+ win seasons (and one required a 163rd game). Even discounting the first few seasons under this plan, they were 1032-1073 in 13 seasons after the plan was in place. It was a failure, no ifs ands or buts.

So replace Lee with Colvin? That is not only not a good option, it's not an option. Soriano at first? The other fielders are going to be pissed at all the errors they get when he hops to catch their throws.

I thought that had been the case for a while. Develop a stockpile of arms and then trade them for the position players you need. It was the MacPhail plan starting in 1994, and it was a failure.

All the goalie talk aside, that was a really uninspiring effort from the Blackhawks last night. They looked slow and tired, even the non-Olympians. There was about 10 minutes of mostly dominance and then they went to sleep.

I've heard they hope they can get a 2nd rounder for Marshall, and a 2nd rounder sounds about right for Olsen. Marshall is a bigger impact player but he's more expensive and a problem child. Olsen is not a problem child and signed cheaply for 2 years, and still has upside.

I think taking their 2 best offensive players could be a nice consolation prize.

You can always force him to get a divorce.

Broncos have Sheffler. Why would they want Olsen? Because I want them to, and Orton can't throw to anybody but tight ends.

Marshall for Olsen.

He's 2 years away from free agency, so he needs to step it up now if he wants to get paid. It makes sense to me that he'd dislike the Martz signing, especially since Martz highlighted his preference for blocking tight ends early and often. If Olsen wasn't such a disappointment I'd be bummed about this situation, but I'm not. Led the Bears in catches and TD's last year, but yeah...I agree. He's certainly not irreplaceable, and a blocking TE could help the run game. He was also targetted all day every day and had several crucial drops. He just hasn't come close to being a top notch tight end that can take over a game as advertised.

Huet is fine and Niemi is a perfectly acceptable backup, he's just struggled when given everyday duty. I'd be completely in favor of upgrading over Huet, but in a salary cap sport that's next to impossible, and most of the discussion has seemingly been about replacing him with just a different name who isn't any better.

He's 2 years away from free agency, so he needs to step it up now if he wants to get paid. It makes sense to me that he'd dislike the Martz signing, especially since Martz highlighted his preference for blocking tight ends early and often. If Olsen wasn't such a disappointment I'd be bummed about this situation, but I'm not.

This sounds like a total "grass is always greener" situation. Everybody's goalie situation is supposedly better than the Blackhawks. Have you seen some of the goalies that have won Cups this past decade, with less than inspiring performances?