jersey cubs fan

Pie wasn't in the group. Here's off the top of my head who I remember us having. Corey Patterson-he flopped it happens. Mark Prior-I would say his '03 and '04 made him worth the hype. Bobby Hill-He turned into Aramis Ramirez and Kenny Lofton. That worked out well for us. Hee Seop Choi-He turned into DLee. That worked out well for us. Carlos Zambrano Juan Cruz-we should have been more patient with him. David Kelton-He flopped it happens. Angel Guzman-having a great year, really wish he would have stayed healthy. So basically even though you claim that whole group of guys flopped, we actually got productive 3 and 4 hitters who play plus defense at the corners, an ace, and a great bullpen arm. It seems like all the "he flopped it happens" guys are all hitters who never developed plate discipline, correct? Pretty clear to me we have been deficient in developing great hitters in our farm system. Pitching has been a better endeavor. So we need to get some better hitting instruction on our farm. I don't see why 30 years goes by and we don't do this. I agree, I'm all for a new regime. But, to say everythign cub was overrated is a bit much. When we had that highly reguarded system it was warranted. How is it a bit much. The fact that the Cubs got Ramirez and Lee for a couple guys who have done nothing does not support your argument that the Cubs system was not overrated. In fact it strongly supports the idea that it was very highly overrated. Also, Pie was signed in 2001, and he was playing in their system in 2002 and 2003, probably the last times the system was highly rated. He's at least as much a part of that era as Prior.

We were one run from winning a series in Philly against a scorching hot Phillie team. With our pitching I'll take our chances. "we" scored 2 runs in 22 innings against mediocre pitching (missing their best starter) before getting to face Jamie Moyer. color me impressed. i don't dispute that pitching isn't the problem and is the only reason the Cubs are close. i just don't think it's enough. If the Phillies don't make a big trade though, odds are we would still see Moyer and Blanton in a short series. Yeah the offense is bad right now, but the pitching will give us a punchers chance. The offense isn't just bad now, the've been bad all year. And considering last year was the first time they were actually good in several years, it's not like that was the "real Cubs" offense that we can expect to return. Also, while the Cubs might face Blanton and Moyer in a short series, they only actually scored off one of those two and they have others that are better. Philly is a better team. They've beaten the Cubs repeatedly in short series. Everybody likes to say "crapshoot" but it's not just a matter of chance. The better teams still have an advantage. It's possible for lesser teams to win but I'd much rather be the better team going in than just "taking my chances" (especially when there's still going to be a struggle to even get there).

I forgot they had 4 with Houston coming up. I feel like every time there's a stretch of games that could be huge, the teams either split, or the one that wins the series goes out and loses 6 of 10 while the loser wins 6 of 10 and they are right back where they started from.

One run for a team that really sucks at scoring runs isn't all that close. The Cubs were outscored 19-12, an average of just 4 runs per game, which is below average in normal situations, let alone in CBP when you don't even face their best pitcher.

I have a problem with them reporting the b/a level. What's the relevance? Where does legitimate journalism end and gossip-mongering begin? If his b/a level is a factor in the incident, fine. But otherwise, it's just tabloid garbage. Facts are facts though. The fact that he was drunk and passed out on the couch could tell investigators something about what happened before she shot him. When celebrities die these facts come out. If you die choking yourself to death while jerking off, and you have meth in your system, it's going to come out. Whether we need to know that is beside the point. This would come out in a normal case, but it wouldn't be spread all over the media if you were a nobody. But being drunk is just being drunk. What doesn't make sense is calling it twice the legal limit. I don't think it's a matter of them trying to say he deserved it, as much as it's just irresponsible sensationalist journalism. Twice the legal limit sounds more catchy, even though it's an irrelevent phrase.

Well it's not like somebody came and stole picks from them. When you hand multi year deals to Typa A free agents that are middle relievers (Latroy Hawkins) and thus lose a draft pick, that's your own damn fault. Also, it mentions the Colvin/Samardzija draft when they were missing the 2-4, and basically stated how crappy it was to waste that 1st on Colvin and then grossly overpay for Samardzija.

who cares, let's just tear the woman down based on no information whatsoever There's information.

I don't want him catching, but there's no reason he can't start at another position, and then if necessary move to catcher if Koyie gets a booboo.

Apparently I could be a Fox News anchor. http://deadspin.com/5319700/foxs-shepard-smith-explains-mcnair-case-dying-is-not-illegal

abreu sucks defensively. And Bradley is a DH.

I don't have a problem with them reporting he had a b/a of .16. What I don't like is that they are stating it was "twice the legal limit". As far as I know that's the legal limit for DUI. Is that the same standard for public intoxication or whatever that charge is? What if he was texting while being shot? Being twice the legal limit to operate a vehicle has nothing to do with sitting on your couch.

Who from the farm system is going to replace Reed Johnson? Fuld. Not so much in the "Kosuke platoon partner" role, but the "5th outfielder/primary CF backup" role That will eventually be Colvin's job. But they might have to spend this offseason trying to get more right handed.

Probably not all that well, which brings us to the notion that drafting high schoolers is very risky. It's all well and good to talk about hindsight, but those people get paid to make the right decisions with these players and they repeatedly failed. You can't just chalk it up to "aw shucks, who woulda thunk it" mistakes. But just because somebody somewhere claimed they thought a guy like Harvey was possibly worth the #1 pick doesn't make it so.

Can you post the full article? For the 2003 Cub draft review Goldstein stated no one questioned the Ryan Harvey selection at the time. But even back then Harvey's strengths and weaknesses were well known. He had 40+ home run potential and a cannon of an arm. But Harvey also had severe problems hitting any sort of quality breaking pitch, and was not projected to put up quality K/BB ratio's. Eventually Harvey's power turned into nothing more than batting practice moonshots and the occasional monster game (including a four home run performance a few years back). Considering Ryan Harvey's huge issues with plate discipline and that he was coming off major knee surgery shouldn't taking him as early as number six overall been considered atleast somewhat of a stretch? If you have espn insider it is also there, and there is a thread about the article on the cubs discussions page. He goes through the 2003 -2006 drafts, talks about how much money they wasted on guys, and how they had several toolsy players with no club about plate discipline that they put on the fast track and they all bombed.

Several media outlets are reporting that at the time of his death, McNair's blood alcohol was "twice the legal limit". Why are they phrasing it this way? That implies he was doing something illegal by being passed out on a chair. Is it illegal to have a blood/alcohol ratio that high no matter what you are doing?

Or BP had it wrong in the first place, ESPN printed the article, then BP fixed their version.

:-)) That's Paul Weaver, right?

So a couple years of not giving out new deals means' he's done? He still gave a $10m contract to Samardzija who's being used out of the pen, he traded for a "proven closer" just before the end of his arbitration years and could very easily feel the need to extend. He let Kerry Wood walk due to injuries and the fear of future injuries. But there's plenty of examples of him handing out big money deals to free agent relievers to justify including them into the potential future payroll. Your issue appears to be more that you dislike Hendry than anything. My original point was that contracts currently committed will not bog us down by 2012 because we'll have plenty of money to spend for that season and most of the huge contracts (save for Soriano) will have expired. Contracts that may be signed in the next 2 years are a completely different conversation. My issue is how ridiculous it is for you to pretend $54 million in 2012 is next to nothing. It's a HUGE number. You ignore it and pretend it's small, but it's HUGE. Baseball teams don't generally operate with that much money committed that far out in the future. This team is in trouble for the next 3-5 years, unless the owner significantly increases payroll. A) Because $54m committed is huge. B) And their GM has not shown any ability to maneuver around financial constraints to build a good baseball team.

You are pretending that $54 million in 2012 is an inconsequential number (not to mention that Zambrano and Dempster are locks to earn their money). And you are also pretending that future deals have nothing to do with the situation they are now in. With no prospects on the horizon to provide substantial production between now and then, and really only Vitters as a good chance to do much of anything starting around then, the Cubs are going to HAVE TO sign new guys to new deals before then.

It doesn't matter that most don't last that long. Most teams don't have multiple big deals that run that long. The Cubs have money committed to Dempster which is not at all a good bet to be "justifiable" money. They have huge money committed to Zambrano who is no lock to be worthy by then. And the Soriano contract can't just be shoved aside with "aside from Soriano". It's a huge deal for a guy that is unlikely to come anywhere close to justifying the money. They have zero minor leagues ready to step in and take over jobs in the short-term, meaning they will more likely than not be forced into spending big on at the very least one corner position player and one corner OF. And they will still be short in starting pitchers, position players, and the aforementioned bullpen. Their flexibility depends entirely on the owner hopefully increasing the payroll. They are much less flexible than most decent sized payroll teams.

So a couple years of not giving out new deals means' he's done? He still gave a $10m contract to Samardzija who's being used out of the pen, he traded for a "proven closer" just before the end of his arbitration years and could very easily feel the need to extend. He let Kerry Wood walk due to injuries and the fear of future injuries. But there's plenty of examples of him handing out big money deals to free agent relievers to justify including them into the potential future payroll.

I don't know what you mean by the bolded. In 2012 we'll have, probably, at least $80 million to spend. If Ricketts bumps payroll up to the luxury tax limit ($170 million), then we'll have $120 million to commit to players by 2012. That's more than enough money to put a winning team on the field, especially considering we'll have what should be a productive Zambrano and Soto still on the books and, hopefully, an arbitration Samardzija pitching well. Soriano's contract won't be a good thing at that point, but it also won't keep us from being able to put a good team on the field by then - if not perhaps sooner. Because you keep pretending 2011 is the last year they have big money committed even though they have an enormous amount of money committed to 2012. Sure, they "could" start running things differently in the next couple years, and efficiently improve the team. But the only way that happens is probably canning Hendry.

The contracts won't really be a hindrance after, probably, 2011. In 2012, we only have $54 million committed and will likely have a payroll of $130+ million (luxury tax won't kick in that season until $170 million, though, so we could be higher than we are now). That's assuming the Cubs stop giving out big contracts. Soriano's contract is going to be a hindrance regardless of what everybody else's situation is. However, just because Ramirez and Lee may be gone by then, they might by then have resigned Lilly to another deal. It's possible Hendry will have committed to a 30-something Theriot before he reaches full free agency. You also will have Soto in his later arbitration years, plus a need to fill both CF and RF by then. If Ramirez and Lee are both gone they will likely have spent big on at least one of those positions, and then there's the bullpen, where Hendry has showed over and over he's more than happy to hand out 3 year multi million dollar deals. The fact that the Cubs "only" have $54 million commited (really a ridiculous amount of just about any team) doesn't mean payroll issues cease to be an issue in 2011. Of course not, but the comment was concerning contracts that have already been passed out. He said he was concerned about the big contracts already weighing us down keeping us from competing for the next 3-5 years. Those contracts will only really impact the payroll through 2011, though. I have no idea whether Hendry will or will not (or can or cannot) give out huge contracts in the foreseeable future, so I can't comment on that. At this point, there is no real financial strain to keep us from competing any longer than 2011. And I don't think it's out of the question that we could compete in 2010 and 2011. It'll be tougher, but it's possible. $54m committed for 2012 is a HUGE number. Not sure why you only count it through 2011. But the point remains that Soriano's contract will be a hindrence until the day it gets off the books, and that they are likely to be in a situation where they have to give out big contracts to replace guys soon making your statement about ending in 2011 even more untrue.

The contracts won't really be a hindrance after, probably, 2011. In 2012, we only have $54 million committed and will likely have a payroll of $130+ million (luxury tax won't kick in that season until $170 million, though, so we could be higher than we are now). That's assuming the Cubs stop giving out big contracts. Soriano's contract is going to be a hindrance regardless of what everybody else's situation is. However, just because Ramirez and Lee may be gone by then, they might by then have resigned Lilly to another deal. It's possible Hendry will have committed to a 30-something Theriot before he reaches full free agency. You also will have Soto in his later arbitration years, plus a need to fill both CF and RF by then. If Ramirez and Lee are both gone they will likely have spent big on at least one of those positions, and then there's the bullpen, where Hendry has showed over and over he's more than happy to hand out 3 year multi million dollar deals. The fact that the Cubs "only" have $54 million commited (really a ridiculous amount of just about any team) doesn't mean payroll issues cease to be an issue in 2011.