jersey cubs fan

At this point I find myself dreading next year with Huet more than what might happen tonight. We locked this guy up for too long, too much money. He might kill what would otherwise be prime years for our star players. I don't look too kindly upon burning up possible Stanley Cup years on a bad goalie who should never have been signed. The value of goaltending is vastly overrated. People claim goalies are the difference in the playoffs but the fact is the best teams, without the best goaltenders, have had the most success. Huet isn't bad. His contract is disappointing, but he's not going to piss away whatever chance this team might have in the future. Ideally one of the young guys will come up and challenge Huet next year, and perhaps by the following season be in position to take over. And then going forward they can move away from spending so much money on established goaltenders.

Ascanio down? Or another position player? I'm guessing it won't be Patton returned. The timing of this move is odd, if only because it would have made a lot of sense a week or so ago, and now it appears they waited for the team to get a win and score a couple runs before calling him up. I don't expect him to play the field, much, if at all. But I want bench players to have some significant skill, and Fox's mashing ability would be a welcome addition to the bench. If Lee is still sick I'm guessing he'd start today though.

So you're tellin' me there's a chance! In NHL playoffs, everyone is day to day. All the injuries are vague, like lower body injury. There is a chance he may play but reading anything into reports like this is useless. Rarely do you see a team just come out and say a player isnt playing tomorrow, especially a key player. I hope he does play. My feeling though is he, Havlat, Lidstrom and Datsyuk are all not playing tonight. I was being facetious. I know he's probably not going to play, which means we have no chance. As if Khabi is the deciding factor in that.

We should care, because this joke and a half determines home field advantage for the World Series. So why should we care?

His name’s Gary. And we don’t need any more lawsuits, okay? http://images1.fanpop.com/images/photos/1400000/AD-Icon-arrested-development-1458385-100-100.jpg

I have a hard time believing that. I swear the majority of his outs are little soft dribblers back to the pitcher. Not all line drives are created equal.

That's weird. The audio is what I heard last night but the video is what happened during the commerical break. Who was Lilly talking to in the stands?

He is? .253/.318/.511 Not bad, but not good either, especially not with the contract. He's basically OPSing at the same rate as the average NL left fielder. I'm not sure any team would consider taking on that contract, which was signed in a much different economic environment (but still one where it was clear Soriano would never live up to the full value).

That is not the worst, but that is still pretty bad, as you'd have to put him on the 40 man, burn an option when you send him back down, and start his arbitration clock. That has ramifications down the road that are really bad.

I wouldn't be against moving him to high A, but not with any sort of thought of justifying a second promotion to the bigs this year.

Jeez man, relax. He answered a question, and it appears he did so honestly, and nothing he said was outrageous to the point where it doesn't seem like it could possibly be true. I don't see any point in naming names, and there wasn't much to be gained for a 22 year old to rat out his teammates.

Maybe he wouldnt be all that good but he is out performing players who have made the jump at the same age like Miguel Cabrera and Edgar Renteria. Im not so sure Vitters would struggle that much. His bat is highly touted and sometimes a pure hitter can make the adjustment quick. This kid isnt a normal prospect he is very highly touted and other teams have done this with their uber stars and it has worked out well. Its no sure thing but it makes you wounder if Vitters could make the jump. It doesn't make me wonder and I hope the Cubs aren't even considering it.

Tom Brady in his entire career has never had a season where he was sacked as few times as Cutler was last year. Even in 2007 Brady was sacked 21 times (compared to Cutler being sacked 11 times last season) and that was the lowest total of his career. I like Cutler too but that's just way overboard. Brady is arguably the greatest QB of all time and you're actually saying Cutler is ALREADY better. That's ludicrous. No he isn't.

Yes, it would be. Not only is he unlikely to be all that good right now, but you'd start his option and arbitration clock, just a horrible idea. He shouldn't see Wrigley until 2011 at the earliest, and even then it should probably end up being a September call-up.

So we drafted poorly, I'm not arguing against that. But, the main point is Kieschnick was crap. He wasn't becoming anything no matter who drafted him. But, its cool instead of saying that things didn't work out he instead tries to throw our organization under the bus. Again why doesn't he rip on Tampa Bay? They took him from us and never promoted him to the bigs either. He may have thrown the organization under the bus but the organization proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were completely incompetent, and worthy of being thrown under a bus. You seem to be taking it personally that he thinks the Cubs of the mid-90's were a dysfunctional group of nitwits. The truth hurts. That was just the fact. He was in the Cubs system during his prime developmental years. Again, he may have never done any better if he started somewhere else, but it's not hard at all to imagine the Cubs system failed miserably to develop the talent they got. The organization was horrible.

And when that pocket shows the least bit of vulnerability, the whole NE system tends to look like a mess.

x1000. If he actually was good enough, the Cubs wouldn't have been enough to ruin him on their own. Look at Walton and Smith and Grace and Palmeiro and even Sosa for that matter even though he wasn't in our minor league system. If the coaches on any level saw enough in him to warrant playing time, he would have been given the chance. We gave freaking Kevin Orie and Brant Brown significant playing time. We definately produced some talent at that point. Hell Jamie Moyer is still pitching today. But also Maddux, Dunston, Grace, Girardi, et. There were some guysfrom the era of BK that made it inspite of our organizations downfalls. Plus I am sure it was Tampa Bay's fault for never playing him once he was picked in the expansion draft too. What are you peoople talking about? BK was drafted in '93, none of the guys you discussed were part of that "era". Those were all mid-80's or earlier guys. Different people in charge. They produced no hitters. Brooks may not have made it regardless of coaching, but I firmly believe that teams can destroy talent and ruin their chances, and I am convinced the Cubs, especially of that era, did it frequently. What about Kerry Wood, Rey Sanchez, Doug Glanville, Jon Garland? Wood was the crown jewel of the era, as a can't miss flamethrower. Garland was traded for Matt freaking Karchner because the Cubs have always liked wasting resources on run-of-the-mill relievers. But none of those guys were quality major league bats, which the Cubs failed to produce for about a decade and a half.

x1000. If he actually was good enough, the Cubs wouldn't have been enough to ruin him on their own. Look at Walton and Smith and Grace and Palmeiro and even Sosa for that matter even though he wasn't in our minor league system. If the coaches on any level saw enough in him to warrant playing time, he would have been given the chance. We gave freaking Kevin Orie and Brant Brown significant playing time. We definately produced some talent at that point. Hell Jamie Moyer is still pitching today. But also Maddux, Dunston, Grace, Girardi, et. There were some guysfrom the era of BK that made it inspite of our organizations downfalls. Plus I am sure it was Tampa Bay's fault for never playing him once he was picked in the expansion draft too. What are you peoople talking about? BK was drafted in '93, none of the guys you discussed were part of that "era". Those were all mid-80's or earlier guys. Different people in charge. They produced no hitters. Brooks may not have made it regardless of coaching, but I firmly believe that teams can destroy talent and ruin their chances, and I am convinced the Cubs, especially of that era, did it frequently.

Not that I disagree with the sentiment, but it would take a lot to be a killer of chances to those early 2000s Yankees.

Are we saying Cutler with the Bears and those guys with their teams, or those guys with the Bears?

Now it's getting out of hand. Palmer, I'll give you. But Brady, even though he's coming off of an injury, is still Tom Brady. Until Cutler puts up a few unbelievable seasons, that might be a bit too much of a statement. Tom Brady didn't put up an unbelievable season until he was 30, and his front office surrounded him with an ungodly amount of talent. Until that season his reputation was much better than he actually was as a QB (although he was still a very good QB). Cutler's first 3 season ratings average 87.1 and Brady's average about 85.5. Arguably, Cutler had better overall offensive talent. Brady's next 3 years were something like 92, 95, and 117 (the undefeated season). If Cutler tops that, I'll be impressed. If I'm starting a franchise, I'd take Cutler 9 out of 10 times, but for this season, I'm taking Brady. If it's just one season that's all the more reason not to take Brady. If you had to win the SB in the next 3 years, I'd take Brady, but if I'm building a franchise, I'd probably take Cutler. How many QB's come back from serious injuries post 30?

Now it's getting out of hand. Palmer, I'll give you. But Brady, even though he's coming off of an injury, is still Tom Brady. Until Cutler puts up a few unbelievable seasons, that might be a bit too much of a statement. Tom Brady didn't put up an unbelievable season until he was 30, and his front office surrounded him with an ungodly amount of talent. Until that season his reputation was much better than he actually was as a QB (although he was still a very good QB).

Why not? I'm talking about a healthy Brady/Palmer, by the way. You can't just say they are healthy and have it be so. Palmer is 30 now and each of his last two seasons were less impressive than his two biggest seasons. He's had a real solid batch of talent to work with as well. I would say it remains to be seen where his career is going. As for Brady, he's 32 and coming off a leg injury similar to the one that screwed up Palmer. He had the one monster year, but his career has not been nearly as good as that season, or his legend. He's great. And he'll probably still be a pretty good QB for a couple years. But is he going to be at his peak when he returns, and how long will he last? I'd say there is definitely a debate.

How else are the Cubs supposed to get talent?

How many championships have those guys won? Exactly. The ring is the thing my friend and without it you're nothing.