jersey cubs fan

I'll deny it. It's not like that was a pre-ordained 100 game winner. It was highly flawed, as evidenced by the continually weak offense predicated on contact and the ignorance of the value of a walk. Amazing? Please. It was set up to be pretty good. Maybe not amazing just because that's such a strong word, but he did put together exactly what we always complain about him not doing. He put a team together that was a 95 win team on paper, and even if things go wrong, they should still win the wild card. That team was great. Obviously they were not great. The problem is the team looked great on paper because the first thing people saw on paper was the names. But we were still talking about a barely above average offense with a terrible tendency to not take walks and a pitching staff that was far too relient on very young pitchers being extremely good and carrying the team with a heavy workload. It didn't work out.

I would definitely say he's a heck of a tryer. I don't doubt his effort.

I'll deny it. It's not like that was a pre-ordained 100 game winner. It was highly flawed, as evidenced by the continually weak offense predicated on contact and the ignorance of the value of a walk. Amazing? Please. It was set up to be pretty good. Ok fine. Replace it with, "No one denies that Hendry put together a very good team for the 2004 season, but we didn't do much" Do you mind addressing the main points of my post instead of arguing semantics with me? I was trying to bring up the issue of an underachieving team in evaluating a GM. 5 years, sub .500, top of the line payroll. I don't see any reason to pretend the Cubs have underachieved what they should have done during the Hendry era. He hired a bad manager, and stocked the team with a flawed mix of players. And his team has been mediocre. I'm really not interested in all the excuses about injuries and underachieving. The GMs job is to construct a team that achieves. The owners provided him with more than enough resources to get the job done, and he failed. In any one given year, sure there could be a level of underachievement. But a GM isn't there to just create a roster for one given year. Over the course of 5 years, excuses get completely washed out.

Honest questions: Is the top GM rated by his team's record? How do you personally calculate GM worth? I don't think there's any one way to do it. But 5 years of near the top payroll producing a record as mediocre as 383-385 is more than enough evidence to indict, try and convict Jim Hendry for being a bad GM.

I'll deny it. It's not like that was a pre-ordained 100 game winner. It was highly flawed, as evidenced by the continually weak offense predicated on contact and the ignorance of the value of a walk. Amazing? Please. It was set up to be pretty good.

383-385

I think re-signing threads are a little slower than new player threads. Not as much information to dicuss other than money, and frankly some people, I think, would rather talk baseball than dollars. And we all know Z and how he plays...nothing new to discuss there. It's good news, but it's not that big of a story. Z constantly saying he was going to remain a Cub made it seem like it was inevitable. There's really not a lot to talk about, in relation to new signings/trades. If it was November and coming up on a deadline like Ramirez, that's different, but it's a mid-year extension.

The Cubs scare me.

lol are you kidding me? What? Haven't you watch D. Lee since the all-star break? A pathetic excuse for a supposed leader with his hitting. I don't think Keener was disagreeing that DLee has been struggling, but that he doesn't deserve to have garbage thrown at him. DLee has a higher OPS in the 2nd half, than he did in the 1st half but he's not batting 1.000 with runners on so he sucks :roll: Whats funny is when you throw the stats out there, and prove just how wrong he is, he suddenly becomes quiet, and doesnt even acknowledge it lol. He has been scuffling though. He's got a 730 OPS over the past 7, 790 over the past 14 and 830 over the past 28, all of which are below what he did in the first half. The whole garbage thing is a bunch of nonsense though.

The empire carpet guy? Everybody loves the 588-2300 guy.

Only if "True Fans" = Stupid, gullible, hope-filled, Morons. Sure. I hate "true fan" talk. But I'm going to watch every game I get the chance to watch, regardless of the direction the next few weeks take. I think he was using "true fan" as the opposite of "bandwagon fan" Regardless it always annoys me. It's definition is vague and is almost exclusively used in a pretencious manner. It's also really popular with Yankees fans and a close cousin to "true Yankees".

Only if "True Fans" = Stupid, gullible, hope-filled, Morons. Sure. I hate "true fan" talk. But I'm going to watch every game I get the chance to watch, regardless of the direction the next few weeks take.

I'm not sure how that would be proof the Cubs will never win. It's not like this is some great Cubs team that STL is magically going to outpace. The Cubs are a little better, but they are mediocre.

This is bat guano crazy. The Cardinals ARE NOT GOOD. In addition to not being good they are trailing 2 other teams in the division. Yeah but they sucked last year too though. And lookitt what happened. But they never trailed one team in August, let alone two. They also had an average offense and above average pitching. This year's team has an average offense and below average pitching. Last year they were the mediocre team to benefit from no competition in the division. This year, it will probably be somebody else.

I see a reason. They're a bad baseball team. In spite of our recent performance, we're still average at worst. I'd say the Cubs are really bad at their worst, and really good at their best. But average overall. :D

A team that hasn't won a World Series in 99 years, and pessimism is labeled "irrational". And a team "in contention" in the worst division in baseball. That's beautiful. that's an over emotional sentiment around here. The fact that we haven't won a WS has very very little to do with the '07 team's struggles -- that's superstition. And you win a WS by making the playoffs. You get to the playoffs by winning a spot. You win a spot by putting yourself "in contention" for the stretch run. That's why we are in a position deserving of some optimism. Yes, the Cubs have put themselves "in contention" by beating up on bad teams during the weakest part of their schedule, which is what they are supposed to do. And what's the explanation for the first two months of the season, when they dug this current hole that they still haven't got out of? And you completely missed my point about pessimism. Pessimism and a Cub fan goes together like peanut butter and jelly. Anyone who thinks that we are going to see a World Series title with this team is more than welcome to, but it isn't very logical. It's not an "emotional sentiment", it's facing facts. I'll agree with this paragraph to the point that this isn't a great team and a WS should not be expected (not that one is impossibly out of reach, though). But this paragraph doesn't even address my previous comment about the "emotional sentiment." This team is not good because it scores too few runs and is dealing with injuries and a lack of power. IMO, the pessimism in this thread (and scattered throughout other threads) is irrational. The fact that you equate pessimism with Cubs fandom is perhaps true, but not a reason for pessimism. If we fail to win a WS this year, it's not because we've failed for 99 years before. That's all I'm saying: there are many reasons to be frustrated about this year's team, but yes, if you bring the whole "woe-is-us, we never win anything" into it you have became irrationally pessimistic. I don't see any justification for that accusation.

this team is exactly what their record shows, a barely .500 team. and that might be enough to get into the playoffs. Probably correct. Time will tell. I think we're capable of better we just don't bring A game every time. That's baseball. Everybody is capable of more than their 162 game record indicates, in short bursts. But your 162 game record is what you are.

SWEET Time to appeal (and drop the appeal after the Cubs play the Brewers). Wait, don't you want him to drop the appeal BEFORE the Brewers come to town? Like maybe, for the entire series? I think he's saying that's how he believes Prince will do it.

Sounce: link Oh wow...he's gonna get a Ron Artest-like suspension for that. If a player wields a bat in attacking a pitcher, a Ron Artest-like suspension won't cut it (If I'm in charge, that is). He'll join Pete Rose and Joe Jackson. I would hope.

There is no such thing as a very good Chicago Cubs lineup. They were average, at best, with a healthy Soriano and Ramirez, and that's exactly what they'll be if they get both back.

What are you looking for that it's not being helpful? These links should tell you what you're looking for. http://www.weather.com/outlook/travel/businesstraveler/local/60613 http://www.weather.com/outlook/travel/businesstraveler/wxdetail/60613?from=36hr_fcst_business http://www.weather.com/outlook/travel/businesstraveler/hourbyhour/60613?from=36hr_topnav_business

What's the point in posting this? Seriously, why even bother if this is all you're going to say? It's Gallagher's dad. Still. What's the point? Loosen up, after the initial Gallagher call up, there has been some good natured back and forth regarding early info. Why are you telling me to loosen up? I just said there's no point, and there isn't. There's no point to 99% of what's posted on the boards. You could read between the lines and theorize that somebody with info believes Gallagher isn't going to be sent down to make room for Piggy, or that at least there is discussion about other possible moves than this most likely one.

My thoughts are the Cubs will win 1 more game than Milwaukee and go into next week 1 game behind in the standings.

Same here. Unless there were a team that was dumb enough that Jack Wilson, Cesar Izturis, and Matt Morris comprised half their payroll. But that could never happen, so I don't feel sorry for anyone. You forgot Kendall.

No. I was also stunned. Put me in as stunned as well. If I had to guess, I would've said 27-29. I was stunned when I looked at his age a couple years ago. He hit well in the minors but didn't get a legit shot until he was 29. That's a waste of a player's prime.