Jump to content
North Side Baseball

jersey cubs fan

Old-Timey Member
  • Posts

    68,112
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    64

 Content Type 

Profiles

Joomla Posts 1

Chicago Cubs Videos

Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking

News

2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

Guides & Resources

2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

The Chicago Cubs Players Project

2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker

2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by jersey cubs fan

  1. If the team sucks in 5 years it would be absurd to suggest the front office did not fail. Ability isn't the issue. Ability is the issue. WTF? Ability isn't the issue. It's a nebulous term anyway, and Theo isn't the only guy with "ability" to smartly run a front office. You keep ignoring the fact that more and more smart people have gotten into the game. Theo went from being unique to being the most well known (and highly compensated) one of the bunch, but there are dozens of guys just like him in the game now. He's replaceable. He does not have an inherent natural ability to build a winning organization that other smart people in the game lack. He's not Mickey Mantle. You keep framing the situation as going from Theo back to some neanderthal promoted from gym teacher to GM. If that happens, that would suck, but you don't form your opinion based on potential worst case scenario. The Cubs could easily find another smart guy ready to run an organization and do better than 5 crappy seasons.
  2. If the team sucks in 5 years it would be absurd to suggest the front office did not fail. Ability isn't the issue.
  3. No, that's not what i'm saying. In the terms we're talking about, smart = good. He may fail, but in terms of expected performance out of a GM going forward, I'd take the smart guy every time. That doesn't mean he is incapable of failure. It means I think his chances of failure going forward are less than that of others. You are ignoring the fact that Theo is no longer one of only a few smart guys in baseball, or the smartest.
  4. What I'm saying is that level of confidence is silly. And making such an excuse for failure is not helpful. We aren't talking about making change for the sake of change. We're talking about unnecessarily fretting over Theo leaving before this team is good. If they aren't good by the time his contract is up, he failed. Change for change sake is swapping hitting coaches every year, or firing a front office after 2 miserable seasons. That isn't at issue.
  5. This. Even back before Epstein was hired, I wanted someone young and hungry and with a clean slate and new ideas. Getting Epstein's second act isn't the worst thing in the world, but I wouldn't have minded trying to find the next one. I wouldn't mind if Epstein stepped out or up after his five years and handed things over to McLeod. Based on some comments from the past couple of years, I think McLeod might be much more old timey than any of us would like to believe. I think McCleod is a better version of Jim Hendry. I wanted Jim Hendry to take over the GM role because of how well he appeared to be doing with the minor league system (you know, the last time the Cubs system went from also ran to elite) and I was dead wrong. McCleod is a scout/development guy and I would be in favor in bumping him up as far as a Hoyer type gig, GM in name only. But there is no way I want that type of guy actually running the whole thing.
  6. I think that's a little silly. If you can't make a big market team respectable in five years, you have done a poor job running that team. I see no reason why we should think this team won't be competitive within the timeframe of his first contract. 15 years ago Theo was an anomaly. He rose to fame by being a smart man in a dumb man's game. There are more smart men in the game now. If Theo can't get the job done in 5 years he'd done a poor job and others should be able to take over the job.
  7. Have you seen the defense he'll be facing? Romo has an awful career record in December. Someone show him a calendar before kickoff and we'll be fine. He went 3-2 last December with passer ratings of 150, 75, 111, 123 and 56. He has an 89.3 career rating in December. He's not awful. His team's been very mediocre.
  8. I think what is much more likely is that Theo's underlings will leave well before Theo's contract is up, which is after the 2016 season. They have to be much better by then, and I would bet he would stick around to see it through, while the staff itself will have turned over.
  9. If the Cubs don't make an on-field turnaround while Theo is here, why would you be upset that he leaves? If we're still floundering after 5 years, he failed and it's time to let someone else try to fix it. Please go away. Well it's true. If they have 5 years of not contending, that's not doing his job.
  10. Have you seen the defense he'll be facing? Bears are actually 14th in passing yards allowed and 6th in interceptions. They have an average pass defense that will force the occasional turnover. They aren't really the problem. The pass defense sucks, but teams don't need to throw much because they can run so easily and the Bears aren't scoring points.
  11. What sort of insane hours are you keeping that post on here at 4am?
  12. When I stopped playing baseball video games and fantasy baseball (which dwindled from the same 12 people in our fantasy football league to seven) I stopped knowing every player in the game. Couple that with the extreme decline in games I've sat through in their entirety and there's no way I'd remember an obscure reliever from the most boring team in the league.
  13. It's not that small, and if they offer the most money, why wouldn't he?
  14. If an assistant GM is texting this sort of thing in advance of something happening, he knows that will get reported. So is he trying to prevent it from happening?
  15. I just don't think Emery bothers with signalling anything.
  16. Is that something sports writers never do? Like any good BS story, there's probably some grain of truth. But none of these guys have provided an inkling of detail on the matter. None of these guys know what they are talking about, they just repeat "debt structure" issues. David Kaplan talking about a prospective buyer who thought "this was the most complex transaction he had ever seen" is full of [expletive]. The Cubs are pushing this storyline because they don't want to spend right now. They can blame it on the rooftops, aldermen, general bureaucracy as well as debt issues beyond their control. What it comes down to is the Cubs don't want to spend money right now, but it's bad for business to just say you don't want to spend money. This is like crying corporate poverty 101 right here. The more issues you can throw out there to justify not spending, the better off you are.
  17. desipio says you just don't get that witty sullivan sarcasm.
  18. Of course they're making money. That has nothing to do with the debt structure stuff, which basically everyone has confirmed is an actual issue. Wittenmyer has been the most vocal, but everyone has mentioned it, even the pro-rebuild types. You have a loose definition of the word "confirmed". Has anyone from the Cubs came out and denied it? No? Oh OK then. Why would the Cubs deny the best excuse they have for not spending money?
  19. Of course they're making money. That has nothing to do with the debt structure stuff, which basically everyone has confirmed is an actual issue. Wittenmyer has been the most vocal, but everyone has mentioned it, even the pro-rebuild types. You have a loose definition of the word "confirmed".
  20. You do need an arm because you have to have the threat of a quick slant in the end zone to make the jump ball a possibility. The opposition has to honor the inside or else they aren't getting that throw. And the Bears have been down there and unable to get that throw on more than one occasion because defenses aren't fooled into thinking there is a chance McCown will hum one in there.
  21. No. Because football stats are not nearly as reliable as a they are in a 1 on 1 sport like baseball, where your teammates and coaching decision making don't really matter.
  22. What the what? They're saying it's part of the plan and they'll spend when the time is right. Hoyer said as much publicly a couple of weeks ago. There's not some media campaign by the Cubs to make people think times are tough. It's only Wittenmyer and a couple others who have been bashing ownership saying otherwise. Unless you're talking about the Wrigley stuff, which is totally separate from this talk of the team being too leveraged and being unable to operate at a loss and such. That's an odd interpretation. Obviously any talk of it not being the right time to spend is tied into the BS theory that there is some outside force causing them not to spend in the "immediate" aftermath of the sale. There is a very clear media campaign by the Cubs to make people think times are tough, but they will be better later.
  23. Yeah, I'm pretty surprised with the reaction here too. Why? Even when one is resigned to the reality of the Cubs' limitations it's still frustrating when they miss out on a player they could have really used. Sure, almost all signs pointed to "no," but there's always the hope for some kind of surprise. I just didn't have any hope they would get such a player, so it wasn't the least bit surprising to me. When I saw the story there was no feeling of, "damn I really hoped they get him," because they have made it abundantly clear they aren't even trying to sign guys like that. I'm frustrated as hell about the way they are running this team, but because of that I also had no thought they would sign him, so it's hard to get disappointed about any one player they "missed" on.
×
×
  • Create New...