jersey cubs fan

wasn't that Matos guy announced yesterday?

2 of them. Which is why I used 20 years instead of 30. But even if we go 30, the fact that the Cubs have had six playoff appearances spread out over that time frame, while the Pirates have had just about nothing to show up to the ballpark to see for 20 consecutive years has to have some bearing. I mean even if you take out the Cubs' playoff appearances since 1992, at least there was a few seasons of Sammy mashing to watch. It's been 20 years of baseball desolation in Pittsburgh. I get that, but I was replying to illini's comment. I couldn't tell if he was talking about 20 years or 30 years. Anywho, the point stands from whoever said it, there are teams fan bases that have had it worse. Although that doesn't really help anything.

This portion right here is completely stupid to include. If I was scouting a guy and he got suspended and received a talking to from the front office and then fresh off that gets benched by his manager for not playing the "Cubs way" it raises a red flag stupid or not I'll include it. Sure we aren't talking about Milton Bradley but you'd be stupid not to include that in the discussion. It has nothing to do with what you are talking about. You can go ahead and include it but all it does it weaken the rest of your argument, which I am predisposed to sympathize with, in the eyes of others.

Uh, no. How are the Cubs brief flashes of being not terrible better than those teams in that period? I don't know about 30 years, but I can definitely tell you that I would much rather take the Cubs' past 20 over the Pirates' past 20, and if you don't see why then you're crazy. Probably than Milwaukee's too, but not by as much. 03 alone makes it better than both those franchises. Pretending otherwise is foolish. Pittsburgh had its own 2003 within the last 30 years.

Baseball executives are supposed to have a greater ability to judge such things than the media experts that write about them and especially the fans who form opinions based on those media reports. It's not hindsight for them.

This portion right here is completely stupid to include.

Tell that to Theo.

There's a Stefon bit to be made here.

awesome

Is that supposed to say something else? Like, "the guy"? "A guy" sounds like a rather mundane description, especially for a description for what somebody might become if he gets his head on straight. I was going to snark that and say yeah he might become just a guy if everything breaks right, but I've been cranky enough. The fact that he quoted "guy" makes it a compliment. Yeah, I assume it's meant to be a compliment, but is what he is saying that if everything goes right he might turn into a replacement player? That's what it sounds like.

Is that supposed to say something else? Like, "the guy"? "A guy" sounds like a rather mundane description, especially for a description for what somebody might become if he gets his head on straight.

Why is it obvious that they didn't want to save actual money?

If you wanted someone impactful, you should have traded him back when he had 64 starts left in his contract rather than 16. it wasn't my choice to make

It's not a crap deal. Your expectations are simply out of whack. No, that is a crap deal. Unfortunately, it's also kind of along the lines of what I expect. My preference is to trade him for something that is potentially impactful. A top 100 guy is not that.

Well then make up your mind, you can't say they will have to settle for a crap deal and that they will have plenty of strenght in negotiation that will net them a good deal at the same time. The deal mentioned sucked and should be passed on. A good deal should be accepted.

Disagree. Getting a couple of useful prospects > a draft pick > having Garza on a bad FA deal If it was guaranteed to be a bad deal perhaps, but it is not. You can't negotiate with any strength if you are resigned to trading a guy no matter what.

I thought you were against signing Garza long term. It's not my favorite option. But trading him for "whatever you can get" is a worse idea.

That's not a fair comparison since it's not a $$$ for $$$ thing. The IFA money isn't just based on whatever a team wants to spend, they need to have access to the slots. It's a fair comparison to discuss what the market for IFA slot space is.

I think that seriously underestimates the price to keep Garza. He's not going to come back on a reasonable deal. He's going to hit a money-rich, talent-poor FA market as the best pitcher available and get something stupid. Then you can pat yourself on the back with the No. 35 overall pick or whatever that might slot into the back of our top 10, instead of getting a top 100 prospect + a guy as good as the No. 35 pick. Then sign him. If you can't get an impactful return in trade there is no point in trading him. Incremental improvement does nothing for this team.

That's a horrible [expletive] return. I'd rather make the qualifying offer and try to sign him. I'm definitely looking forward to your reaction when he is traded. He's right though. That's an awful return and should be dismissed in favor of keeping him next season.

Yeah, I probably should have included this in the list of reasons: Baby boomers keep dying.

Surprised to see Jennings as a blue-chipper but not Brandon Marshall. All the others sound about right. Tim Jennings is listed as the same level as Marshall, high quality. Only Tillman is a blue chipper.

I don't watch a lot of non-Cubs games in a typical year but I probably haven't seen more than 2 innings of a non-Cubs game this year, combined. I will throw on a Pirates game for my brother-in-law or Phillies for my father-in-law, but then I'll tune out myself and find something else to do.

I'm not so sure he doesn't understand all this. I just think it's not on him to give a crap about the long-term interests of the ballclub. He's on the Chicago Cubs in 2013 and they suck and just traded away a good player. He saw this last year and he's been a part of a team that has been bad for a long time. At 30,000 feet you can see the promise on the horizon, but the guys who have to play on this crap team right now don't have the advantage of tuning out and waiting for the future. i guess i just don't really see the difference. this team was already bad with feldman. there was no realistic scenario in which the cubs became good in the second half and made the playoffs. they can win like 68 games with feldman and clevenger and other assorted great guys who play the game hard and play the right way, or they can win 62 games with other great guys who sometimes play the game the wrong way. and i'm sure it sucks being on a lousy ballclub, but when you sign with a team that hasn't won it all since the teddy roosevelt administration, you should have an idea of what you're getting into. Well, there isn't a difference. And most everybody should recognize that, but the players are exempt from thinking about that sort of stuff in my opinion. They are on the team and allowed to lament a teammate leaving and another season being thrown away. He signed in 2006, a couple years after the team showed some signs of sustained success, but before that really fell apart. They got good again shortly thereafter. I think he signed on with the expectation of a team that wouldn't win it all every year, but would be competitive in most years. Now he's in his fourth consecutive season of crap. And a draftee doesn't have a huge choice about which team he signs on with anyway.

You are a very dull human if you think it is fun to watch the process that has been going on here.