davearm2

ok so basically they're never outright wrong. it's just "open to debate." OK so basically no. There will be instances where the human gets it wrong, and instances where the technology gets it wrong. How MLB evaluates umps is a separate topic from whether MLB should have umps.

The lack of crippling of the game is hardly a defense of something that is still done poorly. It's not done poorly. This sequence is clearly an outlier. The sort of accuracy and consistency people are craving is already being achieved by the human umps. They're not infallible, but they're right 99.9% of the time. Things like video replays and timing equipment (in other sports) aren't infallable either. There's a failure rate with technology too. you think that umpires are correct 999 times out of 1000? Turns out it's not 99.9%. It's ~95% on ball/strike calls, and ~99.5% on all other calls. And that 95% is based on an assumption that the camera/computer is 100% accurate, which it surely isn't. More correct would be to say that the human and the camera/computer agree on balls and strikes ~95% of the time. Which is right and which is wrong in the other 5% of cases is open to debate.

So this is what it has come to: guys that can't cut it in Baltimore are welcome on the Cubs.

The lack of crippling of the game is hardly a defense of something that is still done poorly. It's not done poorly. This sequence is clearly an outlier. The sort of accuracy and consistency people are craving is already being achieved by the human umps. They're not infallible, but they're right 99.9% of the time. Things like video replays and timing equipment (in other sports) aren't infallable either. There's a failure rate with technology too.

We "passed" on both of those players because we have the resources to outbid any other team. Since Theo/Jed didn't think they were worth the extra money, they passed on them. We passed on Pujols and Prince for the same reason - their value wasn't worth they money that it would take to get them. I guess it's a pet peeve, but it really bugs me when folks pretend like this is eBay, and everyone's bid is transparent. It's stating the obvious, but there is all kinds of bluffing and gamesmanship involved, and every involved party has an incentive NOT to reveal what bids are on the table.

You shouldn't use the DeRosa package as a template. DeRosa was more productive offensively, and more versatile defensively. I can get onboard with using Kosuke as a comp. The return for him was pretty minimal.

Jiminy Christmas. Yes, we all know this. The point is they are throwing away 2012. The fact that there is a purpose is besides the point. It didn't need to be done, but it has been done. Kyle is the one who is arguing that the organization is throwing away the year for no reason. Because they didn't need to. Things like the need to evaluate and maintaining financial flexibility are just cop-outs for them not trying this year. They could have built a tremendous organization over the next 3-5 years while still trying in 2012, but they chose not to, because they have a leash and a fan/media base that was begging them not to try. Nothing Theo and co. are doing is predicated on some perceived long leash, and it sure as heck has nothing to do with what the fan/media base thinks. I mean seriously, stop with this nonsense. They're building this organization the best way they know how to achieve sustained excellence and perennial contender-ship. Period. End of story. You would have done it differently, and we all get that. But don't make up this crap about what their motivation is.

Yeah, it's very understandable. We all understand what he's trying to do. What he's not trying to do is make this team good as quickly as he can. He actually is. He's just not doing it the way you would.

Because it was the complete opposite of reality? No, not at all. Should have added, to get us there in a sustainable way longterm. We can debate all day about whether or not it's possible we could sign a Pujols, Fielder, etc, and get good and stay there, but we don't truly know if we could or not. Letting it sit for a year, finding where our true holes appear to be, is what Theo chose to do. He has a little more experience at this than you or I do, so I'm taking the approach he knows what he's doing and he's doing it as quickly as he can. If you want to think he's procrastinating and trying to field a Margaret Phelps team, be my guest. Nonsense. He's not doing it as quickly as possible. He knows he has a ridiculously long leash nobody else has and he's willing to let that leash extend as long as possible. There are absolutely zero signs of any sense of urgency or any interest in any sort of "quickly as he can" aspect to the plan. It will be as long and as drawn out as possible, like McClellan preparing the Army of the Potomac. Thankfully there aren't any lives on the line and he can still end up with great success despite taking his sweet old time. But there is nothing close to true about the statement that he is doing it as quickly as he can. I think most here are in agreement that the Cubs' misery has not been a byproduct of poor free agent spending. It has been primarily a byproduct of poor drafting and developing. If you can't see that Theo is trying to rectify that situation "as quickly as he can", then you're simply not paying attention.

The GM of the Cowboys has it pretty good too.

Correct. No pitcher that would pitch for free could match Roy Oswalt's production.

Kinda surprised the Reds didn't name Marshall the closer as soon as they got him.

That's wonderful. If every player in MLB was suddenly a free agent, which reliever would receive the biggest contract? The best one, right? If every player in MLB was available in an expansion draft, which reliever would be selected first? The best one, right? If every manager in MLB was asked which reliever in the league he'd pick to pitch the 9th inning of game 7, which reliever would be named most? The best one, right? Anyone here think Sean Marshall would be the answer to any of those questions?

I can hardly wait...

I bet you're bright enough to understand that "pretty [expletive] phenomenal last season" /= "the best reliever in the game"

LOL at "the best reliever in the game"

You would think someone would have thought to test the breaking strength of the tanks before adding fish.

You are kidding right? The only way fans are not being screwed is if EVERYONE who would of gotten in to buy the ticket at the Marquee level would have been a scalper. Dynamic pricing by the Cubs and the 16 other MLB clubs are one thing and one thing only, greed. Honestly scalpers,stubhub and ticket brokers provide a service for those who really want to go to the game,that didn't get a ticket for a variety of reasons. The Cubs and MLB seem to have this crazy war against them that no other sports league does. Can they scalpers get out of control? Absolutely. That is why teams should put some safeguards to help the fan attending the game with a better shot of getting tickets. Like putting a limit on how many tix you can buy. All dynamic pricing does is screws over the fan. Also hate to inform some of you of this but scalping will always be around. Those tickets bought before it hit the dynamic pricing level will be scalped still. There just won't be every Joe Blow doing it. Once again scalping is not the evil many try and make it to be. For everyone's information I have bought a total of 1 Cubs ticket through a Scalper and have bought 5 total sports tickets through Scalpers/Brokers/Stub Hub. Have never sold a ticket period. So my POV is not from some ulterior motive. Scalpers exploit market inefficiencies. They are arbitrageurs, pure and simple. That isn't bad or evil or anything. But neither is the Cubs' attempt to reduce those market inefficiencies that scalpers depend on. That's what dynamic pricing is designed to do: reveal the buyer with the highest willingness to pay, and sell to that person. It's not any more greedy than if, say, you are selling your car and take the highest offer on it. Why should you sell your car to a guy for $10,000 if someone else would pay $12,000? Well the Cubs/dynamic pricing invoke essentially the same thought process.

I don't see how the fans get screwed, unless a large number of tickets are going unsold due to the higher prices. Short of that, it's just dollars flowing from the brokers to the Cubs. The fans are basically unaffected. And everyone should be happy to see those dollars stay with the Cubs.

Balls hit onto the deck will be HRs not singles. :thisaintwiffleball:

Not having anything particularly compelling or insightful to say about Hayden Simpson or Josh Vitters one week into ST renders a guy a hack? I guess that leaves me wondering WTF you expected he would have to say about these guys.

Rogers kinda lost his way there with the whole "doubles and homers are a good way to start an inning" stuff, but the point about placing Soriano wherever he will be most productive, so as to build his trade value, makes a lot of sense. Finding a taker for the guy is one of this season's higher priorities. Getting his OPS back up to a respectable level is a pretty critical first step. If hitting leadoff helps, then go for it.

You have to imagine MLB signed off on all elements of the new stadium, including the design and placement of the display. This will be an issue for like 5 minutes, then will fade into oblivion, like Jerry Jones' too-low video board.

If by "it just makes sense" you mean "it just doesn't make sense," then I agree.

Link?