CubbieBum

So now we are spending $18 million a year on a set up guy? Nice use of resources. Regardless of contract, this would be a colossally stupid idea Contract shouldn't determine where a guy pitches but I agree it would be incredibly dumb.

:cry:

Not really. He shoots an OK percentage, doesn't get to the free throw line at a particularly high rate, is a below average rebounder, and doesn't block shots. A nice piece, but just a solid #2 or #3 on a good team. It's much easier to find Lamarcus Aldridge and a good (not great) young guard than one great player you can build a contender around. Rose needs to learn how to shoot and not be a one-dimensional scorer before I put him in that category. Rose is a great driver but that is it for his scoring abilities. He can average 20 points a game, maybe more, with that but will never become a top player if he can't shoot better than 25% from 3-pt on less than one attempt per game. He's atrocious at shooting from out. He may be the worst 3-pt shooting PG in the league which will always limit his game and stop him from becoming truly great player.

Not me. If we had LMA, then I doubt the Bulls land Derrick Rose. And I take Rose over LMA every day. That's pretty dumb. Sure I would rather have Rose than LMA but Rose wasn't part of the deal. You traded LMA, who was picked No. 2, for Tyrus Thomas, who was picked No. 4, and some foreign guy who never made to my knowledge. That was the trade. If you have LMA you would be a lot better and while you likely wouldn't have Rose you would have some other draft pick in his place in addition to LMA. That could be Beasley, Love, Mayo, Westbrook, Lopez, Gordon or some other player that is pretty good. I would take LMA + one of the guys mentioned over what you ended with which is Rose and a couple years of Tyrus sucking. If your 2nd best player is Lamarcus Aldridge you're not contending for a championship. He's a nice piece but pretty replaceable. Jump shooting power forwards who don't rebound or block shots are nothing special. I'd rather have Rose and nothing than Aldridge and a guy that isn't nearly is as good as Rose. Dirk says hi. Dirk obviously much better than LMA but he is a jump shooting PF. I realize you may be tempted to say Dirk rebounds and LMA doesn't but you would be wrong. LMA does rebound. He actually averaged more rebounds this season than Dirk did. Dirk has also never played with a great rebounding center so Dirk gets some extra rebounds. LMA has played with Przybilla who is one of the best rebounders (top 5 in rebounds per 48 in 2008-09 and 2007-08). If Przybilla could do anything else well he would be a great center. He sucks at everything else so he only gets 20-25 minutes a game but strictly speaking on rebounding he is one of the best.

So did all these people. https://engineering.purdue.edu/AAE/AboutUs/Alumni/Distinguished/Astronautbios/

Not me. If we had LMA, then I doubt the Bulls land Derrick Rose. And I take Rose over LMA every day. That's pretty dumb. Sure I would rather have Rose than LMA but Rose wasn't part of the deal. You traded LMA, who was picked No. 2, for Tyrus Thomas, who was picked No. 4, and some foreign guy who never made to my knowledge. That was the trade. If you have LMA you would be a lot better and while you likely wouldn't have Rose you would have some other draft pick in his place in addition to LMA. That could be Beasley, Love, Mayo, Westbrook, Lopez, Gordon or some other player that is pretty good. I would take LMA + one of the guys mentioned over what you ended with which is Rose and a couple years of Tyrus sucking. And you are under the impression that if the Bulls decided to keep LMA, then would have drafted one of the said players you mention. Considering Paxson's draft history, he would have passed on everybody on the list for a James Johnson type pick. The only reason why he didn't screw up the Rose pick, is because you couldn't screw it up. You had marketable young talent from the city, there ws no way the Bulls would not had pick Beasley, unless Michael was a legit 6'10. I don't know. Paxson did draft LMA haha In all seriousness Paxson is not a great drafter but he isn't horrible either. His trades are what kills him. His first round picks with the Bulls have been Kirk Hinrich, Ben Gordon, LaMarcus Aldridge, Rodney Carney, Joakim Noah and Derrick Rose. Out of those six four have panned out to be good players (LMA, Rose, Noah and Gordon). The only real miss was Carney and he was non-lottery pick. Hinrich certainly hasn't panned out as hoped but he has been a decent player for seven seasons now, especially on defense.

Ankiel's pitching issues were mental. My guess for one inning with relatively no pressure (no one expects him to do well) he could be very good.

Not me. If we had LMA, then I doubt the Bulls land Derrick Rose. And I take Rose over LMA every day. That's pretty dumb. Sure I would rather have Rose than LMA but Rose wasn't part of the deal. You traded LMA, who was picked No. 2, for Tyrus Thomas, who was picked No. 4, and some foreign guy who never made to my knowledge. That was the trade. If you have LMA you would be a lot better and while you likely wouldn't have Rose you would have some other draft pick in his place in addition to LMA. That could be Beasley, Love, Mayo, Westbrook, Lopez, Gordon or some other player that is pretty good. I would take LMA + one of the guys mentioned over what you ended with which is Rose and a couple years of Tyrus sucking.

Shouldn't you know? You are Racey McRacist.

It should definitely have happened but probably wouldn't have mattered. Marmol wasn't bad but he wasn't the same either. He allowed an inherited base runner to score and then gave up the tying run. Marshall also didn't seem to be on today giving up the winning run.

100% agree.

You couldn't have made a worse OP OMC. You add to my misery of losing to the Astros with Shakespeare. Good God do I really hate both of those things.

Weren't you the one complaining about people predicting the Cubs getting swept not 2 weeks ago? To me there is a huge difference between someone posting that we will be swept in our season opening series and saying based on the first two weeks of crap I don't expect the team to be good at all. I don't believe we will be below .500. I think we will end up with between 85-90 wins but I am OK with people saying that the team has looked like crap and based on that I don't expect us to compete. I do have a problem with fans who before the season has even started post a short, one sentence saying we're going to get swept. One has at least some analysis and reasoning behind it. The other is the always pessimistic, give up, loser attitude I hate in some Cubs fans.

Wait, wait, wait...you clearly recognize that it's only 3 games back only 2 weeks into the season. Yes. My point is that we are three games back and the season is only two weeks old and I don't have much faith in our team. I'm saying that I think there is a good chance that we will end up way out of first place. So how about waiting until that actually happens? Because he can't be down on his team? Here comes your I am better than you attitude again. No one is allowed to think the team is going to be bad because they have shown very little in two weeks of play. We must wait until August to proclaim the team won't be good.

I would almost rather have Dlee hack at something outside then count of Aram to do anything.

Byrd's the word.

Hill up needing a hit to win it when Soto could have been batting. Awesome. Can Lou pull a George Karl please.

Fukudome doing the smart thing unlike Aram. Not going to hit a HR today.

Jerk.

He sucks until the 8th or 9th inning.

So I believe Hill is up 5th meaning if we want to have a walk off in the 9th he may very well have to bat instead of the red hot Soto.

We get to have a walk off now ... hopefully.

But Hill is so good defenisively. Especially at throwing out stealers ... oh wait

I hate him just because he doesn't know how to spell Jeff.

1 up 1 down edit: 2 up 1 down #-o