Jump to content
North Side Baseball

17 Seconds

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    23,966

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

 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 17 Seconds

  1. 17 Seconds
    Yeah, not to mention the bullpen probably looked worse then than now. An excellent point. Woody blew his first save against the Brewers too. That wasn't a blown save
  2. 17 Seconds
    His lefty-righty obsession is a big problem.
  3. 17 Seconds
    Okay you're right. 86-76 in a stacked division isn't good.
  4. 17 Seconds
    Yeah and they lost Carpenter for the entire season and still almost matched that projection. Wahetever though, it's not really worth arguing if you're just going to pretend like they haven't been competitive.
  5. 17 Seconds
    Yeah, you'd have to go all the way back to 2007 to find them performing worse than expected, and didn't compete. Course, they didn't really compete last year either, but it's unlikely you'll admit that. Come on. Compared to expectations? The Cards were a surprise for most of the year last year. Sure they faded late, but they were supposed to fade early. I think LaRussa's done a nice job with what he's had to work with. I said they didn't compete last year, not that they didn't outperform expectations. I seriously want to know what it was the Cardinals "competed for" last year. Um, a playoff spot? They finished 4 games out of a wild card spot. And yeah, you definititly did imply that tha Cardinals weren't a good team last season, which is totally incorrect. If you win 86 games in a stacked division, you're good. I don't know how you can act like the Cardinals sucked last season. Pretty much everybody thought they wouldn't be very good. Then when Carpenter went down right away, everybody thought they would completely tank.
  6. 17 Seconds
    Yeah, you'd have to go all the way back to 2007 to find them performing worse than expected, and didn't compete. Course, they didn't really compete last year either, but it's unlikely you'll admit that. They performed worse than expected in 2007? I seem to remember the popular belief going into that season was that they were going to be pretty bad, yet they stayed close to .500 and were only a game out of first in September. And don't even try to act like they didn't compete last year. They didn't compete for the division, but before the season everyone (including me) was all "god the cards are going to be brutal this season"..... and then they won 86 games (and in a really good division). Winning 86 games means you were a competitive team, and nobody thought that team would be competitive and have a legit shot at the playoffs for most of the season.
  7. 17 Seconds
    "The only reason they managed to finish 4th and win 86 games is because they were lucky enough to have an unbelievable season." No no, silly. They won 86 games because they were good. They only finished in fourth because we were lucky enough to have an unbelievable season. Didn't you know? We're only good when we're lucky. They're good even when they finish 4th. nobody said anything close to that, but okay
  8. 17 Seconds
    "The only reason they managed to finish 4th and win 86 games is because they were lucky enough to have an unbelievable season." Huh? I don't understand what you're asking. I was just saying it's kind of dumb to use "they finished 4th" to imply that they were a bad team last season. They won 86 games. They weren't a bad team. As for the "they're the cardinals" part......are you denying that the Cardinals always seem to do better than expected and always compete?
  9. 17 Seconds
    having a bad spring training means you have to "get you career back on track"?
  10. 17 Seconds
    why are you leaving out vitters?
  11. 17 Seconds
    Well he definitely was unavailable, but hopefully it's because Lou didn't want to use him again so soon as opposed to injury
  12. 17 Seconds
    i can't believe anybody can still defend lou's in-game managing. it's absolutely brutal. that decision to send the runners with bradley up was the turning point of the game. should have been bases loaded and no outs and instead it turns into a double play. really though i'm worried about how hurt soto and marmol are
  13. 17 Seconds
    Heilman is 1.33 career and 1.59 last year, and people insist that he's got great stuff. Clement's WHIP was always high despite great "stuff". I don't think a high WHIP corrrelates to lesser stuff. 05- 1.15 06- 1.16 07- 1.07 I think those are the WHIPs people are looking at when talking about Heilman
  14. 17 Seconds
    No he didn't. He was awesome for about the first month. In his first 14.2 innings with the Cubs he gave up 3 ER, 9 hits, 3 walks, and had 18 k's. Then he kind of fell apart after the injury. They just got rid of a proven league average swingman for a 24 year reliever who can't even get guys out in A+, just because of spring training numbers. No, they got rid of him because of how god awful he was soon after arriving here throughout the end of the season and the horrific spring, and the fact that he injured himself while drunk, thus entering Piniella's doghouse. A) I just explained that he wasn't bad for the first month with the Cubs. He was very good B) This "he got into Lou's doghouse because he fell down when he was drunk supposedly" BS has to stop. we've already been over this. you're completely speculating ans basically making things up by trying to act like it's a fact. just like when you claimed that if a guy falls down while drunk that means he automatically has a drinking problem, even if he doesn't drink often. how do you know he was in lou's "doghouse" for that supposed incident? do you have anything to back that up? maybe he was in lou's "doghouse" because, you know, he stopped being good.
  15. 17 Seconds
    They won 86 games. They WERE good. The only reason they finished 4th is because they played in an awesome division. They didn't "go away". We just were lucky enough to have an unbelievable season. If they win 86 games again this season that means they're probably in the division race right to the end. I don't think they'll be as good as last year, but I think it's ridiculous to ever write that team off at this point. They're the Cardinals.
  16. 17 Seconds
    No he didn't. He was awesome for about the first month. In his first 14.2 innings with the Cubs he gave up 3 ER, 9 hits, 3 walks, and had 18 k's. Then he kind of fell apart after the injury. They just got rid of a proven league average swingman for a 24 year reliever who can't even get guys out in A+, just because of spring training numbers.
  17. 17 Seconds
    lack of experience? the only 2 guys in the pen with a lack of experience are patton and guzman
  18. 17 Seconds
    neither of them are attractive
  19. 17 Seconds
    the pp has been atrocious today
  20. 17 Seconds
    If his facial hair factored into the decision of Lou/Jim even the slightest bit, that would be ridiculous
  21. 17 Seconds
    Parra and Bush could easily put up ERA's lower than 4.20.
  22. 17 Seconds
    Of course we should worry about the Brewers, but not because of spring training numbers. Seriously, Casey McGehee has raked in 2 straight spring trainings. That should tell you all you need to know.
  23. 17 Seconds
    What a waste. We need start pitching depth
  24. 17 Seconds
    half a season?
  25. 17 Seconds
    rodman was way better than avery is
×
×
  • Create New...