Jump to content
North Side Baseball

CubUgly

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    683

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 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 CubUgly

  1. CubUgly
    I guess we are splitting hairs a bit on terminology and language, but to me serious is making an offer that is market competitive and not just what we (meaning our front office) think market competitive should be. I would be floored if we make an offer Bichette's folks seriously consider and to me that would be "serious".
  2. CubUgly
    Yeah, but interested and serious are two different things.
  3. CubUgly
    I'm down with this, I'm actually more worried about where the offense is going to come from, we were pretty mediocre offensively when Tuck was either hurt or mediocre himself in the second half.
  4. CubUgly
    The Athletic is the only source projecting something that seems excessive - 8 years - $190 million - the Cubs I think would be out if it gets to that, but they are the only source projecting near that many years and $$.
  5. CubUgly
    Bull, I'm not going to prepare for that as I don't want to do that to myself, but I would be ecstatic to be wrong I can assure you.
  6. CubUgly
    They absolutely should.....but I have little expectation they will.
  7. CubUgly
    I honestly have no issue with not considering Tucker, I just don't believe he's going to age well and all accounts are he's going to want 10-11 years. Why offer some half ass contract you know won't get it done just to try to appease a fan base that will call it out as such anyway? But I do want to use the money to get some talent and quit being so annoyingly selective and cautious as to miss out on anything other than value pick ups you hope play above projections. It's like we are trying to Out-Milwaukee - Milwaukee - and they are whipping us spending half of what we are.
  8. CubUgly
    I'd use another term, like disappointing.
  9. CubUgly
    Yes, I'm good with 90 wins in the regular season in a vacuum. I'll take that every year. It's just the idea of building a team projectable to 87-88 wins each and every year and hoping on that....and if that's indeed the m.o. of the front office I do have some reservations about it.
  10. CubUgly
    I agree, but I did say 87-90 - splitting hairs yes, but honestly to me at least, it seems they would be fine with 87. But for me if you go in with that projection as a goal, and I kinda think that's really what our front office is shooting for now, you don't always meet or exceed that projection - sometimes you fall short. We exceeded last year. That won't always happen.
  11. CubUgly
    This^^^^ I am of the mind of several media outlets on this who have said the goal is to field a roster projected to win 87-90 games each year hoping to exceed those projections and maybe make a Diamondback like run to the WS every 4-5 years or so.
  12. CubUgly
    I'm not saying Bruce is a shill for the Cubs because Marquee is paying him....but I will say because of that realI don't give much value to any takes of his.
  13. CubUgly
    I agree it does, but I also don't expect our front office to do that and would be genuinely SHOCKED if they did.
  14. CubUgly
    Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes - but I hope not - I'm just not bullish on Gallen.
  15. CubUgly
    It makes sense to me, but not sure it makes sense to them. I hope so though.
  16. CubUgly
    Really? What makes you think this? I think at first the excuse was Covid and of recent years the upcoming CBA and impending work stoppage as reasons not to exceed the first level and I fully expect that they will stick with that whether it is a legit reason or not it's how they are operating now. Will that change after the new collective bargaining agreement, or will this be their M.O. even after that? Time will tell.
  17. CubUgly
    Yeah, I don't hate it we have roster spots to fill and bench depths is a definite need. But by itself it does not move the needle much and we are all waiting for a move that will. I kinda treat this like college football recruiting - no need to fret and live and die with each rumor until it's over then you can reasonably judge how it all went.
  18. CubUgly
    Would it be reasonable to day we marginally improved our back up first baseman at a lower cost. We need to start filling bench spots our 40 man is still well below 40 correct?
  19. CubUgly
    Yes, to your point above, I am of this opinion, I'd rather play for the high ceiling than the high floor here. I understand those who would push for the safer of the two, but I'm about tired of that.
  20. CubUgly
    I respect that opinion - and if we do end up with him I hope your are correct. I just don't like where he seems to be trending. For me to much hoping involved for the money he would require.
  21. CubUgly
    There's an old saying in sports - it's not the guys you don't get that kill you - it's the one's you get that aren't good (or at least not anymore) that kill you. For me at least Gallen would be in that category Don't sign and SP just to sign one.
  22. CubUgly
    Of course, I believe they have more data and knowledge (or should anyway) to determine who is better than I do, if that is the only criteria they are using. But as we know value is a huge part of their process, and to what percentage that (value) weighs in, I'm not completely sure but I think many of us here think it to be more than we would like it to at least vs. comparative projected performance.
  23. CubUgly
    I would say he better than just a nice year, I think he had a very good year. But I have little confidence he will replicate it - bullpen volatility being what it is and his age as you reference. Hope I'm wrong. Honestly I'd have rather kept Pomeranz. His stuff was electric late in the year.
  24. CubUgly
    I do think they really like Bregman, and project him to age well. I think the interest in a vacuum is genuine. I just have next to zero faith that if it comes to a bidding war with anyone for him they won't call or raise. So in the end the interest is pretty meaningless.
  25. CubUgly
    Exactly - what makes anyone think Jed/Tom are going to outbid anyone for anyone of significance? I mean if they ever do I'll be the first to pass out.
×
×
  • Create New...