Jump to content
North Side Baseball

CubUgly

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    539

  • 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 Pick Tracker

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by CubUgly

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. CubUgly
    I can agree - to some extent - I can make several I think reasonable arguments against long contracts - but it's very nuanced and relative and not all long term contracts are bad - but I see your point, both can be stupid. But if you are the Cubs IMHO one is more stupid than the other.
  8. CubUgly
    I think we're all exasperated by "involved" because that really means nothing. If and when the price tag or years get up there - we'll bail. I can deal much better with the years restriction, for me it's the ridiculous self imposed barrier of the first level of the luxury tax. It's VERY frustrating to me that this is an impediment year after year, because we all know it should not be. I know it's understood - so we all discuss things based on this being the reality, but it's still ridiculous and tiring.
  9. CubUgly
    Me too. I mean does anyone really believe if the price gets near where it was last year the Cubs won't do the same thing they did last year Re: Bregman. I don't.
  10. CubUgly
    I agree Bertz. Hell, Shaw was better than him in every phase of the game the last two months of the season. I think his hot streak early in the year this past season will prove to be far more the exception than the norm moving forward. I have little confidence he can duplicate that going on 35.
  11. CubUgly
    Passan's follow up was like the scolding of a child.....and perfect.
  12. CubUgly
    He's so bad, he really needs to quit trying to be in the breaking news business.
  13. CubUgly
  14. CubUgly
    We need to quit worrying about holding the $ for mid season - as we saw last year that don't always work out and you may not be in contention when the time comes if you don't address needs before the season starts. I know the reality of how the Cubs have chosen to do business....and i don't like it, but they are going to do it so just need to do it smarter.
  15. CubUgly
    Reading comprehension -5.....sorry 🙂
  16. CubUgly
    Agreed, he'll have to adjust and not just hope the velocity ticks back up to where it was. I hope he figures it out I love Shota and the fun he seems to have when it's working. I would be great for us all if he gets it back going.
  17. CubUgly
    Good points - soooo much volatility from year to year with relievers. Who would not have wanted Tanner Scott and Yates last year based on their 2024 seasons - hell the Cubs wanted Scott enough to offer him a 4-year deal that when you get down to it was as good or better than what the Dodgers offered in practical terms.
  18. CubUgly
    Agreed, I really do believe Mo Baller will hit, but not so sure about the power or if he can ever be anything but a DH. Less certain about Cassie being able to consistently hit at this level. I really think just rolling it back out with Mo and Cassie added is borderline negligence. I agree we need to add some slug with more certainty in addition to pitching.
  19. CubUgly
    There was never a world in which we were going to match any team willing to pay $40 million a year or more for Tucker. I get the "it's not my money and you have it why not spend it" crowd as far as the Cubs front office goes and frustration with the frugalness, but that was never going to happen and honestly I'm o.k. with it in the sense that I don't think it would be a good move for the long term and maybe even the short term. Tuck was honestly below average in the field last year, he's showing signs of a guy who may not age well and for whom even seemingly minor injuries can get him off track for long periods.....and someone is going to give him 10 or 11 years...or hell even 8? It's much more not wanting to block that roster spot for that long than anything else for me. I'd tend to agree about the preference to spread that money out but the Cubs have shown time again money they have saved here is not always spent there. See Bellinger savings.
  20. CubUgly
    Yeah, that saving money to spend elsewhere doesn't always seem to happen does it?
  21. CubUgly
    No doubt, the other guy I really wanted was Yates, the Dodgers got him too and he was equally as bad. Shows you what I know and how volatile relief pitching is. I agree the FO will now double down and the dumpster diving. I do think Zombro brings something to the table - he was pimping Keller in early March and I do think he's got a feel for identifying guys who may be able to help and put them in position to,
  22. CubUgly
    The one thing we went off script on was the 4-year offer to Tanner Scott which with all things considered, was as good or better than the Dodgers offer, but luckily, he chose the Dodgers - cause he was AWFUL, and now they have him 3 more years.
  23. CubUgly
    they don't have enough to outbid the Dodgers and Yankees they just don't that's a fact. If either of those teams wants Tucker the Cubs can't outbid them. The Cubs are rich and able in a vacuum but there is always context aside from just they won't. In this context vs. the Yankees and more specifically and the Dodgers, they can't. They do have enough to do all the other things you mention and again and you are right there are reasons beyond being financially able and capable that the Cubs choose to hide behind in going after free agent talent. Again, both can be true.
  24. CubUgly
    Having enough and having much more than enough are two different things both practically and in reality. In this case the Yankees and Dodgers can outspend the Cubs any time they want, that's just a fact, especially the Dodgers - that t.v. contract puts them in the position of being able to throw away money at will. Now the Cubs won't even try against those two teams if it comes to it - and that's disappointing - I get it, but both things can be true and are. The fact that we won't go over the luxury tax is to me pretty pathetic. But let's not confuse that with outspending the Yankees and Dodgers. Honestly, from my perspective a 10 year $400 million dollar deal for what I just saw this past year would be throwing money away. I'd much rather spread that out among multiple players to improve our roster. Now if you want to say the Cubs won't do that either, I couldn't argue that - they have not shown they will in quite a while.
  25. CubUgly
    Agreed, if anything Tuck cost himself a lot of $$ with how this year played out and if he'd really be rolling the dice signing a 2-3 year deal that it would cost him even more down the line. The Yanks or Dodgers will pay him long term, they both have the means to eat the money down the line if things go badly, and things might.
×
×
  • Create New...