Jump to content
North Side Baseball

Rcal10

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    7,806

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

 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 Rcal10

  1. Rcal10
    Wouldn’t priester be on 2 days rest? I don’t see him as an option for game 5. Hope he is, though.
  2. Rcal10
    All valid points. But I want to point out one thing. Had Boyd not done game 1 he wouldn’t be going at Wrigley today. That may have played a part in Counsell’s decision as to who starts game 1. Had he pitched in game 2 he wouldn’t be available until game 5 in Milwaukee.
  3. Rcal10
    Funny you said that. Game 3 against the Padres I bet the Padres in the 7th inning because I had them at plus 1350. I bet $15 on them and figured I have no issue losing $15 but if the Cubs are Going to lose I might as well make $200.
  4. Rcal10
    All valid points IMO. But Boyd is a big reason they are here. He pitched well against SD. He pitched well at home. And the problem is they really don’t have great options. If Civale is an option they would reasonably consider that is proof of not good options. Civali did pitch well against the a Breers but in 60 pitches he had 1 swing and miss. For those who want Rea, sure he did fine. No runs in 3.1 innings. But 4 hits and 2 walks. So a WHIP of almost 2. How long do we expect that luck to continue?
  5. Rcal10
    This! 100% this.
  6. Rcal10
    It is the right call. I am sure Murphy was hoping Peralta could be saved for the first game of the NLCS. But he has to go for the win now. Remember 1984 Cubs…….and all that nonsense……
  7. Rcal10
    Ok, let’s take a step back here. No one suggested Tucker should be in left field. One poster suggested maybe sitting Happ because he has sucked against Peralta. His comment was if Tucker can run put him in right, move Seiya to left and DH Mo. I doubted that would happen and said they won’t bench Happ. I further said, IF ANY MOVE was made, if the Cubs felt comfortable with Tucker playing the field, Tucker and Seiya would swap. I also said I didn’t really like that idea, but that would be as crazy a change as I would think they would remotely consider. Basically still the same 4 guys in the line up. So your comment is wrong no matter who it was intended for. If it was for the original post, he didn’t suggest Tucker play right field. If it was for me, I never had Happ out of the line up. I know we are all on edge. But let’s not pick apart each other for things we didn’t say. We all want the same thing. A Cubs win.
  8. Rcal10
    I agree. I wouldn’t play Tucker in the outfield. The point I was making is that is as wild a shake up I could possibly see. I don’t expect it to happen, though.
  9. Rcal10
    That is a rough decision. Spotted Cow is very good. I live in Arizona and when I come to Chicago I always take a ride to Wisconsin to get spotted cow to bring home with me. Now that you mention it, my daughter was over last night and had a spotted cow last night and the Cubs won. So…….. maybe go for it🤷
  10. Rcal10
    I jut don’t see a shake up in a must win game. I am just as anxious as you, but I don’t expect Counsell to change things. Maybe, if Tucker can play the outfield they play him there and DH Seiya. That is as big a “shake up” as I can see.
  11. Rcal10
    The real question here is “how do you have no liquor”????
  12. Rcal10
    How can you forget the Happ homer? It was talked about for pages because Happ dared to “celebrate” the homer. 😬 That said, I doubt Counsell sits a guy who was a regular all season. The Mo love reminds me of football fans always wanting the back up QB to play.
  13. Rcal10
    Didn’t Happ homer against Peralta last game? I know his numbers prior to that were bad, but he did homer last game.
  14. Rcal10
    First, it’s Rea, not Rae. Amazing you like him so much and don’t even know his name or how to spell it. Next, Brown wasn’t pitching better than anyone the last few weeks of the season since he wasn’t even pitching. Tailon pitched on Thursday, so he wasn’t an option for either start. So it comes down to Assad or Boyd. And as I said numerous times, I agree with you that I would have done Assad. Didn’t like Boyd on 3 days rest. But that said, Boyd actually did well against SD in his short start. Pitching him on Saturday did line him up for normal rest today. I would rather have Boyd in Wrigley then in the road. Has he been held to game 2 he would have had to pitch game 5 on the road again. This is all the things Counsel has to consider when choosing a pitcher. Obviously it didn’t work. But it was no more risky then pitching Assad, who is a pitch to contract guy against a team who loves that sort of guy, since they make a lot of contact. Good chance Assad doesn’t fair much better and then we get Boyd in game two against the Brewers in Milwaukee. Don’t really like his chances there either. If Boyd is going to pitch I want it at home. The decision to start him in game 1 makes that possible today.
  15. Rcal10
    So you would start Brown? I do see reasoning there. But I wouldn’t call him a good option based on his entire years body of work. He is an option among many iffy options.
  16. Rcal10
    I also never said you said they would have won had they used Assad. Maybe you should practice what you preach and learn to read better. All I said was I agreed with you with who I thought should have started game one but that doesn’t mean the result would have changed. You have repeatedly suggested Counsel’s decisions cost them the first two games. That is suggesting had he chose someone else they would have won. That is what I am saying cannot be proven. You have also repeatedly suggested he has other great options. That is also not true. He had several iffy choices, no matter who he picked. None of the pitchers you have suggested are good. Again today, he has a few options. None of them good. But whoever he picks, if that guy gives up a few runs you and many others will be here to suggest how he was dumb for his choice. And again, without any proof that whoever you wanted would have done better. The FACT is he doesn’t have a good choice. But he has to make one and hope that guy pitches well.
  17. Rcal10
    Who are these good options you speak of?
  18. Rcal10
    More a response to Schwarber being the last man standing from the 2016 team. Javy is still playing and also in the playoffs. I don’t miss him on the team, but do like that he is doing well now with the Tigers.
  19. Rcal10
    Javy says hi.
  20. Rcal10
    Rea threw 60 pitches on Monday. He isn’t starting tomorrow. The people criticizing Counsel for pitching Boyd on 3 days rest are some of the same people wanting Rea to pitch on 2 days rest. Kind of ridiculous. Might see Civali and Brown, however. I think it will be Boyd. Hopefully is Wrigley success can continue.
  21. Rcal10
    You are going to get your wish, I believe. But who starts for the Cubs?
  22. Rcal10
    Ok, so I should have said IMO pacific time is the best time for people who love live sports and don’t stay up until midnight. I am in Az, so I get half Pacific and half Mountain. I, personally, like pacific best. Allows me to calm down after Cubs games instead of watching them until 10PM and then trying to go to bed. Game ends at 8. Time to watch other tv and forget about the game.
  23. Rcal10
    Every horsefeathers game the announcers have mentioned Turang is the best defensive second baseman in MLB. Never bothering to mention Nico, once. Turang isn’t even the best fielding second baseman in THIS GAME.
  24. Rcal10
    Actually Pacific time is the best for live sports.
  25. Rcal10
    Not sure. As Jason pointed out they didn’t want him to be able to opt out after 1 year. But your reasoning that it would have taken them over the LT doesn’t prove correct either. The salary for LT implications (because of deferred money) was no higher than the $30M annual they were offering. Matching the Red Sox exact offer or sticking to their offer would have had the exact same impact on the LT line. Again, no veto by Tom. At least not because of LT.
×
×
  • Create New...