Hairyducked Idiot
-
Posts
39,504 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
46
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
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by Hairyducked Idiot
-
The cynical interpretation might be that he was actually effective, and we can't have that.
-
Neil Ramirez sent down, Blake Parker called up. That's ... odd? I guess they could be resting him, or gaming service time (but I think Ramirez is OK on that) or stretching him out for some starts?
-
That *is* what the AAAA rank and file is, for everyone. Picking up some crappy players who were once thought to be promising isn't some magic loophole they've discovered. It's what every team does in AAA, and we've been doing it in the majors with pretty much no results in position players. And once we're good again, we'll stop doing it in the majors and be like everyone else.
-
Peavy to the Giants
-
Henderson, Durham, Morales on April 25, 1981 http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CHN/CHN198104250.shtml
-
That sounds horrible. Thank goodness they won't really do that.
-
Limiting ourselves to imaginary perfect FAs who make us contenders by themselves is a good recipe to finish fifth three straight years.
-
My guess is that it still flares up occasionally but not as often. If we win the WS, I'll still think it sometimes but probably won't feel like arguing it (kind of like how Epstein left Boston in a mess, but it's not worth arguing because they did win the WS the one time they made the playoffs). I hope it never comes to this, but I'm more curious what happens if we plateau out at benign mediocrity. What happens if the following plausible scenario happens: 2015: Finish around .500 2016: Contend for playoff spot all year but finish outside the playoffs, something like the 90-72 2012 Rays 2017: Have one of those "every pitcher gets injured" years that good teams have sometimes, finish 84-78, out of playoffs What will the fanbase's mood look like then?
-
Minor League Discussion & Boxes 7-25-14
Hairyducked Idiot replied to CaliforniaRaisin's topic in Cubs Minor League Talk
I wonder if Javy even realized there were two other people posing for a picture. Meanwhile, Bryant's OPS at Iowa down to a nearly mortal 1.036 -
Everyone looks overoptimistic on opposing forums. We can conclude therefore that the only person here who is actually reasonable and levelheaded is the guy who is known for doom.
-
That all sounds about right. I'm not doubting that we'll field some pretty solid teams in the future. It's just that if we miss the playoffs next year, then make it 3 out of the next 5, that's right in line with what a lot of those teams did, and hooray that makes us a repeat of Jim Hendry.
-
The problem with the "one of them has to bounce back" logic is that you have to employ both of them in the rotation for that to be true, and the other likely sucks badly enough to cancel the bounceback out.
-
So basically if Arrieta gets hurt and Hendricks isn't able to lull MLB hitters to sleep, we're going to need an entire new rotation next year :(
-
I'm just concerned because I figured we'd have Dopirak play DH when it started. Where are we going to move him to? your trolling has no effect on me because i didn't care about minor leagues back then so HA Also Theo's prospects are different. Just ask Lars Anderson and .Casey Coleman Now I think you're being too hard on him. Oops, got him confused with Michael Bowden.
-
I'm just concerned because I figured we'd have Dopirak play DH when it started. Where are we going to move him to? your trolling has no effect on me because i didn't care about minor leagues back then so HA Also Theo's prospects are different. Just ask Lars Anderson and Casey Coleman.
-
I get what you're saying, but the problem still remains that FA classes suck now compared to back in the day when small-market teams couldn't afford to keep anyone and PEDs mean the aging curve stretched deep into the 30s.
-
I like White Jaxon better. Don't be racist. Left-handed Jaxon
-
Pretty low. But if you change "extremely" to "reasonably," I'd say better than 50% if Epstein really wanted to.
-
Yeah, but we also waited too long and now payroll flexibility means less than ever as revenue sharing has given small-market teams much more room to operate than they had in the 1990s. And we've got a division full of teams that may not have unprecedented levels of talent, but they have more than enough to think that any of them might win a couple of division titles themselves some time in the next decade. I think the early 1990s Indians might be a better comp than the Yankees, and they never did win a WS.
-
The point is that was never hopeless. Fans have become enamored with the idea of the success cycle, and that bad teams are doomed to stay bad for long periods until they build the Right Way from the bottom-up. It feeds the ridiculous idea that because the Cubs were bad in 2011, and didn't have Dodgers-level FU money, then it's perfectly understandable and acceptable for them to still be awful after three offseasons. With today's standings, the Brewers and Angels are set to be the 14th and 15th different teams to make the playoffs in three seasons that Epstein's been in charge of the Cubs. The Mariners are half a game out of being the 16th. Meanwhile, the Tigers and Cardinals are set to extend the longest current playoff streaks to four. (edit, wait, the Cardinals would be out as of today. That's smile-worthy) There is no "guaranteed to make the playoffs every year" anymore, and there's no "guaranateed to miss" unless your FO wants it to be so. But some fans want to rewrite history to pretend that the Cubs were doomed to failure these last three years, and then prewrite the future to pretend that we're going to be awesome for some absurdly long period of time, all in an attempt to justify a front office that's presided over a sub-.400 winning percentage through more than half their contract.
-
Pitching is the *reason* nobody can be great or awful every year. It's fickle as hell. The Cubs' pitching deficiency is the biggest reason they'll probably fail, but the fact that pitching deficiency is their biggest problem is why they won't certainly fail.
-
It's one of those subtlety things that I'm used to people not getting. I am of the opinion that the Cubs have a better chance of being good soon than many non-Cubs' fans think, but I also think they have a better chance of not being dynastic than many Cubs fans think. It's the overreaction thing that fans do. It's hard to be bad for a really long time, but it's also hard to be good for a really long time. Predicting the Cubs will be awful because they've been awful recently is wrong, but assuming they'll be awesome for a long run just because of some prospects is also wrong. Being awesome for a long time is hard. Pretty much nobody by the Yankees have made the playoffs at more than a 70% clip lately, and those days seem to be over for them too.
-
I care about the Cubs' odds of winning the World Series. Any plan that starts off 0-for-3 was a plan that isn't maximizing those odds.
-
I don't know if I'd go as far as <77 next year. It's possible, but I wouldn't project it. These guys are super talented and all, and even growing pains Bryant is probably a lot better than Nate Schierholtz or Mike Olt.
-
I unintentionally exaggerated here because Kris Bryant is actually going to end up in LF. I could still see close to 100 a season coming from a Rizzo, Baez, Russell, Castro infield, though. I'm pretty comfortable betting the under on 100 as the most HRs ever hit by those four players while all playing in the same infield in the major leagues.