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
-
Re: NHL (Blackhawks included) offseason thread
Hairyducked Idiot replied to Prizefight's topic in Other Sports
Honestly? Not really. I would have rather kept Ladd and dumped Niemi, and I certainly don't want to keep him over Hjalmarsson. -
Re: NHL (Blackhawks included) offseason thread
Hairyducked Idiot replied to Prizefight's topic in Other Sports
Huet is being waived no matter what. He'll play in Rockford or he'll play in Europe. -
Re: NHL (Blackhawks included) offseason thread
Hairyducked Idiot replied to Prizefight's topic in Other Sports
I hope not. I really think that'd be a big mistake. Think of goalies as the middle relievers of hockey. There's a few elite ones and a whole bunch of guys who you never know about. -
Re: NHL (Blackhawks included) offseason thread
Hairyducked Idiot replied to Prizefight's topic in Other Sports
But if they do match it, forget about Niemi. It's Niemi or Hjalmarsson now, but not both. -
Re: NHL (Blackhawks included) offseason thread
Hairyducked Idiot replied to Prizefight's topic in Other Sports
Yikes. Can we match that? I think so. That's at the high end of what I was hoping for. -
it was those damn statheads again. kyle had to play devil's advocate in order to set them straight. he's not afraid to take a contrarian's position, you see. I haven't taken any position. I was just asking a question. I guess I might as well take a position: No, the Cubs' facilities have had nothing to do with how they've performed in the postseason.
-
Okay. That's the answer I was looking for. Either "No, they could lose 100 playoff series in a row and it's still just the luck of the playoffs" or "Yes, if one team lost enough playoff series, it might be something about that team."
-
I asked if there was *any* level, not if the Cubs' level was enough.
-
I think it was a pretty simple question.
-
I didn't make any analogy. I really don't understand why this is so hard. It's a yes or no question, and yet not one person will give a yes or a no. Is there any level of playoff ineptitude from the same organization but spread amongst multiple sets of players that would make a stathead wonder if something intrinsic to the organization were having an effect? Yes. Or No?
-
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. Four series lost in a decade is supposed to have underlying factors involved? The Yankees lost more playoff series than the Cubs. Minnesota, the ultimate in supposed home field advantage, was 1-5 in playoff series this past decade. The Cubs are 1-12 in these supposed coinflips. I'm asking if there is any theoretical point when there might be some explanation considered other than randomness? 1-20? 1-50? 1-100? So the Cubs lost in the early 1900s playoffs because their facilities weren't good enough?? I didn't say anything about the facilities. In case it wasn't clear, I wasn't implying anything, I want this question to stand entirely on its own. Is there any level of playoff ineptitude, across a time long enough that the players are all different, that would cause statheads to wonder if there was something intrinsic about the organization that could be an explanation?
-
Just you talking about idiots fans overreacting to disappointment, and how you would supposedly never do it. There's a difference between posting displeasure on an internet message board and actually physically setting fire to a jersey in a symbolic act. Not really a substantive difference. What fun is sports if you don't lack a sense of proportion about them? The whole point is to take them more seriously than they deserve.
-
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. Four series lost in a decade is supposed to have underlying factors involved? The Yankees lost more playoff series than the Cubs. Minnesota, the ultimate in supposed home field advantage, was 1-5 in playoff series this past decade. The Cubs are 1-12 in these supposed coinflips. I'm asking if there is any theoretical point when there might be some explanation considered other than randomness? 1-20? 1-50? 1-100?
-
I wonder how many playoff series the Cubs have to lose before even the statheads wonder if there's some sort of underlying factor at work?
-
Haters gonna hate. Who doesn't love a getting worked up and outraged? Especially at rich celebrities.
-
I don't see how anybody can pretend there isn't some criticism warrented here. I don't see how anybody can pretend this isn't sour grapes from fans who wanted him to come to *their* cherry-picked title situation.
-
So again, he needs to get good teammates, but they can't be too good. It's an absurd argument. most of the greats would enjoy beating the best instead of joining them I'm sure he'll enjoy beating Kobe Bryant in the next Final.
-
But isn't this like the third time management went for the fix it all through free agency strategy and failed miserably? They didn't even come close to accomplishing what they wanted and still lack a game winning star. Not much they can do if the players just don't want to come. They got an All-Star at a need position for a very cap-friendly deal. Short of a colluded, pre-arranged deal by your players to create a superteam, you can't have a better offseason than that.
-
I don't know. I do know that they'll need a lot fewer last-second shots because of James.
-
So James should sit there and wait for his team to draft another HOFer, because other players were lucky enough to already have HOF teammates by the time they were his age? We'll never know what Jordan would have done, because Jordan never had to worry about it.
-
James could have joined a team of Horace Grant, Paxson, Wennington and B.J. Armstrong coming out of retirement at their ages, with no bench, then led them to 7 consecutive titles while averaging 50 points a game, and people would still find an excuse to say he doesn't belong on Jordan's level. Yeah, because that's exactly what I'm saying. Well what are you saying? That Jordan gets bonus points for not leaving a team that already had a second top-50 HOFer on it, while James had to leave to find that?
-
LeBron James will be the best basketball player on the Miami Heat. "The Man" is just a stupid designation given by fans. Jordan could never win a title without another sure-fire HOFer. James wasn't getting one of those in Cleveland.
-
James could have joined a team of Horace Grant, Paxson, Wennington and B.J. Armstrong coming out of retirement at their ages, with no bench, then led them to 7 consecutive titles while averaging 50 points a game, and people would still find an excuse to say he doesn't belong on Jordan's level.
-
So again, he needs to get good teammates, but they can't be too good. It's an absurd argument. The even more absurd part is that he's not allowed to team up with a guy like Wade, because that would tarnish his attempt to get on the same level as Jordan or Magic Johnson, neither of whom ever won a title without another HOFer in their major contributing years.
-
I want to see Dan Gilbert put his money where his mouth in. His fortune against Lebron's, first to a title gets both.