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 five-year deal is more attractive if the player thinks he can make at least 30 million in the sixth season.
-
this is what was said, there's no room for interpretation, here. Well, there's two possibilities. One is that I entirely changed my mind between that post and this one. The other is that in a message-board format, I wrote the sentence poorly and the word "that" was meant to have the antecedent of "The Bears' season" and not "The Bears' Super Bowl loss." Given that I've made my position clear in several other posts, I think it's pretty safe to say that I just worded that sentence poorly. It should have probably read "When the Bears' season ended with a Super Bowl loss, I was in no way prepared to call that a disappointment." I was completely wrong in the post you referenced, and I am dutifully sorry. I have taken my opinion of myself down a suitable peg.
-
no semantics. were you disappointed when they lost the super bowl? Yes. But that year's Bears season was still awesome and I wasn't disappointed with it.
-
We're getting caught up in semantics here. Are we talking about being disappointed by the final outcome or considering the entire season a disappointment?
-
While I agree with your stance on expectations in a 30 team league, you think that emotional reactions are odd after say, losing in the Stanley Cup Finals (or whenever)? When the Bears lost the Super Bowl, I was in no way prepared to call that a disappointment.
-
I'm not saying they should or shouldn't feel disappointed. It's an emotion, and you can't control whether you feel it or not. It's just odd to me.
-
Gave up a couple two-out singles but no runs in the second. Looks *very* Prior-esque to this untrained eye. I'm reminded of what some opposing manager said about Kerry Wood in ST of 1998: If they've got five guys better than him, they can start planning their World Series parade.
-
For those of us with MLB.TV subscriptions, Strasburg's pitching right now for the Nats. I missed his first inning but his second is about to start. He apparently only needed 7 pitches in the first inning, so he may go 3.
-
What are the odds of any team going through 3 teams to the finals? Can't be much better. Heck, in any sport. Exactly. The whole "championship or it's a disappointment" thing befuddles me in the era of 30-team leagues.
-
He put up a 4.03 ERA in the Cuban league last year. He can't be that hard to hit.
-
Repeated studies have shown that after you have enough money to very comfortably meet all basic needs (varies by cost of living, but around $60,000 a year), additional money provides no additional happiness on average. That might not be true for all of us, but it'd be true for more of us than we'd think.
-
yeah, that's exactly why they didn't like him. I thought it was racism.
-
Hooray for reckless abandon!
Hairyducked Idiot replied to jersey cubs fan's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
In that situation, hells yeah, send the runner. With two outs and the runner on third, send him almost every time. -
And then had a dominating series against the Blackhawks in the conference finals. Point remains: How Huet is playing right now is not automatically how he'll be playing in 20 games. He was excellent for the first three months of the season, and we may get that back. And even if he's awful, this team is good enough to have at least a chance to outscore other teams.
-
Question: What was the save percentage in the regular season of the goalie who put up those numbers? much better than huet's .898 Incorrect. Look it up.
-
Question: What was the save percentage in the regular season of the goalie who put up those numbers?
-
I think the Blackhawks are, right now, a favorite to win the series against any team in the Western Conference. San Jose is the only team at their talent level, and the Blackhawks are a good matchup against them. But let's say we get Detroit, Vancouver and San Jose in the first three rounds. I'd say we are 55%, 70% and 65% to beat each of those three teams individually. But the odds of running through all three, if those odds are correct, would only be 25%.
-
Depends on a lot of factors. It's easy to say "We made the WCF last season, so we have to make it further now for it to be a success because we added Hossa." But there's a lot of factors. First, we got pretty lucky last season. There's not a single team in the entire playoffs that were a better matchup for us than Calgary, and then Vancouver was another good matchup for us. If we'd been facing different teams in the first or second round, we could have easily gone out sooner. Second, we might be facing a very good and finally healthy Detroit team in the first round. If we lose to them in a tough seven-game series, that's different than if we get beat by Nashville in five in the first round. Third, hockey just plain has a lot of randomness in a short series. Not as much as baseball, but a ton more than basketball. Whether or not the season was a success, to me, depends on to whom we go out, when and how. To me, it's a disappointment if we go out to anyone but San Jose, Detroit or Vancouver. It's a disappointment if we go out to SJ or Vancouver for any reason other than their goalies stealing four games in a disgusting manner. We should be outskating them easily. It's a disappoinment if we get to the Cup Final and don't put up a strong showing against one of the best teams in the East.
-
1) The Blackhawks scored 2, 2, 4, 1 and 1 goals against Detroit. If you can consider a goalie one of the main reasons we lost when we were held to two goals or less four times in five games, then I don't know what to say. 2) There's no team in the Western Conference as good as Detroit was last year. 3) If you consider anything short of winning the Cup a failure of a season, you are bound to be disappointed. Nobody is likely to win the Cup, and the Blackhawks were probably not going to win it regardless of who their goalie was. They might win it, but the odds will always be against.
-
Thank you for proving my point. Goalies don't play exactly the same in the postseason as they do in the regular season.
-
Khabibulin save percentage in 2009 playoffs: .898 Huet save percentage this season: .898
-
Okay, why don't they bring Crawford up then and just let him start Game 1 of the playoffs. Since a track record of playing well in the NHL doesn't mean [expletive]. Huet's track record in the NHL is solid. He's playing like crap right now. Are you mad about his track record or how he's playing right now? Because if it's his track record, you are wrong. If it's how he's playing right now, it's wrong to assume that's how he'll be playing then.
-
Oh yeah, I forgot we needed a Proven Winner with Playoff Experience in order to win. Maybe some Veteran Presence would help. Can we replace Q with Dusty?
-
This only makes sense if: 1) You ignore that Khabibulin had plenty of shaky moments in the regular season last year. 2) You ignore that Khabibulin had plenty of shaky games in the postseason last year. 3) You ignore that Huet and Niemi are both capable of making amazing saves.
-
Like I said earlier in the thread: Mediocre goalies who win Stanley Cups are assumed to be good goalies, so people think no mediocre goalies can win the Cup. A lot of them have. The problem is, right now, neither Huet nor Niemi is being mediocre. They are playing awful. If we can get one of them up to mediocre in the playoffs, I'd feel pretty good about our chances.