Hey,guess what Cub fans?

Hank Scorpio · **Posted:** Thu Jan 30, 2014 10:01 am

I guess another issue I have is that the team already has 2 of their good young players in the everyday lineup and they still are not very good. How many more of the future players are going to need to work out until the team is good?

IMU · **Posted:** Thu Jan 30, 2014 10:02 am

rogers park bryan wrote:

I still think he thought he'd have a little bit more money to play with.

You don't want him playing with money. You want him investing it into the team's sustained future success.

Not signing 35 year old veterans to one year contracts.

jimmypasta · **Posted:** Thu Jan 30, 2014 10:03 am

Hank Scorpio wrote:

I guess another issue I have is that the team already has 2 of their good young players in the everyday lineup and they still are not very good. How many more of the future players are going to need to work out until the team is good?

Here is a stat I read: Baez & (Some other top prospect-forgot who) had 77 errors between them in the minors last season.

jimmypasta · **Posted:** Thu Jan 30, 2014 10:06 am

immessedup17 wrote:

rogers park bryan wrote:

I still think he thought he'd have a little bit more money to play with.

You don't want him playing with money. You want him investing it into the team's sustained future success.

Not signing 35 year old veterans to one year contracts.

why not? I rather watch anybody at 2nd up until the 7th inning,than put Barney there. Hell,give Logan Watkins the job.

rogers park bryan · **Joined:** Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm **Posts:** 81625

immessedup17 wrote:

rogers park bryan wrote:

I still think he thought he'd have a little bit more money to play with.

You don't want him playing with money. You want him investing it into the team's sustained future success.

Not signing 35 year old veterans to one year contracts.

That's not what im talking about. And no, I dont want it 100% into development. A free agent here and there (like Bill Mueller)

Also, the team's future success can be aided by the kids coming up to a decent team instead of trying to rescue a 70 win team

good dolphin · **Joined:** Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:35 pm **Posts:** 82153

rogers park bryan wrote:

good dolphin wrote:

THEN AND ONLY THEN will you turn on him and this low rent plan of winning by losing.

You admit yourself, Theo said its behind schedule. We both know that is on Ricketts.

I honestly believe Theo's plan included an average team for these young kids to come up to.

Two things happened that he did not forsee:

1) Ricketts being less than forthcoming with funds; and,
2) the shift in rules regarding domestic drafting and acquiring Caribbean talent

I don't think Theo did enough research on the administrative side of the organization before taking the job. I fully believe he would not have taken this job if he knew now what he didn't know then. There is no way in the world he thought his organizational progress was going to be tied to the stadium rehab.

Theo had to believe they would be coming up to an average team. There is no other explanation for the Jackson signing.

I don't think he is panicked at this point but I bet you he voices frustration in private.

good dolphin · **Joined:** Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:35 pm **Posts:** 82153

immessedup17 wrote:

There is going to be a lot of available free agent starting pitching in the 2014-2015 offseason. I'm okay with not spending money for the 2014 season if that money gets put into next year's team (and on.)

Queue argument "But you don't know if Ricketts is going to do that! He might just keep that money!"

I can't do anything about that if true, so why bitch about it? Besides, I do not think it is true. A consistently winning team is more profitable. TV contracts...ticket and concession sales...merchandise... Imagine the nationwide bandwagon fans jumping on board if the Cubs become a perennial winner. You'll have Cubs 59FIFTY hats in every. rap. video.

Have you seen the cost of middle of the road, veteran starting pitching. They are going to have to be prepared to plunk down $25-30 million per year for 3-4 years just to get some middle of the rotation starters. I suppose they can trade for some like the Royals did. Do you like where the Royals are at?

Keyser Soze · **Joined:** Wed Aug 02, 2006 5:15 pm **Posts:** 16923

good dolphin wrote:

Two things happened that he did not forsee:

1) Ricketts being less than forthcoming with funds; and,
2) the shift in rules regarding domestic drafting and acquiring Caribbean talent
I don't think Theo did enough research on the administrative side of the organization before taking the job. I fully believe he would not have taken this job if he knew now what he didn't know then. There is no way in the world he thought his organizational progress was going to be tied to the stadium rehab.

Theo had to believe they would be coming up to an average team. There is no other explanation for the Jackson signing.

I don't think he is panicked at this point but I bet you he voices frustration in private.

They knew those changes were coming. Everybody knew the draft and international signing system was broken and MLB was going to make changes. MLB didn't wake up one day and decide to change the rules overnight. These changes were talked about for years. Theo and Co knew full well they were no longer going to be able to outspend small market teams at the draft and get extra draft picks for middle relievers. I've heard this excuse used many times and it's simply not true.

IMU · **Posted:** Thu Jan 30, 2014 11:01 am

jimmypasta wrote:

immessedup17 wrote:

rogers park bryan wrote:

I still think he thought he'd have a little bit more money to play with.

You don't want him playing with money. You want him investing it into the team's sustained future success.

Not signing 35 year old veterans to one year contracts.

why not? I rather watch anybody at 2nd up until the 7th inning,than put Barney there. Hell,give Logan Watkins the job.

It isn't about what you want to watch.

Juiced · **Joined:** Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:06 am **Posts:** 6841

immessedup17 wrote:

jimmypasta wrote:

immessedup17 wrote:

rogers park bryan wrote:

I still think he thought he'd have a little bit more money to play with.

You don't want him playing with money. You want him investing it into the team's sustained future success.

Not signing 35 year old veterans to one year contracts.

why not? I rather watch anybody at 2nd up until the 7th inning,than put Barney there. Hell,give Logan Watkins the job.

It isn't about what you want to watch.

I rather watch your avatar for three hours, then this current Cubs team.

I am waiting for the prospects to come up before I start judging the rebuild. If the prospects suck and they have to then go out and sign a bunch of FA to be competitive, I would jump off this bandwagon and onto Jimmy's steam locomotive.

Juiced · **Joined:** Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:06 am **Posts:** 6841

Hank Scorpio wrote:

I guess another issue I have is that the team already has 2 of their good young players in the everyday lineup and they still are not very good. How many more of the future players are going to need to work out until the team is good?

Rizzo reminds me of a young Konerko. Konerko didn't become a star until a couple years after he was traded from the Dodgers. Hopefully when more of these prospects come up, he will have less pressure and start showing improvement. Remember Konerko used to have some of the same struggles Rizzo is having because he was putting so much pressure on himself.

Castro is a Hendry guy and hopefully will have a better year this year, Then Theo can move him like he did with Nomar in Boston. I don't believe Castro will ever be a super star. Maybe if he hits the PED's like Sammy did. Hell , trade him to the Whitesox and return the favor for the Sosa trade.

Your worries are valid (We are Cub fans after all and failure is the norm) but wait until this next batch of prospects come up before you pull out the Cyanide.

good dolphin · **Joined:** Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:35 pm **Posts:** 82153

Konerko first year with the Sox which was his first full year in MLB:

.294/.352/.511 24HR 81RBI

rogers park bryan · **Joined:** Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm **Posts:** 81625

good dolphin wrote:

Konerko first year with the Sox which was his first full year in MLB:

.294/.352/.511 24HR 81RBI

Never mind the previous 105 games where he batted .220 and .284 obp

Keyser Soze · **Joined:** Wed Aug 02, 2006 5:15 pm **Posts:** 16923

good dolphin wrote:

Have you seen the cost of middle of the road, veteran starting pitching. They are going to have to be prepared to plunk down $25-30 million per year for 3-4 years just to get some middle of the rotation starters. I suppose they can trade for some like the Royals did. Do you like where the Royals are at?

They just resigned Bruce Chen. Baseball America's "best farm system ever" isn't pumping out the major league talent the "experts" predicted. Shocking.

rogers park bryan · **Joined:** Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm **Posts:** 81625

Rizzo has better numbers in his first 250 games than Konerko did

More homeruns, Better Average, Better OBP, Better fielder.

Brick · **Posted:** Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:33 pm

rogers park bryan wrote:

Rizzo has better numbers in his first 250 games than Konerko did

More homeruns, Better Average, Better OBP, Better fielder.

Do you expect that to continue?

rogers park bryan · **Joined:** Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm **Posts:** 81625

Boilermaker Rick wrote:

rogers park bryan wrote:

Rizzo has better numbers in his first 250 games than Konerko did

More homeruns, Better Average, Better OBP, Better fielder.

Do you expect that to continue?

How could that continue?

Do you mean, Will he be as good as Konerko?

good dolphin · **Joined:** Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:35 pm **Posts:** 82153

rogers park bryan wrote:

good dolphin wrote:

Konerko first year with the Sox which was his first full year in MLB:

.294/.352/.511 24HR 81RBI

Never mind the previous 105 games where he batted .220 and .284 obp

Of course never mind those first 81 games where he had sporadic at bats at the age of 21 and then 22. I'll even drop Rizzo's first call up with the Padres as that was similar to Konerko's Dodger-Red limited run.

What did each do once they were clearly up here to stay?

.230/.323/.419 23HR 80RBI

He was older and much worse than Konerko in just about every way.

Rizzo has over 1,000 MLB at bats and you still want to treat him with kid gloves.

rogers park bryan · **Joined:** Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm **Posts:** 81625

good dolphin wrote:

rogers park bryan wrote:

good dolphin wrote:

Konerko first year with the Sox which was his first full year in MLB:

.294/.352/.511 24HR 81RBI

Never mind the previous 105 games where he batted .220 and .284 obp

Of course never mind those first 81 games where he had sporadic at bats at the age of 21 and then 22. I'll even drop Rizzo's first call up with the Padres as that was similar to Konerko's Dodger-Red limited run.

What did each do once they were clearly up here to stay?

.230/.323/.419 23HR 80RBI

He was older and much worse than Konerko in just about every way.

Rizzo has over 1,000 MLB at bats and you still want to treat him with kid gloves.

Thru their first 250 games, Rizzo is better. Not sure what you dont get about that.

And they were both 23 in the years you're trying to use. Are you just making shit up?

There are no kid gloves. He's closer to what I expect than what you expect apparently. I believe a .260 average with 25/100 is pretty good in the post roid era

Juiced · **Joined:** Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:06 am **Posts:** 6841

rogers park bryan wrote:

good dolphin wrote:

rogers park bryan wrote:

good dolphin wrote:

Konerko first year with the Sox which was his first full year in MLB:

.294/.352/.511 24HR 81RBI

Never mind the previous 105 games where he batted .220 and .284 obp

Of course never mind those first 81 games where he had sporadic at bats at the age of 21 and then 22. I'll even drop Rizzo's first call up with the Padres as that was similar to Konerko's Dodger-Red limited run.

What did each do once they were clearly up here to stay?

.230/.323/.419 23HR 80RBI

He was older and much worse than Konerko in just about every way.

Rizzo has over 1,000 MLB at bats and you still want to treat him with kid gloves.

Thru their first 250 games, Rizzo is better. Not sure what you dont get about that.

And they were both 23 in the years you're trying to use. Are you just making shit up?

There are no kid gloves. He's closer to what I expect than what you expect apparently. I believe a .260 average with 25/100 is pretty good in the post roid era

Thanks RPB, I don't feel like arguing with GD about Rizzo/Konerko comparison. Sox fans don't like it when you pull on superman's cape.

rogers park bryan · **Joined:** Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm **Posts:** 81625

Rizzo has to raise the average and add on to the HR totals. That much is clear.

Brick · **Posted:** Thu Jan 30, 2014 3:37 pm

Juiced wrote:

Thanks RPB, I don't feel like arguing with GD about Rizzo/Konerko comparison. Sox fans don't like it when you pull on superman's cape.

Are you saying Rizzo will be as good as Konerko or is this as bad as the LaHair is better than Konerko thing?

Juiced · **Joined:** Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:06 am **Posts:** 6841

Boilermaker Rick wrote:

Juiced wrote:

Thanks RPB, I don't feel like arguing with GD about Rizzo/Konerko comparison. Sox fans don't like it when you pull on superman's cape.

Are you saying Rizzo will be as good as Konerko or is this as bad as the LaHair is better than Konerko thing?

I am saying that Rizzo should be expected to be as good as Konerko. Not that I think he will be.
Who said LaHair is better then Konerko? That is insane.

Brick · **Posted:** Thu Jan 30, 2014 3:51 pm

http://score670.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=70074

I don't think you expect Rizzo to be as good as Konerko.

Juiced · **Joined:** Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:06 am **Posts:** 6841

Boilermaker Rick wrote:

http://score670.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=70074

I don't think you expect Rizzo to be as good as Konerko.

I didn't post in that thread. :lol:

If it was up to Jimmy, you would see a bunch of LeHair type signings this year and a World Series prediction. :lol:

good dolphin · **Joined:** Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:35 pm **Posts:** 82153

rogers park bryan wrote:

good dolphin wrote:

rogers park bryan wrote:

good dolphin wrote:

Konerko first year with the Sox which was his first full year in MLB:

.294/.352/.511 24HR 81RBI

Never mind the previous 105 games where he batted .220 and .284 obp

Of course never mind those first 81 games where he had sporadic at bats at the age of 21 and then 22. I'll even drop Rizzo's first call up with the Padres as that was similar to Konerko's Dodger-Red limited run.

What did each do once they were clearly up here to stay?

.230/.323/.419 23HR 80RBI

He was older and much worse than Konerko in just about every way.

Rizzo has over 1,000 MLB at bats and you still want to treat him with kid gloves.

Thru their first 250 games, Rizzo is better. Not sure what you dont get about that.

And they were both 23 in the years you're trying to use. Are you just making shit up?

There are no kid gloves. He's closer to what I expect than what you expect apparently. I believe a .260 average with 25/100 is pretty good in the post roid era

Oh, I get everything about that.

Enjoy not having Konerko.

jimmypasta · **Posted:** Thu Apr 17, 2014 1:00 am

jimmypasta wrote:

from CSNChicago

Cubs projected for MLB's worst record in 2014

Cubs fans may want to look away for a moment.

While recent prospect rankings have given the fanbase some hope for the future, it could still be a long year in Wrigleyville.

Clay Davenport recently released his projections for the 2014 MLB season and tabbed the Cubs as the worst team in the league with a 67-95 record.

[Prospect Watch: Pierce Johnson making Cubs take notice]

Davenport also has the Cubs with the worst offense in the league, projected for just 598 runs, 17 behind the next closest team (Philadelphia Phillies).

By these projections, the Cubs have a 0.6 percent chance at winning a World Series, a 1.2 percent shot at the Wild Card and a 1.8 percent chance at a playoff spot.

It is obviously still very early -- pitchers and catchers report in three weeks -- so take Davenport's calculations with a grain of salt. So much can change between now and Opening Day.

[MORE: Cubs will get look at future with Baez, Bryant, Almora in camp]

By comparison, the Houston Astros -- who lost 111 games in 2013 -- are projected for a 70-92 record. The St. Louis Cardinals are tabbed for a 90-72 record, tied for the second-best in the league behind only the Detroit Tigers (91-71).

Clay overshot by 15 wins.

SomeGuy · **Posted:** Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:19 am

The Cubs will be another 100 losses closer to a championship.

IMU · **Posted:** Mon Nov 16, 2015 7:10 pm

This came up in a search - had to bump it.

Seems like forever ago.

bigfan · **Posted:** Mon Nov 16, 2015 7:15 pm

IMU wrote:

This came up in a search - had to bump it.

Seems like forever ago.

What did you search?

SELF LOATHING CUB FANS?

Hey,guess what Cub fans?

Who is online