Jump to content


Recent Topics




Bleacher Nation is on Facebook, and you should totally "Like" us:
 


Bleacher Nation is also on Twitter, and you should totally follow us:




Upcoming Calendar Events

There are no forthcoming calendar events

Today's birthdays

No members are celebrating a birthday today

Photo

So, positives?


  • Please log in to reply
132 replies to this topic

#16 mountsalami

mountsalami

    Bleacher Bum

  • Guests
  • PipPip
  • 47 posts
  • LocationDeep Inside

Posted 19 August 2013 - 08:17 PM

 

 

 

Nothing.

Horrific team.

So, you can't think of anything positive about the Cubs?
No. I can't actually.

A large market team like the Cubs should be using their resources to their advantage by doing BOTH. Feilding a competiitive major league team and building the farm at the same time. Not tanking seasons, trading players for prospects, higher draft positioning, and getting some extra pennies to spend internationally.

Unfortunately. This thread is more about sprinkling powdered sugar on a turd.

The only thing positive about this season is that it's just about finished.
So, you have a problem with finding positives in a rebuilding year? Also, you are being a bit disingenuous by saying there is *nothing* to be positive this year.

 

The problem isn't mine. I didn't put the players on the field.

 

Cubs will probably finish last in the division and gain a top five draft pick as a result.

 

Nothing challenging about that. It's good to know that this great scouting department can take a vacation knowing that they don't have to find "that" player picking in the latter part of the first round. That's a positive for them I guess. 



#17 MichiganGoat

MichiganGoat

    Give me a BEER

  • Moderators
  • 3,799 posts
  • Twitter:MichiganGoat
  • Facebook:michigangoat
  • LocationGrand Rapids, MI

Posted 19 August 2013 - 08:25 PM

Nothing.
Horrific team.

So, you can't think of anything positive about the Cubs?
No. I can't actually.
A large market team like the Cubs should be using their resources to their advantage by doing BOTH. Feilding a competiitive major league team and building the farm at the same time. Not tanking seasons, trading players for prospects, higher draft positioning, and getting some extra pennies to spend internationally.
Unfortunately. This thread is more about sprinkling powdered sugar on a turd.
The only thing positive about this season is that it's just about finished.
So, you have a problem with finding positives in a rebuilding year? Also, you are being a bit disingenuous by saying there is *nothing* to be positive this year.
The problem isn't mine. I didn't put the players on the field.
 
Cubs will probably finish last in the division and gain a top five draft pick as a result.
 
Nothing challenging about that. It's good to know that this great scouting department can take a vacation knowing that they don't have to find "that" player picking in the latter part of the first round. That's a positive for them I guess.
Gloom and doom is kinda going to be your thing- isnt it? Nothing good can come from anything the Cubs are building. Spend large sign all the players would make you happy... Until that didn't work then you complain about that- right?

MichiganGoat on Twitter

"There are a lot of guys who are respected but not liked" - Ron Santo


#18 Cubbie Blues

Cubbie Blues

    The Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,369 posts
  • Twitter:@timhall76
  • LocationBloomington, IN

Posted 19 August 2013 - 08:31 PM

Who should they if signed ths year then? And, I didn't say it was your problem, but you put down what someone else called some possible core pieces and failed to show why. When you make a blanket claim plan on backing it up. Also, if you're going to get along here, it's usually good to back up your argument with facts and not just snark. If you can show facts behind what you say we don't have a problem with it, but dey sux won't get you very far.

"It's not the dress that makes you look fat, it's the fat that makes you look fat." - Al Bundy

 

"Ow" - Dylan Bundy


#19 mountsalami

mountsalami

    Bleacher Bum

  • Guests
  • PipPip
  • 47 posts
  • LocationDeep Inside

Posted 19 August 2013 - 08:33 PM

 

 

 

 

 

Nothing.
Horrific team.

So, you can't think of anything positive about the Cubs?
No. I can't actually.
A large market team like the Cubs should be using their resources to their advantage by doing BOTH. Feilding a competiitive major league team and building the farm at the same time. Not tanking seasons, trading players for prospects, higher draft positioning, and getting some extra pennies to spend internationally.
Unfortunately. This thread is more about sprinkling powdered sugar on a turd.
The only thing positive about this season is that it's just about finished.
So, you have a problem with finding positives in a rebuilding year? Also, you are being a bit disingenuous by saying there is *nothing* to be positive this year.
The problem isn't mine. I didn't put the players on the field.
 
Cubs will probably finish last in the division and gain a top five draft pick as a result.
 
Nothing challenging about that. It's good to know that this great scouting department can take a vacation knowing that they don't have to find "that" player picking in the latter part of the first round. That's a positive for them I guess.
Gloom and doom is kinda going to be your thing- isnt it? Nothing good can come from anything the Cubs are building. Spend large sign all the players would make you happy... Until that didn't work then you complain about that- right?

 

Never said anything about spending large. I said doing BOTH.

 

The Cubs added around fifty million dollars to this years payroll with free agents and international signings.

 

Outside of maybe Nate. The rest of their decisions were horrible. I don't want to hear about the Feldman deal either. That was a lateral move at best. More busy work that didn't improve or make the team any worse, which is better than most. 

 

Doom and gloom. Not so much. I just don't believe in fairy tales.



#20 Cubbie Blues

Cubbie Blues

    The Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,369 posts
  • Twitter:@timhall76
  • LocationBloomington, IN

Posted 19 August 2013 - 08:39 PM

Marshal trade, Rizzo trade, Dempster trade, Samardzija moved to SP, finding *anyone* to take on Marmol, Sweeny, Shietholez ...

"It's not the dress that makes you look fat, it's the fat that makes you look fat." - Al Bundy

 

"Ow" - Dylan Bundy


#21 mountsalami

mountsalami

    Bleacher Bum

  • Guests
  • PipPip
  • 47 posts
  • LocationDeep Inside

Posted 19 August 2013 - 08:41 PM

Who should they if signed ths year then? And, I didn't say it was your problem, but you put down what someone else called some possible core pieces and failed to show why. When you make a blanket claim plan on backing it up. Also, if you're going to get along here, it's usually good to back up your argument with facts and not just snark. If you can show facts behind what you say we don't have a problem with it, but dey sux won't get you very far.

I would rather talk about who they should sign this offseason. Not going to play the revisionist historian.

 

Sorry if you thought I was putting down someone. It was not intentional. You can get all the facts by looking at the product Command Central has placed on the field and look at the standings. There is very little if anything that resembles my definition of a "core" going forward at this time.

 

I believe I've explained it already, but if you choose not to read it and demand facts instead not so sure you are one to converse with.



#22 Luke

Luke

    Bleacher Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,083 posts
  • Twitter:@ltblaize
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 19 August 2013 - 08:42 PM

The Cubs added around fifty million dollars to this years payroll with free agents and international signings.

 

Outside of maybe Nate. The rest of their decisions were horrible. 

 

That's interesting.

 

Why are you thinking that signing four or five of the best available international free agents is a horrible decision?  I'll concede that those guys aren't going to help the major league team any time soon, but the best farm systems in the game, the farm systems that belong to teams that having consistent winning teams on the field, tend to spend heavily on international free agents.  It's a good value proposition. 

 

It seems a little strange that on the one hand you want the Cubs to be like those teams and to invest heavily in both the farm system and the major league roster, but on the other hand you state that one of the decisions this front office has made that looks the most like those teams is horrible.  Why the difference?  Why do you think the Cubs signing international free agents is a horrible idea?



#23 MichiganGoat

MichiganGoat

    Give me a BEER

  • Moderators
  • 3,799 posts
  • Twitter:MichiganGoat
  • Facebook:michigangoat
  • LocationGrand Rapids, MI

Posted 19 August 2013 - 08:42 PM

Yeah Timmy quit demanding facts... smh

MichiganGoat on Twitter

"There are a lot of guys who are respected but not liked" - Ron Santo


#24 Cubbie Blues

Cubbie Blues

    The Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,369 posts
  • Twitter:@timhall76
  • LocationBloomington, IN

Posted 19 August 2013 - 08:46 PM

Who should they if signed ths year then? And, I didn't say it was your problem, but you put down what someone else called some possible core pieces and failed to show why. When you make a blanket claim plan on backing it up. Also, if you're going to get along here, it's usually good to back up your argument with facts and not just snark. If you can show facts behind what you say we don't have a problem with it, but dey sux won't get you very far.

I would rather talk about who they should sign this offseason. Not going to play the revisionist historian.
 
Sorry if you thought I was putting down someone. It was not intentional. You can get all the facts by looking at the product Command Central has placed on the field and look at the standings. There is very little if anything that resembles my definition of a "core" going forward at this time.
 
I believe I've explained it already, but if you choose not to read it and demand facts instead not so sure you are one to converse with.
You haven't stated any facts or stats, only opinion. I am only asking what are the underlying facts that your opinion is based upon.

"It's not the dress that makes you look fat, it's the fat that makes you look fat." - Al Bundy

 

"Ow" - Dylan Bundy


#25 mountsalami

mountsalami

    Bleacher Bum

  • Guests
  • PipPip
  • 47 posts
  • LocationDeep Inside

Posted 19 August 2013 - 08:46 PM

 

The Cubs added around fifty million dollars to this years payroll with free agents and international signings.

 

Outside of maybe Nate. The rest of their decisions were horrible. 

 

That's interesting.

 

Why are you thinking that signing four or five of the best available international free agents is a horrible decision?  I'll concede that those guys aren't going to help the major league team any time soon, but the best farm systems in the game, the farm systems that belong to teams that having consistent winning teams on the field, tend to spend heavily on international free agents.  It's a good value proposition. 

 

It seems a little strange that on the one hand you want the Cubs to be like those teams and to invest heavily in both the farm system and the major league roster, but on the other hand you state that one of the decisions this front office has made that looks the most like those teams is horrible.  Why the difference?  Why do you think the Cubs signing international free agents is a horrible idea?

 

That's interesting.

 

I said this year's payroll not next years.



#26 Cubbie Blues

Cubbie Blues

    The Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,369 posts
  • Twitter:@timhall76
  • LocationBloomington, IN

Posted 19 August 2013 - 08:48 PM

The Cubs added around fifty million dollars to this years payroll with free agents and international signings.
 
Outside of maybe Nate. The rest of their decisions were horrible.

 
That's interesting.
 
Why are you thinking that signing four or five of the best available international free agents is a horrible decision?  I'll concede that those guys aren't going to help the major league team any time soon, but the best farm systems in the game, the farm systems that belong to teams that having consistent winning teams on the field, tend to spend heavily on international free agents.  It's a good value proposition. 
 
It seems a little strange that on the one hand you want the Cubs to be like those teams and to invest heavily in both the farm system and the major league roster, but on the other hand you state that one of the decisions this front office has made that looks the most like those teams is horrible.  Why the difference?  Why do you think the Cubs signing international free agents is a horrible idea?
That's interesting.
 
I said this year's payroll not next years.
Which would have gone to the question I asked about which FA we should of signed, but you refused to answer that one.

"It's not the dress that makes you look fat, it's the fat that makes you look fat." - Al Bundy

 

"Ow" - Dylan Bundy


#27 mountsalami

mountsalami

    Bleacher Bum

  • Guests
  • PipPip
  • 47 posts
  • LocationDeep Inside

Posted 19 August 2013 - 08:50 PM

 

 

Who should they if signed ths year then? And, I didn't say it was your problem, but you put down what someone else called some possible core pieces and failed to show why. When you make a blanket claim plan on backing it up. Also, if you're going to get along here, it's usually good to back up your argument with facts and not just snark. If you can show facts behind what you say we don't have a problem with it, but dey sux won't get you very far.

I would rather talk about who they should sign this offseason. Not going to play the revisionist historian.
 
Sorry if you thought I was putting down someone. It was not intentional. You can get all the facts by looking at the product Command Central has placed on the field and look at the standings. There is very little if anything that resembles my definition of a "core" going forward at this time.
 
I believe I've explained it already, but if you choose not to read it and demand facts instead not so sure you are one to converse with.
You haven't stated any facts or stats, only opinion. I am only asking what are the underlying facts that your opinion is based upon.

 

Do you believe that Rizzo and Castro are "core" players going forward ? Can you answer that ?

 

Even though both players are far below the league average.



#28 MichiganGoat

MichiganGoat

    Give me a BEER

  • Moderators
  • 3,799 posts
  • Twitter:MichiganGoat
  • Facebook:michigangoat
  • LocationGrand Rapids, MI

Posted 19 August 2013 - 08:51 PM

I still don't understand how people still don't understand that teams that are continually successful have top farm systems and before Theo this team had a hideous farm system. But whatevas I'm getting tired of saying the same thing over and over again.

MichiganGoat on Twitter

"There are a lot of guys who are respected but not liked" - Ron Santo


#29 Luke

Luke

    Bleacher Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,083 posts
  • Twitter:@ltblaize
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 19 August 2013 - 08:51 PM

 

I said this year's payroll not next years.

 

 

Yes.  The IFA signings for the summer of 2013 go on the 2013 payroll, not the 2014 payroll.  



#30 Cubbie Blues

Cubbie Blues

    The Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,369 posts
  • Twitter:@timhall76
  • LocationBloomington, IN

Posted 19 August 2013 - 08:53 PM

Rizzo is a core piece, his numbers are the same as last year's except for his BABIP and AVG. Castro has me concerned. I answered your question, but none of mine have met nothing resembling an answer.

"It's not the dress that makes you look fat, it's the fat that makes you look fat." - Al Bundy

 

"Ow" - Dylan Bundy





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Bleacher Nation is not affiliated in any way with Major League Baseball or the Chicago National League Ballclub (that's the Cubs).