Jump to content

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


Starting to see a pattern with the new regime

  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 EQ76


    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 94 posts

Posted 06 January 2012 - 02:44 PM

So as many of you I find myself checking on on Cubs rumors, news, etc. about 30 times a day just waiting for the next big move.

It's been hard on many of us because, honestly, we haven't really known how this off season would go. New leadership, new philosophy, no idea what payroll will be, and a few other factors has thrown us into mass confusion and constant speculation.

In the midst of all the waiting I've noticed a trend in the new regime and it can be summed up with these 2 points:

* Most trade and FA rumors that drag out over time are just that.. rumors that are not going to happen.

* When Theo/Jed make a move, we usually find out about it right when it's happening or already has happened.. sort of like ninjas or a couple of Chuck Norris'.

think about it.. for much of the off season we thought our 3B was going to be Chase Headley then out of nowhere we find out they got Ian Stewart 3 days earlier. We keep hearing that we may be in the bidding for Fielder, Pujols, Darvish and turns out we weren't ever really in on any of them.

We knew Big Z would probably go to Miami but it seemed to just all the sudden happen.. DeJesus just happened. The Marshall trade all the sudden happened.. out of nowhere we are all shocked to see that we traded for Rizzo.

I'm thinking it's safe to assume that any rumor about the Cubs and a trade or FA signing that lingers for a few weeks is probably not gonna happen.. we just have to wait to be surprised because as many have said.. Theo and Jed are flippin' ninjas.

we don't seem to have a luke-warm or hot stove, we just suddenly set fire to the whole damn kitchen.

#2 Fishin Phil

Fishin Phil

    Wally Pipp of Cubs Calendar

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,034 posts

Posted 06 January 2012 - 02:47 PM

I love the way this front office plays everything close to the vest!
Please don't feed the psychos.

#3 Hawkeye


    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Twitter:@hawkeyedsm
  • LocationDes Moines, IA

Posted 06 January 2012 - 04:28 PM

I love the way this front office plays everything close to the vest!

I like it, and hate it, all at the same time. My A.D.D. can't take...anybody want to ride bikes?

#4 HoustonTransplant


    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 99 posts
  • LocationHouston

Posted 06 January 2012 - 08:06 PM


Yes, I noticed the trend too, as if they're trying to distract people. "Sure, sure, let those rumors go...look over there at how we're pretending to be really interested, but meanwhile we'll sneakily do what's best over here." I kind of like it.

By that logic, then, does that mean that Garza will be given an extension in the next couple days? We also haven't heard much of anything about pursuing the Cuban prospects other than that they'll be "interested" (with the rest of baseball). Maybe these "non-rumors" are all the rumors we need to be following.
making music and more since 1985

#5 Brett



  • Administrators
  • 3,642 posts
  • Twitter:BleacherNation
  • Facebook:BleacherNation

Posted 07 January 2012 - 09:02 AM

It seems like what happens, with the exception of DeJesus, is that a rumor comes up, gets play for a few days, and then is scuttled for a long time. And then that thing happens.

Happened that way with Stewart, Zambrano, and Rizzo. Makes you wonder if the talks start, a rumor leaks, and then quickly our guys clamp down and shut off the spigot. They seem to be very good at it.

Things to keep in mind: 95% of trade/free agent discussions don't result in "the thing" happening. That doesn't mean the talks didn't take place, and usually, over a long period of time.

I think folks - and it's not just you, obviously, Paul Sullivan and others have said the same - are seeing the Rizzo trade and incorrectly concluding that "the Cubs were never interested in Fielder." That the Cubs traded for Rizzo on January 6 doesn't really say a whole lot of anything about their interest in Fielder from November 1 through January 5. These guys have said repeatedly that they don't like to close any doors. Explore every option. Consider multiple angles for success. To me, it would have been crazy not to at least make it known to Fielder that the Cubs were interested on a 5-year-ish deal, but no more (as Levine has said, repeatedly, that the Cubs did, and that I've heard from multiple sources). Once it became clear that Fielder wasn't going to settle for the kind of contract the Cubs would be comfortable with, they moved on. When exactly that happened, we don't know.

But the idea that trading for Rizzo this deep into the offseason proves that the Cubs were never interested in Fielder doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

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).