Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 44 of 97 FirstFirst ... 3442434445465494 ... LastLast
Results 646 to 660 of 1441
  1. #646
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,056
    vCash
    1500
    Garza wasn't a frontline starter going into 2012?
    He's seen more of a weak 2 or really good 3 around the league. He had a really good second half in 2011. But I don't think that changed how teams viewed him.

    Leadoff hitter isn't a position. You always have a leadoff hitter. It's whoever you bat first.
    You know what I mean they lacked top 5 of the order bats. It's hard to win with a good hitters at the top getting on base. Along with good middle of the order power bats driving them in.
    "Too big, too strong, too fast, too good"

  2. #647
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    987
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by SenatorMendoza View Post
    Actually Kelton is much more like Vitters than Villanueva. Kelton had shaky defense and a sweet swing, just like Vitters. Probably a pretty good comp. Vitters was higher thought of out of the draft. But I believe Kelton was considered one of those tougher signs who fell to the second round but was a 1st round talent.
    Kelton fell out of the first round because he had a bad shoulder that affected his throwing. I could by the Kelton/Vitters comp as well, though Vitters has a better bat. Other than that yeah, that pretty much sums up how I feel.

    Kyle got burned by prospects in his youth, we get it. Some of us, who followed prospects just as closely didn't get jaded though.

  3. #648
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    5,746
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by CUBluejays View Post
    Kyle got burned by prospects in his youth, we get it. Some of us, who followed prospects just as closely didn't get jaded though.
    I can drool over Baez with the best of them. What you call "jaded" I call "perspective."

  4. #649
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    5,746
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by cubswin25 View Post
    He's seen more of a weak 2 or really good 3 around the league. He had a really good second half in 2011. But I don't think that changed how teams viewed him.
    Then teams are dumb. More likely, you're underestimating their opinion of him.


    You know what I mean they lacked top 5 of the order bats. It's hard to win with a good hitters at the top getting on base. Along with good middle of the order power bats driving them in.
    Good thing we had lots of money, which can be exchanged for the services of such players, to rectify that problem.

  5. #650
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,817
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by cubswin25 View Post
    They could sign a player in their 20's but some impact players need to be available first. As for trading prospects for players to build around, there will be a time and place for that too. But right now the farm isn't deep enough for that. Because one good hitter or one good pitcher isn't going to make this team a contender yet. In their position I don't think they had much of a option to build a good long term team. You want the Cubs to be like the Nationals or Rangers in a few years. A team thats good with good young talent and more on the way. If they want that going this route is the best and fastest way to get there. And like those teams they will spend money to add talent when the core is ready.
    What if you had acquired Cespedes & Darvish and were willing to part with the prospects San Diego wanted for Headley ? The whole process would have changed and the team would have been much closer to a contender. You were never going to change the team in 1 year but in 2-3 years you can build a contender. If you are building on parallel fronts you are competitive sooner and add more talent as it develops.

  6. #651
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,056
    vCash
    1500
    The farm system is one of the deepest in the game. I can't imagine it being deeper.

    The Rangers never needed a 95 loss season to build their farm system. That's who I want to emulate, not the Nationals, who needed nearly a decade of losing to pull it off.
    The Rangers were bad or medioce(79, 80, 75 and 79 win teams in 06-08) before they finally took off three years ago. They just kept the success going the last few years.
    "Too big, too strong, too fast, too good"

  7. #652
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    5,746
    vCash
    1500
    If we were losing 82 games instead of 102, we'd be a lot closer to success and wouldn't be having this argument.

  8. #653
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    7,147
    vCash
    1500
    They also got lucky with the reclamation project that is Josh Hamilton
    Save the kittens, ignore sbs' posts
    Red Sox hater since 10/2011

    It is anyway, not anyways.

  9. #654
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,056
    vCash
    1500
    Then teams are dumb. More likely, you're underestimating their opinion of him.
    It's been that way even going back to when the Cubs traded for him. Nothing has changed on him.



    Good thing we had lots of money, which can be exchanged for the services of such players, to rectify that problem.
    You keep proving my point over and over again. How well did that work for us 07-10?
    "Too big, too strong, too fast, too good"

  10. #655
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    5,746
    vCash
    1500
    Well, we made the playoffs twice in those four seasons, which is looking to be more that the first four years of the Epstein era, so not that bad.

    Which ignores that the bad drafting of the mid-2000s had more to do with those teams' later failures than the FA signings.

  11. #656
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,371
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gaughan333 View Post
    They also got lucky with the reclamation project that is Josh Hamilton
    Not really. Hamilton had already shown quite a bit when they traded Volquez and Herrera for him.

  12. #657
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,056
    vCash
    1500
    If we were losing 82 games instead of 102, we'd be a lot closer to success and wouldn't be having this argument
    Not really has no impact on 2014 at all really. The players change, and perform differently from year to year. Especially for a team like the Cubs who will have young talent developing and money to spend on free agents.
    "Too big, too strong, too fast, too good"

  13. #658
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    5,746
    vCash
    1500
    It absolutely has an impact on 2014. And 2013, as well.

  14. #659
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,056
    vCash
    1500
    Well, we made the playoffs twice in those four seasons, which is looking to be more that the first four years of the Epstein era, so not that bad.

    LOL more bias negative outlook. Once again you prove a point.
    "Too big, too strong, too fast, too good"

  15. #660
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    5,746
    vCash
    1500
    The point being that we won the division 50% of the time during the area you were citing as an example of why we shouldn't use our significant cash resources to try to compete at the MLB level.

    What sort of bias do I need to point that out? A reality bias? I do have one of those.

    Or do you mean that it looks to be better than the first four years of the Epstein era? Well, they seem to be spotting the first two years, so I don't think it's that controversial of a prediction.

Page 44 of 97 FirstFirst ... 3442434445465494 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •