Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 120 of 454 FirstFirst ... 2070110118119120121122130170220 ... LastLast
Results 1,786 to 1,800 of 6799
  1. #1786
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,759
    Quote Originally Posted by CP_414 View Post
    Whooptie freakin doo.
    Don't have to like it. But better than no chance and 3-5 years of suck.

  2. #1787
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    11,123
    Quote Originally Posted by ST.maarten'stop View Post
    Don't have to like it. But better than no chance and 3-5 years of suck.
    Those aren’t the options.

    And don’t ***** about arguing with me and then try to start a disagreement with me the next day.

  3. #1788
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    14,935
    Quote Originally Posted by ST.maarten'stop View Post
    I am responding to Bibbs posted and agreeing there. Why don't you jump on him that post and attack it seeing that's where the comment originated.

    They were no little misses. The misses have been constistent and big over the years. Minus some great signings in Lester, and Darvish looking at the current market and if he's the pitcher we saw in the second half could be a steal. It's wasted money. And wasted money lots of it.

    yes it sucks that he might or might not have tightened up the spend and it can be justified. The team has spent at elite levels based on industry standings and have not achieve the goal of a deep playoff run and challenging for a world series in the past seasons. Ownership holding the front office accountable to claim sabotage is a ridiculous exaggeration. Why would he growing up a Cubs fan and business man sabotage his own product? They have failed expectations which is compete for a world series.

    Morrow was big waste, heyward, Edwin jackson, and so far kimbrell, descalso off the top off my head. The big time signings have been terrible. And before the oh you couldn't know. Reality there is way more bad than good.

    They have been able to somewhat balance that out with being able to nail most trades and get surplus value but let's not act like it's "false narrative" again. That's alot of dead money wasted over the years.

    And talking about oh they have the money so they shouldn't so stingy and spend more is like saying hey we have a buffet spread and more food stocked up in the kitchen, so if you don't like the taste or full no worries throw it in the bin we'll make your a different flavor or more for you later.


    Again you don't have to agree. Maybe I acknowledged that they could supplement the team yes an spend but 1. The off-season isn't finished and based on what we are seeing the big problem has been the grievance and want to clear the money before they spend it rather than spend and put their backs against the wall. There is still lots of off-season left.
    Morrow is not here. Nor is Edwin Jackson. How long do they need to be reminded of that one. As for Descalso, we are talking about $2M. Basically that is about as low a salary as there is. The only "dead weight" on the team now is really Chatwood and Heyward. Those guys make more than they should. I guess Lester too, but that is the cost they knew about.

    As for this idea that the Cubs spend a lot of money compared to league standards, as CP pointed out the have gone over the luxury tax twice in 5 years. One of those years they won the WS. They are a top revenue team. So they should be at the higher end of the spending scale. That is not a badge of honor for them to be higher spenders than the industry standard.

    I know this is what Rickets is doing. I also know it is his right to do so. And it is a business. But as a fan that doesn't mean I have to like it. And a fan doesn't always have to defend it as if what Rickets is doing is right (which you constantly do). This notion that spending money was a failure because they did not have a deep playoff run is also nonsense. Again, in 18', they tied for the most wins in the NL. Sucks the tie was with another team in the division. But that is what happened. Doesn't take anything away from a 95 win season. They lost a coin toss game for the division. So that makes 95 wins a FAILURE???? Any team that makes the playoffs is not guaranteed a long playoff run. I think we have all agreed that the playoffs are a crapshoot. The goal is getting there. And the Cubs have gotten there with the money they have spent.

    And finally, I am still not hearing why the Cubs have to cut spending? How does this help them going forward? You seem to defend Ricketts for his decision all the time. And part of your defense seems to be it is a business and he is allowed to profit. And you are 100% correct. But, what does past failure have to do with future moves? Why does failing on Heyward mean they shouldn't look at Donaldson IF they trade Bryant? This has nothing to do with the plans of moving Bryant and Contreras or any other core members. That is not by beef. My disappointment with the team is them deciding to drop payroll. Besides, because they can to make more money, can you find a reason to defend it? How do they defend it to the fan? How do they say that "yes they are a top revenue team, who just signed a new TV deal where people are not going to be charged money to watch the Cubs, and we also have some of the highest priced tickets in all of baseball", and we are going to cut spending. And expect fans not do think that sucks?

  4. #1789
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    11,123
    Quote Originally Posted by rcal10 View Post
    Morrow is not here. Nor is Edwin Jackson. How long do they need to be reminded of that one. As for Descalso, we are talking about $2M. Basically that is about as low a salary as there is. The only "dead weight" on the team now is really Chatwood and Heyward. Those guys make more than they should. I guess Lester too, but that is the cost they knew about.

    As for this idea that the Cubs spend a lot of money compared to league standards, as CP pointed out the have gone over the luxury tax twice in 5 years. One of those years they won the WS. They are a top revenue team. So they should be at the higher end of the spending scale. That is not a badge of honor for them to be higher spenders than the industry standard.

    I know this is what Rickets is doing. I also know it is his right to do so. And it is a business. But as a fan that doesn't mean I have to like it. And a fan doesn't always have to defend it as if what Rickets is doing is right (which you constantly do). This notion that spending money was a failure because they did not have a deep playoff run is also nonsense. Again, in 18', they tied for the most wins in the NL. Sucks the tie was with another team in the division. But that is what happened. Doesn't take anything away from a 95 win season. They lost a coin toss game for the division. So that makes 95 wins a FAILURE???? Any team that makes the playoffs is not guaranteed a long playoff run. I think we have all agreed that the playoffs are a crapshoot. The goal is getting there. And the Cubs have gotten there with the money they have spent.

    And finally, I am still not hearing why the Cubs have to cut spending? How does this help them going forward? You seem to defend Ricketts for his decision all the time. And part of your defense seems to be it is a business and he is allowed to profit. And you are 100% correct. But, what does past failure have to do with future moves? Why does failing on Heyward mean they shouldn't look at Donaldson IF they trade Bryant? This has nothing to do with the plans of moving Bryant and Contreras or any other core members. That is not by beef. My disappointment with the team is them deciding to drop payroll. Besides, because they can to make more money, can you find a reason to defend it? How do they defend it to the fan? How do they say that "yes they are a top revenue team, who just signed a new TV deal where people are not going to be charged money to watch the Cubs, and we also have some of the highest priced tickets in all of baseball", and we are going to cut spending. And expect fans not do think that sucks?
    Yep.

  5. #1790
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,023
    I think the whole get in and you have a shot thing is overblown. The Nats had the lowest win total of any WS champion since 2014. That was the Giants with 88. You can win if you have a dominant strength you can rely on. KC had their bullpen. The Nats their rotation. The Astros had their cheating, plus talent everywhere. I'd be more interested in supplementing this 2020 team if it felt like any part of it was dominant.

  6. #1791
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,759
    Quote Originally Posted by CP_414 View Post
    Those aren’t the options.

    And don’t ***** about arguing with me and then try to start a disagreement with me the next day.
    You sir are delusional. You comment mockingly my statement. Which is my opinion whether you agree with it or not. And state you don't have to like it or agree with me and then turn around and try to say I am seeking out a disagreement with after *****ing. Hahaha golden.

  7. #1792
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    14,935
    Quote Originally Posted by jfoley89 View Post
    I think the whole get in and you have a shot thing is overblown. The Nats had the lowest win total of any WS champion since 2014. That was the Giants with 88. You can win if you have a dominant strength you can rely on. KC had their bullpen. The Nats their rotation. The Astros had their cheating, plus talent everywhere. I'd be more interested in supplementing this 2020 team if it felt like any part of it was dominant.
    I think more than having one dominant strength, you can win by getting hot at the right time. You do not need a dominant rotation all year to win a WS with a dominant display of pitching by your staff. Of the top of my head, the greatest example might be the 05' white sox. They had a nice rotation. But it was not a dominating one. And in the playoffs they dominated. Even the Nationals last year. Part of their dominating staff was Sanchez. I do not think anyone would have called him a dominating pitcher throughout the season.

  8. #1793
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    11,123
    Quote Originally Posted by ST.maarten'stop View Post
    You sir are delusional. You comment mockingly my statement. Which is my opinion whether you agree with it or not. And state you don't have to like it or agree with me and then turn around and try to say I am seeking out a disagreement with after *****ing. Hahaha golden.
    Dude, you spent yesterday morning *****ing about talking to me. Then this morning you quoted me from a conversation I had with someone else and responded with a bunch of crap. I ignored your crap and responded with a “whooptie freakin doo” to your idea that maybe they can have a “punchers chance.” Then you present me with a false choice argument and call me delusional. Get the hell out of here.

  9. #1794
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,023
    The Cubs currently have the highest payroll in MLB. They're the only team over the tax at the moment based on usa today's current numbers. I think the argument is more that all MLB owners are cheap, compared to just Ricketts is cheap. I assume past failures do have an impact on future moves in basically any business. The Cubs wouldn't be in the position they are if they had allocated resources more effectively. They should spend more if they keep Bryant. It would be dumb not to do so, but acting like they will actually sign the right FA's this time seems ambitious. They could drop 35 million more and not improve at all.
    Last edited by jfoley89; 12-19-2019 at 10:47 AM.

  10. #1795
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,023
    Quote Originally Posted by rcal10 View Post
    I think more than having one dominant strength, you can win by getting hot at the right time. You do not need a dominant rotation all year to win a WS with a dominant display of pitching by your staff. Of the top of my head, the greatest example might be the 05' white sox. They had a nice rotation. But it was not a dominating one. And in the playoffs they dominated. Even the Nationals last year. Part of their dominating staff was Sanchez. I do not think anyone would have called him a dominating pitcher throughout the season.
    I'm not disagreeing with the getting hot part of it, but the Cubs don't have a legitimate strength to lean on. The offense has some serious question marks. The rotation has the best shot of being a strength imo, but that really depends on health and if Darvish is an ace all year. The bullpen is largely a question mark. Any of these could cement themselves throughout the year, but we don't have a Bellinger/Yelich/Scherzer level talent that just changes a game.

  11. #1796
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    11,123

    2019-20 Offseason Thread 2.0: Winter Meetings Edition

    Quote Originally Posted by jfoley89 View Post
    The Cubs currently have the highest payroll in MLB. They're the only team over the tax at the moment based on usa today's current numbers. I think the argument is more that all MLB owners are cheap, compared to just Ricketts is cheap. I assume past failures do have an impact on future moves in basically any business. The Cubs wouldn't be in the position they are if they had allocated resources more effectively. They should spend more if they keep Bryant. It would be dumb not to do so, but acting like they will actually sign the right FA's this time seems ambitious. They could drop 35 million more and not improve at all.
    It’s absolutely a league wide issue, but the Cubs aren’t tops for 2020 right now. Looks they are projected 4th at the moment. If they cut payroll they could realistically be 7th in payroll this year.

    https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/

    You have to click on each team within this link to see the totals including the 40 man and benefits etc.





    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by CP_414; 12-19-2019 at 10:54 AM.

  12. #1797
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    14,935
    Quote Originally Posted by jfoley89 View Post
    The Cubs currently have the highest payroll in MLB. They're the only team over the tax at the moment based on usa today's current numbers. I think the argument is more that all MLB owners are cheap, compared to just Ricketts is cheap. I assume past failures do have an impact on future moves in basically any business. The Cubs wouldn't be in the position they are if they had allocated resources more effectively. They should spend more if they keep Bryant. It would be dumb not to do so, but acting like they will actually sign the right FA's this time seems ambitious. They could drop 35 million more and not improve at all.
    I don't disagree with any of this. But I am still not hearing why the FO has to cut spending during the window to win. No one is asking to spend on Cole, Rendon, Strasburg. Most are only asking to be at the level they were at. How do they justify cutting while starting a new TV deal that will cost the fans money to watch them? How do they justify cutting $35M off the payroll while still having one of the highest ticket prices in the game? I understand how bad money affects payroll and lack of other spending. That is not what I am asking. I am asking that what does making a bad signing in the past have to do with future results of other free agents. So, in other words, how does making a mistake on Edwin Jackson or Morrow affect what you do with Donaldson, as an example?

  13. #1798
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    14,935
    Quote Originally Posted by jfoley89 View Post
    I'm not disagreeing with the getting hot part of it, but the Cubs don't have a legitimate strength to lean on. The offense has some serious question marks. The rotation has the best shot of being a strength imo, but that really depends on health and if Darvish is an ace all year. The bullpen is largely a question mark. Any of these could cement themselves throughout the year, but we don't have a Bellinger/Yelich/Scherzer level talent that just changes a game.
    If they don' trade Bryant, the absolutely do. Besides that, anyone in the line up can get hot and anyone in the line-up can suck. Look how bad Barry Bonds was for several years in playoffs. I think A-Rod was not good either. Take a look at some of the WS MVP's. Doesn't have to be a star to win an MVP or to get hot. All you have to do it get there. Anything can happen from there.

  14. #1799
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,759
    Quote Originally Posted by rcal10 View Post
    Morrow is not here. Nor is Edwin Jackson. How long do they need to be reminded of that one. As for Descalso, we are talking about $2M. Basically that is about as low a salary as there is. The only "dead weight" on the team now is really Chatwood and Heyward. Those guys make more than they should. I guess Lester too, but that is the cost they knew about.

    As for this idea that the Cubs spend a lot of money compared to league standards, as CP pointed out the have gone over the luxury tax twice in 5 years. One of those years they won the WS. They are a top revenue team. So they should be at the higher end of the spending scale. That is not a badge of honor for them to be higher spenders than the industry standard.

    I know this is what Rickets is doing. I also know it is his right to do so. And it is a business. But as a fan that doesn't mean I have to like it. And a fan doesn't always have to defend it as if what Rickets is doing is right (which you constantly do). This notion that spending money was a failure because they did not have a deep playoff run is also nonsense. Again, in 18', they tied for the most wins in the NL. Sucks the tie was with another team in the division. But that is what happened. Doesn't take anything away from a 95 win season. They lost a coin toss game for the division. So that makes 95 wins a FAILURE???? Any team that makes the playoffs is not guaranteed a long playoff run. I think we have all agreed that the playoffs are a crapshoot. The goal is getting there. And the Cubs have gotten there with the money they have spent.

    And finally, I am still not hearing why the Cubs have to cut spending? How does this help them going forward? You seem to defend Ricketts for his decision all the time. And part of your defense seems to be it is a business and he is allowed to profit. And you are 100% correct. But, what does past failure have to do with future moves? Why does failing on Heyward mean they shouldn't look at Donaldson IF they trade Bryant? This has nothing to do with the plans of moving Bryant and Contreras or any other core members. That is not by beef. My disappointment with the team is them deciding to drop payroll. Besides, because they can to make more money, can you find a reason to defend it? How do they defend it to the fan? How do they say that "yes they are a top revenue team, who just signed a new TV deal where people are not going to be charged money to watch the Cubs, and we also have some of the highest priced tickets in all of baseball", and we are going to cut spending. And expect fans not do think that sucks?
    I'll keep this short no one said you have to be happy with it or not think it sucks but it is justifiable taking the route they are taking and whether we like it or not this is the path we appearantly heading down.

    Yes they should/could spend more the office season isn't done and we can't predict what the future will hold in terms off spend.

    Morrow just resigned albeit a minor league deal so essentially still with the club. And while Jackson and others might no longer be with us it still happened, and should be dismissed because we are a big market team.
    I have no problem with the accountability route. To say he is purposely sabotaging his product and team just to save money is just over the top. We might night like the step back or path but it is happening. We can assume all the possible attempts or background moves to improved that were tried and failed. We don't and probably will never know the full scope of how and what happened.

    As for the LT they have been in the top spending group. But given the history with free agency whether they are here or not there were more misses than makes. Regardless to how much you have or make nobody likes losing money. And fans don't have to like that they aren't spending more because they don't make loads. Just like they have a choice we have a choice if we don't want to give them our because we think they just want to keep it for ourselves then just stop supporting the greedy vultures.

    Your ideas seem plausible you have never once heard me dispute your other ideas matter fact I have supported them. And stated that the off-season isn't over and there are still one or two players out there that can make a difference. That you don't believe they will spend or whatever or see this off-season as over which ever your position is your personal choice and I respect that. I prefer to take the wait and see approach and when spring training roles around I'll make my conclusion. Simple as that to each their own.

  15. #1800
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,759
    Quote Originally Posted by CP_414 View Post
    Dude, you spent yesterday morning *****ing about talking to me. Then this morning you quoted me from a conversation I had with someone else and responded with a bunch of crap. I ignored your crap and responded with a “whooptie freakin doo” to your idea that maybe they can have a “punchers chance.” Then you present me with a false choice argument and call me delusional. Get the hell out of here.
    Hahahahaha your funny hahahahahah😂🤣😅 not worth it. The last post I had prior I was actually agreeing with you but whatever. Obviously your butt hurt. Haha

Posting Permissions

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