Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 229 of 314 FirstFirst ... 129179219227228229230231239279 ... LastLast
Results 3,421 to 3,435 of 4701
  1. #3421
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    58,338
    Quote Originally Posted by huff View Post
    This. An argument could be made that the Jason heyward contract is what paved the way to the death of the Cubs dynasty. Coupled with the massive disappointment of Addison Russell.
    They'd be really poor arguments. Heyward's contract is bad, but at the same time, not nearly as bad as some want to act. Most seasons, he's been worth something around $10m or so on the field, meaning he's been eating up an extra $10-12m of surplus value. While bad, this isn't crippling a dynasty, when the Cubs have the ability to drop $200m+ every season. As well, prospects fail. No single prospect failure ruins a dynasty.

    The end of the dynasty is far more nuanced. Some bad outcomes that were unforeseen (Heyward, Quintana), some bad gambles (the Chatwood contract), playing "win now baseball" and trading away many of the top prospects, and an ownership who's not nearly as invested in putting money into the team as they should be. It's been many things, not simply one. It's far more than just Heyward's contract or Russel. Both haven't helped, neither are the iceberg that sunk the Titanic.

  2. #3422
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    249
    Quote Originally Posted by huff View Post
    This. An argument could be made that the Jason heyward contract is what paved the way to the death of the Cubs dynasty. Coupled with the massive disappointment of Addison Russell.
    The Cubs had the tools to replace Russell so I don't think he had much of anything to do with the Cubs downfall. Hell, he wasn't even that great the year the Cubs won, it was simply his best year. He didnt have a single triple digit wRC+ season.

    Jason Heyward and the Jose Quintana trade are what doomed the Cubs. Heyward is easily bringing in over double his performance value. And the Jose Quintana trade depleted the system and in return we got a #4 pitcher.

    When Theo writes his book and talks about what he wishes he could have done differently I bet he hints to those 2 moves.
    Last edited by cuzi; 01-21-2021 at 09:07 PM.

  3. #3423
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,121
    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post
    I posted the tweet a handful of hours ago. Just scroll up, and I got you.

    Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk
    Thanks. Always liked Harper 😔

  4. #3424
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    2,069
    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post
    The end of the dynasty is far more nuanced. Some bad outcomes that were unforeseen (Heyward, Quintana), some bad gambles (the Chatwood contract), playing "win now baseball" and trading away many of the top prospects, and an ownership who's not nearly as invested in putting money into the team as they should be. It's been many things, not simply one. It's far more than just Heyward's contract or Russel. Both haven't helped, neither are the iceberg that sunk the Titanic.
    I agree. A lot of bad luck too. Nobody predicted Heyward's decline, or Quintana, Russell, Kimbrel, Happ and Almora forgetting how to hit, or all our hitters slumping last year. Injuries also, like Darvish's first year, Morrow, Chatwood, Bryant, etc. And Carl Edwards Jr imploding, Zobrist's marriage problems etc.

    It's really incredible how much misfortune has happened the last 3 years.

  5. #3425
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    13,631
    Quote Originally Posted by cuzi View Post
    The Cubs had the tools to replace Russell so I don't think he had much of anything to do with the Cubs downfall. Hell, he wasn't even that great the year the Cubs won, it was simply his best year. He didnt have a single triple digit wRC+ season.

    Jason Heyward and the Jose Quintana trade are what doomed the Cubs. Heyward is easily bringing in over double his performance value. And the Jose Quintana trade depleted the system and in return we got a #4 pitcher.

    When Theo writes his book and talks about what he wishes he could have done differently I bet he hints to those 2 moves.
    I didnít like that trade when it happened and I like it even less today. It was a very unnecessary trade to make truth be told. The team had already won the World Series in 2016 and wasnít trying to get over that hump again. As much as we might have thought it at the time, we didnít need a starter to win the division in 2017 that much. 92 wins won the division that year, 86 wins was the next best Brewers. And if the Cubs didnít win the division? End of the day it wouldnít have mattered all that much because of 2016. It would have annoyed us in 2017 but in 2021, it wouldnít even register.

    Jimenez would have been nice to have today, as a trade chip or as the only core piece that might survive a rebuild. Cease is kind of meh, though.

  6. #3426
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    58,338
    Quote Originally Posted by JHBulls View Post
    I didnít like that trade when it happened and I like it even less today. It was a very unnecessary trade to make truth be told. The team had already won the World Series in 2016 and wasnít trying to get over that hump again. As much as we might have thought it at the time, we didnít need a starter to win the division in 2017 that much. 92 wins won the division that year, 86 wins was the next best Brewers. And if the Cubs didnít win the division? End of the day it wouldnít have mattered all that much because of 2016. It would have annoyed us in 2017 but in 2021, it wouldnít even register.

    Jimenez would have been nice to have today, as a trade chip or as the only core piece that might survive a rebuild. Cease is kind of meh, though.
    The 2017 team needed a young SP. I would disagree fully that it was unnecessary. The rotation was showing signs of issues and wear and tear; Arrieta was beginning to show cracks, Lester and Hendricks were good but past that it was weak. It was necessary for the long term and it was more than just "winning the division". 2017 was about winning a WS. Another SP was necessary to complete that.

    We can play hindsight all we want, but I will forever contend it was both fair (although hefty) in terms of payment and it was absolutely necessary to complete a trade of that nature. Quintana had been a consistent top 20 type SP in the league and his contract offered a ton of surplus value. It was his contract that allowed the team to target a player like Darvish as well in the offseason.

    It really sucks Quintana didn't keep as the pitcher we hoped we traded for.

    Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

  7. #3427
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    A city in the United States.
    Posts
    6,087
    Quote Originally Posted by JHBulls View Post
    I didnít like that trade when it happened and I like it even less today. It was a very unnecessary trade to make truth be told. The team had already won the World Series in 2016 and wasnít trying to get over that hump again. As much as we might have thought it at the time, we didnít need a starter to win the division in 2017 that much. 92 wins won the division that year, 86 wins was the next best Brewers. And if the Cubs didnít win the division? End of the day it wouldnít have mattered all that much because of 2016. It would have annoyed us in 2017 but in 2021, it wouldnít even register.

    Jimenez would have been nice to have today, as a trade chip or as the only core piece that might survive a rebuild. Cease is kind of meh, though.
    Every time the Eloy trade is brought (especially from the South Siders), I simply say one name: Fernando Tatis, Jr.

    I was ok at the time of the trade (probably more annoyed that Cease was included) because I thought Almora and Schwarber would have developed into prime time players and there was not going to be a spot for Eloy.
    Screw sabermetics.

  8. #3428
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    13,631
    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post
    The 2017 team needed a young SP. I would disagree fully that it was unnecessary. The rotation was showing signs of issues and wear and tear; Arrieta was beginning to show cracks, Lester and Hendricks were good but past that it was weak. It was necessary for the long term and it was more than just "winning the division". 2017 was about winning a WS. Another SP was necessary to complete that.

    We can play hindsight all we want, but I will forever contend it was both fair (although hefty) in terms of payment and it was absolutely necessary to complete a trade of that nature. Quintana had been a consistent top 20 type SP in the league and his contract offered a ton of surplus value. It was his contract that allowed the team to target a player like Darvish as well in the offseason.

    It really sucks Quintana didn't keep as the pitcher we hoped we traded for.

    Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk
    I guess hindsight plays a part in thinking about that trade negatively. Not that hindsight is a factor at the time of a trade.

    Whatever road the FO decides to go down, which is likely trades for Bryant and Willson amongst others, at least it will further replenish an already healthy looking minor league system.

  9. #3429
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    2,069
    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post
    I guess. I'll have a hard time caring about this team, however, if they're on pace for 78 wins and just 3-4 games out of the playoffs. There's little valor in being the 2nd best team in a really horrible division.

    Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk
    We're the loveable losers again. Imagine being one of those people that spent 60+ years of their life watching bad Cubs teams and then they finally won the WS.

  10. #3430
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    2,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Cubs420 View Post
    Lol trade him now.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.esp...3fplatform=amp

    Not only has he been falling apart physically but now there are mental lapses?

    Get what you can for him and move on, if he is ever truly a legit MVP canidate again I would be surprised.
    I really love Byrant as a human being.

  11. #3431
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    10,141
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluefire View Post
    The more interesting (and frustrating) comment from KB, at least to me, was when #17 was talking about having dinner with Bryce during his FA and that Harper told him Chicago was his top choice. I don't know if this is new to anybody else but it is to me.
    I was told by a friend who was out with Harper one night when the Nats were in town getting swept in a 4 game series, that he wanted to play in Chicago. He sent me a picture of the two of them on Michigan Ave. The Cubs were his first choice. Then noise shifted to the south side much later.

    He wanted to be a Cub, but the Cubs didn't want him. I'm sure it's the contract they didn't want, but that doesn't change the fact that he wanted to play here.

  12. #3432
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    10,141
    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post
    They'd be really poor arguments. Heyward's contract is bad, but at the same time, not nearly as bad as some want to act. Most seasons, he's been worth something around $10m or so on the field, meaning he's been eating up an extra $10-12m of surplus value. While bad, this isn't crippling a dynasty, when the Cubs have the ability to drop $200m+ every season. As well, prospects fail. No single prospect failure ruins a dynasty.

    The end of the dynasty is far more nuanced. Some bad outcomes that were unforeseen (Heyward, Quintana), some bad gambles (the Chatwood contract), playing "win now baseball" and trading away many of the top prospects, and an ownership who's not nearly as invested in putting money into the team as they should be. It's been many things, not simply one. It's far more than just Heyward's contract or Russel. Both haven't helped, neither are the iceberg that sunk the Titanic.
    If Heyward wasn't locked up, do you think that we have been in on Harper? I think we would have signed him.

    Yes, JHey has nothing to do with the death of the Cubs dynasty, but he did prevent us from going after Harper.

  13. #3433
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    7,751
    Harper is great but Iím not sure heís as consistent as the other superstars in the game. Can you pencil him in next season knowing youíll get 40 bombs? Or .260+ average? Does he alone put you over the top against the Dodgers/Braves etc since 2018?

    I doubt it to be honest.

    It seems to me in retrospect that the cubs were just determined to get 1 and put the curse behind them as soon as possible. The thought of that not happening is way more painful than the pleasure of them getting a 2nd one. Iím happy with how things worked out all things considered and I can understand the decisions they made now with more time and understanding.

  14. #3434
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    58,338
    Quote Originally Posted by thawv View Post
    If Heyward wasn't locked up, do you think that we have been in on Harper? I think we would have signed him.

    Yes, JHey has nothing to do with the death of the Cubs dynasty, but he did prevent us from going after Harper.
    Maybe. But the team wasn't going to wait from 2015 to 2018 to solve RF long term.

    I think the Cubs planned on signing Harper. I don't think it was because they already had Heyward. I think the ownership took that option away from them later. I believe the FO had been told or was under strong impression that even after Darvish they would have those funds available and sometime later they suddenly weren't. Their actions of signing guys like Darv and Chatwood, the beliefs of franchise players like Bryant...it suggested the team was still planning that run.

    As fans it's easy to look at some 1:1 comparison of Heyward stopped Harper, but I do not think that is such an easy thing to do.

    Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk
    Last edited by 1908_Cubs; 01-22-2021 at 09:32 AM.

  15. #3435
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post
    Maybe. But the team wasn't going to wait from 2015 to 2018 to solve RF long term.

    I think the Cubs planned on signing Harper. I don't think it was because they already had Heyward. I think the ownership took that option away from them later. I believe the FO had been told or was under strong impression that even after Darvish they would have those funds available and sometime later they suddenly weren't. Their actions of signing guys like Darv and Chatwood, the beliefs of franchise players like Bryant...it suggested the team was still planning that run.

    As fans it's easy to look at some 1:1 comparison of Heyward stopped Harper, but I do not think that is such an easy thing to do.

    Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk
    If I remember correctly, Heyward had an opt out after 2018- which I also think the Cubs expected him to exercise if his career had continued as expected. That would have freed up left field and a ton of cash for Harper/other as well.

Posting Permissions

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