« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 55 56 [57] 58 59 ... 257   Go Down

Author Topic: Cubs in '11  (Read 57448 times)

CurtOne

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27376
Re: Cubs in '11
« Reply #840 on: May 25, 2011, 02:56:42 pm »
If the choice is to pay X million to a guy to play terribly or to release him, play somebody with a future, and lose X million, isn't it the same X million?  What you gain is insight as to whether the new player can handle the job while giving him the valuable experience at the same time.  The only reason to keep the terrible veteran is if he's popular and draws $$$ and butts into the seats.  Right now, I can't think of a single veteran that does that.

Now, then, we come down to the same problem.  Do we really trust Jimbo to make the judgment as to which guys fit the above parameters?

Logged

davep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15895
Re: Cubs in '11
« Reply #841 on: May 25, 2011, 03:02:00 pm »
The loss in salary may be the same, but how many seats would go empty if the team was playing 350 baseball rather than 450 baseball?  I, personally, would rather have a terrible team this year with the chance of a good one in the future.  But an awful lot of fans, even those that feel like I do, would not bother to go tot the ball park until the good years come around.

If I were the owner, I am not sure I would be willing to take that big a hit this year, and possibly next.  Especially if I had debt payments that had to be covered.
Logged

Keysbear

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2218
Re: Cubs in '11
« Reply #842 on: May 25, 2011, 03:16:46 pm »
I don't see a big difference in attendance if we are c r a p p y  or slightly less c r a p p y. Die hards will come...the casual fam stays home.
Logged

Cubsin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1647
  • Location: O'Fallon, IL
Re: Cubs in '11
« Reply #843 on: May 25, 2011, 03:23:24 pm »
If Montanez continues to hit 500 with a 1,250 OPS, he could be an adequate replacement for Babe Ruth.

Fixed that for you.
Logged

Cactus

  • Guest
Re: Cubs in '11
« Reply #844 on: May 25, 2011, 03:40:37 pm »
CubsInsider:

We spoke to Lou today.  He said either pronunciation is correct: Mon-tuh-nez or Mon-tan-yez. He prefers the latter.
Logged

brjones

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25899
Re: Cubs in '11
« Reply #845 on: May 25, 2011, 04:42:25 pm »
I think anyone expecting to get any value in trades at the deadline is kidding themselves.  Other than Byrd, no one on this team who the Cubs would want to trade that would bring back anything better than the next Jeff Stevens.  Even the guys that could bring back some value if the Cubs paid part of their contract (specifically Dempster & Zambrano) are probably guys the Cubs would prefer to keep.

I'm sure they'll deal some guys, but it will be unproductive.  They'll get 2-3 AAAA guys for Fukudome, Johnson, and maybe Grabow.  They'll give someone like LaHair or Smith or Colvin 100-150 AB, which will prove nothing.  And they'll still fill all their needs (3B, 1B, maybe OF) through free agency and trades in the offseason.

Bottom line, this trade deadline is not going to be worth getting worked up over unless the Cubs really turn it around and become buyers instead of sellers.
Logged

Deeg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17062
Re: Cubs in '11
« Reply #846 on: May 25, 2011, 05:53:04 pm »
A-ram is untradeable, so no point in even discussing it.  No GM in baseball - well, maybe one and he doesn't count - would want to be on the hook to him for $16 million in 2012.
Logged

Clarkaddison

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1789
Re: Cubs in '11
« Reply #847 on: May 25, 2011, 06:00:42 pm »
Maybe Pena can go on the dl with some unspecified injury so we can find out if LaHair is a AAAA player.
Logged

Ron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8446
Re: Cubs in '11
« Reply #848 on: May 25, 2011, 06:04:51 pm »
Quote from: Deeg on May 25, 2011, 05:53:04 pm
A-ram is untradeable, so no point in even discussing it.  No GM in baseball - well, maybe one and he doesn't count - would want to be on the hook to him for $16 million in 2012.

I had not realized the 2012 club option vested if he was traded, but I see it would.  Agree that would effectively make him untradeable.
Logged

Cactus

  • Guest
Re: Cubs in '11
« Reply #849 on: May 25, 2011, 06:14:32 pm »
Bruce Miles on Aramis Ramirez' isolated power numbers

 2011: .090
 2010: .211
 2009: .199
 2008: .229
 2007: .239
 2006: .269

A Geo Soto update and a few other items

http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/5760
Logged

CurtOne

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27376
Re: Cubs in '11
« Reply #850 on: May 25, 2011, 08:36:25 pm »
I may have my boards messed up and this discussion was on this board: Quade is being roasted for Garza's injury.  It was pointed out that Garza's last game was that long rain delay that he came out and pitched again. 
Logged

Cactus

  • Guest
Re: Cubs in '11
« Reply #851 on: May 25, 2011, 08:39:42 pm »
Quote from: CurtOne on May 25, 2011, 08:36:25 pm
I may have my boards messed up and this discussion was on this board: Quade is being roasted for Garza's injury.  It was pointed out that Garza's last game was that long rain delay that he came out and pitched again. 
But his injury is a bone bruise.
Logged

CurtOne

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27376
Re: Cubs in '11
« Reply #852 on: May 25, 2011, 08:40:36 pm »
So?  They still ripped him.
Logged

CurtOne

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27376
Re: Cubs in '11
« Reply #853 on: May 25, 2011, 08:41:09 pm »
BTW, do you believe everything the Cubs tell you about a pitching injury?
Logged

brjones

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25899
Re: Cubs in '11
« Reply #854 on: May 25, 2011, 08:41:57 pm »
That was actually two games ago, Curt.  He has started once since then.  In any case, Garza said the soreness had been an issue in his previous two starts anyway, so it was hurt before the rain delay incident.

I think the whole coming back after the rain delay thing gets overstated.  I just can't believe a pitcher who regularly throws 100-120 pitches every 5 days (plus does regular throwing between starts) is going to get hurt because he throws another 40 pitches after a one hour rain delay.  I just don't think arms are that delicate.

Plus, it's a bone bruise...I'm no medical doctor, but I don't think that's a throwing injury.  It sounds like something that occurred as a result of a specific trauma.  Maybe he took a ball off the arm when fielding balls in batting practice a couple weeks ago.  Or maybe it happened in a game...I know he also made a diving play in one of his recent starts where he hit the ground pretty hard.  He could've done it then.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 55 56 [57] 58 59 ... 257   Go Up
« previous next »