Q

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

blondy28 wrote:

jaywit wrote:

alohafri wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

blondy28 wrote:

sharpy wrote:The Cubs are young and talented and should be in the WS conversation for years to come.



Near the bottom in offense in the last month. Can't wait until the waste $400 million in Bryce over-hyped Harper this winter. He'll make the Hayward signing look a lot better. Lester getting older. Hendricks had a lously year. Q being Q for a few more years until they sign him for big bucks and make the Harper trade look good. Atlanta if the 90s has one superstar position player, Chipper Jones and 3 HOF starting pitchers- that's not the Cubs. These Cubs are the 1968-74 Cubs. If not for the expanded playoffs, how good are they? Top it all off, they have the most overrated manager in baseball- who almost blew the one series they did win. 

The expanded playoff has nothing to do with how good a team is.  Before the expansion, you often had some of the best teams in baseball not make the playoffs.  In 2015, the Cubs, Pirates and St. Louis had the 3 best records in all of baseball, with no American League team having a record better than the 3.  In 2016, the Cubs had the best records in all of baseball.  Cubs won their division in 2017...nothing to do with expanded playoffs.  In 2018, the Cubs had the 2nd best record in the NL, and it took an extra game to decide that.  To say that the Cubs (or any team) haven't been good because of expanded playoffs is patently absurd.  Hell...you just listed some absolutely horrific statistics, yet the Cubs have the 2nd best record in the NL!!!!  If you think this team isn't built to be competitive and in the WS conversation year after year, then you simply have your Hawkaroo glasses on.

They just seemed not to click this year.  There is a significant need for better pitching and for their offense to get more on track.  Hard to understand what went wrong with the offense.  They have a bunch of solid hitters, and even Hayward was improved.  They got more out of Baez than most people expected.  Bryant fell off significantly.  Not quite sure what's wrong with them, but when you have Rizzo leading off here and there, then there's clearly something out of whack with the offense.

But it was so coooool to see Rizzo leading off! That's Maddon thinking outside of the box!

Last night was the first I saw of the Cubs this year.  Bryant looked like a different hitter than I've seen.  Totally over-matched, not even close on many pitches.

He's had shoulder issues all year.  When he was coming back, they reported that they were changing his swing so that he kept both hands on the bat all the way through the follow-through to prevent more stress on the shoulder.  The announcer even pointed it out last night...that he keeps both hands on the bat.  I'm not sure what the plans are over the winter, but it will be interesting to see how they address it.  Will they try to strengthen the shoulder so he can go back to his old swing, or will he be practicing to get used to the new two-handed swing?  Dunno.

What's wrong with his shoulder?  Can they fix him?  Now would be the time to do it.  I've had a couple of shoulder surgeries.  Took a while to get my throwing back to normal, but I could hit just fine pretty quickly (fine for me means that I was sucking at my customary levels of suckitude).

blondy28 wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

blondy28 wrote:

jaywit wrote:

alohafri wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

blondy28 wrote:

sharpy wrote:The Cubs are young and talented and should be in the WS conversation for years to come.



Near the bottom in offense in the last month. Can't wait until the waste $400 million in Bryce over-hyped Harper this winter. He'll make the Hayward signing look a lot better. Lester getting older. Hendricks had a lously year. Q being Q for a few more years until they sign him for big bucks and make the Harper trade look good. Atlanta if the 90s has one superstar position player, Chipper Jones and 3 HOF starting pitchers- that's not the Cubs. These Cubs are the 1968-74 Cubs. If not for the expanded playoffs, how good are they? Top it all off, they have the most overrated manager in baseball- who almost blew the one series they did win. 

The expanded playoff has nothing to do with how good a team is.  Before the expansion, you often had some of the best teams in baseball not make the playoffs.  In 2015, the Cubs, Pirates and St. Louis had the 3 best records in all of baseball, with no American League team having a record better than the 3.  In 2016, the Cubs had the best records in all of baseball.  Cubs won their division in 2017...nothing to do with expanded playoffs.  In 2018, the Cubs had the 2nd best record in the NL, and it took an extra game to decide that.  To say that the Cubs (or any team) haven't been good because of expanded playoffs is patently absurd.  Hell...you just listed some absolutely horrific statistics, yet the Cubs have the 2nd best record in the NL!!!!  If you think this team isn't built to be competitive and in the WS conversation year after year, then you simply have your Hawkaroo glasses on.

They just seemed not to click this year.  There is a significant need for better pitching and for their offense to get more on track.  Hard to understand what went wrong with the offense.  They have a bunch of solid hitters, and even Hayward was improved.  They got more out of Baez than most people expected.  Bryant fell off significantly.  Not quite sure what's wrong with them, but when you have Rizzo leading off here and there, then there's clearly something out of whack with the offense.

But it was so coooool to see Rizzo leading off! That's Maddon thinking outside of the box!

Last night was the first I saw of the Cubs this year.  Bryant looked like a different hitter than I've seen.  Totally over-matched, not even close on many pitches.

He's had shoulder issues all year.  When he was coming back, they reported that they were changing his swing so that he kept both hands on the bat all the way through the follow-through to prevent more stress on the shoulder.  The announcer even pointed it out last night...that he keeps both hands on the bat.  I'm not sure what the plans are over the winter, but it will be interesting to see how they address it.  Will they try to strengthen the shoulder so he can go back to his old swing, or will he be practicing to get used to the new two-handed swing?  Dunno.

What's wrong with his shoulder?  Can they fix him?  Now would be the time to do it.  I've had a couple of shoulder surgeries.  Took a while to get my throwing back to normal, but I could hit just fine pretty quickly (fine for me means that I was sucking at my customary levels of suckitude).

I'm too lazy to look it up and find out if they ever gave him a diagnosis, but if memory serves, they used terms like "inflammation" and "soreness".

sharpy wrote:My larger point was that the Cubs have been built to be competitive for many years.  You think it's time to back up the truck and rebuild.   We simply disagree.



No, but there is no doubt they either underachieve or aren't as good as they think they are, and maybe if they stop flexing in the mirror and realize other good teams can play also, maybe they would be even better A .248 hitting catcher with 9 homers doesn't have the right to preen and float over what he thinks is a home run that falls in the park. I do think Addison Russell will be gone - proving to be a good defense low offense type, and they should get rid of the .238 hitting babe schwarber to the AL.  And in my opinion, it's time to change papa Joe to a more demanding manager, like General Joe Girardi. Maybe if they stop jerking Bryant between multiple positions he'd be a more productive offensive force. 

sharpy wrote:As a more general statement, whether or not one thinks Maddon ought to be replaced, I'm not sure that going to the opposite extreme is the best approach...see St. Louis Cardinals.





I thought the cards did go the opposite way? No? When they canned Metheny and hired this guy who never even played pro ball, I thought it was going from taskmaster to easy going?  Or do you mean that a taskmaster doesn't necessarily win?  I will agree with that except with the caveat that they tend to win once or twice, and then the rhetoric wears thin. Like the Hawk coach Keenan. Won everywhere and wore out his welcome very quickly

sharpy wrote:As a more general statement, whether or not one thinks Maddon ought to be replaced, I'm not sure that going to the opposite extreme is the best approach...see St. Louis Cardinals.





I thought the cards did go the opposite way? No? When they canned Metheny and hired this guy who never even played pro ball, I thought it was going from taskmaster to easy going?  Or do you mean that a taskmaster doesn't necessarily win?  I will agree with that except with the caveat that they tend to win once or twice, and then the rhetoric wears thin. Like the Hawk coach Keenan. Won everywhere and wore out his welcome very quickly

frank bonifacic wrote:

sharpy wrote:As a more general statement, whether or not one thinks Maddon ought to be replaced, I'm not sure that going to the opposite extreme is the best approach...see St. Louis Cardinals.





I thought the cards did go the opposite way? No? When they canned Metheny and hired this guy who never even played pro ball, I thought it was going from taskmaster to easy going?  Or do you mean that a taskmaster doesn't necessarily win?  I will agree with that except with the caveat that they tend to win once or twice, and then the rhetoric wears thin. Like the Hawk coach Keenan. Won everywhere and wore out his welcome very quickly

Or like Harbaugh!. That's reason he is more successful as a college coach. His spiel gets tiresome to professionals after a couple years. In college, he has a brand new audience every couple of years.