The 2010 Cubs Free Agent and Roster Moves Thread: SAVEENG OUR KUBBEEZ!!11

[Philberto]

Well, since the Cubs fucked up that Harden thing, maybe they can hang onto Milton? Probably not. I know I'm probably one of 5 Cub fans who actually want him retained, but I would think it would make more money sense to hang on to him for $10 million than to pick up, say, Burrell, for $15 million or so (His contract plus a good chunk of Milton's). Burrell is shitty and Milton is not. Worn out his welcome in Chicago? Who gives a shit? The fans will probably hate him. They won't stop coming to the park. If someone boycotts them, there will be another schmoe ready to take his/her seats. Clubhouse shit? Fuck that, too. Read this that MB21 of ACB wrote on Kaplan's blog a while back. It's pretty dead on:

Also, chemistry probably has more to do with winning and losing. Players have more fun winning and it will create an exciting environment for all the players. Losing sucks and it will bring out the worst in people.

I don't know how much value chemistry has, but I do know that most managers and general managers have said that it doesn't matter. I also find it hard to believe that Player A is performing worse because Player B is an ass. That's actually something we could verify and I might actually look into it if you were to provide me with 20 or 30 players who are supposedly clubhouse cancers. If people say who they are we can find out if they have any impact on performance.

Think about it, Dave. If you could tell your boss that your performance was lacking because Joe was an ass, what do you think he would say? People can't do that. That's not what happens in real life. We all deal with asses nearly every day of our lives. If you work in a company that has more than a few employees you're working with someone who would be considered a clubhouse cancer. I'm assuming that you couldn't go tell your boss that your poor performance was Joe's fault. As people we have learned how to perform being around those types of people. We've had to. We could not function if we didn't have that ability.

Why are these guys different? Why are athletes so different from carpenters or accountants? They all work with people they'd rather not and they cannot excuse their performance by blaming another.

I do believe that a positive work environment is best, but that's just an opinion. It very well could be the exact opposite of what people think today. It's very possible that 25 guys as friends and buddies perform worse than 25 guys who hate each other's guts. I would not think that would be the case, but I don't know.

I know that many things that were considered common knowledge about baseball have been found untrue. Because of that, I cannot accept as fact that chemistry affects performance. I certainly have an opinion about it. If Joe is having problems performing because of Jack then I'm firing Joe. We have to perform under pressure in our lives and part of that is dealing with these types of people. If you cannot do that, you are the one that should be fired. That's my opinion. I have no idea whether any of it is true or if that's the best thing to do or not. I don't know either way and until someone proves it or disproves it I am going to assume that chemistry is of minimal to no value.

So fuck that stupid myth about team chemistry. Fuck it with the power of the 9 year decade.

Milton Bradley sucks at baseball.  Bottom line.  Who gives a fuck about how big of a morgan he is?  Get him the shit out of town.  Give it up Yeti, you're wrong.

So, who do you want? Sam Fuld? Reed Johnson?

[Armchair_QB]

Well, since the Cubs fucked up that Harden thing, maybe they can hang onto Milton? Probably not. I know I'm probably one of 5 Cub fans who actually want him retained, but I would think it would make more money sense to hang on to him for $10 million than to pick up, say, Burrell, for $15 million or so (His contract plus a good chunk of Milton's). Burrell is shitty and Milton is not. Worn out his welcome in Chicago? Who gives a shit? The fans will probably hate him. They won't stop coming to the park. If someone boycotts them, there will be another schmoe ready to take his/her seats. Clubhouse shit? Fuck that, too. Read this that MB21 of ACB wrote on Kaplan's blog a while back. It's pretty dead on:

Also, chemistry probably has more to do with winning and losing. Players have more fun winning and it will create an exciting environment for all the players. Losing sucks and it will bring out the worst in people.

I don't know how much value chemistry has, but I do know that most managers and general managers have said that it doesn't matter. I also find it hard to believe that Player A is performing worse because Player B is an ass. That's actually something we could verify and I might actually look into it if you were to provide me with 20 or 30 players who are supposedly clubhouse cancers. If people say who they are we can find out if they have any impact on performance.

Think about it, Dave. If you could tell your boss that your performance was lacking because Joe was an ass, what do you think he would say? People can't do that. That's not what happens in real life. We all deal with asses nearly every day of our lives. If you work in a company that has more than a few employees you're working with someone who would be considered a clubhouse cancer. I'm assuming that you couldn't go tell your boss that your poor performance was Joe's fault. As people we have learned how to perform being around those types of people. We've had to. We could not function if we didn't have that ability.

Why are these guys different? Why are athletes so different from carpenters or accountants? They all work with people they'd rather not and they cannot excuse their performance by blaming another.

I do believe that a positive work environment is best, but that's just an opinion. It very well could be the exact opposite of what people think today. It's very possible that 25 guys as friends and buddies perform worse than 25 guys who hate each other's guts. I would not think that would be the case, but I don't know.

I know that many things that were considered common knowledge about baseball have been found untrue. Because of that, I cannot accept as fact that chemistry affects performance. I certainly have an opinion about it. If Joe is having problems performing because of Jack then I'm firing Joe. We have to perform under pressure in our lives and part of that is dealing with these types of people. If you cannot do that, you are the one that should be fired. That's my opinion. I have no idea whether any of it is true or if that's the best thing to do or not. I don't know either way and until someone proves it or disproves it I am going to assume that chemistry is of minimal to no value.

So fuck that stupid myth about team chemistry. Fuck it with the power of the 9 year decade.

Milton Bradley sucks at baseball.  Bottom line.  Who gives a fuck about how big of a morgan he is?  Get him the shit out of town.  Give it up Yeti, you're wrong.

So, who do you want? Sam Fuld? Reed Johnson?

I believe SAM FULD! is the preferred nomenclature around here dude.

[Saul Goodman]

Well, since the Cubs fucked up that Harden thing, maybe they can hang onto Milton? Probably not. I know I'm probably one of 5 Cub fans who actually want him retained, but I would think it would make more money sense to hang on to him for $10 million than to pick up, say, Burrell, for $15 million or so (His contract plus a good chunk of Milton's). Burrell is shitty and Milton is not. Worn out his welcome in Chicago? Who gives a shit? The fans will probably hate him. They won't stop coming to the park. If someone boycotts them, there will be another schmoe ready to take his/her seats. Clubhouse shit? Fuck that, too. Read this that MB21 of ACB wrote on Kaplan's blog a while back. It's pretty dead on:

Also, chemistry probably has more to do with winning and losing. Players have more fun winning and it will create an exciting environment for all the players. Losing sucks and it will bring out the worst in people.

I don't know how much value chemistry has, but I do know that most managers and general managers have said that it doesn't matter. I also find it hard to believe that Player A is performing worse because Player B is an ass. That's actually something we could verify and I might actually look into it if you were to provide me with 20 or 30 players who are supposedly clubhouse cancers. If people say who they are we can find out if they have any impact on performance.

Think about it, Dave. If you could tell your boss that your performance was lacking because Joe was an ass, what do you think he would say? People can't do that. That's not what happens in real life. We all deal with asses nearly every day of our lives. If you work in a company that has more than a few employees you're working with someone who would be considered a clubhouse cancer. I'm assuming that you couldn't go tell your boss that your poor performance was Joe's fault. As people we have learned how to perform being around those types of people. We've had to. We could not function if we didn't have that ability.

Why are these guys different? Why are athletes so different from carpenters or accountants? They all work with people they'd rather not and they cannot excuse their performance by blaming another.

I do believe that a positive work environment is best, but that's just an opinion. It very well could be the exact opposite of what people think today. It's very possible that 25 guys as friends and buddies perform worse than 25 guys who hate each other's guts. I would not think that would be the case, but I don't know.

I know that many things that were considered common knowledge about baseball have been found untrue. Because of that, I cannot accept as fact that chemistry affects performance. I certainly have an opinion about it. If Joe is having problems performing because of Jack then I'm firing Joe. We have to perform under pressure in our lives and part of that is dealing with these types of people. If you cannot do that, you are the one that should be fired. That's my opinion. I have no idea whether any of it is true or if that's the best thing to do or not. I don't know either way and until someone proves it or disproves it I am going to assume that chemistry is of minimal to no value.

So fuck that stupid myth about team chemistry. Fuck it with the power of the 9 year decade.

Milton Bradley sucks at baseball.  Bottom line.  Who gives a fuck about how big of a morgan he is?  Get him the shit out of town.  Give it up Yeti, you're wrong.

So, who do you want? Sam Fuld? Reed Johnson?

I believe SAM FULD! is the preferred nomenclature around here dude.

[Philberto]

Well, since the Cubs fucked up that Harden thing, maybe they can hang onto Milton? Probably not. I know I'm probably one of 5 Cub fans who actually want him retained, but I would think it would make more money sense to hang on to him for $10 million than to pick up, say, Burrell, for $15 million or so (His contract plus a good chunk of Milton's). Burrell is shitty and Milton is not. Worn out his welcome in Chicago? Who gives a shit? The fans will probably hate him. They won't stop coming to the park. If someone boycotts them, there will be another schmoe ready to take his/her seats. Clubhouse shit? Fuck that, too. Read this that MB21 of ACB wrote on Kaplan's blog a while back. It's pretty dead on:

Also, chemistry probably has more to do with winning and losing. Players have more fun winning and it will create an exciting environment for all the players. Losing sucks and it will bring out the worst in people.

I don't know how much value chemistry has, but I do know that most managers and general managers have said that it doesn't matter. I also find it hard to believe that Player A is performing worse because Player B is an ass. That's actually something we could verify and I might actually look into it if you were to provide me with 20 or 30 players who are supposedly clubhouse cancers. If people say who they are we can find out if they have any impact on performance.

Think about it, Dave. If you could tell your boss that your performance was lacking because Joe was an ass, what do you think he would say? People can't do that. That's not what happens in real life. We all deal with asses nearly every day of our lives. If you work in a company that has more than a few employees you're working with someone who would be considered a clubhouse cancer. I'm assuming that you couldn't go tell your boss that your poor performance was Joe's fault. As people we have learned how to perform being around those types of people. We've had to. We could not function if we didn't have that ability.

Why are these guys different? Why are athletes so different from carpenters or accountants? They all work with people they'd rather not and they cannot excuse their performance by blaming another.

I do believe that a positive work environment is best, but that's just an opinion. It very well could be the exact opposite of what people think today. It's very possible that 25 guys as friends and buddies perform worse than 25 guys who hate each other's guts. I would not think that would be the case, but I don't know.

I know that many things that were considered common knowledge about baseball have been found untrue. Because of that, I cannot accept as fact that chemistry affects performance. I certainly have an opinion about it. If Joe is having problems performing because of Jack then I'm firing Joe. We have to perform under pressure in our lives and part of that is dealing with these types of people. If you cannot do that, you are the one that should be fired. That's my opinion. I have no idea whether any of it is true or if that's the best thing to do or not. I don't know either way and until someone proves it or disproves it I am going to assume that chemistry is of minimal to no value.

So fuck that stupid myth about team chemistry. Fuck it with the power of the 9 year decade.

Milton Bradley sucks at baseball.  Bottom line.  Who gives a fuck about how big of a morgan he is?  Get him the shit out of town.  Give it up Yeti, you're wrong.

So, who do you want? Sam Fuld? Reed Johnson?

I believe SAM FULD! is the preferred nomenclature around here dude.

In doing a quick wikipedia search of mostly white Cubs players, Sam Fuld's is by far the sploogiest. What a shitfest of a fanbase

[Saul Goodman]

In doing a quick wikipedia search of mostly white Cubs players, Sam Fuld's is by far the sploogiest. What a shitfest of a fanbase

Splooge?

[Eli]

Milton Bradley sucks at baseball. 

I was going to type "THIS" but then I realized that you're wrong.

[BBM]

Well, since the Cubs fucked up that Harden thing, maybe they can hang onto Milton? Probably not. I know I'm probably one of 5 Cub fans who actually want him retained, but I would think it would make more money sense to hang on to him for $10 million than to pick up, say, Burrell, for $15 million or so (His contract plus a good chunk of Milton's). Burrell is shitty and Milton is not. Worn out his welcome in Chicago? Who gives a shit? The fans will probably hate him. They won't stop coming to the park. If someone boycotts them, there will be another schmoe ready to take his/her seats. Clubhouse shit? Fuck that, too. Read this that MB21 of ACB wrote on Kaplan's blog a while back. It's pretty dead on:

Also, chemistry probably has more to do with winning and losing. Players have more fun winning and it will create an exciting environment for all the players. Losing sucks and it will bring out the worst in people.

I don't know how much value chemistry has, but I do know that most managers and general managers have said that it doesn't matter. I also find it hard to believe that Player A is performing worse because Player B is an ass. That's actually something we could verify and I might actually look into it if you were to provide me with 20 or 30 players who are supposedly clubhouse cancers. If people say who they are we can find out if they have any impact on performance.

Think about it, Dave. If you could tell your boss that your performance was lacking because Joe was an ass, what do you think he would say? People can't do that. That's not what happens in real life. We all deal with asses nearly every day of our lives. If you work in a company that has more than a few employees you're working with someone who would be considered a clubhouse cancer. I'm assuming that you couldn't go tell your boss that your poor performance was Joe's fault. As people we have learned how to perform being around those types of people. We've had to. We could not function if we didn't have that ability.

Why are these guys different? Why are athletes so different from carpenters or accountants? They all work with people they'd rather not and they cannot excuse their performance by blaming another.

I do believe that a positive work environment is best, but that's just an opinion. It very well could be the exact opposite of what people think today. It's very possible that 25 guys as friends and buddies perform worse than 25 guys who hate each other's guts. I would not think that would be the case, but I don't know.

I know that many things that were considered common knowledge about baseball have been found untrue. Because of that, I cannot accept as fact that chemistry affects performance. I certainly have an opinion about it. If Joe is having problems performing because of Jack then I'm firing Joe. We have to perform under pressure in our lives and part of that is dealing with these types of people. If you cannot do that, you are the one that should be fired. That's my opinion. I have no idea whether any of it is true or if that's the best thing to do or not. I don't know either way and until someone proves it or disproves it I am going to assume that chemistry is of minimal to no value.

So fuck that stupid myth about team chemistry. Fuck it with the power of the 9 year decade.

Milton Bradley sucks at baseball.  Bottom line.  Who gives a fuck about how big of a morgan he is?  Get him the shit out of town.  Give it up Yeti, you're wrong.

So, who do you want? Sam Fuld? Reed Johnson?

Scott Posednik?  Is Darin Erstad still on the market?

[Richard Chuggar]

Well, since the Cubs fucked up that Harden thing, maybe they can hang onto Milton? Probably not. I know I'm probably one of 5 Cub fans who actually want him retained, but I would think it would make more money sense to hang on to him for $10 million than to pick up, say, Burrell, for $15 million or so (His contract plus a good chunk of Milton's). Burrell is shitty and Milton is not. Worn out his welcome in Chicago? Who gives a shit? The fans will probably hate him. They won't stop coming to the park. If someone boycotts them, there will be another schmoe ready to take his/her seats. Clubhouse shit? Fuck that, too. Read this that MB21 of ACB wrote on Kaplan's blog a while back. It's pretty dead on:

Also, chemistry probably has more to do with winning and losing. Players have more fun winning and it will create an exciting environment for all the players. Losing sucks and it will bring out the worst in people.

I don't know how much value chemistry has, but I do know that most managers and general managers have said that it doesn't matter. I also find it hard to believe that Player A is performing worse because Player B is an ass. That's actually something we could verify and I might actually look into it if you were to provide me with 20 or 30 players who are supposedly clubhouse cancers. If people say who they are we can find out if they have any impact on performance.

Think about it, Dave. If you could tell your boss that your performance was lacking because Joe was an ass, what do you think he would say? People can't do that. That's not what happens in real life. We all deal with asses nearly every day of our lives. If you work in a company that has more than a few employees you're working with someone who would be considered a clubhouse cancer. I'm assuming that you couldn't go tell your boss that your poor performance was Joe's fault. As people we have learned how to perform being around those types of people. We've had to. We could not function if we didn't have that ability.

Why are these guys different? Why are athletes so different from carpenters or accountants? They all work with people they'd rather not and they cannot excuse their performance by blaming another.

I do believe that a positive work environment is best, but that's just an opinion. It very well could be the exact opposite of what people think today. It's very possible that 25 guys as friends and buddies perform worse than 25 guys who hate each other's guts. I would not think that would be the case, but I don't know.

I know that many things that were considered common knowledge about baseball have been found untrue. Because of that, I cannot accept as fact that chemistry affects performance. I certainly have an opinion about it. If Joe is having problems performing because of Jack then I'm firing Joe. We have to perform under pressure in our lives and part of that is dealing with these types of people. If you cannot do that, you are the one that should be fired. That's my opinion. I have no idea whether any of it is true or if that's the best thing to do or not. I don't know either way and until someone proves it or disproves it I am going to assume that chemistry is of minimal to no value.

So fuck that stupid myth about team chemistry. Fuck it with the power of the 9 year decade.

Milton Bradley sucks at baseball.  Bottom line.  Who gives a fuck about how big of a morgan he is?  Get him the shit out of town.  Give it up Yeti, you're wrong.

So, who do you want? Sam Fuld? Reed Johnson?

Raul Ibanez

[MAD]

BRING BACK DAT MOONLIGHT GREENBERG! 

[BH]

This site looks made up, but this rumor is too awesome not to post.

"- According to sources, the Cubs are poised to sign Rick Ankiel as soon as Milton Bradley is traded. The Cubs have been linked to Ankiel recently along with Crisp, Cameron, Byrd, among others. This of course means the idea of the Cubs getting Granderson has diminished and the Cubs acquiring a CF via trade like Rowand, Davis, McLouth, etc has gone out the window. It is also rumored the Cubs will in fact offer Ankiel a multi-year deal so they can can make the money disperse more over years rather than him signing a one year deal worth a higher figure. I am in favor of this deal because I think Rudy Jarmillo can turn this guy around to a middle of the lineup threat."

[Quality Start Machine]

Websites that start trade rumors are irresponsible.

[Kermit, B.]

In doing a quick wikipedia search of mostly white Cubs players, Sam Fuld's is by far the sploogiest. What a shitfest of a fanbase

I hate these fucking fans.

[Philberto]

This site looks made up, but this rumor is too awesome not to post.

"- According to sources, the Cubs are poised to sign Rick Ankiel as soon as Milton Bradley is traded. The Cubs have been linked to Ankiel recently along with Crisp, Cameron, Byrd, among others. This of course means the idea of the Cubs getting Granderson has diminished and the Cubs acquiring a CF via trade like Rowand, Davis, McLouth, etc has gone out the window. It is also rumored the Cubs will in fact offer Ankiel a multi-year deal so they can can make the money disperse more over years rather than him signing a one year deal worth a higher figure. I am in favor of this deal because I think Rudy Jarmillo can turn this guy around to a middle of the lineup threat."

Well, that's encouraging. I sure do hope it's true

[Philberto]

In doing a quick wikipedia search of mostly white Cubs players, Sam Fuld's is by far the sploogiest. What a shitfest of a fanbase

I hate these fucking fans.

Well, I'm not sure if Wiki polices changes but I made a small change to Fuld's site last night and by the morning, it was gone. Either it's Wiki or the crazy Sam Fuld Fan Club

[Kermit, B.]

In doing a quick wikipedia search of mostly white Cubs players, Sam Fuld's is by far the sploogiest. What a shitfest of a fanbase

I hate these fucking fans.

Well, I'm not sure if Wiki polices changes but I made a small change to Fuld's site last night and by the morning, it was gone. Either it's Wiki or the crazy Sam Fuld Fan Club

You don't even give yourself propers?  Under awards, Yeti added:

Lifetime Achievement: Probably has the longest Wikipedia page of any Cubs player