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

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

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

I don't think you understand how wikis work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Fuld&diff=329166782&oldid=329158323

[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

I don't think you understand how wikis work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Fuld&diff=329166782&oldid=329158323

No, I really don't. I should probably get a log-in someday.

[Andy]

Samuel Babson Fuld?  I want to punch him right in his blood sugar meter.

[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?

Raul Ibanez

I also wanted that mauer kid over that flaming vag from southern cal.

[MAD]

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

I also wanted that mauer kid over that flaming vag from southern cal.

If you did you were prescient.  Should have gone to the track that day.

That draft was Prior/Teixera, Teixera/Prior.  Don't kid yourself.  The Twinkies took Mauer because there'd have been no way for them to sign the other 2.  We come here as an escape from self-congratulatory revisionism.  Well, I do at least.  In small part.  Well, maybe not at all but let's stop spreading falsehoods, m'kay?

[Weebs]

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

I also wanted that mauer teixeira kid over that flaming vag from southern cal.

Huey FACE'd.

[Powdered Toast Man]

After reading the last several pages of this thread, I'm depressed about the 2010 Cubs.

[Andy]

That draft was Prior/Teixera, Teixera/Prior.  Don't kid yourself.  The Twinkies took Mauer because there'd have been no way for them to sign the other 2.  We come here as an escape from self-congratulatory revisionism.  Well, I do at least.  In small part.  Well, maybe not at all but let's stop spreading falsehoods, m'kay?

For the Cubs it was Prior-Teixeira, Mauer would have gone to the Rays or Phillies at 3 or 4, if he hadn't gone one.  (They took the immortals Dewon Brazelton and Gavin Floyd).  The Cubs were all over Tex until they flopped so spectacularly at the end of 2000 that they ended up in Prior range.

But Mauer was more than just a hometown hero.  He was a bonafide stud in high school, and the only concern any team had was that he'd signed a football scholarship to play QB at FSU and that he'd charge extra to buy him out of it.

[MAD]

That draft was Prior/Teixera, Teixera/Prior.  Don't kid yourself.  The Twinkies took Mauer because there'd have been no way for them to sign the other 2.  We come here as an escape from self-congratulatory revisionism.  Well, I do at least.  In small part.  Well, maybe not at all but let's stop spreading falsehoods, m'kay?

For the Cubs it was Prior-Teixeira, Mauer would have gone to the Rays or Phillies at 3 or 4, if he hadn't gone one.  (They took the immortals Dewon Brazelton and Gavin Floyd).  The Cubs were all over Tex until they flopped so spectacularly at the end of 2000 that they ended up in Prior range.

But Mauer was more than just a hometown hero.  He was a bonafide stud in high school, and the only concern any team had was that he'd signed a football scholarship to play QB at FSU and that he'd charge extra to buy him out of it.

Still.  Even if Mauer was rated third through fifth, the fact remains that Prior and Texiera comprised the two-person elite class of that draft.  Perhaps it was a lucky coincidence that Mauer was from St. Paul but if signability wasn't an issue, the Twins would have taken one of the other two.

[Kermit, B.]

Isn't there a good possibility that BBM was totally kidding?

[Andy]

No, I'm saying the only team in the top four who was projected to take Tex over Mauer was the Cubs, because they were in a 30 year cycle of having shit third basemen.

Everybody knew Teixiera was good, but Mauer was the 6'5 lefty hitting catching prospect from the gods.  

I think most teams had it:
1. Prior
2. Mauer
3. Tex

[PenFoe]

Seriously, this thread sucks.

[Quality Start Machine]

The Cubs let some guys go, and they'll be able to replace them with guys of equal or greater value for equal or less money with relatively little problem.

And anyone who says they didn't have a boner over Prior from Draft Day 2001 up until at least the end of the 2004 season is a damn liar.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Seriously, this thread sucks.

So will the 2010 Cubs.  The thread is perfect.

[Powdered Toast Man]

Seriously, this thread sucks.

So will the 2010 Cubs.  The thread is perfect.

I hate the way InternetChuck backs his favorite team.