Jake Arrieta 2017 Salary Drive Sploogefest

[SKO]

By the time the playoffs rolled around, though, Maddux was clearly the ace and he got the Game 1 nod.  

And he shit the bed. He was young. He was scared. Zimmer screwed up those playoffs a great deal. But not starting Sut Game 1 was a bad move.

Hindsight. 

Sutcliffe was their third best pitcher that year and pitched Game 3 (and lost).  Maddux was a two-time All-Star by the time the '89 playoffs rolled around.  If Zimmer was to be criticized for anything it'd be for leaving Bielecki in too long in Game 5, but you're only knocking the decision to start Maddux in Game 1 with the benefit of 25 years of hindsight.  I PROMISE you not a single person questioned that decision at the time.

That's our Chuck! *fart noise*

[Eli]

*There's always the matter of Maddon not having control over it.  If the regular season comes down to the wire, they may need to just concern themselves with winning the game that's in front of them and the coin flip starter might just be whose spot is next.  Kind of like 1998, where Mark Clark--at best their 4th best starter for the playoffs--started Game 1 of the LDS simply because Tapani and Trachsel had needed to pitch their turn in order for the Cubs to stay alive, and good ole' Terry Mulholland was pitching every damn day in relief.

All true. And depending on how the rotation would line up in the final days of the season, I could see Maddon doing something like letting Lester and Arrieta each go 3-4 innings. They'd be able to ramp it up for, say, 50 pitches and go all-out. Plus it'd give the other team two different looks to deal with.

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

*There's always the matter of Maddon not having control over it.  If the regular season comes down to the wire, they may need to just concern themselves with winning the game that's in front of them and the coin flip starter might just be whose spot is next.  Kind of like 1998, where Mark Clark--at best their 4th best starter for the playoffs--started Game 1 of the LDS simply because Tapani and Trachsel had needed to pitch their turn in order for the Cubs to stay alive, and good ole' Terry Mulholland was pitching every damn day in relief.

All true. And depending on how the rotation would line up in the final days of the season, I could see Maddon doing something like letting Lester and Arrieta each go 3-4 innings. They'd be able to ramp it up for, say, 50 pitches and go all-out. Plus it'd give the other team two different looks to deal with.

I certainly wouldn't put it past that trippy bastard.

[Chuck to Chuck]

By the time the playoffs rolled around, though, Maddux was clearly the ace and he got the Game 1 nod.  

And he shit the bed. He was young. He was scared. Zimmer screwed up those playoffs a great deal. But not starting Sut Game 1 was a bad move.

Hindsight. 

Sutcliffe was their third best pitcher that year and pitched Game 3 (and lost).  Maddux was a two-time All-Star by the time the '89 playoffs rolled around.  If Zimmer was to be criticized for anything it'd be for leaving Bielecki in too long in Game 5, but you're only knocking the decision to start Maddux in Game 1 with the benefit of 25 years of hindsight.  I PROMISE you not a single person questioned that decision at the time.

I did. The day they announced it I said I wanted Sut in game 1 then. Sadly, no internet exists to prove it. And I was two weeks short of starting my banking career so no co-workers to prove how pissed I was about it.

[flannj]

By the time the playoffs rolled around, though, Maddux was clearly the ace and he got the Game 1 nod.  

And he shit the bed. He was young. He was scared. Zimmer screwed up those playoffs a great deal. But not starting Sut Game 1 was a bad move.

Hindsight. 

Sutcliffe was their third best pitcher that year and pitched Game 3 (and lost).  Maddux was a two-time All-Star by the time the '89 playoffs rolled around.  If Zimmer was to be criticized for anything it'd be for leaving Bielecki in too long in Game 5, but you're only knocking the decision to start Maddux in Game 1 with the benefit of 25 years of hindsight.  I PROMISE you not a single person questioned that decision at the time.

I did. The day they announced it I said I wanted Sut in game 1 then. Sadly, no internet exists to prove it. And I was two weeks short of starting my banking career so no co-workers to prove how pissed I was about it.

I agreed with it.
Sutcliffe looked tired and old compared to Maddux. The Bielecki decision was an absolute mistake.
That season and especially the late summer was an incredible roller coaster.

As a side note, Mrs. flannj had pre-term labor and was on bed rest for the last three months of her first pregnancy which coincided with the same last three months of the Cubs season.
Required to relax in a no stress environment monitored by a nurse 4 times a day but she was still watching Mitch Williams pitch.

I love that woman.

[SKO]

I was 13 months old during that NLCS.
I just wanted to point out that you are all really fucking old.

[CBStew]

I was 13 months old during that NLCS.
I just wanted to point out that you are all really fucking old.

I was drafted during WWI, but too old to fight in WWII.  What's your point?

[Bort]

I was 13 months old during that NLCS.
I just wanted to point out that you are all really fucking old.

I was drafted during WWI, but too old to fight in WWII.  What's your point?

Stew still remembers the Maine.

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

I was 13 months old during that NLCS.
I just wanted to point out that you are all really fucking old.

I was drafted during WWI, but too old to fight in WWII.  What's your point?

Are you doing a bit, Stew?  I ask because you would've been too young for WWII and not even alive during WWI.  You don't don't need to exaggerate your age; you're a good twenty years older than the next-oldest moran here--flannj.

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

By the time the playoffs rolled around, though, Maddux was clearly the ace and he got the Game 1 nod.  

And he shit the bed. He was young. He was scared. Zimmer screwed up those playoffs a great deal. But not starting Sut Game 1 was a bad move.

Hindsight. 

Sutcliffe was their third best pitcher that year and pitched Game 3 (and lost).  Maddux was a two-time All-Star by the time the '89 playoffs rolled around.  If Zimmer was to be criticized for anything it'd be for leaving Bielecki in too long in Game 5, but you're only knocking the decision to start Maddux in Game 1 with the benefit of 25 years of hindsight.  I PROMISE you not a single person questioned that decision at the time.

I did. The day they announced it I said I wanted Sut in game 1 then. Sadly, no internet exists to prove it. And I was two weeks short of starting my banking career so no co-workers to prove how pissed I was about it.

Rather than call bullshit--which is my first inclination-- I'll take this at face value and simply point out that you were every bit the counter-intuitive & contradictory walking Ball of Wrong in 1989 that you are today.

[Shooter]

I was 13 months old during that NLCS.
I just wanted to point out that you are all really fucking old Internet Chuck was an insufferable douche long before the Internet became widely available.

[CBStew]

I was 13 months old during that NLCS.
I just wanted to point out that you are all really fucking old.

I was drafted during WWI, but too old to fight in WWII.  What's your point?

Are you doing a bit, Stew?  I ask because you would've been too young for WWII and not even alive during WWI.  You don't don't need to exaggerate your age; you're a good twenty years older than the next-oldest moran here--flannj.

I know that I have the youngest left hip of anyone on this board.

[Brownie]

By the time the playoffs rolled around, though, Maddux was clearly the ace and he got the Game 1 nod.  

And he shit the bed. He was young. He was scared. Zimmer screwed up those playoffs a great deal. But not starting Sut Game 1 was a bad move.

Hindsight. 

Sutcliffe was their third best pitcher that year and pitched Game 3 (and lost).  Maddux was a two-time All-Star by the time the '89 playoffs rolled around.  If Zimmer was to be criticized for anything it'd be for leaving Bielecki in too long in Game 5, but you're only knocking the decision to start Maddux in Game 1 with the benefit of 25 years of hindsight.  I PROMISE you not a single person questioned that decision at the time.

I did. The day they announced it I said I wanted Sut in game 1 then. Sadly, no internet exists to prove it. And I was two weeks short of starting my banking career so no co-workers to prove how pissed I was about it.

Rather than call bullshit--which is my first inclination-- I'll take this at face value and simply point out that you were every bit the counter-intuitive & contradictory walking Ball of Wrong in 1989 that you are today.

Maddux wasn't an All-Star in 1989; Sutcliffe was. Lasorda had Sutcliffe  (whom he hated) pitch two innings in relief of Rick Reuschel in th All-Star Game in Anaheim. Sutcliffe pitched in relief on Sunday (win over L.A.) and went 6 Friday in a win over L.A.

I think Sutcliffe traced his subsequent arm troubles to the week. And we all saw that.

Maddux was the Ace. He should have shut down The Thrill in Game One. Bielecki won Game 2. If Lancaster didn't forget the count....

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

By the time the playoffs rolled around, though, Maddux was clearly the ace and he got the Game 1 nod.  

And he shit the bed. He was young. He was scared. Zimmer screwed up those playoffs a great deal. But not starting Sut Game 1 was a bad move.

Hindsight. 

Sutcliffe was their third best pitcher that year and pitched Game 3 (and lost).  Maddux was a two-time All-Star by the time the '89 playoffs rolled around.  If Zimmer was to be criticized for anything it'd be for leaving Bielecki in too long in Game 5, but you're only knocking the decision to start Maddux in Game 1 with the benefit of 25 years of hindsight.  I PROMISE you not a single person questioned that decision at the time.

I did. The day they announced it I said I wanted Sut in game 1 then. Sadly, no internet exists to prove it. And I was two weeks short of starting my banking career so no co-workers to prove how pissed I was about it.

Rather than call bullshit--which is my first inclination-- I'll take this at face value and simply point out that you were every bit the counter-intuitive & contradictory walking Ball of Wrong in 1989 that you are today.

Maddux wasn't an All-Star in 1989; Sutcliffe was. Lasorda had Sutcliffe  (whom he hated) pitch two innings in relief of Rick Reuschel in th All-Star Game in Anaheim. Sutcliffe pitched in relief on Sunday (win over L.A.) and went 6 Friday in a win over L.A.

I think Sutcliffe traced his subsequent arm troubles to the week. And we all saw that.

Maddux was the Ace. He should have shut down The Thrill in Game One. Bielecki won Game 2. If Lancaster didn't forget the count....

I stand corrected. I had just assumed Maddux was a 2-time All-Star since he busted out in '88 and made the team. I just assumed he made it again in '89.  I had no recollection of  Sutcliffe making the All-Star team in '89. In spite of the fact that Sutcliffe ended up as the #3 starter, I sorta feel like I owe Chuck an apology.

[Bort]

By the time the playoffs rolled around, though, Maddux was clearly the ace and he got the Game 1 nod.  

And he shit the bed. He was young. He was scared. Zimmer screwed up those playoffs a great deal. But not starting Sut Game 1 was a bad move.

Hindsight. 

Sutcliffe was their third best pitcher that year and pitched Game 3 (and lost).  Maddux was a two-time All-Star by the time the '89 playoffs rolled around.  If Zimmer was to be criticized for anything it'd be for leaving Bielecki in too long in Game 5, but you're only knocking the decision to start Maddux in Game 1 with the benefit of 25 years of hindsight.  I PROMISE you not a single person questioned that decision at the time.

I did. The day they announced it I said I wanted Sut in game 1 then. Sadly, no internet exists to prove it. And I was two weeks short of starting my banking career so no co-workers to prove how pissed I was about it.

Rather than call bullshit--which is my first inclination-- I'll take this at face value and simply point out that you were every bit the counter-intuitive & contradictory walking Ball of Wrong in 1989 that you are today.

Maddux wasn't an All-Star in 1989; Sutcliffe was. Lasorda had Sutcliffe  (whom he hated) pitch two innings in relief of Rick Reuschel in th All-Star Game in Anaheim. Sutcliffe pitched in relief on Sunday (win over L.A.) and went 6 Friday in a win over L.A.

I think Sutcliffe traced his subsequent arm troubles to the week. And we all saw that.

Maddux was the Ace. He should have shut down The Thrill in Game One. Bielecki won Game 2. If Lancaster didn't forget the count....

I stand corrected. I had just assumed Maddux was a 2-time All-Star since he busted out in '88 and made the team. I just assumed he made it again in '89.  I had no recollection of  Sutcliffe making the All-Star team in '89. In spite of the fact that Sutcliffe ended up as the #3 starter, I sorta feel like I owe Chuck an apology.

NEVER apologize to Chuck.