2015 Cubs Offseason: Building a Winner Around David Ross

[Oleg]

Lackey would hardly be my first choice, especially if he expects 3+ years on any contract. But he does have playoff experience and success, which can't be said of any Cubs pitchers save Lester.

Arrieta did throw a shut out in a one game playoff. Am I missing the point?

I guess the point is, he pitched other games after that and didn't look like himself. I'm not trying to say that he can't be relied upon, or trusted, but I wouldn't call the end result of his first go-round a success. I think he'll be more prepared next time, as last year he threw way, way more innings than ever before in his career. Still, it obviously wouldn't hurt to have a playoff-capable starter to bridge the gap between games in which Lester and Arrieta start.

I'm not shilling for Lackey btw. He's too old and past playoff success is not indicative of future playoff success.

Yay!  Kurt is back.  This is a load of gobbledygook.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Lackey would hardly be my first choice, especially if he expects 3+ years on any contract. But he does have playoff experience and success, which can't be said of any Cubs pitchers save Lester.

Arrieta did throw a shut out in a one game playoff. Am I missing the point?

I guess the point is, he pitched other games after that and didn't look like himself. I'm not trying to say that he can't be relied upon, or trusted, but I wouldn't call the end result of his first go-round a success. I think he'll be more prepared next time, as last year he threw way, way more innings than ever before in his career. Still, it obviously wouldn't hurt to have a playoff-capable starter to bridge the gap between games in which Lester and Arrieta start.

I'm not shilling for Lackey btw. He's too old and past playoff success is not indicative of future playoff success.

Okay, now I'm confused.

Focus more on the first part, big guy. Lackey's age could have an impact on how well he pitches later in a season.

[SKO]

Lackey would hardly be my first choice, especially if he expects 3+ years on any contract. But he does have playoff experience and success, which can't be said of any Cubs pitchers save Lester.

Arrieta did throw a shut out in a one game playoff. Am I missing the point?

I guess the point is, he pitched other games after that and didn't look like himself. I'm not trying to say that he can't be relied upon, or trusted, but I wouldn't call the end result of his first go-round a success. I think he'll be more prepared next time, as last year he threw way, way more innings than ever before in his career. Still, it obviously wouldn't hurt to have a playoff-capable starter to bridge the gap between games in which Lester and Arrieta start.

I'm not shilling for Lackey btw. He's too old and past playoff success is not indicative of future playoff success.

Yay!  Kurt is back.  This is a load of gobbledygook.

My favorite was when he sarcastically said "focus on the first part, big boy" to Tonk as though it was the Australian's fault that what Kurt said was gobbledygook and contradicted itself by the next paragraph.

[Saul Goodman]

Lackey would hardly be my first choice, especially if he expects 3+ years on any contract. But he does have playoff experience and success, which can't be said of any Cubs pitchers save Lester.

Arrieta did throw a shut out in a one game playoff. Am I missing the point?

I guess the point is, he pitched other games after that and didn't look like himself. I'm not trying to say that he can't be relied upon, or trusted, but I wouldn't call the end result of his first go-round a success. I think he'll be more prepared next time, as last year he threw way, way more innings than ever before in his career. Still, it obviously wouldn't hurt to have a playoff-capable starter to bridge the gap between games in which Lester and Arrieta start.

I'm not shilling for Lackey btw. He's too old and past playoff success is not indicative of future playoff success.

Yay!  Kurt is back.  This is a load of gobbledygook.

My favorite was when he sarcastically said "focus on the first part, big boy" to Tonk as though it was the Australian's fault that what Kurt said was gobbledygook and contradicted itself by the next paragraph.

If only all of that was in the form of a Photoshop, then maybe we would get it.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Lackey would hardly be my first choice, especially if he expects 3+ years on any contract. But he does have playoff experience and success, which can't be said of any Cubs pitchers save Lester.

Arrieta did throw a shut out in a one game playoff. Am I missing the point?

I guess the point is, he pitched other games after that and didn't look like himself. I'm not trying to say that he can't be relied upon, or trusted, but I wouldn't call the end result of his first go-round a success. I think he'll be more prepared next time, as last year he threw way, way more innings than ever before in his career. Still, it obviously wouldn't hurt to have a playoff-capable starter to bridge the gap between games in which Lester and Arrieta start.

I'm not shilling for Lackey btw. He's too old and past playoff success is not indicative of future playoff success.

Yay!  Kurt is back.  This is a load of gobbledygook.

My favorite was when he sarcastically said "focus on the first part, big boy" to Tonk as though it was the Australian's fault that what Kurt said was gobbledygook and contradicted itself by the next paragraph.

If only all of that was in the form of a Photoshop, then maybe we would get it.

[InternetApex]

Lackey would hardly be my first choice, especially if he expects 3+ years on any contract. But he does have playoff experience and success, which can't be said of any Cubs pitchers save Lester.

Arrieta did throw a shut out in a one game playoff. Am I missing the point?

I guess the point is, he pitched other games after that and didn't look like himself. I'm not trying to say that he can't be relied upon, or trusted, but I wouldn't call the end result of his first go-round a success. I think he'll be more prepared next time, as last year he threw way, way more innings than ever before in his career. Still, it obviously wouldn't hurt to have a playoff-capable starter to bridge the gap between games in which Lester and Arrieta start.

I'm not shilling for Lackey btw. He's too old and past playoff success is not indicative of future playoff success.

Yay!  Kurt is back.  This is a load of gobbledygook.

My favorite was when he sarcastically said "focus on the first part, big boy" to Tonk as though it was the Australian's fault that what Kurt said was gobbledygook and contradicted itself by the next paragraph.

Grow up.

[Canadouche]

Lackey would hardly be my first choice, especially if he expects 3+ years on any contract. But he does have playoff experience and success, which can't be said of any Cubs pitchers save Lester.

Arrieta did throw a shut out in a one game playoff. Am I missing the point?

I guess the point is, he pitched other games after that and didn't look like himself. I'm not trying to say that he can't be relied upon, or trusted, but I wouldn't call the end result of his first go-round a success. I think he'll be more prepared next time, as last year he threw way, way more innings than ever before in his career. Still, it obviously wouldn't hurt to have a playoff-capable starter to bridge the gap between games in which Lester and Arrieta start.

I'm not shilling for Lackey btw. He's too old and past playoff success is not indicative of future playoff success.

Yay!  Kurt is back.  This is a load of gobbledygook.

Hah. Yeah, I have no idea what I want from the Cubs this off season. Well, I know what I want - improved pitching to better their chances of winning again, but I have no idea how they should proceed with it. I don't envy Jebstein at all, because they will either be scrutinized heavily for spending too much on old pitching or for trading too much for young pitching.

[Canadouche]

Lackey would hardly be my first choice, especially if he expects 3+ years on any contract. But he does have playoff experience and success, which can't be said of any Cubs pitchers save Lester.

Arrieta did throw a shut out in a one game playoff. Am I missing the point?

I guess the point is, he pitched other games after that and didn't look like himself. I'm not trying to say that he can't be relied upon, or trusted, but I wouldn't call the end result of his first go-round a success. I think he'll be more prepared next time, as last year he threw way, way more innings than ever before in his career. Still, it obviously wouldn't hurt to have a playoff-capable starter to bridge the gap between games in which Lester and Arrieta start.

I'm not shilling for Lackey btw. He's too old and past playoff success is not indicative of future playoff success.

Yay!  Kurt is back.  This is a load of gobbledygook.

My favorite was when he sarcastically said "focus on the first part, big boy" to Tonk as though it was the Australian's fault that what Kurt said was gobbledygook and contradicted itself by the next paragraph.

Sorry, I apologize for coming across in a douchey way. I didn't call Tonker a "big boy," which would be tremendously condescending and assholeish, but I called him "big guy," and I can see where that might offend him. Not my intention.

I would prefer the Cubs get a pitcher with some success in the playoffs. I don't believe that past success automatically means future success, but it's still better than not knowing at all how a pitcher handles that kind of pressure. I especially don't trust in past success with a pitcher who is in his mid-to-late 30's.

Apologies for any goobledegook. Like I said previously, I don't envy the Cubs for having to make these kinds of decisions. I can see positives and negatives in many different choices, and if I'm posting about one of them that doesn't mean I'm advocating for it.

[PenFoe]

Can we take a break from the over-sensitivity? 

Looking at not Kurt here.

[Oleg]

Lackey would hardly be my first choice, especially if he expects 3+ years on any contract. But he does have playoff experience and success, which can't be said of any Cubs pitchers save Lester.

Arrieta did throw a shut out in a one game playoff. Am I missing the point?

I guess the point is, he pitched other games after that and didn't look like himself. I'm not trying to say that he can't be relied upon, or trusted, but I wouldn't call the end result of his first go-round a success. I think he'll be more prepared next time, as last year he threw way, way more innings than ever before in his career. Still, it obviously wouldn't hurt to have a playoff-capable starter to bridge the gap between games in which Lester and Arrieta start.

I'm not shilling for Lackey btw. He's too old and past playoff success is not indicative of future playoff success.

Yay!  Kurt is back.  This is a load of gobbledygook.

My favorite was when he sarcastically said "focus on the first part, big boy" to Tonk as though it was the Australian's fault that what Kurt said was gobbledygook and contradicted itself by the next paragraph.

Sorry, I apologize for coming across in a douchey way. I didn't call Tonker a "big boy," which would be tremendously condescending and assholeish, but I called him "big guy," and I can see where that might offend him. Not my intention.

I would prefer the Cubs get a pitcher with some success in the playoffs. I don't believe that past success automatically means future success, but it's still better than not knowing at all how a pitcher handles that kind of pressure. I especially don't trust in past success with a pitcher who is in his mid-to-late 30's.

Apologies for any goobledegook. Like I said previously, I don't envy the Cubs for having to make these kinds of decisions. I can see positives and negatives in many different choices, and if I'm posting about one of them that doesn't mean I'm advocating for it.

The gobbledygook part is bolded.  This has nothing to do with Kurt but some sort of a weird idea that professional athletes who have played in front of thousands and tens of thousands of people most of their lives are somehow overcome with the pressure of the post-season.  More often than not, I think, two things contribute to a delta in post-season performance and regular season performance, randomness/small sample size and simply facing better competition.  Just get good pitchers and let the ducks fall into place.

Can we take a break from the over-sensitivity? 

Looking at not Kurt here.

Fuck you.

[PenFoe]

Lackey would hardly be my first choice, especially if he expects 3+ years on any contract. But he does have playoff experience and success, which can't be said of any Cubs pitchers save Lester.

Arrieta did throw a shut out in a one game playoff. Am I missing the point?

I guess the point is, he pitched other games after that and didn't look like himself. I'm not trying to say that he can't be relied upon, or trusted, but I wouldn't call the end result of his first go-round a success. I think he'll be more prepared next time, as last year he threw way, way more innings than ever before in his career. Still, it obviously wouldn't hurt to have a playoff-capable starter to bridge the gap between games in which Lester and Arrieta start.

I'm not shilling for Lackey btw. He's too old and past playoff success is not indicative of future playoff success.

Yay!  Kurt is back.  This is a load of gobbledygook.

My favorite was when he sarcastically said "focus on the first part, big boy" to Tonk as though it was the Australian's fault that what Kurt said was gobbledygook and contradicted itself by the next paragraph.

Sorry, I apologize for coming across in a douchey way. I didn't call Tonker a "big boy," which would be tremendously condescending and assholeish, but I called him "big guy," and I can see where that might offend him. Not my intention.

I would prefer the Cubs get a pitcher with some success in the playoffs. I don't believe that past success automatically means future success, but it's still better than not knowing at all how a pitcher handles that kind of pressure. I especially don't trust in past success with a pitcher who is in his mid-to-late 30's.

Apologies for any goobledegook. Like I said previously, I don't envy the Cubs for having to make these kinds of decisions. I can see positives and negatives in many different choices, and if I'm posting about one of them that doesn't mean I'm advocating for it.

The gobbledygook part is bolded.  This has nothing to do with Kurt but some sort of a weird idea that professional athletes who have played in front of thousands and tens of thousands of people most of their lives are somehow overcome with the pressure of the post-season.  More often than not, I think, two things contribute to a delta in post-season performance and regular season performance, randomness/small sample size and simply facing better competition.  Just get good pitchers and let the ducks fall into place.

Can we take a break from the over-sensitivity? 

Looking at not Kurt here.

Fuck you.

'atta boy, fuckface.

[Oleg]

Lackey would hardly be my first choice, especially if he expects 3+ years on any contract. But he does have playoff experience and success, which can't be said of any Cubs pitchers save Lester.

Arrieta did throw a shut out in a one game playoff. Am I missing the point?

I guess the point is, he pitched other games after that and didn't look like himself. I'm not trying to say that he can't be relied upon, or trusted, but I wouldn't call the end result of his first go-round a success. I think he'll be more prepared next time, as last year he threw way, way more innings than ever before in his career. Still, it obviously wouldn't hurt to have a playoff-capable starter to bridge the gap between games in which Lester and Arrieta start.

I'm not shilling for Lackey btw. He's too old and past playoff success is not indicative of future playoff success.

Yay!  Kurt is back.  This is a load of gobbledygook.

My favorite was when he sarcastically said "focus on the first part, big boy" to Tonk as though it was the Australian's fault that what Kurt said was gobbledygook and contradicted itself by the next paragraph.

Sorry, I apologize for coming across in a douchey way. I didn't call Tonker a "big boy," which would be tremendously condescending and assholeish, but I called him "big guy," and I can see where that might offend him. Not my intention.

I would prefer the Cubs get a pitcher with some success in the playoffs. I don't believe that past success automatically means future success, but it's still better than not knowing at all how a pitcher handles that kind of pressure. I especially don't trust in past success with a pitcher who is in his mid-to-late 30's.

Apologies for any goobledegook. Like I said previously, I don't envy the Cubs for having to make these kinds of decisions. I can see positives and negatives in many different choices, and if I'm posting about one of them that doesn't mean I'm advocating for it.

The gobbledygook part is bolded.  This has nothing to do with Kurt but some sort of a weird idea that professional athletes who have played in front of thousands and tens of thousands of people most of their lives are somehow overcome with the pressure of the post-season.  More often than not, I think, two things contribute to a delta in post-season performance and regular season performance, randomness/small sample size and simply facing better competition.  Just get good pitchers and let the ducks fall into place.

Can we take a break from the over-sensitivity? 

Looking at not Kurt here.

Fuck you.

'atta boy, fuckface.

Thanks for focusing on the important part of that post.

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

I would prefer the Cubs get a pitcher with some success in the playoffs.  

If nothing else, I think you're getting ridden for this sentiment which is defintiely gobbleygook.  

There's no such thing. James Shields had the nickname "Big Game" and he didn't do a thing in last year's postseason.  Jon Lester was masterful in 2 World Series games vs. The Cardinals in 2013, but has had some rough outings.  As we saw this year, in the very same postseason, Arrieta was dominant, and then not so much.

The greatest pitcher of his generation--Greg Maddux--supposedly couldn't pitch in big games, until he did, and won a World Series in 1995.

I actually swing the other way on the issue.  The fact that David Price has a 5.12 ERA in 63 postseason innings makes him more enticing to me, because for any and all good pitchers, that shit will work itself out because David Price is really, really good.  One of these years, Kershaw is likely to go off.  Conversely, you have Madison Bumgarner--who you can say has been nearly flawless in big games to date--and give him a few more postseason appearances and don't be surprised if he gets shelled once or twice.  

Just get good pitchers.  Period.  There's  no such as a "good postseason pitcher".  No pitcher's experience--both successful and unsuccessful--matters a whit.  A good pitcher will be both good and bad in the postseason, over time.

[PenFoe]

I would prefer the Cubs get a pitcher with some success in the playoffs.  

If nothing else, I think you're getting ridden for this sentiment which is defintiely gobbleygook.  

There's no such thing. James Shields had the nickname "Big Game" and he didn't do a thing in last year's postseason.  Jon Lester was masterful in 2 World Series games vs. The Cardinals in 2013, but has had some rough outings.  As we saw this year, in the very same postseason, Arrieta was dominant, and then not so much.

The greatest pitcher of his generation--Greg Maddux--supposedly couldn't pitch in big games, until he did, and won a World Series in 1995.

I actually swing the other way on the issue.  The fact that David Price has a 5.12 ERA in 63 postseason innings makes him more enticing to me, because for any and all good pitchers, that shit will work itself out because David Price is really, really good.  One of these years, Kershaw is likely to go off.  Conversely, you have Madison Bumgarner--who you can say has been nearly flawless in big games to date--and give him a few more postseason appearances and don't be surprised if he gets shelled once or twice.  

Just get good pitchers.  Period.  There's  no such as a "good postseason pitcher".  No pitcher's experience--both successful and unsuccessful--matters a whit.  A good pitcher will be both good and bad in the postseason, over time.

Wasn't Lester that pitcher with success in the playoffs that they got?

[Oleg]

I would prefer the Cubs get a pitcher with some success in the playoffs.  

If nothing else, I think you're getting ridden for this sentiment which is defintiely gobbleygook.  

There's no such thing. James Shields had the nickname "Big Game" and he didn't do a thing in last year's postseason.  Jon Lester was masterful in 2 World Series games vs. The Cardinals in 2013, but has had some rough outings.  As we saw this year, in the very same postseason, Arrieta was dominant, and then not so much.

The greatest pitcher of his generation--Greg Maddux--supposedly couldn't pitch in big games, until he did, and won a World Series in 1995.

I actually swing the other way on the issue.  The fact that David Price has a 5.12 ERA in 63 postseason innings makes him more enticing to me, because for any and all good pitchers, that shit will work itself out because David Price is really, really good.  One of these years, Kershaw is likely to go off.  Conversely, you have Madison Bumgarner--who you can say has been nearly flawless in big games to date--and give him a few more postseason appearances and don't be surprised if he gets shelled once or twice.  

Just get good pitchers.  Period.  There's  no such as a "good postseason pitcher".  No pitcher's experience--both successful and unsuccessful--matters a whit.  A good pitcher will be both good and bad in the postseason, over time.

Six minutes too late. GOODPITCHERFACE!

The gobbledygook part is bolded.  This has nothing to do with Kurt but some sort of a weird idea that professional athletes who have played in front of thousands and tens of thousands of people most of their lives are somehow overcome with the pressure of the post-season.  More often than not, I think, two things contribute to a delta in post-season performance and regular season performance, randomness/small sample size and simply facing better competition.  Just get good pitchers and let the ducks fall into place.