Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
35thstreetswarm

Cubs 2020

Recommended Posts

Happy to start this as an unapologetic member of the "I care about how we do as compared to our crosstown rival even though I fully recognize they're not in our league or division" club.  Will the Cubs continue their now-clear downward trendline, or will the pretty-intact core of a former World Series team rebound?  Will Bryant get traded?  Will the crosstown series become fun again? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 35thstreetswarm said:

Happy to start this as an unapologetic member of the "I care about how we do as compared to our crosstown rival even though I fully recognize they're not in our league or division" club.  Will the Cubs continue their now-clear downward trendline, or will the pretty-intact core of a former World Series team rebound?  Will Bryant get traded?  Will the crosstown series become fun again? 

I don't think Bryant gets traded until around mid-season. Team needs a leadoff hitter (saw the 2019 stats yesterday...ugly), another SP (maybe 2), and I believe they lost 6 relievers from last year. They didn't really make any major additions. Compared to the rest of the division, they have to be the 4th best team right? 3rd at best? Although, every team seems flawed in some way.

Edited by soxfan2014

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best case scenario....the Sox battle for the AL Central crown while the Cubbies battle the Pirates to stay out of the cellar in the NL Central

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, soxfan49 said:

I hate the Cubs

Me too.  If nothing else I hope I get to return to watching my Cub fan friends hate us right back, all while bending over backwards to appear not to (a time-honored Cub fan tradition).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the Crosstown Series will ever be "fun" until they stop these 2 game series right in the middle of the work week bullshit. They should play each other at least twice a year and they should both be 3 or 4 game weekend series in my opinion. The games would count a lot more and fans would be more into it.

I wish it was more of a rivalry. So much potential especially with the Sox starting to become good. But because of the mere fact they barely play each other, there isn't much to look forward to.

It's just dumb the way it's set up now. Huge marketing potential just being thrown to the wayside. Same thing with the rest of the schedule with how often they play divisional opponents and how little they play the rest of the league. Baseball would be so much more enjoyable to all fans, hardcore and casual, if they played more teams more often,  especially teams like the Cubs.

Edited by ScooterMcGee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ScooterMcGee said:

I don't think the Crosstown Series will ever be "fun" until they stop these 2 game series right in the middle of the work week bullshit. They should play each other at least twice a year and they should both be 3 or 4 game weekend series in my opinion. The games would count a lot more and fans would be more into it.

They did it that way for years. Twice a year and every series was Friday, Saturday and Sunday. The thing is that these games are always guaranteed sell-outs. So they decided instead of wasting a sell-out on a weekend when they know they are going to sell more tickets anyway, they moved them to mid-week games instead. How often during the year do they sell-out a random Tuesday night game?

15 hours ago, ScooterMcGee said:

I wish it was more of a rivalry. So much potential especially with the Sox starting to become good. But because of the mere fact they barely play each other, there isn't much to look forward to.

The only way it would be more of a rivalry would be if they played in the same division. As it is now, I think the novelty has worn off quite a bit. They aren't much more than just another NL team at this point. Sure there is a little bit of bragging rights but I'd much rather lose all 4 games to the Cubs and win the season series vs. any or all of the ALC teams.

15 hours ago, ScooterMcGee said:

It's just dumb the way it's set up now. Huge marketing potential just being thrown to the wayside. Same thing with the rest of the schedule with how often they play divisional opponents and how little they play the rest of the league. Baseball would be so much more enjoyable to all fans, hardcore and casual, if they played more teams more often,  especially teams like the Cubs.

I actually agree with this. I wish they played the other teams more often instead of just rotating through each NL division every year. I'd like to see them play the Diamondbacks and the Cardinals and the Braves all in one year rather than play the Tigers and Royals 19 times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Iwritecode said:

They did it that way for years. Twice a year and every series was Friday, Saturday and Sunday. The thing is that these games are always guaranteed sell-outs. So they decided instead of wasting a sell-out on a weekend when they know they are going to sell more tickets anyway, they moved them to mid-week games instead. How often during the year do they sell-out a random Tuesday night game?

The only way it would be more of a rivalry would be if they played in the same division. As it is now, I think the novelty has worn off quite a bit. They aren't much more than just another NL team at this point. Sure there is a little bit of bragging rights but I'd much rather lose all 4 games to the Cubs and win the season series vs. any or all of the ALC teams.

I actually agree with this. I wish they played the other teams more often instead of just rotating through each NL division every year. I'd like to see them play the Diamondbacks and the Cardinals and the Braves all in one year rather than play the Tigers and Royals 19 times.

1. I always kinda liked the unbalanced schedule. Yeah you get stuck playing the bad teams in your division 19 times per year but it also sets up some interesting rivalries and results. The White Sox inability to beat the Twins in the early 2000s - that mattered far more and knocked the White Sox out of the playoffs a couple times because one team handled the rivalry. The 05 chase for the pennant was a chase because the White Sox had to play the Indians a ton. Last year the Indians handled the Tigers and that almost single handedly kept them in the playoff race. 

2. Yeah, playing more of the opposing league every year would be a worthy reason to cut some of those games.

3. I'm now at the point where I'd be open to the Cubs and Sox being in the same division and think it would be entertaining. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iWiN4PreP said:

Let's go cubs, I hope our Chicago faithful do well on both sides of town!

I hope they cease to exist

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎19‎/‎2020 at 7:16 AM, caulfield12 said:

Looks like the Comcast deal to carry Marquee or not will come down to Opening Day...

The Cubs really seem to be waging a multi-front war on their fans over the last couple seasons.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, soxfan49 said:

I hate the Cubs

Well, I guess we can agree on something....🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Find it amusing that the Cubs, rather than cancelling their game today like everyone else, pushed the start time back six hours.  Treat a meaningless spring training game like its a playoff game.  Apparently don't have any alternative programming for Marquee?  Wonder how Oakland felt about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate it when the Sox lose to the Cubs and love it when they win. But I agree with IWriteCode. The novelty has worn off of the Crosstown Series. I really believe that the rivalry between the two teams is off the field, not on. I just don't see the point of getting all wound up over a handful of games during a 162-game season. Back in 1999, the Sox swept the Cubs in a three-game series at Wrigley, and we Sox fans gloated. Then the Sox played under .500 for the rest of the season. That puts things in perspective. Meanwhile, I am more concerned about the Sox finally turning things around than anything the Cubs are doing although I would like to see that Disneyland venture collapse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Bloomberg Businessweek published a story Thursday about RSN woes and noted Marquee is paying the Cubs $132 million this season, about twice of what NBC Sports Chicago paid the Cubs last year, which piqued some interest around Chicagoland. What was unclear is how that money is divvied up between the Cubs and Sinclair and whether it’s just an accounting trick for the former. Last season, I was told the Cubs were looking at a year-to-year increase of less than 10 percent in rights fees in 2020 when you included their share of NBC Sports Chicago profits (and I assume all the costs of setting up the network) into the conversation.”

 

This according to an Athletic piece...of course, it’s also without Comcast, Dish and YouTube.TV as part of the Marquee network, so it’s not clear if that $132 million is fixed or could be increased.

Edited by caulfield12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When we were going for it and failing every year, the Cubs were an interesting example of what to do (rebuild and win).

Now that we have rebuilt and are poised to win, the Cubs look like a "What not to do" on the back end. 

They ignored pitching, spent on the wrong free agents and are now looking at a potential early window closure. I have to think we're in somewhat better shape in terms of long term success thanks to Hahn's signing our guys earlier.

If Hahn can sign Moncada, I feel extremely positive about this organization for a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Eloy Jiménez said:

When we were going for it and failing every year, the Cubs were an interesting example of what to do (rebuild and win).

Now that we have rebuilt and are poised to win, the Cubs look like a "What not to do" on the back end. 

They ignored pitching, spent on the wrong free agents and are now looking at a potential early window closure. I have to think we're in somewhat better shape in terms of long term success thanks to Hahn's signing our guys earlier.

If Hahn can sign Moncada, I feel extremely positive about this organization for a long time.

If the White Sox make the playoffs 4 straight years, reaching the ALCS 2x, winning 1 trophy, and then losing in 1 WC round, before either guys get too expensive or injuries and performance issues start piling up, I will consider this rebuild an unmitigated success and congratulate Rick Hahn on his adroit trades and free agent spending.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

If the White Sox make the playoffs 4 straight years, reaching the ALCS 2x, winning 1 trophy, and then losing in 1 WC round, before either guys get too expensive or injuries and performance issues start piling up, I will consider this rebuild an unmitigated success and congratulate Rick Hahn on his adroit trades and free agent spending.

I think that's why the poster wrote "what not to do on the back end."  The whole "Cubs won a World Series and I'd be happy with a World Series" post kind of goes without saying [typing?] at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very few teams have ever successfully dealt with that issue of complacency and/or wear and tear on the pitching staff from postseason play.

The Giants and Red Sox are perhaps the two most successful overall, but winning it all inevitably changes motivation and brings about a sense of malaise, a lot of times brought about by off-field distractions.  

(The Dodgers, too, but they have’t won it all....Astros’ grievances aside.)

For whatever reasons, basketball and football teams have been more successful at mitigating these factors. 

Edited by caulfield12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, 35thstreetswarm said:

I think that's why the poster wrote "what not to do on the back end."  The whole "Cubs won a World Series and I'd be happy with a World Series" post kind of goes without saying [typing?] at this point.

What I wish people would understand is that the Cubs don't win that world series without making decisions that bit them in the arse, and it's the same decision making process that we'll have to do. 

The Cubs wound up with a terrible contract in Heyward and they could have won that title without him (assuming it wasn't a $100 million speech). But they could not have won that title without Lester and Zobrist. If you're too scared to get yourself locked into a bad, long-term deal like Heyward, you don't sign the long-term deals that were absolutely key for them.

And yes, their moves since then have backfired, but the alternative in some of those cases was missing the playoffs entirely. let's work through one example to illustrate. Yes, Yu Darvish has been a bad contract, but would the Cubs have been particularly happy with Arrieta's contract? I guess Lance Lynn was better in 2019 but that 2018 season you'd have hated, and those were the top performing starting pitchers of that free agent market outside of Sabathia (who wasn't leaving NY). So you're going into 2018, you've made the playoffs 3 years in a row, you need pitching because a guy has hit free agency, what do you do? Do you just say you're not going to get a starter and say you're ok with missing the playoffs in 2018 and it's time to rebuild again? Do you sign Michael Pineda and hope for the best? Or do you give big money to a guy who has a good chance of not living up to that contract?

There's no easy answer here without hindsight. Yes Darvish was a bad contract, but they all were that offseason. You can make this same logic with any number of their moves. Standing idle would have been better, but it is a great path to being passed by the next team up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

What I wish people would understand is that the Cubs don't win that world series without making decisions that bit them in the arse, and it's the same decision making process that we'll have to do. 

The Cubs wound up with a terrible contract in Heyward and they could have won that title without him (assuming it wasn't a $100 million speech). But they could not have won that title without Lester and Zobrist. If you're too scared to get yourself locked into a bad, long-term deal like Heyward, you don't sign the long-term deals that were absolutely key for them.

And yes, their moves since then have backfired, but the alternative in some of those cases was missing the playoffs entirely. let's work through one example to illustrate. Yes, Yu Darvish has been a bad contract, but would the Cubs have been particularly happy with Arrieta's contract? I guess Lance Lynn was better in 2019 but that 2018 season you'd have hated, and those were the top performing starting pitchers of that free agent market outside of Sabathia (who wasn't leaving NY). So you're going into 2018, you've made the playoffs 3 years in a row, you need pitching because a guy has hit free agency, what do you do? Do you just say you're not going to get a starter and say you're ok with missing the playoffs in 2018 and it's time to rebuild again? Do you sign Michael Pineda and hope for the best? Or do you give big money to a guy who has a good chance of not living up to that contract?

There's no easy answer here without hindsight. Yes Darvish was a bad contract, but they all were that offseason. You can make this same logic with any number of their moves. Standing idle would have been better, but it is a great path to being passed by the next team up.

What?

So the Cubs don't give a bad contract to Heyward if they don't give a good contract to Lester? What in the world.....?

No where does it say if you give good contracts, you're required to give bad 100+ million dollar contracts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

What I wish people would understand is that the Cubs don't win that world series without making decisions that bit them in the arse, and it's the same decision making process that we'll have to do. 

The Cubs wound up with a terrible contract in Heyward and they could have won that title without him (assuming it wasn't a $100 million speech). But they could not have won that title without Lester and Zobrist. If you're too scared to get yourself locked into a bad, long-term deal like Heyward, you don't sign the long-term deals that were absolutely key for them.

And yes, their moves since then have backfired, but the alternative in some of those cases was missing the playoffs entirely. let's work through one example to illustrate. Yes, Yu Darvish has been a bad contract, but would the Cubs have been particularly happy with Arrieta's contract? I guess Lance Lynn was better in 2019 but that 2018 season you'd have hated, and those were the top performing starting pitchers of that free agent market outside of Sabathia (who wasn't leaving NY). So you're going into 2018, you've made the playoffs 3 years in a row, you need pitching because a guy has hit free agency, what do you do? Do you just say you're not going to get a starter and say you're ok with missing the playoffs in 2018 and it's time to rebuild again? Do you sign Michael Pineda and hope for the best? Or do you give big money to a guy who has a good chance of not living up to that contract?

There's no easy answer here without hindsight. Yes Darvish was a bad contract, but they all were that offseason. You can make this same logic with any number of their moves. Standing idle would have been better, but it is a great path to being passed by the next team up.

I agree that we'll have to make the same *types* of decisions that the Cubs did.  I just hope we'll make better ones.  I think the knock on the Cubs is they traded the wrong prospects (though tough to know if the deals would've been available at the time for different prospects) and signed the wrong free agents (e.g. Heyward).  Not that they should've just avoided trades and the free agent market altogether. 

And the Darvish example aside, it's not like there weren't better moves available at many points along the way - they likely could've had Verlander, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×