Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >

Have we made it to 100 losses yet?

  • jb95695
  • Starter
  • 172 posts this site

Posted: 9/30/2012 9:36 PM

Have we made it to 100 losses yet? 


Haven't watched a game this year. Just checking my prediction when the season started. The nice thing about being a Cub fan, no stress this time of year.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/1/2012 10:03 AM

Re: Have we made it to 100 losses yet? 


The last Cubs team to lose 100+ games was the 1966 Cubs that had 4 hall of fame players.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/1/2012 12:08 PM

RE: Have we made it to 100 losses yet? 


The standings aren't that hard to find DB
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/1/2012 2:30 PM

RE: Have we made it to 100 losses yet? 


The reason this team got 100 losses (if they do) is because their ace (Garza) got injured at the all-star break, and then they traded Dempster, Maholm, Johnson and Baker. 

At the trade deadline, their record was 43-59, which would have projected to 68 wins. Moreover, in their last 30 days before the trade deadline, they were 19-11, so the addition of Rizzo and some good pitching had given the Cubs a pleasant turn-around.

So yes, the Cubs might finish with 100+ losses, but only because the Cubs did the right thing and traded assets at the trade deadline. The old regime might have ridden out the season with the roster intact, eeking out 70 wins for a better actual record, but then having players walk away at seasons end for nothing and netting the Cubs a draft pick that wasn't as good. Weird as it sounds, finishing with fewer wins was actually much better for the franchise.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/1/2012 2:57 PM

RE: Have we made it to 100 losses yet? 



SportsGoblin wrote: The reason this team got 100 losses (if they do) is because their ace (Garza) got injured at the all-star break, and then they traded Dempster, Maholm, Johnson and Baker. 

At the trade deadline, their record was 43-59, which would have projected to 68 wins. Moreover, in their last 30 days before the trade deadline, they were 19-11, so the addition of Rizzo and some good pitching had given the Cubs a pleasant turn-around.

So yes, the Cubs might finish with 100+ losses, but only because the Cubs did the right thing and traded assets at the trade deadline. The old regime might have ridden out the season with the roster intact, eeking out 70 wins for a better actual record, but then having players walk away at seasons end for nothing and netting the Cubs a draft pick that wasn't as good. Weird as it sounds, finishing with fewer wins was actually much better for the franchise.
It has gotton old comparing what would have Hendry done vs what would Theo do. If Ricketts had told Hendry he wanted to do a complete rebuild and was willing to throw away a few seasons then Hendry would have traded assets at the deadline.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/1/2012 3:25 PM

RE: Have we made it to 100 losses yet? 



cubs2007 wrote:
SportsGoblin wrote: The reason this team got 100 losses (if they do) is because their ace (Garza) got injured at the all-star break, and then they traded Dempster, Maholm, Johnson and Baker. 

At the trade deadline, their record was 43-59, which would have projected to 68 wins. Moreover, in their last 30 days before the trade deadline, they were 19-11, so the addition of Rizzo and some good pitching had given the Cubs a pleasant turn-around.

So yes, the Cubs might finish with 100+ losses, but only because the Cubs did the right thing and traded assets at the trade deadline. The old regime might have ridden out the season with the roster intact, eeking out 70 wins for a better actual record, but then having players walk away at seasons end for nothing and netting the Cubs a draft pick that wasn't as good. Weird as it sounds, finishing with fewer wins was actually much better for the franchise.
It has gotton old comparing what would have Hendry done vs what would Theo do. If Ricketts had told Hendry he wanted to do a complete rebuild and was willing to throw away a few seasons then Hendry would have traded assets at the deadline.
In the final year of Hendry's regime with the Cubs, Hendry spent over slot to load up on minor league talent because that opportunity was going away with the new CBA. So I will grant you that one. He also did overpay to get Samardzija in the 5th round.

Otherwise, however, Hendry was not spending over slot for players and was in fact often drafting players for signability (Hayden Simpson???) in order to have more money for the major league roster. This wasn't because Ricketts told him to. We know this because when Hendry was fired, he was replaced with a guy who would build through the minor league system.

Hendry had been with the Cubs for quite a few years. If his philosophy was to build the team through the farm system, we would have seen a lot more and better prospects in the farm system. Hendry did have some success in his time (3 playoff appearances for the Cubs in 8 years is pretty good), but he benefited from a very-high payroll approach that previous Cubs GMs did not have.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/1/2012 3:47 PM

RE: Have we made it to 100 losses yet? 



SportsGoblin wrote:
 
In the final year of Hendry's regime with the Cubs, Hendry spent over slot to load up on minor league talent because that opportunity was going away with the new CBA. So I will grant you that one. He also did overpay to get Samardzija in the 5th round.

Otherwise, however, Hendry was not spending over slot for players and was in fact often drafting players for signability (Hayden Simpson???) in order to have more money for the major league roster. This wasn't because Ricketts told him to. We know this because when Hendry was fired, he was replaced with a guy who would build through the minor league system.

Hendry had been with the Cubs for quite a few years. If his philosophy was to build the team through the farm system, we would have seen a lot more and better prospects in the farm system. Hendry did have some success in his time (3 playoff appearances for the Cubs in 8 years is pretty good), but he benefited from a very-high payroll approach that previous Cubs GMs did not have.
His philosophy was to do what mgmt told him to do. They told him to spend and some on here would argue that it was McDonough who did the Soriano deal and it was Zell who told him to spend. All I'm saying is Hendry would have built through the farm if that was the direction mgmt wanted him to go.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/1/2012 8:34 PM

Re: Have we made it to 100 losses yet? 


Wouldn't it be just our luck though to lose 100+ games and not come away with the #1 pick.  In most years that gets it done.  Oh well, wait 'til next year.

Last edited 10/1/2012 8:35 PM by KatieCubFan

Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/1/2012 10:37 PM

Re: Have we made it to 100 losses yet? 


It's very hard to do, but the Cubs have hit 100
Reply | Quote
  • cooljay788
  • Franchise Player
  • 1248 posts this site

Posted: 10/1/2012 11:31 PM

Re: Have we made it to 100 losses yet? 


100 losses and counting with 2 garbage games left.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/2/2012 8:17 AM

Re: Have we made it to 100 losses yet? 



cooljay788 wrote: 100 losses and counting with 2 garbage games left.
Only the 3rd time in franchise history to reach 100 losses.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/2/2012 8:38 AM

Re: Have we made it to 100 losses yet? 


Congrats Theo.  I'd like to see a 3rd world championship in Cubs history.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/2/2012 9:26 AM

Re: Have we made it to 100 losses yet? 


Its fine, gotta hit the bottom of the barrel before you reach the top. 

This is about as bad as you can get, outside of next season possibly... but it will eventually turn around and they will start adding winning pieces.

Koyie Hill fanclub - Member #00000001

Reply | Quote
  • cooljay788
  • Franchise Player
  • 1248 posts this site

Posted: 10/2/2012 9:32 AM

Re: Have we made it to 100 losses yet? 


If someone told me 2012 is only the 3rd time in Cub history they got at least 100 losses in a season, I would've laughed when I think about Cub history since 1946.  I thouht the Cubs had a lot more than three 100-loss seasons.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/2/2012 9:48 AM

RE: Have we made it to 100 losses yet? 



cubs2007 wrote: 

His philosophy was to do what mgmt told him to do. They told him to spend and some on here would argue that it was McDonough who did the Soriano deal and it was Zell who told him to spend. All I'm saying is Hendry would have built through the farm if that was the direction mgmt wanted him to go.
Noone told Hendry to sign Milton Bradley. Piniella griped about being too right-handed as a reason for being swept in the playoffs, so Hendry broke the core of a 97-win team to free up the cash to bring in Bradley: a crazy, injury-prone on-base guy that other teams would only sign to 1-yr deals because he was...well, crazy and injury prone. Hendry gives him 3 years and Bradley (1)is crazy, (2)gets injured a lot and (3)is more of an on-base guy than an actual power hitter.

And by the way, Hendry needed that left-handed power bat because his previous attempt to get it was Fukudome, another guy noone told him to get but that he deemed to be his best option for a lefty power bat in the outfield. Oddly enough, the Japanese lefty with no actual MLB at bats didn't have his Japan baseball numbers translate as well as one might hope to MLB. Shocker.

So, sure, Hendry would have built the farm if he were told to, but two things there. (1)shouldn't the GM have the vision and strength of his beliefs to push for what he thinks is the way to win and not just windmill to whatever approach the owner wants and (2)how many more Pies, Pattersons and Hayden Simpsons did you really want?
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/2/2012 9:59 AM

RE: Have we made it to 100 losses yet? 



SportsGoblin wrote:
cubs2007 wrote: 

His philosophy was to do what mgmt told him to do. They told him to spend and some on here would argue that it was McDonough who did the Soriano deal and it was Zell who told him to spend. All I'm saying is Hendry would have built through the farm if that was the direction mgmt wanted him to go.
Noone told Hendry to sign Milton Bradley. Piniella griped about being too right-handed as a reason for being swept in the playoffs, so Hendry broke the core of a 97-win team to free up the cash to bring in Bradley: a crazy, injury-prone on-base guy that other teams would only sign to 1-yr deals because he was...well, crazy and injury prone. Hendry gives him 3 years and Bradley (1)is crazy, (2)gets injured a lot and (3)is more of an on-base guy than an actual power hitter.

And by the way, Hendry needed that left-handed power bat because his previous attempt to get it was Fukudome, another guy noone told him to get but that he deemed to be his best option for a lefty power bat in the outfield. Oddly enough, the Japanese lefty with no actual MLB at bats didn't have his Japan baseball numbers translate as well as one might hope to MLB. Shocker.

So, sure, Hendry would have built the farm if he were told to, but two things there. (1)shouldn't the GM have the vision and strength of his beliefs to push for what he thinks is the way to win and not just windmill to whatever approach the owner wants and (2)how many more Pies, Pattersons and Hayden Simpsons did you really want?
Hendry would not have been a good choice to go through a complete rebuild. All GM's would like the ability to either have a larger budget or the security of their job if they decide to go through a rebuild and develop primarily through the farm.

Pittsburgh just recorded their 20th straight losing system often drafting very high along with signing mid level players and trading at the deadline.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/2/2012 11:41 AM

RE: Have we made it to 100 losses yet? 



cubs2007 wrote:
SportsGoblin wrote:
cubs2007 wrote: 

His philosophy was to do what mgmt told him to do. They told him to spend and some on here would argue that it was McDonough who did the Soriano deal and it was Zell who told him to spend. All I'm saying is Hendry would have built through the farm if that was the direction mgmt wanted him to go.
Noone told Hendry to sign Milton Bradley. Piniella griped about being too right-handed as a reason for being swept in the playoffs, so Hendry broke the core of a 97-win team to free up the cash to bring in Bradley: a crazy, injury-prone on-base guy that other teams would only sign to 1-yr deals because he was...well, crazy and injury prone. Hendry gives him 3 years and Bradley (1)is crazy, (2)gets injured a lot and (3)is more of an on-base guy than an actual power hitter.

And by the way, Hendry needed that left-handed power bat because his previous attempt to get it was Fukudome, another guy noone told him to get but that he deemed to be his best option for a lefty power bat in the outfield. Oddly enough, the Japanese lefty with no actual MLB at bats didn't have his Japan baseball numbers translate as well as one might hope to MLB. Shocker.

So, sure, Hendry would have built the farm if he were told to, but two things there. (1)shouldn't the GM have the vision and strength of his beliefs to push for what he thinks is the way to win and not just windmill to whatever approach the owner wants and (2)how many more Pies, Pattersons and Hayden Simpsons did you really want?
Hendry would not have been a good choice to go through a complete rebuild. All GM's would like the ability to either have a larger budget or the security of their job if they decide to go through a rebuild and develop primarily through the farm.

Pittsburgh just recorded their 20th straight losing system often drafting very high along with signing mid level players and trading at the deadline.
So, you think we are following the Bucs model? Really?
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/2/2012 11:44 AM

RE: Have we made it to 100 losses yet? 



absolutebadger wrote: So, you think we are following the Bucs model? Really?
If some fans really think that is the case then they are completely clueless on what is going on. One example: The Cubs this season have spent $110 million dollars on two players (Soler & Castro) who have not celebrated their 23rd birthday. I don't the Pirates have spent that much on an entire roster the last 20 years LOL!

Last edited 10/2/2012 11:47 AM by PorkChopExpress12

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/2/2012 9:29 PM

Re: Have we made it to 100 losses yet? 



jb95695 wrote: . Just checking my prediction when the season started.
You mean the prediction you made that the Cubs would win four series all year?
http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s...7&t=8929208

You were way off, jackass.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/2/2012 11:26 PM

Re: Have we made it to 100 losses yet? 


Are the players stickin it to dale and the front office during this last homestand? back to back shutouts against the Astros?? Cmon..something is going on here. Last thing we need is a divided clubhouse to end the year.  Actually, what does it matter, the number of guys we should bring back can be counted on one hand haha

Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >