Jump to content

2011 Cubs Thread


Balta1701

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 28, 2011 -> 03:09 PM)
The problem is that you usually don't want the guys who will sign a one year deal.

Maybe, but here's last year's notable FA list that signed 1 yr deals:

 

Jeremy Accardo

Rick Ankiel

Rod Barajas

Erik Bedard

Lance Berkman

Melky Cabrera

Tod Coffey

Johnny Damon

Octavio Dotel

Justin Duchscherer

Kyle Farnsworth

Jeff Francis

Frank Francisco

Jon Garland

Jason Frasor

Vladimir Guerrero

Aaron Harang

Andruw Jones

Hiroki Kuroda

Gerald Laird

Derrek Lee

Fred Lewis

Russell Martin

Hideki Matsui

Hideki Okajima

Lyle Overbay

Carlos Pena

Brad Penny

Joel Peralta

Chad Qualls

Jon Rauch

George Sherrill

Jason Varitek

Javier Vazquez

Kerry Wood

Chris Young

 

They may not be top of the line FA's, but their is some definite talent and production out of that group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 967
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (fathom @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 04:40 PM)
Sox going to face Lopez instead now?

 

Right now there is talk of either 35-year old Lopez or 38-year old Ramon Ortiz. s***, with the BP Cup on the line, how could you not pitch Dempster on 3 days rest. It's the BP Cup for Gods sake!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/20...omics-and-sport

 

“LET'S go watch the Cubs lose!” said the driver last Friday, as the crowded subway car made its way to Chicago’s Wrigley Field for the first of a three-game series between the great cross-town rivals, the Cubs and the White Sox. Half the car groaned; the other half cheered.

 

This kind of banter is the lingua franca of Chicago summers. Like all sports rivalries, it has a civic function; it gives people something to talk about, a channel for feelings that might otherwise go unexpressed, and a sort of shorthand for where they stand. The cultural dimensions of Sox and Cubs fandom are slightly opaque and probably exaggerated, but it seems to be that the Sox, with their Yankees-esque pinstripes and 2005 World Series rings, are grittier. The Cubs have a more cuddly face and the longest losing streak in baseball, having not won the World Series for over a century. Cursed (according to lore) or simply doomed, they happen to be the most lovable losers left in baseball.

 

But watching the game on Friday, I was sceptical. The Cubs have a slightly smaller payroll than the Sox—a typical indicator of underdog status—but they’re still one of the most expensive teams in baseball. My favourite player on either team was Juan Pierre of the White Sox. “He’s pesky,” my brother said, explaining that although Mr Pierre is not one of the sport’s celebrities, he’s a reliable hitter, a fast runner, and quick to steal a base when the chance comes up. Mr Pierre turned out to be as pesky as billed; he was busy the whole game and hit a two-run triple in the seventh inning, bringing the Sox to a 6-4 victory. The next day the papers would herald the “unlikely hero.” By contrast the highly paid Cubs star Alfonso Soriano, loitered around left field looking at a fly ball that eventually landed fair.

 

It raises the question: does a team become a lovable loser simply because it loses? Is there something about losing that is inherently lovable? In a recent book called “Scorecasting”, Tobias Moskowitz and Jon Wertheim consider such “hidden influences” on how sports are played and won. In particular, they examine the effect of “loss aversion”—the tendency to care more about avoiding a loss than about making a similar-sized gain—on decision-making by players and officials. As The Economist explained earlier this year, Tiger Woods, for example, is more likely to hole a putt to save a par than to make a birdie.

 

Is something similar going on with spectators? To pick a team that is known to lose is technically to anticipate a loss, but in a manageable, predictable way. There is no real loss to avoid; a win would merely be an unexpected bonus. Backing a more successful team raises the stakes by making wins just as viable as losses, so losing is more of a loss.

 

Teams like the Cubs give people a safe space in which to lose. Fans get the benefits of commiseration without incurring any real costs. The predictable losers also allow other teams to win. So really the Sox fans should be grateful for the Cubs. Such losers may not be so lovable on scrutiny, but their ineptitude has an extra civic function: they take one for the team. They’re a sacrifice fly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (WHarris1 @ Jul 13, 2011 -> 04:09 PM)
Apparently it is a fake account, I don't f***in know

yeah who knows, would be weird if someone had a fake account since January and then all of a sudden decided today and Aramis Ramirez was the way to get attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 12:55 PM)
I feel like that's pretty much a normal game for him except no one swung.

 

I remember hearing either Steve Stone or Ed Farmer say that you could go to the plate without a bat and most of the time count on him throwing 4 balls before he throws 3 strikes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...