PDA

View Full Version : Cub Remlinger deal is done


duke of dorwood
12-02-2002, 03:25 PM
Per ESPN 1000. The deal is done for 3 years.

:KW

Just tell me when Free Agents can start signing

cheeses_h_rice
12-02-2002, 03:31 PM
Hate to say it, but the Flubbies are shaping up for 2003. They fill a few more holes in that bullpen, get one more key guy in the infield (Jeff Kent?), and they could possibly contend.

Yes, it is the Flubbies we're talking about, so they'll probably find some way to screw it up...

duke of dorwood
12-02-2002, 04:20 PM
They are filling MUST needs. They are definately a contender in their division. BOY does that hurt.

OneDog
12-02-2002, 04:56 PM
The Cubs will not be contenders. Alou has already broken down numerous times, Sosa has proven that he can't do it alone, Patterson is not a good lead off man, Choi is unproven, Wood could never get it done alone, no one could live up to the hype that the Cubs created for Prior, and even with this new pick up their bullpen still sucks. This Remlinger deal has all the makings of another Rick Aguilera for the Cubbies :D:

Hullett_Fan
12-02-2002, 05:26 PM
The Cubs will not be contenders. Alou has already broken down numerous times, Sosa has proven that he can't do it alone, Patterson is not a good lead off man, Choi is unproven, Wood could never get it done alone, no one could live up to the hype that the Cubs created for Prior, and even with this new pick up their bullpen still sucks.


Unfortunately, I have to disagree. They'll have one of the best starting rotations in baseball, especially if they beat us to Moyer or sign someone else (Maddux???). I wish the Sox had three arms like Wood, Prior and Clement!!! Alou won't be nearly as bad as last season and they'll probably add Pudge (not Fisk) or Kent. I do agree that their bullpen still sucks somewhat.

We need Moyer and Colon before I start to believe we'll contend with the Twinkies.

ozzman
12-02-2002, 05:48 PM
leave it to dusty tho, he'll ruin their starters arms. i remember thinking that clements elbow was going to fall off after seeing slider after slider against us. add a few more innings of that per season and his elbow is gonna pop

DrCrawdad
12-02-2002, 05:55 PM
MacPhail has been “rebuilding” the Cubs for 9 years. What does MacPhail have to show for these nine years of rebuilding? One wild card play-off berth, and what two or three years with a winning record? I get the feeling that MacPhail/Hendry are under the gun to win now or else.

HawkDJ
12-02-2002, 06:00 PM
Hm...Cubs and contenders in the same sentance...just doesn't seem right.

Daver
12-02-2002, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by DrCrawdad
MacPhail has been “rebuilding” the Cubs for 9 years. What does MacPhail have to show for these nine years of rebuilding? One wild card play-off berth, and what two or three years with a winning record? I get the feeling that MacPhail/Hendry are under the gun to win now or else.

But they have found the answer,this is from BP's "Week in Quotes" section:

"If Bobby Knight can go to Texas Tech and get them to play winning basketball, I could, and should, have an effect on winning here...I think of myself as a winner."
--Dusty Baker, Cubs manager

DrCrawdad
12-02-2002, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by daver
But they have found the answer,this is from BP's "Week in Quotes" section:

"If Bobby Knight can go to Texas Tech and get them to play winning basketball, I could, and should, have an effect on winning here...I think of myself as a winner."
--Dusty Baker, Cubs manager

"When you've been spoiled in Atlanta with going to the post-season every year, that plays a part in your decision," said Patrick Gibbons, Remlinger's agent. "Obviously the Cubs haven't been there in a little while, but the direction of the team absolutely played a role in Mike's decision.

"The manager [Dusty Baker] also played a part, no question. And then there was the aggressiveness and sincerity with which they pursued him. A lot of teams said, 'We really like you,' but there are not a lot of offers out there [for any free agents]."

Well there you have it. Proof that All-Star FA's are lining up to sign with the Cubs now that they've got Dusty. The fact that the Cubs were the only team willing to give a 3 year 11 million dollar contract to the 36 year old had nothing to do with it.

DrCrawdad
12-02-2002, 07:22 PM
This signing of the Cubs will no doubt generate a lot of hype but let's not forget that the Sox have a lefty reliever who put up some darn good stats last season.

:kmarte

Daver
12-02-2002, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by DrCrawdad
This signing of the Cubs will no doubt generate a lot of hype but let's not forget that the Sox have a lefty reliever who put up some darn good stats last season.



That didn't look like a picture of Mike Porzio..............

Lip Man 1
12-02-2002, 07:35 PM
I grant you most of what the Cubs do never works out.....but you know what, at least they are TRYING. They do spend $$$ you have to give them that.

Unlike our Sox, who continue to do nothing and then wonder why nobody gives a damn.

Lip

PaleHoseGeorge
12-02-2002, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by DrCrawdad
MacPhail has been “rebuilding” the Cubs for 9 years. What does MacPhail have to show for these nine years of rebuilding? One wild card play-off berth, and what two or three years with a winning record? I get the feeling that MacPhail/Hendry are under the gun to win now or else.

I agree. Baker is the first manager McFail has hired that he won't be able to fire when the team fails.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn McFail is busy calling all his buddies around MLB, tidying up the resume, and generally preparing to get the hell out of Dodge before the posse from Cubune Tower shows up.

:lynch&mcfail
"Hey ol' buddy, Ed! I hope there are no hard feelings! BTW, you wouldn't happen to know anybody in the Texas organization would you?"

OneDog
12-02-2002, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I grant you most of what the Cubs do never works out.....but you know what, at least they are TRYING. They do spend $$$ you have to give them that.

Unlike our Sox, who continue to do nothing and then wonder why nobody gives a damn.

Lip

They try to improve their team through free agency and fail (i.e. Hundley, Alou, and soon Remlinger). We try to improve our team through trades and fail (i.e. Ritchie, and soon whoever KW tries to get next). In the end, the results are the same. Both fans end up crying about it and both front offices laugh all the way to the bank.

Vsahajpal
12-02-2002, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by OneDog
They try to improve their team through free agency and fail (i.e. Hundley, Alou, and soon Remlinger). We try to improve our team through trades and fail (i.e. Ritchie, and soon whoever KW tries to get next). In the end, the results are the same. Both fans end up crying about it and both front offices laugh all the way to the bank.

I wouldn't call Moises a failure just yet. He had an awful first half, but did measuarbly better after the All Star break. If he disappoints next year, I'd label him a free agent failure.

jeremyb1
12-02-2002, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I grant you most of what the Cubs do never works out.....but you know what, at least they are TRYING. They do spend $$$ you have to give them that.

Unlike our Sox, who continue to do nothing and then wonder why nobody gives a damn.

Lip

the cubs have a lot more to spend than we do. they may be spending a much smaller percentage of their incoming revenue than we are or a much larger percentage of their revenue. we don't really know other than that their revenue is significantly greater than ours.

Lip Man 1
12-02-2002, 11:24 PM
jeremy says (notice i'm not using capital letters in his honor!)

the cubs have a lot more to spend than we do.

how do you know that jeremy? have you seen jerry reinsdorf's bank account lately? have you looked at his w-2 forms for the previous five fiscal tax years??

just wondering how you became such a "financial expert"?

uncle jerry has made a FORTUNE owning the bulls and white sox. the bulls for years had one of the lowest payrolls in the nba yet won championship after championship, filling the home arena and raking in money hand over foot from parking, concessions etc.

the sox have what is called "the greatest sweetheart lease" in all of pro sports by john heylar in his book "the lords of the realm." the state PAYS the sox if a certain number of tickets aren't sold each year.

uncle jerry has an incentive NOT TO WIN, and in fact winning could COST him a ton of money because he won't get the state money and he'll have to pay the players more just for winning.

carlton fisk said it best in the pbs documentary "the trouble with baseball" (aired april 1994 / i have a copy) "reinsdorf makes the most money when the team is in contention but DOESN'T win anything..."

i can't prove he's rolling in dough but the circumstancial evidence leans much more towards my side of the arguement (that he is extremely wealthy and has been deliberately shortchanging the sox and their fans) then yours.

(and don't you think not using capital letters looks just plain dumb)

but i forgot, you're the kid who thinks the sox have done very well averaging 83 wins for the past five seasons!

lip

Tragg
12-03-2002, 01:07 AM
Originally posted by duke of dorwood
They are filling MUST needs. They are definately a contender in their division. BOY does that hurt.

What needs are they filling? They get an average catcher from Arizona (I got lambasted hereon for calling him average), another from Milwaukee and Remlinger has been an average-slightly above average pitcher for years. They still have no middle of the infield, their outfield isn't very good, and their pitching is inconsistent (it's really below average - it's just that their young players are so hyped that we just think they are better than they perform). Sure if they get Kent that helps a lot. Now that would be an excellent player - a far cry from what they've done thusfar.

I think some of yall are paranoid - Paul Backo isn't Johnny Bench, he's Paul Backo.

jeremyb1
12-03-2002, 01:34 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
jeremy says (notice i'm not using capital letters in his honor!)

the cubs have a lot more to spend than we do.

how do you know that jeremy? have you seen jerry reinsdorf's bank account lately? have you looked at his w-2 forms for the previous five fiscal tax years??

just wondering how you became such a "financial expert"?

uncle jerry has made a FORTUNE owning the bulls and white sox. the bulls for years had one of the lowest payrolls in the nba yet won championship after championship, filling the home arena and raking in money hand over foot from parking, concessions etc.

the sox have what is called "the greatest sweetheart lease" in all of pro sports by john heylar in his book "the lords of the realm." the state PAYS the sox if a certain number of tickets aren't sold each year.

uncle jerry has an incentive NOT TO WIN, and in fact winning could COST him a ton of money because he won't get the state money and he'll have to pay the players more just for winning.

carlton fisk said it best in the pbs documentary "the trouble with baseball" (aired april 1994 / i have a copy) "reinsdorf makes the most money when the team is in contention but DOESN'T win anything..."

i can't prove he's rolling in dough but the circumstancial evidence leans much more towards my side of the arguement (that he is extremely wealthy and has been deliberately shortchanging the sox and their fans) then yours.

(and don't you think not using capital letters looks just plain dumb)

but i forgot, you're the kid who thinks the sox have done very well averaging 83 wins for the past five seasons!

lip

keep the compliments flowing. i love them.

the only thing i suggested was that the cubs have significantly larger revenue than we do. i think that's more or less indisputable. the cubs draw many many many more fans than we do while charging more for their tickets. they also have more games televised nationally on wgn and have greater tv revenues than we do. also, while i doubt the veracity of the figures released by the commisioners office when contraction was being considered, i think the fact that the cubs were one of three teams in baseball to supposedly stay out of the red in '01 is noteworthy.

your post seems to suggest you think i indicated that i feel that reinsdorf is spending as much as he can or should but you won't find that anywhere in my post. my only point is that the cubs have a 100 million dollar payroll and we have one that is in the 50s i believe and was at 60 million last year. that doesn't mean the cubs want to spend more just because their payroll is higher because their revenue is much higher. i agree with you about the majority of what you said about reinsdorf's unwillingness to spend but the cubs could most likely also spend more than they are going to and still make a ton of money even if they outspend us by 40 million.

Lip Man 1
12-03-2002, 01:14 PM
A few points (Notice I'm using caps again!)

1. According to the Comissioners office the Cubs LOST money the last three seasons

2. The Cubs have NEVER had a 100 million dollar payroll. It's generally about 75 which is why scribs like Mariotti keep dumping on them all the time

3. The Sox payroll last year was about 50 million. It's expected to be about 45 million for the 2003 season. And keep this in mind when you (and others) look at the Sox payroll next year. This is from Tuesday's Chicago Sun Times:

Reports are that Thomas will be paid $5 million next season, though his full $10 million salary will be calculated in the Sox' official payroll listing.

I assume the Sox are doing that so it doesn't look as bad or cause a bigger stink when fans see what is being spent by a team in the 3rd largest market in the country.

Lip

ScottyTheSoxFan
12-03-2002, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by HawkDJ2k2
Hm...Cubs and contenders in the same sentance...just doesn't seem right.

Actually....


The Cardinals are always contenders because they get to play the Cubs alot.