Talk:Chicago Cubs

Jim Edmonds

The Cubs have a long history of signing has-beens in the hope they've got something left. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. My poor husband had to listen to me rant for a half hour last night about this signing. Is it wrong to hope Edmonds goes on the disabled list? --Fabrictramp (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess it depends on your personal POV. I don't see why ppl are getting so uptight; I think Edmonds could bring some fresh spark to the lineup. --Cubs Fan (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

We'll see if this turns out to be more significant than the signing of Fred McGriff, for example. Usually, when they pick up one of these guys, it means they're doomed for the year. This kind of thing started with Dizzy Dean, who actually helped them down the stretch in 1938, at the end of the William Wrigley / William Veeck legacy era, but too many times these guys prove to be a detriment. We'll see. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, Edmonds could bring some fresh spark to the line up. So could anyone from AA. He hasn't hit over the league average since 2004, his fielding percentage hasn't been over the league average since 2005.[1] Reed Johnson, who Edmonds is kicking out of CF, has a higher BA, OBP, and SLG this year. So tell me, how is this a good move?--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

What it actually reminds me of, for those old enough to remember, is the Johnny Callison deal of 1970. He was supposed to be some sort of improvement over Don Young. He wasn't. He was a formerly excellent player who was fairly much washed up. This is a bad sign for the Cubs, but we'll see. Maybe he'll turn out to be more like Ron Cey, who was also over the hill when the Cubs got him in 1983, but he was important in their divisional run in 1984. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty to call his newfound er I mean all-time fanbase, "Ed-Heads", a spoof of Deadheads. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  02:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Remember the "Shawon-O-Meter", where someone kept track of Shawon Dunston's meager batting average? Someone needs to make an "Ed-O-Meter" to trace Edmonds average as it attempts to stay above the Mendoza Line. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Edmonds's line with the Cubs this year: .280/.377/.566. A mid-season acquisition's worth is dictated by how he performs with his new team, in this case well above the Mendoza line and very respectable numbers. His numbers before playing with the Cubs this year are inconsequential when determining his value to the Cubs. EchoBravo (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit I'm thrilled to have been proven wrong about the signing. Still, before a player actually plays with his new team, all you have to go by is previous numbers. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I know, and I did not like the signing myself at the time. I've since had to eat a lot of crow . EchoBravo (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

99 vs. 100

For the arithmetically challenged in the audience, the Cubs' World Series drought is 99 years, not 100. 2008 is the 100th anniversary of their last Series win. But the actual anniversary is not until the start of the 2008 World Series. So the actual drought is 99. If and when the Cubs are eliminated from post-season play in 2008, then their drought will stand at 100. To put it another way, they have played 99 full seasons since 1908, that is 1909 through 2007. The drought is 99. It is not 100. Yet. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "Yet". :p --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  15:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Currently they have the best record in baseball. That means little in June. But it's better to be where they are than where, say, the Seattle Mariners are. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Question and Answer

I'm not a contributor, but as a Die-Hard Cubs Fan, I like everything and commend Wikipedia for allowing both information and entertainment content. After all, the subject is baseball, a favorite American past time that includes International interest and participation. This article is very thorough and provides understanding for readers around the world curious about the Chicago Cubs phenomena. In fact, I would ask for another sentence, reference or link regarding alleged managerial mistakes in the 1989 playoff. And, regards the 1984 playoffs, the Cubs did not have lights as yet to play night baseball. I believe this slightly altered the scheduling of the series, but I don't remember how. Exarctly (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a false rumor. The lack of lights in 1984 did not alter the post-season schedule. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It didnt alter the schedule. It would possibly have in the World Series, though. As far as the managerial blunders by Zim, remember that this page only includes a summary of the on-field history. For a more in depth version (which already mentions that) see History of the Chicago Cubs.Wjmummert (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

2008 - Back to Back?

Is it just me, or is that section extemely POV-ish?<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It could use some minor tweaks and references, but it's nothing worth totally extracting. I'll get on it sooner or later. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  05:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

you know, just 2008 might be a better title. its hard to pick a title when it's still so early. i could call it the collapse of 2008, but i prefer optomism.Wjmummert (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if they collapsed, I was going to blame you for jinxing them :p --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  17:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Beware of too much "crystal ball" stuff. Wikipedia frowns on speculation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Was the 'loveable losers' bit ever resolved? --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  16:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)