Jason Heyward to CUBS!!!

[Sammy Sofa]

This is dumb. Let's stop.

[Banedon]

This argument is dumb. Lets all laugh at the funny gif instead.

[Cubbie Swagger]

I'm just glad to find out that you guys apparently agree with me. That's the silver lining here.

[David]

I'm just glad to find out that you guys apparently agree with me. That's the silver lining here.

Did you think anyone here actually sits around not caring about what happens in the playoff games just because they know the results don't really say a whole lot about the quality of the team?

Sports fandom is irrational by nature so reconciling these seemingly conflicting concepts is nothing. Billy Beane knew the playoffs were mostly out of control and random but he still wanted more than hell to win a WS. The 2016 Cubs might be the best team in baseball, tear through the schedule and win more games than any of us have seen (and anyone in the league) and we still have around an 85% chance of feeling like crap after our last game.

We can know that the outcome in the playoffs doesn't really "mean" a lot about how good they are or how well they played baseball that year and still care way too much about them.

[Banedon]

Basically there's varying degress of success at anything. And the Cubs achieved a higher level of success than any of us had experienced in a very long time. There's plenty of reason to both celebrate that, and strive for more.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Basically there's varying degress of success at anything. And the Cubs achieved a higher level of success than any of us had experienced in a very long time. There's plenty of reason to both celebrate that, and strive for more.

That sounds like loser talk.

[Cubbie Swagger]

I'm just glad to find out that you guys apparently agree with me. That's the silver lining here.

Did you think anyone here actually sits around not caring about what happens in the playoff games just because they know the results don't really say a whole lot about the quality of the team?

Sports fandom is irrational by nature so reconciling these seemingly conflicting concepts is nothing. Billy Beane knew the playoffs were mostly out of control and random but he still wanted more than hell to win a WS. The 2016 Cubs might be the best team in baseball, tear through the schedule and win more games than any of us have seen (and anyone in the league) and we still have around an 85% chance of feeling like crap after our last game.

We can know that the outcome in the playoffs doesn't really "mean" a lot about how good they are or how well they played baseball that year and still care way too much about them.

No. Absolutely not. I never said that. I feel like we aren't on the same page here at all.

Let me try to summarize my point in as few words as possible: Like I said before, if this core does not win a World Series, this whole thing overall will not be looked at as a success.

Hypothetically, let's say that the Cubs win 5 straight division titles and make it to the NLCS in each of those 5 years, but never reach the World Series. Our core starts to break up. They get huge offers from other teams, and they leave. Maddon retires. Theo moves on. We go back to sucking. Everyone will say, "See, it's never going to happen". We will look back and feel like this was the best chance we are ever going to have. The 107 year drought might not mean anything from a logical perspective, but like you said, the whole concept of caring about sports is not logical. It is a big deal to a lot of people, even if it shouldn't be.

[Sammy Sofa]

What some people were pointing out is that specifically the 107 year thing is ultimately irrelevant to them; at some point it just becomes "you haven't won a WS in a really long time" or "they haven't won one while I've been alive." I was born in 1979, and 1908 might as well be 1978. 107 years isn't a specific stigma; the "stigma" is simply that they haven't been to a WS in a really long time and haven't won one in an even longer period of time. Every Cubs fan cares about this; it's just that lot of us don't care about the specifics of something like "IT'S BEEN 107 YEARS!!!" or look at anything less than a WS win as a failure.

[minnesotacubsfan]

this has been making cubs twitter rounds today

Wow they treat Heyward like he's their dog. What [expletive]. Who wouldn't want to "carry that torch" for a bunch of jagoffs

[minnesotacubsfan]

2015 Cubs = FAILURE

You must be pretty bad at reading comprehension.

You're pretty bad at getting things.

No, he's just an idiot. Let's talk instead of how great JaHey is

[UMFan83]

this has been making cubs twitter rounds today

Wow they treat Heyward like he's their dog. What [expletive]. Who wouldn't want to "carry that torch" for a bunch of jagoffs

"Yeah hes a great guy, great teammate, good friend, but he's a giant [expletive] who doesn't have the stuff to be a great Cardinal"

[minnesotacubsfan]

I wouldn't want to play on a team full of [expletive] like that either

[CubsWin]

I'm sure in 71 pages of comments, this has been posted already, but if it has, it's worth another look.
https://youtu.be/TXQ2AzTAfe8

[Felix Leiter]

What some people were pointing out is that specifically the 107 year thing is ultimately irrelevant to them; at some point it just becomes "you haven't won a WS in a really long time" or "they haven't won one while I've been alive." I was born in 1979, and 1908 might as well be 1978. 107 years isn't a specific stigma; the "stigma" is simply that they haven't been to a WS in a really long time and haven't won one in an even longer period of time. Every Cubs fan cares about this; it's just that lot of us don't care about the specifics of something like "IT'S BEEN 107 YEARS!!!" or look at anything less than a WS win as a failure.

1979, huh? This explains alot of your diatribes.

For any Cub fan to discount the '107 year drought' is wrong. Baseball is the one sport where we look to the past for many aspects like records, great ballplayers, great plays, etc...We celebrate losing. We hold up '69 and '04 like others celebrate WS wins. To not understand the history of the team, because one was born in 1979, and care about it deeply is quite narrow-minded and myopic.

[Felix Leiter]

Get off my lawn!

[Janelle-Alexis]

1979, huh? This explains alot of your diatribes.

For any Cub fan to discount the '107 year drought' is wrong. Baseball is the one sport where we look to the past for many aspects like records, great ballplayers, great plays, etc...We celebrate losing. We hold up '69 and '04 like others celebrate WS wins. To not understand the history of the team, because one was born in 1979, and care about it deeply is quite narrow-minded and myopic.

Meh. I was born in 1990 and didn't become a fan until I moved to America in 2004. Steve Bartman and Alex Gonzalez are just old myths to me. I can't even care a little bit about them much less all the things you want me to feel bad about.

[craig]

I don't think it matters to the players whether it's 47, 80, 107, or 130 years. It's a long time.

For fans, it's been a long time, and there's the stigma of losing.

I think it's cool how Theo and Hoyer have clearly been actively and intentionally selling this, as the last and greatest quest in sports. Not as a cloud that hangs over the franchise and the fan base, but as a holy grail, a great heroes quest.

[Banedon]

What some people were pointing out is that specifically the 107 year thing is ultimately irrelevant to them; at some point it just becomes "you haven't won a WS in a really long time" or "they haven't won one while I've been alive." I was born in 1979, and 1908 might as well be 1978. 107 years isn't a specific stigma; the "stigma" is simply that they haven't been to a WS in a really long time and haven't won one in an even longer period of time. Every Cubs fan cares about this; it's just that lot of us don't care about the specifics of something like "IT'S BEEN 107 YEARS!!!" or look at anything less than a WS win as a failure.

1979, huh? This explains alot of your diatribes.

For any Cub fan to discount the '107 year drought' is wrong. Baseball is the one sport where we look to the past for many aspects like records, great ballplayers, great plays, etc...We celebrate losing. We hold up '69 and '04 like others celebrate WS wins. To not understand the history of the team, because one was born in 1979, and care about it deeply is quite narrow-minded and myopic.

Nah. It's just life. 107 years...1007 years....meh, it's a long damn time. I don't hold up 1969 as anything. I have no great attachment to any of those players other than Banks and Santo, because of their visibility during the times when I've watched the Cubs.

We look back fondly on 2004 because we watched it...it does nothing to prove your point here.

[David]

What some people were pointing out is that specifically the 107 year thing is ultimately irrelevant to them; at some point it just becomes "you haven't won a WS in a really long time" or "they haven't won one while I've been alive." I was born in 1979, and 1908 might as well be 1978. 107 years isn't a specific stigma; the "stigma" is simply that they haven't been to a WS in a really long time and haven't won one in an even longer period of time. Every Cubs fan cares about this; it's just that lot of us don't care about the specifics of something like "IT'S BEEN 107 YEARS!!!" or look at anything less than a WS win as a failure.

1979, huh? This explains alot of your diatribes.

For any Cub fan to discount the '107 year drought' is wrong. Baseball is the one sport where we look to the past for many aspects like records, great ballplayers, great plays, etc...We celebrate losing. We hold up '69 and '04 like others celebrate WS wins. To not understand the history of the team, because one was born in 1979, and care about it deeply is quite narrow-minded and myopic.

Lol you realize that 1979 probably makes him one of the older people here right, you old coot?

And yeah, sorry, I know all about the history of this team but the 90 years prior to me following them mean little as far as adding to the misery or joy for me. And "celebrate losing?" What the [expletive]? No.

[Felix Leiter]

What some people were pointing out is that specifically the 107 year thing is ultimately irrelevant to them; at some point it just becomes "you haven't won a WS in a really long time" or "they haven't won one while I've been alive." I was born in 1979, and 1908 might as well be 1978. 107 years isn't a specific stigma; the "stigma" is simply that they haven't been to a WS in a really long time and haven't won one in an even longer period of time. Every Cubs fan cares about this; it's just that lot of us don't care about the specifics of something like "IT'S BEEN 107 YEARS!!!" or look at anything less than a WS win as a failure.

1979, huh? This explains alot of your diatribes.

For any Cub fan to discount the '107 year drought' is wrong. Baseball is the one sport where we look to the past for many aspects like records, great ballplayers, great plays, etc...We celebrate losing. We hold up '69 and '04 like others celebrate WS wins. To not understand the history of the team, because one was born in 1979, and care about it deeply is quite narrow-minded and myopic.

Lol you realize that 1979 probably makes him one of the older people here right, you old coot?

And yeah, sorry, I know all about the history of this team but the 90 years prior to me following them mean little as far as adding to the misery or joy for me. And "celebrate losing?" What the [expletive]? No.

Old coot? I would respond back but my walker hit my iron lung and fell over on my Matthew Brady tintypes of President Lincoln.

The fact that you have spent hundreds of hours and thousands of postings on a web forum which supports a team that hasn't won a WS in 107 years and yet you come back every day. You're not walking away from the Cubs, you're embracing them for what they are. Me too.

[Backtobanks]

What some people were pointing out is that specifically the 107 year thing is ultimately irrelevant to them; at some point it just becomes "you haven't won a WS in a really long time" or "they haven't won one while I've been alive." I was born in 1979, and 1908 might as well be 1978. 107 years isn't a specific stigma; the "stigma" is simply that they haven't been to a WS in a really long time and haven't won one in an even longer period of time. Every Cubs fan cares about this; it's just that lot of us don't care about the specifics of something like "IT'S BEEN 107 YEARS!!!" or look at anything less than a WS win as a failure.

1979, huh? This explains alot of your diatribes.

For any Cub fan to discount the '107 year drought' is wrong. Baseball is the one sport where we look to the past for many aspects like records, great ballplayers, great plays, etc...We celebrate losing. We hold up '69 and '04 like others celebrate WS wins. To not understand the history of the team, because one was born in 1979, and care about it deeply is quite narrow-minded and myopic.

Nah. It's just life. 107 years...1007 years....meh, it's a long damn time. I don't hold up 1969 as anything. I have no great attachment to any of those players other than Banks and Santo, because of their visibility during the times when I've watched the Cubs.

We look back fondly on 2004 because we watched it...it does nothing to prove your point here.

Some of us watched in 1969 as well as quite a few years before 1969.

[Sammy Sofa]

To not understand the history of the team, because one was born in 1979, and care about it deeply is quite narrow-minded and myopic.

Of course we all "understand the history of the team;" it's like every time you reply to someone's post you respond to what you think was written as opposed to what was actually written. What I'm saying is that for a lot of Cubs fans it simply comes down to the Cubs not having won or been to a WS in their lifetime; if someone makes fun of the Cubs or for me being a fan of the Cubs because they haven't won since '08 or haven't been since '45, ultimately that has the same impact on me as if they hadn't won since, say '72 and hadn't been since '78. It doesn't "hurt more" for a lot of us just because they haven't won since 1908; the frustration (and, in a way, devotion) stems from not having seen it in our lives. When it last happened before we were alive or before we became Cubs fans is largely irrelevant to some of the fans, myself included. I don't view the overall drought as some kind of stigma that's worse than the simple fact *I* haven't seen it happen.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

What some people were pointing out is that specifically the 107 year thing is ultimately irrelevant to them; at some point it just becomes "you haven't won a WS in a really long time" or "they haven't won one while I've been alive." I was born in 1979, and 1908 might as well be 1978. 107 years isn't a specific stigma; the "stigma" is simply that they haven't been to a WS in a really long time and haven't won one in an even longer period of time. Every Cubs fan cares about this; it's just that lot of us don't care about the specifics of something like "IT'S BEEN 107 YEARS!!!" or look at anything less than a WS win as a failure.

1979, huh? This explains alot of your diatribes.

For any Cub fan to discount the '107 year drought' is wrong. Baseball is the one sport where we look to the past for many aspects like records, great ballplayers, great plays, etc...We celebrate losing. We hold up '69 and '04 like others celebrate WS wins. To not understand the history of the team, because one was born in 1979, and care about it deeply is quite narrow-minded and myopic.

Nah. It's just life. 107 years...1007 years....meh, it's a long damn time. I don't hold up 1969 as anything. I have no great attachment to any of those players other than Banks and Santo, because of their visibility during the times when I've watched the Cubs.

We look back fondly on 2004 because we watched it...it does nothing to prove your point here.

Some of us watched in 1969 as well as quite a few years before 1969.

We get it, you're old as [expletive].

[David]

What some people were pointing out is that specifically the 107 year thing is ultimately irrelevant to them; at some point it just becomes "you haven't won a WS in a really long time" or "they haven't won one while I've been alive." I was born in 1979, and 1908 might as well be 1978. 107 years isn't a specific stigma; the "stigma" is simply that they haven't been to a WS in a really long time and haven't won one in an even longer period of time. Every Cubs fan cares about this; it's just that lot of us don't care about the specifics of something like "IT'S BEEN 107 YEARS!!!" or look at anything less than a WS win as a failure.

1979, huh? This explains alot of your diatribes.

For any Cub fan to discount the '107 year drought' is wrong. Baseball is the one sport where we look to the past for many aspects like records, great ballplayers, great plays, etc...We celebrate losing. We hold up '69 and '04 like others celebrate WS wins. To not understand the history of the team, because one was born in 1979, and care about it deeply is quite narrow-minded and myopic.

Nah. It's just life. 107 years...1007 years....meh, it's a long damn time. I don't hold up 1969 as anything. I have no great attachment to any of those players other than Banks and Santo, because of their visibility during the times when I've watched the Cubs.

We look back fondly on 2004 because we watched it...it does nothing to prove your point here.

btw I don't look back all that fondly on 2004...aside from maybe the Nomar trade day, the Sosa/Alou back to back game and the Walker slide. but overall that season sucked. i remember it as a lot of waiting for prior to come back and actually look like prior, the cardinals getting off to an insurmountable lead, and then the collapse in the last 2-3 weeks.

[TomtheBombadil]

Does PECOTA still offer 75th percentile and 90th percentile projections for players? I'd love to see what Heyward's are.