Its Scary Quiet

[RynoRules]

On a separate note, I am having a tough time understanding why every post must be backed up with facts. This is an opinion based discussion board. Facts are nice, but not required. Quit asking for proof.

 

Oh c'mon now - people often make baseless assertions on this bd and other posters (rightfully) ask, "Huh? Can you showm me where you read that? Can you show me the stats to back that up?" I have seen you do it on several occassions.

 

If they are asking for too much, then so be it. But, I haven't seen a quote from them either way that they are asking for too much or too little.

 

You mean other than what Bruce said.

[CubinNY]

I don't care that people throw names out there and see what sticks as an item of conversation, but I do think there is an important point that Danny is trying to get at and Bruce hinted at. Slamming Hendry, or any GM for that matter, for 'not getting it done' when not knowing the circumstances of whether it was possible or what it would take is just plain silly.

 

Ah, finally some sanity.

 

That's ridicilous

 

If this place is so insane and the people who post here so unrealistic and unknowledgable why do you or anyone else who is bitching stay here?

 

You are really overreacting to my post and completely missing the point. My point is that I appreciate measured criticism based in fact (like stats) rather than pure speculation such as, "That Hendry stinks because he didn't trade for Chruch. I know they were only asking for (names of players)".

 

I also prefer criticism based on actual results (such as guys we have actually acquired, the team's performance, etc.) rather than "Hendry sucks - he didn't sign Schmidt!"

 

EDIT: For example, many of us (myself included) took shots at Hendry for the contracts he gave to DeRosa and Lilly. I don't have a problem with that. What bothers me is when people slam Hendry for things he cannot control, such as the fact Schmidt apparently preferred to sign on the Coast in spite of the fact that the Cubs offerred him more money and an extra year. Nothing he can do about that, IMO.

 

EDIT No. 2: Please show me where I referred to anyone here as "unknowledgeable".

 

I don't get why the criticism has to be so limited in scope. Getting the job done in the big picture requires getting the job done on specific moves. Under your rules, we can't complain that Hendry went after guys like Perez, Rusch, Burnitz, Jones etc instead of getting a player like Vlad, Tejada or Beltran when they were available.

 

Why can't people just let fans react how they want to the ineptitude of Cubs management?

 

You just completely misstated my position, which is that it is very reasonable to kill Hendry for signing guys like Burnitz, Jones, Rusch, neifi, macias, etc. rather than Vlad and Miggy, simply b/c that is something that actually happened. What I don't like is when people say its Hendry's fault that we can't acquire a guy like Church; these people don't understand Bruce's point, which is that "it takes two to tango".

 

I agree that getting the job done means getting the job done both with specificity and in the "big picture". I don't think I am stating rules and I don't think I am creating some unworkable standard or one that does not subject Hendry to crticisim. Rather, I dislike arguments based on pure speculation and without any ("any" meaning "none", "nada, "zip") basis in reality.

 

People can fire away at Hendry in any way they choose, but that doesn't mean I have to like it or agree with it. As I understand it, I am free to feel that way.

When Jason Shmidt signed with LA I didn't read very many posts where people were complaining that Hendry didn't get the job done.

 

Some of the criticism of Hendry is over the top and irrelevent (fat jokes). But, overall I think most of the criticism is based on what he has or hasn't done in relation to what the person wanted him to do. Last year he didn't seem to be interested in Giles at all, and stated that he "wasn't interested in getting into a bidding war". Well there was no such war. I and some others criticized Hendry for not pursing Giles. There were some people who accused us of being unrealistic as "Giles wasn't leaving the West Coast". I think you were among them. In reality we'll never know because Hendry didn't seriously pursue Giles. This year we've seen that when Hendry wants his man he can get him. Even if he doesn't fit what the Cubs need.

[RynoRules]

I also prefer criticism based on actual results (such as guys we have actually acquired, the team's performance, etc.) rather than "Hendry sucks - he didn't sign Schmidt!"

 

You are also welcome to ignore the threads that posters aren't saying the exact thing you would want them to say, which is basically what you are saying.

 

Way to spin my argument - is there a particular reasonw hy you target me so blatently everytime we disagree on something?

 

All I have said is that I disagree with certain methdologies. Its no different than the stance that is taken by many with respect to the importance of stats. Don't put words in my mouth, pal.

[YearofDaCubs]

How about we get back on topic or move this to rants?

[BigbadB]

You mean other than what Bruce said.

 

Do you mean other than what Bruce "thinks"?

[RynoRules]

I don't care that people throw names out there and see what sticks as an item of conversation, but I do think there is an important point that Danny is trying to get at and Bruce hinted at. Slamming Hendry, or any GM for that matter, for 'not getting it done' when not knowing the circumstances of whether it was possible or what it would take is just plain silly.

 

Ah, finally some sanity.

 

That's ridicilous

 

If this place is so insane and the people who post here so unrealistic and unknowledgable why do you or anyone else who is bitching stay here?

 

You are really overreacting to my post and completely missing the point. My point is that I appreciate measured criticism based in fact (like stats) rather than pure speculation such as, "That Hendry stinks because he didn't trade for Chruch. I know they were only asking for (names of players)".

 

I also prefer criticism based on actual results (such as guys we have actually acquired, the team's performance, etc.) rather than "Hendry sucks - he didn't sign Schmidt!"

 

EDIT: For example, many of us (myself included) took shots at Hendry for the contracts he gave to DeRosa and Lilly. I don't have a problem with that. What bothers me is when people slam Hendry for things he cannot control, such as the fact Schmidt apparently preferred to sign on the Coast in spite of the fact that the Cubs offerred him more money and an extra year. Nothing he can do about that, IMO.

 

EDIT No. 2: Please show me where I referred to anyone here as "unknowledgeable".

 

I don't get why the criticism has to be so limited in scope. Getting the job done in the big picture requires getting the job done on specific moves. Under your rules, we can't complain that Hendry went after guys like Perez, Rusch, Burnitz, Jones etc instead of getting a player like Vlad, Tejada or Beltran when they were available.

 

Why can't people just let fans react how they want to the ineptitude of Cubs management?

 

You just completely misstated my position, which is that it is very reasonable to kill Hendry for signing guys like Burnitz, Jones, Rusch, neifi, macias, etc. rather than Vlad and Miggy, simply b/c that is something that actually happened. What I don't like is when people say its Hendry's fault that we can't acquire a guy like Church; these people don't understand Bruce's point, which is that "it takes two to tango".

 

I agree that getting the job done means getting the job done both with specificity and in the "big picture". I don't think I am stating rules and I don't think I am creating some unworkable standard or one that does not subject Hendry to crticisim. Rather, I dislike arguments based on pure speculation and without any ("any" meaning "none", "nada, "zip") basis in reality.

 

People can fire away at Hendry in any way they choose, but that doesn't mean I have to like it or agree with it. As I understand it, I am free to feel that way.

When Jason Shmidt signed with LA I didn't read very many posts where people were complaining that Hendry didn't get the job done.

 

Some of the criticism of Hendry is over the top and irrelevent (fat jokes). But, overall I think most of the criticism is based on what he has or hasn't done in relation to what the person wanted him to do. Last year he didn't seem to be interested in Giles at all, and stated that he "wasn't interested in getting into a bidding war". Well there was no such war. I and some others criticized Hendry for not pursing Giles. There were some people who accused us of being unrealistic as "Giles wasn't leaving the West Coast". I think you were among them. In reality we'll never know because Hendry didn't seriously pursue Giles. This year we've seen that when Hendry wants his man he can get him. Even if he doesn't fit what the Cubs need.

 

I don't recall if I used the word "unrealistic', but yes, it was certainly my opinion (based on numerous reports) that Giles had no intention of leaving the West Coast. I agree, looking back, that Hendry should have at the least inquired as to Giles availability and interest.

[RynoRules]

You mean other than what Bruce said.

 

Do you mean other than what Bruce "thinks"?

 

Ah, so now Bruce's credibility and knowledge of the inner-workings of these matters is on par with yours and mine?

[BigbadB]

Way to spin my argument - is there a particular reasonw hy you target me so blatently everytime we disagree on something?

 

All I have said is that I disagree with certain methdologies. Its no different than the stance that is taken by many with respect to the importance of stats. Don't put words in my mouth, pal.

 

Why am I calling you out? I wouldn't think I'd have to explain it. Why are all of your opinions gospel, and anyone who thinks Schmidt should have signed with the Cubs crap? It's a little "holier than thou", don't ya think?

 

Why are you sitting there judging what is or isn't appropriate for this message board. It isn't your place. And if you think I'm singling you out, I'm not. This is for anyone who critique other posters.

 

I suppose I am guilty of that myself occasionally. I don't claim to be the model poster. But, we all need to work on spending more time debating the topic rather than insulting the poster.

 

Simple as that.

[RynoRules]

That's a load of nonsense. You must be having some problems with reading my posts, so I am going to restate them in simple terms, bullet by bullet:

 

- I am critical of people's methodoligies, and have not personally attacked anyone in this respect.

 

- Disagreeing with methedoloy and opinion is supposed to be what this bd is about, IMO.

 

- I am not trying to tell anyone how to post or argue. I have at all times qualified my statements with "I prefer" or "it bothers me when". Other people (including yourself) have made absolutist statements telling me (essentially) to "get out if I don't like it". I have made no such statement. If I choose to disagree with how some people support their arguments, I think that is my right.

 

- My opinion is that arguments supported by facts are far more persuasive than those based on naked speculation. For example, I prefer "He stinks b/c his stat line is .225 / .280 / .300", rather than "He stinks b/c he doesn't look like he can hit to me."

 

I still fail to see why any of this is so offensive to your sensibilities. Of course, if you choose to ignore these points and twist them around into something they are not intended to be, well that's another matter.

[BigbadB]

You mean other than what Bruce said.

 

Do you mean other than what Bruce "thinks"?

 

Ah, so now Bruce's credibility and knowledge of the inner-workings of these matters is on par with yours and mine?

 

I'm sorry. Do you mean other than what Bruce has "heard".

 

I don't know where you are attempting to go with this, but I have no disrespect for Bruce Miles, and I appreciate that he provides incite to our message board. Are you trying to insinuate something?

 

Because it really just needs to stop. It has nothing to do with the topic.

[RynoRules]

You mean other than what Bruce said.

 

Do you mean other than what Bruce "thinks"?

 

Ah, so now Bruce's credibility and knowledge of the inner-workings of these matters is on par with yours and mine?

 

I'm sorry. Do you mean other than what Bruce has "heard".

 

I don't know where you are attempting to go with this, but I have no disrespect for Bruce Miles, and I appreciate that he provides incite to our message board. Are you trying to insinuate something?

 

Because it really just needs to stop. It has nothing to do with the topic.

 

Then stop replying.

 

My point is Bruce has greater credibility than you or I on these issues.

[goonys evil twin]

The bottom line is, the Cubs brought it on themselves. If somebody is complaining, it's most likely justified. They've lost all rights to the benefit of the doubt. They'd made the same mistakes over and over. If a Cubs fan is pissed off and venting, he's most likely completely justified.

 

This board isn't being overrun by irrational, unfair, hypercritical stat geeks.

[BigbadB]

That's a load of nonsense. You must be having some problems with reading my posts, so I am going to restate them in simple terms, bullet by bullet:

 

- I am critical of people's methodoligies, and have not personally attacked anyone in this respect.

 

- Disagreeing with methedoloy and opinion is supposed to be what this bd is about, IMO.

 

- I am not trying to tell anyone how to post or argue. I have at all times qualified my statements with "I prefer" or "it bothers me when". Other people (including yourself) have made absolutist statements telling me (essentially) to "get out if I don't like it". I have made no such statement. If I choose to disagree with how some people support their arguments, I think that is my right.

 

- My opinion is that arguments supported by facts are far more persuasive than those based on naked speculation. For example, I prefer "He stinks b/c his stat line is .225 / .280 / .300", rather than "He stinks b/c he doesn't look like he can hit to me."

 

I still fail to see why any of this is so offensive to your sensibilities. Of course, if you choose to ignore these points and twist them around into something they are not intended to be, well that's another matter.

 

Am I totally misunderstanding you quote below?

 

I don't care that people throw names out there and see what sticks as an item of conversation, but I do think there is an important point that Danny is trying to get at and Bruce hinted at. Slamming Hendry, or any GM for that matter, for 'not getting it done' when not knowing the circumstances of whether it was possible or what it would take is just plain silly.

 

Ah, finally some sanity.

[RynoRules]

That's a load of nonsense. You must be having some problems with reading my posts, so I am going to restate them in simple terms, bullet by bullet:

 

- I am critical of people's methodoligies, and have not personally attacked anyone in this respect.

 

- Disagreeing with methedoloy and opinion is supposed to be what this bd is about, IMO.

 

- I am not trying to tell anyone how to post or argue. I have at all times qualified my statements with "I prefer" or "it bothers me when". Other people (including yourself) have made absolutist statements telling me (essentially) to "get out if I don't like it". I have made no such statement. If I choose to disagree with how some people support their arguments, I think that is my right.

 

- My opinion is that arguments supported by facts are far more persuasive than those based on naked speculation. For example, I prefer "He stinks b/c his stat line is .225 / .280 / .300", rather than "He stinks b/c he doesn't look like he can hit to me."

 

I still fail to see why any of this is so offensive to your sensibilities. Of course, if you choose to ignore these points and twist them around into something they are not intended to be, well that's another matter.

 

Am I totally misunderstanding you quote below?

 

I don't care that people throw names out there and see what sticks as an item of conversation, but I do think there is an important point that Danny is trying to get at and Bruce hinted at. Slamming Hendry, or any GM for that matter, for 'not getting it done' when not knowing the circumstances of whether it was possible or what it would take is just plain silly.

 

Ah, finally some sanity.

 

Nope - and I fleshed out my opinion rather than just leaving it at that.

 

I still don't see what the problem is. People criticize each other all over the place here, and yet you have seen fit to accuse me of being judgmental.

[BigbadB]

My point is Bruce has greater credibility than you or I on these issues.

 

Yes, he does have more credibility than you or I. I don't disagree.

 

I don't see how that has anything to do with anything.

[goonys evil twin]

Nope - and I fleshed out my opinion rather than just leaving it at that.

 

I still don't see what the problem is. People criticize each other all over the place here, and yet you have seen fit to accuse me of being judgmental.

 

Calling people silly and insane for criticizing a GM who is a complete failure for not getting it done is completely absurd. His job is to get it done. I don't care if a guy preferred the west coast, like the AL, prefers warm weather or anything else. Winning GMs get the job done. Winning GMs convince good players to play for them.

[BigbadB]

I still don't see what the problem is. People criticize each other all over the place here, and yet you have seen fit to accuse me of being judgmental.

 

The problem is that the infighting amongst posters chases off other posters. And I'm not singling you out. You didn't even start this particular one, but you did pile on. If you go back to one of my other posts, I directed this at everyone, including myself. It just needs to stop.

 

It will never completely stop, but I'm here to attempt to keep it under control.

[CubinNY]

That's a load of nonsense. You must be having some problems with reading my posts, so I am going to restate them in simple terms, bullet by bullet:

 

- I am critical of people's methodoligies, and have not personally attacked anyone in this respect.

 

- Disagreeing with methedoloy and opinion is supposed to be what this bd is about, IMO.

 

- I am not trying to tell anyone how to post or argue. I have at all times qualified my statements with "I prefer" or "it bothers me when". Other people (including yourself) have made absolutist statements telling me (essentially) to "get out if I don't like it". I have made no such statement. If I choose to disagree with how some people support their arguments, I think that is my right.

 

- My opinion is that arguments supported by facts are far more persuasive than those based on naked speculation. For example, I prefer "He stinks b/c his stat line is .225 / .280 / .300", rather than "He stinks b/c he doesn't look like he can hit to me."

 

I still fail to see why any of this is so offensive to your sensibilities. Of course, if you choose to ignore these points and twist them around into something they are not intended to be, well that's another matter.

 

Am I totally misunderstanding you quote below?

 

I don't care that people throw names out there and see what sticks as an item of conversation, but I do think there is an important point that Danny is trying to get at and Bruce hinted at. Slamming Hendry, or any GM for that matter, for 'not getting it done' when not knowing the circumstances of whether it was possible or what it would take is just plain silly.

 

Ah, finally some sanity.

 

Nope - and I fleshed out my opinion rather than just leaving it at that.

 

I still don't see what the problem is. People criticize each other all over the place here, and yet you have seen fit to accuse me of being judgmental.

 

"ah finally some sanity" is commentary of the entire borad.

 

We're all insane to want the Cubs to get good players. And we're all irrational when we don't get the players we want. Everyone, all the time.

[YearofDaCubs]

Nope - and I fleshed out my opinion rather than just leaving it at that.

 

I still don't see what the problem is. People criticize each other all over the place here, and yet you have seen fit to accuse me of being judgmental.

 

Calling people silly and insane for criticizing a GM who is a complete failure for not getting it done is completely absurd. His job is to get it done. I don't care if a guy preferred the west coast, like the AL, prefers warm weather or anything else. Winning GMs get the job done. Winning GMs convince good players to play for them.

Can't argue those points. Hendry has been a failure since second half of 2004 and even with the moves he has made this offseason I'm still skeptical he made enough moves to get us to the playoffs.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

"ah finally some sanity" is commentary of the entire borad.

 

No it's not. It's in the context of three consecutive posts where he disagreed with/criticized three other posters(me being one of them).

[JC]

We are now in the midst of, what, the fifth year of the Hendry era?

 

We have lived through:

-4 1/2 offseasons;

-4 seasons of mid-season pick-ups;

-2 managerial selections;

-4 Spring Trainings; and,

-4 Cub Conventions;

 

Chicago teams are followed by a number of local papers alone, churning out 100's of articles a year which, either explicitly or implicitly, reveal Hendry's philosophies. At the very least, the vast amounts of available media allow for subjective determinations of what Hendry's philosophies are. However, I for one don't think the man's philosophy is even remotely secret.

 

If posters choose to rely on these rather fertile areas to use there powers of induction, I welcome their contribution to the board. I don't have to agree, but I welcome it.

 

Naked speculation is a funny notion. I don't think inductive reasoning applies. However, speculation that a poster's conclusion or post had no thought behind it is, itself, naked speculation. Is it not?

[CubinNY]

"ah finally some sanity" is commentary of the entire borad.

 

No it's not. It's in the context of three consecutive posts where he disagreed with/criticized three other posters(me being one of them).

 

I disagree, but I'm not continuing this pointless series any longer.

 

I guess it's no longer scary quiet.

[b_wiggy_66]

Wow, some thread this turned into. I don't really have any stats to back this up but this is starting to get a little annoying. :wink:

[BigbadB]

I guess it's no longer scary quiet.

 

Yeah, we fixed that problem. :D

 

Okay, back on topic. Going back to my post where I quoted all the Rotoworld excepts on Ryan Church since December, what would be a fair offer for Ryan Church, and is he worth what it would cost?

 

And finally, will Washington continue playing hardball, or will their demands come down the longer he isn't traded. (Using what Bruce Miles has heard through the grapevine as gospel that they are asking for the moon).

[soapy]

You mean other than what Bruce said.

 

Do you mean other than what Bruce "thinks"?

 

Ah, so now Bruce's credibility and knowledge of the inner-workings of these matters is on par with yours and mine?

 

I don't think Bruce said he "heard" that anyway.

 

I don't know exactly what the Nats have asked for Church, but it's likely they've started with Rich Hill. They're famous for this kind of stuff. It's possible a trade could happen late in the off-season or during spring training. I've not heard the name of Gross mentioned with the Cubs.

 

Sounds like he's speculating based on the Nats' past. Bruce obviously has more insight than any of us on the issue, but it's certainly not gospel.