Expectations

[goonys evil twin]

(not directly at you UM) I think this is the fourth time I've presented such arguments about what I think is reasonable to expect out of this team. I've never seen any replies. if you don't agree that I am being reasonable, please let me know where I am going astray or at least give a breakdown of what you predict and how it translates into what you expect out of the 2007 Cubs.

 

Dammit. I just put together an in depth response to this part, but got sidetracked and was bounced out of NSBB when I hit submit.

 

Anyway, I basically said you aren't necessarily being unreasonable, just overly optimistic. Teams really need huge improvements at positions to make that kind of bounce from year to year, like LA did from 2005-2006, when they replaced a .279 mess in LF with a .387, because of a great new young player and fantastic OBP from his backup. They also replaced an Izturis led SS position with a Furcal led one, that provided a 52 point bounce.

 

Well, this version isn't going to be nearly as interesting, but I predict something closer to a .325-.330 range in team OBP (barring a shocking move in CF or SS), and middle of the NL pack. This is a Hendry team, and Hendry is not an OBP friendly GM. He's begun to acknowledge it's existence, but he's yet to acquire any true OBP stars. Middle of the pack in OBP would be an accomplishment for Hendry.

[oldstyle81]

The pitching isint the best in the MLB but it is by far not terrible.

 

I don't know about by far. It's the same staff that started 2006, minus Maddux and plus Marquis.

 

I'd say the pitching, as usual, has a wide range of possibilities. And terrible is quite possible. There's no guarantee Lilly or Marquis will be any better than people they are replacing, and last year's staff was terrible.

 

Z

Maddux

Rusch

Marshall

Williams.

 

no, even if your worst expectations are fulfilled, and barring injury of course, I doubt the staff is any where near the staff the Cubs started 2006 with. under worst case scenerio

 

Z=Z

Lilly

Hill>>>Rusch

Marquis=Marshall

Prior/Miller/Guz/Marmol/Mateo/Marshall/Ryu>>>>>Williams

 

the assesment for what transpired over the year would be about the same.

 

Jerome Williams did not start 2006 in the rotation. His first 3 appearances was out of the pen. Regardless, what I meant was that they have the same bodies to choose from, minus Maddux and plus Lilly and Marquis. It's quite possible Lilly would be worse than Maddux, and Marquis will be at his worst, with both Miller and Prior incapable of providing help. I wouldn't predict that myself, but it's possible. The fact is it was terrible last year, and they haven't added anybody great, so, it could be terrible again.

 

Yeah and Lilly could have a 3.20 ERA, Marquis could have a sub 4 ERA

Hill will have a 2.34 ERA and Zambrano will have a 2.95 ERA.

 

Obviously if people are going to say, it could be bad, they have to also say, it could be very good as well

[jjgman21]

(not directly at you UM) I think this is the fourth time I've presented such arguments about what I think is reasonable to expect out of this team. I've never seen any replies. if you don't agree that I am being reasonable, please let me know where I am going astray or at least give a breakdown of what you predict and how it translates into what you expect out of the 2007 Cubs.

 

Dammit. I just put together an in depth response to this part, but got sidetracked and was bounced out of NSBB when I hit submit.

 

Anyway, I basically said you aren't necessarily being unreasonable, just overly optimistic. Teams really need huge improvements at positions to make that kind of bounce from year to year, like LA did from 2005-2006, when they replaced a .279 mess in LF with a .387, because of a great new young player and fantastic OBP from his backup. They also replaced an Izturis led SS position with a Furcal led one, that provided a 52 point bounce.

 

Well, this version isn't going to be nearly as interesting, but I predict something closer to a .325-.330 range in team OBP (barring a shocking move in CF or SS), and middle of the NL pack. This is a Hendry team, and Hendry is not an OBP friendly GM. He's begun to acknowledge it's existence, but he's yet to acquire any true OBP stars. Middle of the pack in OBP would be an accomplishment for Hendry.

 

 

 

I don't know where I'm being overly optimitistic. optimisim has Lee up back around .400 or Aram at .370 or Soriano to repeat his obp of last year. I do none of these things. I don't portend that DeRosa will repeat his OBP from last year or even give an expected improvement even though he was 30 points above Cubs second basemen last year, I don't predict Murton to do anything he hasn't done before (although I do expect improvement whether it is Murton full time or with a better platoon). I say that Izturis will be around .295 even though his last uninjured season he was up at .330.

 

I think Hendry loves OBP....as long as it is ave. driven.

 

 

 

edit - in fact, I don't think there is anybody on this board that is overly optimistic. there are those that try to be reasonable and give an estimation of what is likely to happen, and those that are just completely, unreasonably pessimistic. I wish I could have seen the way you broke it down, but have to give you credit for at least trying, as opposed to those who say "they will be terrible, they haven't improved at all" then remain silent when faced with a solid case to the contrary.

[jjgman21]

 

another area where OBP will improve, at least one must hope, is the idiocity of Dusty Baker is gone. look at OBP by lineup order in 2005.

 

1 - .329

2 - .319

3 - .377

4 - .349

5 - .301

6 - .365

7 - .303

8 - .288

 

just flip flopping the 2 and 6 obp translates into what, about 50 additional baserunners per year?

 

 

 

These data are from 2006, not 2005.

 

Swapping out the #2 hitter for #6 will result in

 

Marginal PA (713-663) 50 times Marginal OBP (.361-.319) .041 equals Additional Baserunners 2.05

 

Hardly the bump you were expecting.

 

not sure how I came up with that number in my head, but having the 30 additional baserunners in front of 3-4-5 instead of in front of 7-8-9 would have translated into more runs if not a better OBP.

[dew1679666265]

(not directly at you UM) I think this is the fourth time I've presented such arguments about what I think is reasonable to expect out of this team. I've never seen any replies. if you don't agree that I am being reasonable, please let me know where I am going astray or at least give a breakdown of what you predict and how it translates into what you expect out of the 2007 Cubs.

 

Dammit. I just put together an in depth response to this part, but got sidetracked and was bounced out of NSBB when I hit submit.

 

Anyway, I basically said you aren't necessarily being unreasonable, just overly optimistic. Teams really need huge improvements at positions to make that kind of bounce from year to year, like LA did from 2005-2006, when they replaced a .279 mess in LF with a .387, because of a great new young player and fantastic OBP from his backup. They also replaced an Izturis led SS position with a Furcal led one, that provided a 52 point bounce.

 

Well, this version isn't going to be nearly as interesting, but I predict something closer to a .325-.330 range in team OBP (barring a shocking move in CF or SS), and middle of the NL pack. This is a Hendry team, and Hendry is not an OBP friendly GM. He's begun to acknowledge it's existence, but he's yet to acquire any true OBP stars. Middle of the pack in OBP would be an accomplishment for Hendry.

 

 

 

I don't know where I'm being overly optimitistic. optimisim has Lee up back around .400 or Aram at .370 or Soriano to repeat his obp of last year. I do none of these things. I don't portend that DeRosa will repeat his OBP from last year or even give an expected improvement even though he was 30 points above Cubs second basemen last year, I don't predict Murton to do anything he hasn't done before (although I do expect improvement whether it is Murton full time or with a better platoon). I say that Izturis will be around .295 even though his last uninjured season he was up at .330.

 

I think Hendry loves OBP....as long as it is ave. driven.

 

 

 

edit - in fact, I don't think there is anybody on this board that is overly optimistic. there are those that try to be reasonable and give an estimation of what is likely to happen, and those that are just completely, unreasonably pessimistic. I wish I could have seen the way you broke it down, but have to give you credit for at least trying, as opposed to those who say "they will be terrible, they haven't improved at all" then remain silent when faced with a solid case to the contrary.

 

I don't necessarily agree with this statement. There are some posters who tend to expect everything good that could happen will just like there are some who expect everything bad that could happen will. I can understand both sides, but tend to try to find middle ground myself.

[NoDak]

I think some people are making the mistake of comparing players to last year and saying that there is not an expectation for improvement as if last year was a "normal" year. Last year just about everyone with significant playing time pretty well hit their "low" expectation. Almost no one "overperformed." I think that just through normal statistical variations we will likely improve simply because it would be difficult to match last year's poor performance.

 

I am a proponent of rather than paying to add to the top we should wisely cut from the bottom. Roughly 30% of our innings pitched by starters had a cumulative ERA of 7.15. I used players I consider unlikely to be in the starting rotation out of Spring Training: Marshall, O'Malley, Mateo, Marmol, Guzman, Ryu, Walrond. They threw, by my count, 264 innings last year as starting pitchers, or 30% of the 877 total innings thrown by starters. If we replace those innings with Marquis and Lilly, even if they have the same production as last year or we even them out to an average of 5.50 (a very achievable average for both of them combined) we will have a much better staff than last year.

 

Only Z had more than 25 starts last year (Marshall had 24). I think it is very likely that the team will improve just by limiting (if not eliminating) the number of innings thrown so poorly by the young starters CHC was forced to use last year. They used 15 starters last year. Most of them no where near ready to pitch in the big leagues.

 

This, put on top of the likely improvements outlined in previous posts, indicates that while CHC may not be a world beater they will likely improve simply because it would be very difficult to get worse (or even the same) production. Most players who "overperformed" last year did so with limited playing time and those that "underperformed" got the lion's share of playing time.

 

Edit: Add Rusch and Williams on there and we get 309 IP with a cumulative ERA of 7.40 and that is over 35% of the innings pitched!

 

If Lilly and Marquis even match last year's totals (and that is with Lilly not facing NYY and BOS and Marquis matching his worst production of his career) we will have 376 IP and an ERA of 5.19. Even if we add Maddux to the mix (and say that Lilly replaces Maddux) CHC still comes out money ahead on the ERA leg and Lilly is much more likely to repeat last year's "success" than Maddux considering the age difference of 10 years.

[nilodnayr]

I think some people are making the mistake of comparing players to last year and saying that there is not an expectation for improvement as if last year was a "normal" year. Last year just about everyone with significant playing time pretty well hit their "low" expectation. Almost no one "overperformed." I think that just through normal statistical variations we will likely improve simply because it would be difficult to match last year's poor performance.

 

Jacque Jones and Michael Barrett/Henry Blanco say hi. I assume Theriot doesn't count as having significant playing time, but 150 ABs ain't too shabby. All of them signifncantly exceeded expectations.

[jjgman21]

I think some people are making the mistake of comparing players to last year and saying that there is not an expectation for improvement as if last year was a "normal" year. Last year just about everyone with significant playing time pretty well hit their "low" expectation. Almost no one "overperformed." I think that just through normal statistical variations we will likely improve simply because it would be difficult to match last year's poor performance.

 

Jacque Jones and Michael Barrett/Henry Blanco say hi. I assume Theriot doesn't count as having significant playing time, but 150 ABs ain't too shabby. All of them signifncantly exceeded expectations.

 

maybe Jacque slightly "overperformed" for what was expected, but he had two fairly unlucky years before coming to the Cubs, two seasons when his BB/PA went up (even accounting for IBB). if you do what you do for players you like, ie taking injury and luck into account and emphasizing positive trends, and apply it to Jacque, nothing he did last year should have been unexpected. the only reason it wasn't a "slight pleasant surprise" as opposed to "overperformance" was overly pessimistic projections.

 

other than that, I go back to my position by position analogy. sure, Blanco and Barrett did better than might have been expected individually, but I bet Barrett's projected numbers weren't all that far off. taking his missed time into account, the Cubs catchers weren't all that out of line from what should have been expected. again, maybe a "slight pleasant surprise."

 

look at second, the numbers are still underwhelming, even with Theriot's hot month. were those numbers any where near what you expected out of a full season of Todd Walker playing second base for the 2006 Cubs? to think a combination of Theriot and DeRosa can't bury 2006 secondbase numbers is just blantantly overly pessimistic.

 

and that's the sum fricken total. other than that, every single position either played at or below reasonable expectations last year. now I know players will have down years and injuries will happen, but unless one is predicting the unpredictable, another season of overwhelming injury and multiple positions just being a complete disaster from what should be 'reasonably expected,' the notion that the offense will not be significantly improved just lacks merit.

[NoDak]

I think some people are making the mistake of comparing players to last year and saying that there is not an expectation for improvement as if last year was a "normal" year. Last year just about everyone with significant playing time pretty well hit their "low" expectation. Almost no one "overperformed." I think that just through normal statistical variations we will likely improve simply because it would be difficult to match last year's poor performance.

 

Jacque Jones and Michael Barrett/Henry Blanco say hi. I assume Theriot doesn't count as having significant playing time, but 150 ABs ain't too shabby. All of them signifncantly exceeded expectations.

 

Actually, Jacques and Barrett were the two I had in mind as exceptions to my comment. Guess I should have pointed it out, but I thought my post was long enough as it was :wink:. Also, Theriot was solid, but 150 ABs is about a months 6 weeks worth for an everyday player.

 

Edit: Besides, looking at Cedenos first 150 ABs he would have been close to an all-star! :shock:

Edited December 26, 2006 by NoDak

[CubinNY]

Expectations?

 

The Cubs have a realistic shot at .500.

 

If they get a few career years from pitchers and Lee, Aramis, Barrett, and Soriano don't regress to the mean they could contend for the division.

 

My hope is that they hang tough until June/July and Hendry can get some upgrades for the offense.

[jjgman21]

Expectations?

 

The Cubs have a realistic shot at .500.

 

If they get a few career years from pitchers and Lee, Aramis, Barrett, and Soriano don't regress to the mean they could contend for the division.

 

My hope is that they hang tough until June/July and Hendry can get some upgrades for the offense.

 

won't somebody please make a comment like this and actually state your case. back this up with some analysis please.

[CubinNY]

Expectations?

 

The Cubs have a realistic shot at .500.

 

If they get a few career years from pitchers and Lee, Aramis, Barrett, and Soriano don't regress to the mean they could contend for the division.

 

My hope is that they hang tough until June/July and Hendry can get some upgrades for the offense.

 

won't somebody please make a comment like this and actually state your case. back this up with some analysis please.

 

Analysis? What is your problem? You call pulling stats out of thin air analsyis? Where did you come up with those projections? On what are they based? Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel why don't you just use the commonly excepted projections like PECTOA?

 

The Cubs were terrible last year. Terrible!

 

They have upgreaded one positon on offense but will be getting Lee back.

 

The pitching staff is no better, but they had some bad luck with injuries last year.

 

I expect Guzman to come on strong given the time since his big injury.

 

If they get any regression from last year's numbers from the middle of the order guys (of which, I'm including Soriano) they will not score significantly more runs than they did last year. If they don't score significanlty more runs they will need significantly better pitching than last year. I don't see it.

 

So, in conclusion, the Cubs have a realistic shot at .500 and if things break right they could contend for the division.

 

I don't need to make projections out of thin air to state my expectations.

[goonys evil twin]

Expectations?

 

The Cubs have a realistic shot at .500.

 

If they get a few career years from pitchers and Lee, Aramis, Barrett, and Soriano don't regress to the mean they could contend for the division.

 

My hope is that they hang tough until June/July and Hendry can get some upgrades for the offense.

 

won't somebody please make a comment like this and actually state your case. back this up with some analysis please.

 

Your constant badgering of people to backup with analysis is bordering on trolling for arguments.

 

The analysis has been stated, repeatedly.

[jjgman21]

Expectations?

 

The Cubs have a realistic shot at .500.

 

If they get a few career years from pitchers and Lee, Aramis, Barrett, and Soriano don't regress to the mean they could contend for the division.

 

My hope is that they hang tough until June/July and Hendry can get some upgrades for the offense.

 

won't somebody please make a comment like this and actually state your case. back this up with some analysis please.

 

Your constant badgering of people to backup with analysis is bordering on trolling for arguments.

 

The analysis has been stated, repeatedly.

 

trolling. whatever. I could make a stronger case that constant whining without backing it with an argument is closer to trolling than anything I am doing here.

 

no, no analysis has been given other than this macro genernalization type bs. nobody has said the Cubs will be terrible and then gone on to give their own projections on a player by player or position by position analysis, or even Pecota (which I understand isn't even out yet) or Zips projections. I did. projected to 800+ runs. it stirs no discussion. it elicited no mia culpa. is just bitching really that much more interesting than discussing why that will or will not be?

 

you want to whine about how bad the Cubs will be, but won't put your overwhelming knowledge to work, come up with some projections for where the players will finish, from that determine where they will be at the end of September. I really thought that's what the purpose of this discussion board was. reasoned analysis and debate before baseless conjecture and hyperbole.

[goonys evil twin]

Expectations?

 

The Cubs have a realistic shot at .500.

 

If they get a few career years from pitchers and Lee, Aramis, Barrett, and Soriano don't regress to the mean they could contend for the division.

 

My hope is that they hang tough until June/July and Hendry can get some upgrades for the offense.

 

won't somebody please make a comment like this and actually state your case. back this up with some analysis please.

 

Your constant badgering of people to backup with analysis is bordering on trolling for arguments.

 

The analysis has been stated, repeatedly.

 

trolling. whatever. I could make a stronger case that constant whining without backing it with an argument is closer to trolling than anything I am doing here.

 

no, no analysis has been given other than this macro genernalization type bs. nobody has said the Cubs will be terrible and then gone on to give their own projections on a player by player or position by position analysis, or even Pecota (which I understand isn't even out yet) or Zips projections. I did. projected to 800+ runs. it stirs no discussion. it elicited no mia culpa. is just bitching really that much more interesting than discussing why that will or will not be?

 

you want to whine about how bad the Cubs will be, but won't put your overwhelming knowledge to work, come up with some projections for where the players will finish, from that determine where they will be at the end of September. I really thought that's what the purpose of this discussion board was. reasoned analysis and debate before baseless conjecture and hyperbole.

 

are you freaking blind? The post you are referencing said they had a realistic shot for .500 and could contend for the division with a few breaks.

 

 

whine, whine, whine, blah, blah, blah.

 

The Cubs are a work in progress. They've sucked for two years, and have made some improvements, but they've got a ways to go to have any realistic expectations for greatness. If you want to complain, once again, that that is not enough analysis therefore I'm just complaining unnecessarily, so be it.

[BigbadB]

I really thought that's what the purpose of this discussion board was. reasoned analysis and debate before baseless conjecture and hyperbole.

 

Forming opinions is more than just baseless conjecture and hyperbole.

 

I happen to think it's a bit unreasonable for someone to require facts or proof on an opinion of something that hasn't happened yet. It's all guess work, including your opinion.

 

I could go out on a limb and state that the major league baseball season will IN FACT be played in its entirety next year, but it won't truly be a fact until after the fact.

[Garwilly]

Expectations?

 

The Cubs have a realistic shot at .500.

 

If they get a few career years from pitchers and Lee, Aramis, Barrett, and Soriano don't regress to the mean they could contend for the division.

 

My hope is that they hang tough until June/July and Hendry can get some upgrades for the offense.

 

won't somebody please make a comment like this and actually state your case. back this up with some analysis please.

 

Your constant badgering of people to backup with analysis is bordering on trolling for arguments.

 

The analysis has been stated, repeatedly.

 

trolling. whatever. I could make a stronger case that constant whining without backing it with an argument is closer to trolling than anything I am doing here.

 

no, no analysis has been given other than this macro genernalization type bs. nobody has said the Cubs will be terrible and then gone on to give their own projections on a player by player or position by position analysis, or even Pecota (which I understand isn't even out yet) or Zips projections. I did. projected to 800+ runs. it stirs no discussion. it elicited no mia culpa. is just bitching really that much more interesting than discussing why that will or will not be?

 

you want to whine about how bad the Cubs will be, but won't put your overwhelming knowledge to work, come up with some projections for where the players will finish, from that determine where they will be at the end of September. I really thought that's what the purpose of this discussion board was. reasoned analysis and debate before baseless conjecture and hyperbole.

 

are you freaking blind? The post you are referencing said they had a realistic shot for .500 and could contend for the division with a few breaks.

 

 

whine, whine, whine, blah, blah, blah.

 

The Cubs are a work in progress. They've sucked for two years, and have made some improvements, but they've got a ways to go to have any realistic expectations for greatness. If you want to complain, once again, that that is not enough analysis therefore I'm just complaining unnecessarily, so be it.

 

http://rambusek.webpark.pl/grafika/humor/catfight.jpg

[jjgman21]

I really thought that's what the purpose of this discussion board was. reasoned analysis and debate before baseless conjecture and hyperbole.

 

Forming opinions is more than just baseless conjecture and hyperbole.

 

I happen to think it's a bit unreasonable for someone to require facts or proof on an opinion of something that hasn't happened yet. It's all guess work, including your opinion.

 

I could go out on a limb and state that the major league baseball season will IN FACT be played in its entirety next year, but it won't truly be a fact until after the fact.

 

that's lame, particularly coming from three guys who will be the first to jump up and demand facts or proof whenever someone gives any kind of projection opinion that is not in line with their own. if I said "Soriano will have a .360 OBP and a 1.000+ OPS" would you all demand that I give a basis for that prediction? of course you would. probably after hurling insults and sarcasm, but you certainly would demand I back up such a claim with fact based argument.

 

that's all I'm asking for here. Instead I get replies that just prove my other point, that the pessimists keep arguing facts and stats when it's convenient for their argument, but when it may show their pessimism unwarranted, they like to stick with conjecture, hyperbole, and the aforementioned macro generalization type bs.

Edited December 26, 2006 by jjgman21

[jjgman21]

 

are you freaking blind? The post you are referencing said they had a realistic shot for .500 and could contend for the division with a few breaks.

 

 

whine, whine, whine, blah, blah, blah.

 

The Cubs are a work in progress. They've sucked for two years, and have made some improvements, but they've got a ways to go to have any realistic expectations for greatness. If you want to complain, once again, that that is not enough analysis therefore I'm just complaining unnecessarily, so be it.

 

 

 

are you so daft that you can't figure out what I am asking for is some sort of explanation, based on analysis of the roster, as to how that conclusion was reached? again, the same kind of analysis you would demand if someone else gave any sort of projection you didn't agree with?

[sethuel1]

I think Hendry loves OBP....as long as it is ave. driven.

 

I'm pretty sure that's just called liking guys that hit for high average.

[jjgman21]

I think Hendry loves OBP....as long as it is ave. driven.

 

I'm pretty sure that's just called liking guys that hit for high average.

 

tongue-in-cheek. I don't particularly like the job Hendry has done or the way he goes about building the team, but that's not really the point of this.

[goonys evil twin]

 

 

are you so daft that you can't figure out what I am asking for is some sort of explanation, based on analysis of the roster, as to how that conclusion was reached? again, the same kind of analysis you would demand if someone else gave any sort of projection you didn't agree with?

 

The analysis has been given, repeatedly. But since you insist on complaining about what people like myself believe about this team, you just continue to ignore it.

 

The Cubs don't have a settled roster right now, they don't have a settled rotation. We don't know about the health of multiple players either. If you want more in depth analysis of what to expect in 2007, wait for 2007. Right now, all we know is there are new names on the roster. There's a pretty wide range of possible outcomes. A vital position, CF, is still completely up in the air. Based on where they were, and what they've done, all I feel confident in predicting is that they'll be better, but to what extent, I don't know. I will just add, the Cubs have not scored 800 runs since 1998. I don't know what discussion you hoped to stir with that prediction, or what sort of mea culpa you were expecting (not to mention why), but it's the middle of the holiday period, in the offseason, when transactions are pretty much the only topics to get much action. But my first cursory look at it leads me to believe 800 won't happen. I realize that's not good enough for you, but too bad, I've stated my reasonings. But I don't see much of an opportunity to seriously debate at this point in time whether or not the Cubs will score 800 runs. Maybe if I get bored this afternoon I'll try.

[BigbadB]

that's lame, particularly coming from three guys who will be the first to jump up and demand facts or proof whenever someone gives any kind of projection opinion that is not in line with their own. if I said "Soriano will have a .360 OBP and a 1.000+ OPS" would you all demand that I give a basis for that prediction? of course you would. probably after hurling insults and sarcasm, but you certainly would demand I back up such a claim with fact based argument.

 

that's all I'm asking for here. Instead I get replies that just prove my other point, that the pessimists keep arguing facts and stats when it's convenient for their argument, but when it may show their pessimism unwarranted, they like to stick with conjecture, hyperbole, and the aforementioned macro generalization type bs.

 

Wow! I'm really sorry you didn't get what you wanted for Christmas.

 

And I'm really sorry that I give you some false impression that I would demand proof if you said Soriano would hit .360/1.000. Because that's about as far from the truth as it gets.

 

As far as calling me a pessimist. That's false too. I'm certainly pessimistic about the Cubs, but that's about the only thing I'm pessimistic about. But, please explain to me what the Cubs have done that should make me feel optimistic? Throwing money at people with no semblence of a plan is certainly not my idea of how to turn a horrible team into a good one.

 

The problem with your posts is that you are requiring that they provide something they aren't required to do. They are welcome to make whatever opinion they want as long as it isn't offending other posters.

 

If you don't like it, ignore those posters or quit responding to them.

 

You have a different opinion than some of the other posters here. There is nothing wrong with that. It's certainly not something to get so worked up over. Calm down.

[BigbadB]

By the way, my first response in this thread was to you. I have stated already that I won't make my predictions until the offseason is officially over. I did give Hendry a "B" grade for his offseason moves, but reserved the right to change that grade based on more possible moves.

 

I don't make individual player projections. Ever. I make team projections.

 

I've made it pretty clear that I don't like Izturis, and the moves that Hendry made are not the moves I would have made. I wouldn't call that pessimism, however. That's more of a frustration.

 

I'm very frustrated with the overall direction of this organization. That, combined with the failures of this front office has me feeling very pessimistic going into 2007.

 

With the long history of futility in this organization, how can anyone call into question someone's pessimism about the future of this organization? Please answer that question. Because that's what I really don't understand.

[CubinNY]

Sine when is it pessimistic to project a team that won 66 games the previous year to be .500 the next year and have a shot to contend for the division?