MacPhail: Deal is dead (p. 297), stop posting, go outside

[RammyFanny]

I heard him mention this before on his regular stint on the Score 670. Stone is extremely high on Izturis.

 

He has spoken about what he feels the Cubs could do. He has mentioned an Aram for Izturis deal. When I heard him discuss it he didn't go too far into a type of deal. He just mentioned Ramirez and Izturis would/should be the two main components in his hypothetical.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=33230&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=stone+izturis

 

Someone in the thread mentioned that Stone said Maddux/good OF prospect/good pitching prospect for Ramirez, Williamson, and Maddux, but I also remember Stone talking about a "Aramis for Izturis and a prospect" deal that "has to be made". He was mentioning this for a couple days in a row, so i'm sure he threw out a couple variations.

[Soul]

wrigley boy? let's save the sophomoric nonsense. I never heard stone say that & I highly doubt he did. there was a time a couple yrs ago that aramis was constantly hurt, would go in prolonged slumps & wailed away at the plate. He showed a complete lack of character when dlee went down by tucking his tail & seemed to have given up. Many thought the cubs were looking to move his salary at the time. With a healthy lee, he came back to form last year. Speaking of a lineup full of free swingers, for those johnny peralta lovers out there...he brings no speed to the lineup & whiffed a whopping 146 times last year. He is hardly what this lineup needs.

My bad on the name, there's a mod on PSD with that name, I just got it confused.

 

By the way, Stones exact words were "If the Dodgers are dangling Izturis for Ramirez straight up, you hold off, but if they include a prospect, it's a deal that has to be made". Then he replied that a Cedeno/Izturis infield is one that "lasts for 10 years". I remember that day vividly.

That's amazing that you remember his exact words from a random day two years ago.

 

No offense, but I doubt he said that.

Just searched it real quick and found this:

The Evil Stoney said yesterday that the Dodgers would be a team that has interest and $$$ to deal for ARam. He said that Bill Mueller won't be back and that Ned Colletti may be looking to acquire an impact 3rd baseman. He felt that Cesar Izturis is being dangled, but it would take more young Dodger players to get ARam. Stoney said a Cedeno/Izturis infield is one that 'lasts for 10 years'. He also mentioned that Maddux could wind up in LA too.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=33230&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=stone+izturis

 

I'm telling you, he even said "prospect" not "prospects".

 

Yeah, so one unsubstantiated poster and your 2-year-old memory is beyond contestation.

 

Not saying he never suggested a deal, but I highly doubt he was saying Izzy/ARam straight up, or even close.

[RammyFanny]

wrigley boy? let's save the sophomoric nonsense. I never heard stone say that & I highly doubt he did. there was a time a couple yrs ago that aramis was constantly hurt, would go in prolonged slumps & wailed away at the plate. He showed a complete lack of character when dlee went down by tucking his tail & seemed to have given up. Many thought the cubs were looking to move his salary at the time. With a healthy lee, he came back to form last year. Speaking of a lineup full of free swingers, for those johnny peralta lovers out there...he brings no speed to the lineup & whiffed a whopping 146 times last year. He is hardly what this lineup needs.

My bad on the name, there's a mod on PSD with that name, I just got it confused.

 

By the way, Stones exact words were "If the Dodgers are dangling Izturis for Ramirez straight up, you hold off, but if they include a prospect, it's a deal that has to be made". Then he replied that a Cedeno/Izturis infield is one that "lasts for 10 years". I remember that day vividly.

That's amazing that you remember his exact words from a random day two years ago.

 

No offense, but I doubt he said that.

Just searched it real quick and found this:

The Evil Stoney said yesterday that the Dodgers would be a team that has interest and $$$ to deal for ARam. He said that Bill Mueller won't be back and that Ned Colletti may be looking to acquire an impact 3rd baseman. He felt that Cesar Izturis is being dangled, but it would take more young Dodger players to get ARam. Stoney said a Cedeno/Izturis infield is one that 'lasts for 10 years'. He also mentioned that Maddux could wind up in LA too.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=33230&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=stone+izturis

 

I'm telling you, he even said "prospect" not "prospects".

 

Yeah, so one unsubstantiated poster and your 2-year-old memory is beyond contestation.

 

Not saying he never suggested a deal, but I highly doubt he was saying Izzy/ARam straight up, or even close.

I posted another thread above your post with another quote fwiw. I'm telling you, he was throwing out different variations over the span of a couple days and one was Aramis for Izturis and a prospect, and then he raved about Izturis' defense and about how we would be set for forever with him and Cedeno.

[umpunk]

I remember this Stone rumor. Now whether or not he actually said it, I cannot say but I do remember reading on here (and cubs.com) that Stone said we should trade ARam for Izturis (sp?).

[BigbadB]

as stated previously, the red sox lineup is chock full of patient hitters. It is well documented that was their offensive philosophy. I never said you had to have speed. I said we have a team full of free swingers & bad baserunners. The red sock hitters take pitches...not just at the top of the lineup either. They work the count & get into the opponent's bullpen. The Cub does the opposite. We keep average pitchers in the game by aggressively swinging at everything.

 

I don't think you'll get anyone to disagree with you that Boston's offense is better than the Cubs offense. Boston's offense is MUCH better than the Cubs. But, that's a management problem. Boston recognizes you should spend 130m on OUTSTANDING players rather than GOOD players. I do like Soriano more than a lot of other people, but I know he's not worth the kind of money he makes.

 

But, I wouldn't really call the Cubs line up nothing but a bunch of free swingers. Soriano is a free swinger. Jacque Jones was a free swinger, but he's gone and replaced by Fukudome, who appears to be nothing close to resembling a free swinger. I'd call Pie and Cedeno a couple of free swingers, but both have shown improvements in that area, and they both have time to develop a better approach at the plate. After those guys, I wouldn't call anyone else on the roster a "free swinger".

 

We have to live with the fact the Cubs spent all that money on a free swinger. But, I think you can work around a free swinger like Soriano and still put together a good offensive team.

 

Brian Roberts would improve the team, no doubt (depending on the value given up to get him). But, if you gave Piniella some Brian Roberts action, I most certainly wouldn't be surprised if Piniella's opening day line up looked like this:

 

Soriano, Roberts, Lee, Ramirez, Fukudome, Soto, Pie, Theriot

 

Not only does Soriano have the ability to score just as much as a guy like Roberts, he'd have lots of opportunities to drive guys in and he'd drive in more than Brian Roberts would. If you switched Theriot out for Cedeno or DeRosa, I think Soriano would drive in more than 100 RBI with that line up. That's plenty valuable for a lead off hitter.

 

No, you don't have to be qualified to post here. You have to be able to stand behind what you say, however. If you are going to call Soriano extremely overrated as a lead off hitter, you have to defend that stance, because many will disagree with you.

 

I have respect for Stone. However, I can't stand behind everything he says. Heck, I can't necessarily stand behind everything I've said over the years. But, just because someone is very knowledgeable about baseball doesn't necessarily make them an expert on line up construction. And the first person I'd point a finger at is Dusty. Dusty is very knowledgeable about baseball. He's been in the game for years and years. But, that doesn't make him an expert nor does that knowledge translate to filling out a line up card. How many times did Neifi Perez bat at the top of the order again? Oh yeah. Too many times.

 

I think you are right that teams should be adding players that have a good plate presence that improves the likelihood of scoring more runs. Robert is one of those guys. I'm just pointing out that Soriano is not extremely overrated in any aspect of the game, whether that's leading off, playing LF, running bases or throwing the ball. Sure, he's a free swinger. But, he's a free swinger with the capability of reaching 100 XBH's over the course of a season. Any team would find value in that no matter how much of a free swinger he is. Basically, it comes down to what happens to the baseball when that free swinger makes contact. In Soriano's case, good things happen.

[Soul]

wrigley boy? let's save the sophomoric nonsense. I never heard stone say that & I highly doubt he did. there was a time a couple yrs ago that aramis was constantly hurt, would go in prolonged slumps & wailed away at the plate. He showed a complete lack of character when dlee went down by tucking his tail & seemed to have given up. Many thought the cubs were looking to move his salary at the time. With a healthy lee, he came back to form last year. Speaking of a lineup full of free swingers, for those johnny peralta lovers out there...he brings no speed to the lineup & whiffed a whopping 146 times last year. He is hardly what this lineup needs.

My bad on the name, there's a mod on PSD with that name, I just got it confused.

 

By the way, Stones exact words were "If the Dodgers are dangling Izturis for Ramirez straight up, you hold off, but if they include a prospect, it's a deal that has to be made". Then he replied that a Cedeno/Izturis infield is one that "lasts for 10 years". I remember that day vividly.

That's amazing that you remember his exact words from a random day two years ago.

 

No offense, but I doubt he said that.

Just searched it real quick and found this:

The Evil Stoney said yesterday that the Dodgers would be a team that has interest and $$$ to deal for ARam. He said that Bill Mueller won't be back and that Ned Colletti may be looking to acquire an impact 3rd baseman. He felt that Cesar Izturis is being dangled, but it would take more young Dodger players to get ARam. Stoney said a Cedeno/Izturis infield is one that 'lasts for 10 years'. He also mentioned that Maddux could wind up in LA too.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=33230&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=stone+izturis

 

I'm telling you, he even said "prospect" not "prospects".

 

Yeah, so one unsubstantiated poster and your 2-year-old memory is beyond contestation.

 

Not saying he never suggested a deal, but I highly doubt he was saying Izzy/ARam straight up, or even close.

I posted another thread above your post with another quote fwiw. I'm telling you, he was throwing out different variations over the span of a couple days and one was Aramis for Izturis and a prospect, and then he raved about Izturis' defense and about how we would be set for forever with him and Cedeno.

 

I think people hear what they want to hear, especially when it comes to Stone. Not that I think he would be a good GM; he wouldn't, IMO. Many other color analysts would make horrible GMs, too. I listen to Stone's spots quite a bit too on 670, and numerous times I've come here and elsewhere to find that a poster has either a) *greatly* misinterpreted what he was saying, or b) missed a key nuance in what was being discussed that totally changes the context and meaning of the discussion.

 

Again, I'm not saying there was never any discussion around an ARam deal. Can you provide a link to an article that gives a direct quote? That's a much better source for something that someone said than 2nd-hand reporting of a verbal discussion on the radio.

[RammyFanny]

wrigley boy? let's save the sophomoric nonsense. I never heard stone say that & I highly doubt he did. there was a time a couple yrs ago that aramis was constantly hurt, would go in prolonged slumps & wailed away at the plate. He showed a complete lack of character when dlee went down by tucking his tail & seemed to have given up. Many thought the cubs were looking to move his salary at the time. With a healthy lee, he came back to form last year. Speaking of a lineup full of free swingers, for those johnny peralta lovers out there...he brings no speed to the lineup & whiffed a whopping 146 times last year. He is hardly what this lineup needs.

My bad on the name, there's a mod on PSD with that name, I just got it confused.

 

By the way, Stones exact words were "If the Dodgers are dangling Izturis for Ramirez straight up, you hold off, but if they include a prospect, it's a deal that has to be made". Then he replied that a Cedeno/Izturis infield is one that "lasts for 10 years". I remember that day vividly.

That's amazing that you remember his exact words from a random day two years ago.

 

No offense, but I doubt he said that.

Just searched it real quick and found this:

The Evil Stoney said yesterday that the Dodgers would be a team that has interest and $$$ to deal for ARam. He said that Bill Mueller won't be back and that Ned Colletti may be looking to acquire an impact 3rd baseman. He felt that Cesar Izturis is being dangled, but it would take more young Dodger players to get ARam. Stoney said a Cedeno/Izturis infield is one that 'lasts for 10 years'. He also mentioned that Maddux could wind up in LA too.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=33230&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=stone+izturis

 

I'm telling you, he even said "prospect" not "prospects".

 

Yeah, so one unsubstantiated poster and your 2-year-old memory is beyond contestation.

 

Not saying he never suggested a deal, but I highly doubt he was saying Izzy/ARam straight up, or even close.

I posted another thread above your post with another quote fwiw. I'm telling you, he was throwing out different variations over the span of a couple days and one was Aramis for Izturis and a prospect, and then he raved about Izturis' defense and about how we would be set for forever with him and Cedeno.

 

I think people hear what they want to hear, especially when it comes to Stone. Not that I think he would be a good GM; he wouldn't, IMO. Many other color analysts would make horrible GMs, too. I listen to Stone's spots quite a bit too on 670, and numerous times I've come here and elsewhere to find that a poster has either a) *greatly* misinterpreted what he was saying, or b) missed a key nuance in what was being discussed that totally changes the context and meaning of the discussion.

 

Again, I'm not saying there was never any discussion around an ARam deal. Can you provide a link to an article that gives a direct quote? That's a much better source for something that someone said than 2nd-hand reporting of a verbal discussion on the radio.

You know I can't, no article is going to randomly publish Steve Stone quotes form a morning radio show. I'm just saying I remember what he said, over the course of a couple days he threw out some "trade ARam to the Dodgers" scenario's and one of them was Ramirez for Izturis and a prospect. Maybe he meant a damn good prospect, but he never even elaborated on that, he just mentioned how it would be amazing being able to pencil in Izturis and Cedeno for the next ten years. I mean, come on, my name is "RammyFanny", I remember these kind of things when it comes to my favorite player :D

[inari]

wrigley boy? let's save the sophomoric nonsense. I never heard stone say that & I highly doubt he did. there was a time a couple yrs ago that aramis was constantly hurt, would go in prolonged slumps & wailed away at the plate. He showed a complete lack of character when dlee went down by tucking his tail & seemed to have given up. Many thought the cubs were looking to move his salary at the time. With a healthy lee, he came back to form last year. Speaking of a lineup full of free swingers, for those johnny peralta lovers out there...he brings no speed to the lineup & whiffed a whopping 146 times last year. He is hardly what this lineup needs.

 

-I actually remember Stoney saying this too. It definitely was said.

-Aramis has never ever shown a "complete lack of character." The year D-Lee went down, he had one of his best years.

-He didn't come back to form last year. He wasn't as good as he was the year before.

-The fact that Johnny Peralta strikes out a lot is completely irrelevant to any discussion on how much he'd help the offense become more patient.

 

I think the only guys in the lineup that could really be classified as free swingers are Soriano and Pie. I expect you think D-Lee is a free swinger since he strikes out a lot, though.

[BigbadB]

The fact that Johnny Peralta strikes out a lot is completely irrelevant

This would be true. Sammy Sosa not only led the Cubs in strike outs, he's #2 behind only Reggie Jackson in career strike outs. Who really cares how someone makes an out? It's what you do when bat and meets ball. If Theriot never struck out and Peralta struck out 200 times per year, I'd take Peralta over Theriot all day long.

[Sammy Sofa]

Who really cares how someone makes an out? It's what you do when bat and meets ball.

 

Well, if a lot of those are double plays...

 

But yes, otherwise I agree.

Edited January 13, 2008 by Sammy Sofa

[UK1679666180]

Obviously those strikeouts have hurt his numbers, but his approach at the plate (aggressive with two strikes and swinging hard) might make him a better over hitter factoring power than if he would shorten his swing and go to RF.

 

My main concern with someone Peralta would be if he regresses physically to a 3B man playing SS, which is dangerous slope that could be approaching quickly.

 

Offensively, he's prob. a #6 hitter on a decent offensive team which is more than what the Cubs have and outweighs any defense or ability of Theriot to avoid strikeouts/move up runners.

[inari]

Obviously those strikeouts have hurt his numbers, but his approach at the plate (aggressive with two strikes and swinging hard) might make him a better over hitter factoring power than if he would shorten his swing and go to RF.

 

My main concern with someone Peralta would be if he regresses physically to a 3B man playing SS, which is dangerous slope that could be approaching quickly.

 

Offensively, he's prob. a #6 hitter on a decent offensive team which is more than what the Cubs have and outweighs any defense or ability of Theriot to avoid strikeouts/move up runners.

 

I think it's unfair to say that the Cubs aren't a decent offensive team. And realistically, he very well could hit sixth in our offense.

[UK1679666180]

 

I think it's unfair to say that the Cubs aren't a decent offensive team. And realistically, he very well could hit sixth in our offense.

 

The Cubs are a decent offensive team, I just worded it poorly...

 

Offensively, he's prob. a #6 hitter on a decent offensive team which is more than what the Cubs have

 

This was supposed to say, Peralta as a SS is more than what the Cubs at SS.

[cubfan]

wrigley boy? let's save the sophomoric nonsense. I never heard stone say that & I highly doubt he did. there was a time a couple yrs ago that aramis was constantly hurt, would go in prolonged slumps & wailed away at the plate. He showed a complete lack of character when dlee went down by tucking his tail & seemed to have given up. Many thought the cubs were looking to move his salary at the time. With a healthy lee, he came back to form last year. Speaking of a lineup full of free swingers, for those johnny peralta lovers out there...he brings no speed to the lineup & whiffed a whopping 146 times last year. He is hardly what this lineup needs.

 

-I actually remember Stoney saying this too. It definitely was said.

-Aramis has never ever shown a "complete lack of character." The year D-Lee went down, he had one of his best years.

-He didn't come back to form last year. He wasn't as good as he was the year before.

-The fact that Johnny Peralta strikes out a lot is completely irrelevant to any discussion on how much he'd help the offense become more patient.

 

I think the only guys in the lineup that could really be classified as free swingers are Soriano and Pie. I expect you think D-Lee is a free swinger since he strikes out a lot, though.

 

For what it is worth, I remember reading that Stone suggested ARam for Izturis+prospect also. I also remeber hearing and reading that Stone say that the Cubs would be set for 10 years with a Izturis and Cedeno MI. I like Stone but do not think he would make a good GM.

[CubbieSouthpaw II]

Maybe Dempster would be traded for Byrd.

 

Or maybe we could get Marquis' contract off the books?

 

 

Just a question here and its probably been talked about and thought of way before I did. But would Marquis be a decent middle innings guy? He's durable, throws hard and is an innings eater.

 

Just thinking out loud!!!

[Keener98]

Maybe Dempster would be traded for Byrd.

 

Or maybe we could get Marquis' contract off the books?

 

 

Just a question here and its probably been talked about and thought of way before I did. But would Marquis be a decent middle innings guy? He's durable, throws hard and is an innings eater.

 

Just thinking out loud!!!

 

 

Any way to lessen Marquis innings would be a good thing, however Marquis isnt known to be a real accomadating guy. When things arent the way he wants them, he is usually pretty vocal about it, so I highly doubt he'd accept a bullpen role quietly.

[C.C.]

I still believe. Keep the faith!

[CyHawk_Cub]

I love this rationale that because hes a broadcaster he knows more than myself or others on this board. Baseball is all about who you know and getting your foot in the door. I mean what was the trade that Stone advocated a couple years ago, Aram for who? Stone also thinks Theriot is good at baseball, enough said.

 

Aramis for Cesar Izturis, if I'm not mistaken.

 

Wait. Seriously?

 

I recall Stoney advocating a ARam for ManRam deal a couple years ago...

[mdwilla]

Stone ran proposed a Manny for Aram a few years but I clearly remember Stone advocating a Aram for Izturis a few years back also it was laughable even then.

[SouthSideRyan]

 

Yeah, so one unsubstantiated poster and your 2-year-old memory is beyond contestation.

 

Not saying he never suggested a deal, but I highly doubt he was saying Izzy/ARam straight up, or even close.

 

How bout my 2 year old memory too. And a bunch of other posters here's memory.

 

The cult of Steve Stone might be the only thing in contention with the Cult of Mark Grace when it comes to undeserved hero worship

[WilcoFan]

I remember Stone advocating for this trade as well. And how impressed he was that the Cubs were able to get Izturis for Maddux.

 

Steve Stone is a very good broadcaster, and knows a fair share about baseball. That doesn't mean he deserves the type of God-like worship so many people in Chicago bestow upon him. Next to Mike Ditka, he may be the most ridiculously worshiped former Chicago athlete of all time.

[BigbadB]

Next to Mike Ditka, he may be the most ridiculously worshiped former Chicago athlete of all time.

 

Are you referring to the Mike Ditka that has a Super Bowl ring?

[WilcoFan]

Next to Mike Ditka, he may be the most ridiculously worshiped former Chicago athlete of all time.

 

Are you referring to the Mike Ditka that has a Super Bowl ring?

 

The same one whose ego prevented a 3-4 year dynasty, yes.

[Soul]

 

Yeah, so one unsubstantiated poster and your 2-year-old memory is beyond contestation.

 

Not saying he never suggested a deal, but I highly doubt he was saying Izzy/ARam straight up, or even close.

 

How bout my 2 year old memory too. And a bunch of other posters here's memory.

 

The cult of Steve Stone might be the only thing in contention with the Cult of Mark Grace when it comes to undeserved hero worship

 

I'm not trying to offend anyone, honestly. But I don't care how many people think they remember someone saying something -- if it can't be reproduced in print or on tape or something then it's pretty hard for me, someone who didn't happen to hear it, to make a judgement about what I think the man said, including context.

 

Therefore, I'm not going to give it the same level of creedence as I would something that's more substantiated.

 

Call in to Stoney's segment and get him to repeat it :mrgreen:

[Vanilla Ice]

it's pretty hard for me

 

That's what she said