Please, someone, anyone, explain this team to me.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

 

What about the center field bleachers?

 

"WE WANT A PITCHER NOT A BELLY ITCHER"

 

I hear the shrubs are too shy to join in the taunting.

[Roast]

 

What about the center field bleachers?

 

"WE WANT A PITCHER NOT A BELLY ITCHER"

 

I hear the shrubs are too shy to join in the taunting.

 

Sissy's.

[10man]

No, you don't understand. I'm just saying that one shouldn't put all their faith in the hands of several untried players. Laying that much pressure on rookies is probably not a good idea. Now, if they step up and do the job, great. I just don't want to load the pressure of a stretch run on the backs of rookies, then if we don't make it, sacrafce them in some sort of scapegoating manauver.

First, laying it on the rookies has been working out pretty well for Bobby Cox and the Braves, hasn't it?

 

Second, how are the rookies supposed to "step up and do the job" if they don't consistently get to play because somebody has to play the "proven veterans"?

Thats Bobby Cox and the Braves, not the Cubs and Dusty Baker. The Brave's farm system for some reason is very good at preparing young players for the majors.

 

And, yes, a balance does need to be struck between playing rookies and veterans, so the rookies can get playing time to prove themselvs. All I'm saying is not to through them in there without experience. Its a recipie for disaster for them and the team.

Settle down, my man. I encourage you to take the time to read the other posts carefully. Most of the longtime posters here have already given lots of facts to support their arguments so that we when they restate their position on a subject we already know where they are coming from. You are certainly free to state your own opinions here but be careful about attacking long-time members here when you have not taken the time to do your homework about them.

 

I think when you browse this forum you will realize that very few are anointing rookies as saviors or handing them everyday jobs to do with as they please. To be specific, people here are not suggesting Murton be the everyday LF, we just want him to play because he is the hot hand right now and would probably be able to contribute more towards the Cubs winning. In the end that is what Cub fans want the most. Maximize the Cubs' chance of WINNING.

[burnt out cubbie fan]

WOHOO, another dusty debate!!!!!

 

We should make a dust sucks/rocks forum.

 

forum???

 

 

we should just make it mandatory that left feild screams "Dusty Rocks!"

 

right field could reply w/ "Dusty Sox!!"

 

goo ole fashioned Wrigley traditions!!!

 

:clown:

 

What about the center field bleachers?

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

[Bench Coach]

No, you don't understand. I'm just saying that one shouldn't put all their faith in the hands of several untried players. Laying that much pressure on rookies is probably not a good idea. Now, if they step up and do the job, great. I just don't want to load the pressure of a stretch run on the backs of rookies, then if we don't make it, sacrafce them in some sort of scapegoating manauver.

First, laying it on the rookies has been working out pretty well for Bobby Cox and the Braves, hasn't it?

 

Second, how are the rookies supposed to "step up and do the job" if they don't consistently get to play because somebody has to play the "proven veterans"?

Thats Bobby Cox and the Braves, not the Cubs and Dusty Baker. The Brave's farm system for some reason is very good at preparing young players for the majors.

 

And, yes, a balance does need to be struck between playing rookies and veterans, so the rookies can get playing time to prove themselvs. All I'm saying is not to through them in there without experience. Its a recipie for disaster for them and the team.

Settle down, my man. I encourage you to take the time to read the other posts carefully. Most of the longtime posters here have already given lots of facts to support their arguments so that we when they restate their position on a subject we already know where they are coming from. You are certainly free to state your own opinions here but be careful about attacking long-time members here when you have not taken the time to do your homework about them.

 

I think when you browse this forum you will realize that very few are anointing rookies as saviors or handing them everyday jobs to do with as they please. To be specific, people here are not suggesting Murton be the everyday LF, we just want him to play because he is the hot hand right now and would probably be able to contribute more towards the Cubs winning. In the end that is what Cub fans want the most. Maximize the Cubs' chance of WINNING.

 

You need to calm down. I'm not angry, or anything, I'm just explaining my point. If said long time posters disagree then they can take the time to explain why. I don't have endless ammounts of time to read every post in NSBB history to determine what everbody's feeling is on a specific issue.

 

Once again I'm not angry, I don't know why you think I am. But don't expect me to go back and research every poster's position on every subject over that poster's last 1000 or so posts, just so I can be deemed worthy to comment. I don't have the time. If you think I'm wrong, TELL ME WHY! Don't tell me to respect my "elders".

[imb]

If you have enough time to sit around waiting for someone to answer you, then you have enough time to read one of the approximately 8 million Dusty threads on this board.

[Bench Coach]

If you have enough time to sit around waiting for someone to answer you, then you have enough time to read one of the approximately 8 million Dusty threads on this board.

 

And, if you had enough time to type that I guess you had enough time to put up one reason why you dislike Dusty.

[katway]

Murton has palyed in a whole (maybe) 15 games. I think this kid is special, but he needs more at-bats. Hollandsworth is a bech player, and should be so. Unfourtanately Dusty's only alternative is a rookie. Like I said I like Murton, but it's a little too early to call him the next Pujols.

I said he was good. When did I call him Pujols? When did anyone call him Pujols? At some point he has to get playing time. Why can't that time be now since we have no better alternative?

 

Because we're 2.5 games out of the Wild Card. Now is not the time to experiment. Now, if he keeps hitting like he is, I'm all for it. Just don't get to high on this kid too fast. We did that with one outfielder one time. I think his name is Corey Paterson.

 

I know nobody called him Pujols, I was parraphrasing.

 

Murton and Patterson are different players with a different approach to the game. Patterson was/is a high schooler with a long swing, poor command of the strike zone, and bad approach at the plate. Murton is a college grad with a short swing, great command of the strike zone, and a veteran's approach at the plate. You can't lump all players together, there is no cookie cutter approach that works for everyone. Murton is not Corey, Murton deserves to play because Murton can play. Don't sit Murton just because Corey can't play.

 

Aside from the whole Murton issue, everyone knows there are a laundry list of Baker's miscues this year. Perhaps the two most glaring have been putting Corey and Neifi in the 1 and 2 slots in front of Lee and using LaTroy as a closer when Hendry clearly wanted Dempster in that role from the get go....

[10man]

If you have enough time to sit around waiting for someone to answer you, then you have enough time to read one of the approximately 8 million Dusty threads on this board.

And, if you had enough time to type that I guess you had enough time to put up one reason why you dislike Dusty.

You wan't reasons, here's a more complete "laudry list" of why many people on this board dislike Dusty:

1) Insists on using Remlinger against lefties when his career splits clearly says that he is good against righties and bad against lefties

2) Forcing Hawkins into the closer role when he clearly does not have the makeup to do well in that situation (disregarding Hendry's advice at the beggining of the season to use Dempster as the closer instead)

3) Forcing Chad Fox to pitch too much too soon resulting in him blowing out his arm

4) Playing Holly over Dubois during the time when Jason was red hot and Holly was in a terrible slump.

5) Playing Holly over Murton NOW when Murton is red hot and Holly is again in a terrible slump.

6) Consistently putting low OBP players (Corey, Neifi, Macias) at the top of the lineup resulting in Lee, Burnitz and Aram often batting with no one on base.

7) Trying to convert Corey Patterson to be a leadoff man when he has never been a leadoff man in his entire life let alone his professional career.

8) Often allowing his starters to throw too many pitches in a game.

 

There are more but that should be enough for now since you don't seem to have enough time to read.

[neely crenshaw]

there is no way hendry wanted dempster as closer. he was banking on jobo. if dempster was his guy he would have gotten the shot from the begiining. we had hundreds of options to replavce a starter but few for closer but dempster still went to the rotation "all spring training". dempster was given a shot by default.

[katway]

there is no way hendry wanted dempster as closer. he was banking on jobo. if dempster was his guy he would have gotten the shot from the begiining. we had hundreds of options to replavce a starter but few for closer but dempster still went to the rotation "all spring training". dempster was given a shot by default.

 

Dempster was constently mentioned by Hendry as a potential closer in the off season. His name often came up when we decided not to go after some of the aging closers out there. Dempster even prepared to close all off season.

 

Dusty, as always, simply went with his own thought process and decided to put Dempster in the starting rotation.

 

What Hendry wants and what Dusty does are 2 different things. Case in point: Cedeno gets called up from AAA and Dusty only plays him once a week. My gut tells me that wasn't Hendry's intention in calling up Cedeno.

[Illini Iceman]

No, you don't understand. I'm just saying that one shouldn't put all their faith in the hands of several untried players. Laying that much pressure on rookies is probably not a good idea. Now, if they step up and do the job, great. I just don't want to load the pressure of a stretch run on the backs of rookies, then if we don't make it, sacrafce them in some sort of scapegoating manauver.

First, laying it on the rookies has been working out pretty well for Bobby Cox and the Braves, hasn't it?

 

Second, how are the rookies supposed to "step up and do the job" if they don't consistently get to play because somebody has to play the "proven veterans"?

Thats Bobby Cox and the Braves, not the Cubs and Dusty Baker. The Brave's farm system for some reason is very good at preparing young players for the majors.

 

And, yes, a balance does need to be struck between playing rookies and veterans, so the rookies can get playing time to prove themselvs. All I'm saying is not to through them in there without experience. Its a recipie for disaster for them and the team.

Settle down, my man. I encourage you to take the time to read the other posts carefully. Most of the longtime posters here have already given lots of facts to support their arguments so that we when they restate their position on a subject we already know where they are coming from. You are certainly free to state your own opinions here but be careful about attacking long-time members here when you have not taken the time to do your homework about them.

 

I think when you browse this forum you will realize that very few are anointing rookies as saviors or handing them everyday jobs to do with as they please. To be specific, people here are not suggesting Murton be the everyday LF, we just want him to play because he is the hot hand right now and would probably be able to contribute more towards the Cubs winning. In the end that is what Cub fans want the most. Maximize the Cubs' chance of WINNING.

 

You need to calm down. I'm not angry, or anything, I'm just explaining my point. If said long time posters disagree then they can take the time to explain why. I don't have endless ammounts of time to read every post in NSBB history to determine what everbody's feeling is on a specific issue.

 

Once again I'm not angry, I don't know why you think I am. But don't expect me to go back and research every poster's position on every subject over that poster's last 1000 or so posts, just so I can be deemed worthy to comment. I don't have the time. If you think I'm wrong, TELL ME WHY! Don't tell me to respect my "elders".

 

If you are a Dusty fan with the current mix of regular posters you are always going to get shouted down. And don't even think about saying anything good about Macias or Neifi.

In the game threads when the Cubs win there are always a bunch of posts saying how they were so lucky to win in spite of Dusty's bad moves (even if they worked out). If Neifi or Macias get a hit in a key spot there is the obligatory statement about how it kind of sucks because now Dusty will never stop playing them.

The beauty is that you won't just get replies disagreeing with you, but also impying how little you must understand about baseball if you don't agree.

When Dubois was the flavor of the month the anti Dusty crowd was laughing about Dusty's theory of picking spots for him to succeed and were insisting that if he played every day instead of Holly he would produce. When Dubois did get the chance his numbers faded. Now that is all forgotten and the same argument is going on about Murton.

Fact of the matter is that the current manager is always going to be subject to a lot of criticism on message boards so if you like him you need to have thick skin.

This is still the best Cubs related board around and a great source of information and debate.

Enjoy!

[Bench Coach]

If you are a Dusty fan with the current mix of regular posters you are always going to get shouted down. And don't even think about saying anything good about Macias or Neifi.

In the game threads when the Cubs win there are always a bunch of posts saying how they were so lucky to win in spite of Dusty's bad moves (even if they worked out). If Neifi or Macias get a hit in a key spot there is the obligatory statement about how it kind of sucks because now Dusty will never stop playing them.

The beauty is that you won't just get replies disagreeing with you, but also impying how little you must understand about baseball if you don't agree.

When Dubois was the flavor of the month the anti Dusty crowd was laughing about Dusty's theory of picking spots for him to succeed and were insisting that if he played every day instead of Holly he would produce. When Dubois did get the chance his numbers faded. Now that is all forgotten and the same argument is going on about Murton.

Fact of the matter is that the current manager is always going to be subject to a lot of criticism on message boards so if you like him you need to have thick skin.

This is still the best Cubs related board around and a great source of information and debate.

Enjoy!

 

Thankyou Illini Iceman.

 

This post pretty much sums up a lot of the things I've been trying to say. Now, I am not a huge Dusty fan, I just think that blaming him for EVERTHING wrong with the teram is incredibly reactionary. The fact is Dusty is a winner, a fact which cannot be denied by even the most ardent Dusty hataz.

 

You wan't reasons, here's a more complete "laudry list" of why many people on this board dislike Dusty:

1) Insists on using Remlinger against lefties when his career splits clearly says that he is good against righties and bad against lefties

2) Forcing Hawkins into the closer role when he clearly does not have the makeup to do well in that situation (disregarding Hendry's advice at the beggining of the season to use Dempster as the closer instead)

3) Forcing Chad Fox to pitch too much too soon resulting in him blowing out his arm

4) Playing Holly over Dubois during the time when Jason was red hot and Holly was in a terrible slump.

5) Playing Holly over Murton NOW when Murton is red hot and Holly is again in a terrible slump.

6) Consistently putting low OBP players (Corey, Neifi, Macias) at the top of the lineup resulting in Lee, Burnitz and Aram often batting with no one on base.

7) Trying to convert Corey Patterson to be a leadoff man when he has never been a leadoff man in his entire life let alone his professional career.

8) Often allowing his starters to throw too many pitches in a game.

 

There are more but that should be enough for now since you don't seem to have enough time to read.

 

Thankyou, was that so hard?

 

And, no, I don't have time to go back and read all of the 800,000 posts from every Dusty hater on this site over the past year or so so I can be deemed wothy by you to comment on this subject. None of you are an expert on this, and neither am I. If you disagree with me then tell me why, don't try to shout me down by telling me how right you are because you've been on this site longer than me, because you won't succeed. Get over yourselves.

 

Now, I think this has gotten out of hand. We're all a few posts away from personal attacks and name calling, and I don't want to see that happen. I've made my point, and you've made yours. Lets let it go, shall we.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

And, no, I don't have time to go back and read all of the 800,000 posts from every Dusty hater on this site over the past year or so so I can be deemed wothy by you to comment on this subject. None of you are an expert on this, and neither am I. If you disagree with me then tell me why, don't try to shout me down by telling me how right you are because you've been on this site longer than me, because you won't succeed. Get over yourselves.

 

Where did anyone say anything remotely resembling that? Some people suggested that you read about some of the past Dusty debates since you are a relatively new poster, and you asked why people don't like Dusty. No one said that any opinion was more valid because a person has been on the site longer, or anything close to that.

[CubinNY]

appearently it is too much to ask that someone read before they start making acusations.

 

Illini Iceman:

I drove home from the store today on the wrong side of the road and I didn't get a ticket or into an accident, so becuase everything worked out ok it was the right thing to do. :joker:

[scs_paradise]

If you are a Dusty fan with the current mix of regular posters you are always going to get shouted down. And don't even think about saying anything good about Macias or Neifi.

In the game threads when the Cubs win there are always a bunch of posts saying how they were so lucky to win in spite of Dusty's bad moves (even if they worked out). If Neifi or Macias get a hit in a key spot there is the obligatory statement about how it kind of sucks because now Dusty will never stop playing them.

The beauty is that you won't just get replies disagreeing with you, but also impying how little you must understand about baseball if you don't agree.

When Dubois was the flavor of the month the anti Dusty crowd was laughing about Dusty's theory of picking spots for him to succeed and were insisting that if he played every day instead of Holly he would produce. When Dubois did get the chance his numbers faded. Now that is all forgotten and the same argument is going on about Murton.

Fact of the matter is that the current manager is always going to be subject to a lot of criticism on message boards so if you like him you need to have thick skin.

This is still the best Cubs related board around and a great source of information and debate.

Enjoy!

 

Thankyou Illini Iceman.

 

This post pretty much sums up a lot of the things I've been trying to say. Now, I am not a huge Dusty fan, I just think that blaming him for EVERTHING wrong with the teram is incredibly reactionary. The fact is Dusty is a winner, a fact which cannot be denied by even the most ardent Dusty hataz.

 

You wan't reasons, here's a more complete "laudry list" of why many people on this board dislike Dusty:

1) Insists on using Remlinger against lefties when his career splits clearly says that he is good against righties and bad against lefties

2) Forcing Hawkins into the closer role when he clearly does not have the makeup to do well in that situation (disregarding Hendry's advice at the beggining of the season to use Dempster as the closer instead)

3) Forcing Chad Fox to pitch too much too soon resulting in him blowing out his arm

4) Playing Holly over Dubois during the time when Jason was red hot and Holly was in a terrible slump.

5) Playing Holly over Murton NOW when Murton is red hot and Holly is again in a terrible slump.

6) Consistently putting low OBP players (Corey, Neifi, Macias) at the top of the lineup resulting in Lee, Burnitz and Aram often batting with no one on base.

7) Trying to convert Corey Patterson to be a leadoff man when he has never been a leadoff man in his entire life let alone his professional career.

8) Often allowing his starters to throw too many pitches in a game.

 

There are more but that should be enough for now since you don't seem to have enough time to read.

 

Thankyou, was that so hard?

 

And, no, I don't have time to go back and read all of the 800,000 posts from every Dusty hater on this site over the past year or so so I can be deemed wothy by you to comment on this subject. None of you are an expert on this, and neither am I. If you disagree with me then tell me why, don't try to shout me down by telling me how right you are because you've been on this site longer than me, because you won't succeed. Get over yourselves.

 

Now, I think this has gotten out of hand. We're all a few posts away from personal attacks and name calling, and I don't want to see that happen. I've made my point, and you've made yours. Lets let it go, shall we.

 

afraid you are a day late and a dollar short with this comment. you should really look at the thread history, many times simple questions like "why don't people like dusty?" are easily answered by past threads including very very recent ones. if you don't you end up looking like the kid in class who isn't paying attention and then asks a question just answered by the teacher

[Bench Coach]

Where did anyone say anything remotely resembling that? Some people suggested that you read about some of the past Dusty debates since you are a relatively new poster, and you asked why people don't like Dusty. No one said that any opinion was more valid because a person has been on the site longer, or anything close to that.

 

By telling me to go back and read your posts your implying tat I'm not worthy to post on this subject unless I read all of your posts, which also implies that your opinoin is more valid than mine.

 

some of the past Dusty debates since you are a relatively new poster,

 

This quote serves to imply this as well.

 

In case you haven't noticed this is a site for amatuers. Just because some of the poster I'm arguing with have 1000 + posts doesn't meant they know jack about baseball or the Cubs or anything else, and just because I don't have very many posts doesn't mean I

don't

know jack about baseball or the Cubs. I'm not I know more than you do, I'm just saying that my opinoin is not worth less than yours just because you've bee on this site longer than me.

 

 

appearently it is too much to ask that someone read before they start making acusations.

 

And, apparently it is too much to ask for you to list the reasons you don'y like Dusty. Taking two minutes to type up a few reasons would take far less time than to find every post ever made as to why you and everyone else doesn't like Dusty.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Where did anyone say anything remotely resembling that? Some people suggested that you read about some of the past Dusty debates since you are a relatively new poster, and you asked why people don't like Dusty. No one said that any opinion was more valid because a person has been on the site longer, or anything close to that.

 

By telling me to go back and read your posts your implying tat I'm not worthy to post on this subject unless I read all of your posts, which also implies that your opinoin is more valid than mine.

 

some of the past Dusty debates since you are a relatively new poster,

 

This quote serves to imply this as well.

 

In case you haven't noticed this is a site for amatuers. Just because some of the poster I'm arguing with have 1000 + posts doesn't meant they know jack about baseball or the Cubs or anything else, and just because I don't have very many posts doesn't mean I don't know jack about baseball or the Cubs. I'm not I know more than you do, I'm just saying that my opinoin is not worth less than yours just because you've bee on this site longer than me.

 

Good grief. YOU ASKED WHY PEOPLE AT THIS SITE DON'T LIKE DUSTY. PEOPLE LINKED YOU TO A SOURCE OF AMPLE INFORMATION TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. They linked you to these debates since you were new, AND WERE UNABLE TO PARTICIPATE OR SEE IN THEM WHEN THEY HAPPENED. No one is saying your opinion means less, they were just trying to answer your question with the most complete information.

[Bench Coach]

you should really look at the thread history, many times simple questions like "why don't people like dusty?" are easily answered by past threads including very very recent ones.

 

Once again, I don't have time to go back and read 800,000 posts to know what everyone's opinoin on Dusty is. And, quite frankly, since none of you are experts, to suggest that your opinoins are so important that I have to go back and look, an that your time is so precious that you don't have the time to put down a specific reason as to why you dislike Dusty but that I should take the time to go back and read all of your posts is hippocritical.

 

Once again, get overyourselves.

[scs_paradise]

Where did anyone say anything remotely resembling that? Some people suggested that you read about some of the past Dusty debates since you are a relatively new poster, and you asked why people don't like Dusty. No one said that any opinion was more valid because a person has been on the site longer, or anything close to that.

 

By telling me to go back and read your posts your implying tat I'm not worthy to post on this subject unless I read all of your posts, which also implies that your opinoin is more valid than mine.

 

some of the past Dusty debates since you are a relatively new poster,

 

This quote serves to imply this as well.

 

In case you haven't noticed this is a site for amatuers. Just because some of the poster I'm arguing with have 1000 + posts doesn't meant they know jack about baseball or the Cubs or anything else, and just because I don't have very many posts doesn't mean I

don't

know jack about baseball or the Cubs. I'm not I know more than you do, I'm just saying that my opinoin is not worth less than yours just because you've bee on this site longer than me.

 

 

appearently it is too much to ask that someone read before they start making acusations.

 

And, apparently it is too much to ask for you to list the reasons you don'y like Dusty. Taking two minutes to type up a few reasons would take far less time than to find every post ever made as to why you and everyone else doesn't like Dusty.

 

 

when they have been listed over and over and over and over again recently (like the last week) yeah I'm gonna say YOU THE POSTER are responsible for educating yourself on the feeling of the other posters on the board before you ask a question that is answered all too often and ESPECIALLY before you go being a jerk to other posters who have been around for a long time. its just bad form

 

there is a reason the thread historys are well maintained on this board...look at them....

[scs_paradise]

you should really look at the thread history, many times simple questions like "why don't people like dusty?" are easily answered by past threads including very very recent ones.

 

Once again, I don't have time to go back and read 800,000 posts to know what everyone's opinoin on Dusty is. And, quite frankly, since none of you are experts, to suggest that your opinoins are so important that I have to go back and look, an that your time is so precious that you don't have the time to put down a specific reason as to why you dislike Dusty but that I should take the time to go back and read all of your posts is hippocritical.

 

Once again, get overyourselves.

 

you sir are out of control. we told you to go back and look CAUSE YOU ASKED not because our opinion means more...

[Bench Coach]

when they have been listed over and over and over and over again recently (like the last week) yeah I'm gonna say YOU THE POSTER are responsible for educating yourself on the feeling of the other posters on the board before you ask a question that is answered all too often and ESPECIALLY before you go being a jerk to other posters who have been around for a long time. its just bad form

there is a reason the thread historys are well maintained on this board...look at them...

 

what part of

Once again, I don't have time to go back and read 800,000 posts to know what everyone's opinoin on Dusty is.

Do you not understand? I have looked at the provided links, ALL I'm SAYING IS THAT SOMEONE's OPINOIN IS NOT MORE VALUABLE THAN MINE JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE POSTED MORE THAN ME.

 

This not a fraternity or a military orginization last time I checked. Just becasue you put in more time on a message board doesn't mean you have the right to try to shout me down.

 

I asked for some people to list reasons why they dislike Dusty, people provided links, then other people proceeded to treat me like an idiot because I didn't read every post EVER made on why people dislike Dusty. Just because I don't know your opinoin doesn't mean I don't know anything.

 

I am only replying to being treated like an idiot by jerks. Your opinoin is not the Alpha and Omega, and I hope someday you realise that. You telling me to take the time to sort through ALL of the sites history just to find out what EVERYONE'S opinoin of Dusty is not only incredibly ridiculous but also hippocritical considering you don't take far less time to answer me directly, and then insult me.

 

I came into this message board because it had a reputation as a good place to go for real baseball discussions. I did not, however, count on being treated like a Plebe by the more senior posters just because it took me longer to discover this site.

[imb]

Hahahha, this is awesome.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

For crying out loud, NO ONE IS SAYING YOUR OPINION MEANS LESS. NO ONE HAS SAID THAT, NOR IS ANYONE IMPLYING THAT.

 

I'm going to say that one more time to make sure.

 

NO ONE IS SAYING, IMPLYING OR OTHERWISE COMMUNICATING THAT YOUR OPINION MEANS LESS BECAUSE YOU ARE NEW, OR BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT READ SOMEONE ELSE'S OPINION.

 

Geez, all anyone did was ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.

[YearofDaCubs]

So, did the Cubs make a trade yet?