Furcal deal almost complete? -- ITI rumor

[Jehrico]

I am implying that having winning ballplayers wins championships. For the success of the Yankees(even though they have never won with the highest payroll) and Boston(who has only won one championship) there have been alot of Dodgers, Orioles and Mets. Teams that spend and dont win. So before you go bonzo with the checkbook look at those teams. Heck I remember 91 or 92 when we go George Bell, Danny Jackson and Dave Smith. Spending does not equal winning. Sorry there is not facts to support it.

 

Really? Which team had a higher payroll during the 90's when the Yankees were on their run?

 

There were several. The Yankees were near the top but not at the top.

 

Jeter

Bernie

O'neil

Posada

Brouscus

Tino

Pettitte

 

These guys were the core of that team and none were that expensive at the time they were winning it all

 

Sorry, not to hijack the thread, but what ever happened to Brocious? He hit like .287 in 1991 when he was 34 years old. You'd have to assume he had more baseball in him, but he never played again. Odd...

 

Do you mean 2001?

 

Yeah, that's what I meant.

[cubs121]

What do they mean in the article that the only thing holding up the trade is what kind of deal soriano would want in chicago.....

does this mean

1) that the trade is almost done????

I DONT UNDER STAND?? help PLEASE

[CaliforniaRaisin]

I am implying that having winning ballplayers wins championships. For the success of the Yankees(even though they have never won with the highest payroll) and Boston(who has only won one championship) there have been alot of Dodgers, Orioles and Mets. Teams that spend and dont win. So before you go bonzo with the checkbook look at those teams. Heck I remember 91 or 92 when we go George Bell, Danny Jackson and Dave Smith. Spending does not equal winning. Sorry there is not facts to support it.

 

Really? Which team had a higher payroll during the 90's when the Yankees were on their run?

 

There were several. The Yankees were near the top but not at the top.

 

Jeter

Bernie

O'neil

Posada

Brouscus

Tino

Pettitte

 

These guys were the core of that team and none were that expensive at the time they were winning it all

 

Sorry, not to hijack the thread, but what ever happened to Brocious? He hit like .287 in 1991 when he was 34 years old. You'd have to assume he had more baseball in him, but he never played again. Odd...

 

Do you mean 2001?

 

Yeah, that's what I meant.

 

I thought he retired, not sure though.

[NorthsideAvenger]

First: It's Brosius not Brouscus. Hard name to spell, but it is Brosius.

 

Second: i don't think Brosius officially announced his retirement. I think he just simply stop playing baseball. Cause I can't find an article, whatsoever, that stated he retired. I think after the 01 WS, he simply "quit baseball."

 

Third: 12 pages of conversation about an OBVIOUS fake rumor. Man, we are desparate for something to happen.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

What do they mean in the article that the only thing holding up the trade is what kind of deal soriano would want in chicago.....

does this mean

1) that the trade is almost done????

I DONT UNDER STAND?? help PLEASE

 

I think it means that this trade is a figment of someone's imagination. It's not happening.

[NCCubFan]

Heck I remember 91 or 92 when we go George Bell, Danny Jackson and Dave Smith.

That was the 91 season. I remember the Cubs were picked by many to win the division that year. Instead both Jackson and Smith were busts (I don't think it should have been a surprise for Jackson, because except for one career year he was average at best) and the Cubs went 77-83 (with Don Zimmer fired during the season). After the season Bell was traded to the White Sox for Ken Patterson and an underachieving outfielder who's name escapes me at the moment. :lol:

[Careless]

What a load of BS! Seriously, what's the point of posting such garbage? I don't understand the mentality that calls for posting erroneous rumors, is it to see how many replies it generates?

 

Even if none of the transactions here turn out to happen, I hardly find it a "stretch". All the players mentioned have also been mentioned in other more respected publications.

this might be the most ludicrous signing/trade proposal ever mentioned on this website. Maybe by a large degree. iF hendry made this, not only would he be fired soon, he would never be hired for a significant position by anyone who wasn't a good friend. These deals would be incredibly harmful to the team, and it doesn't even take a good understanding of baseball to see it.

[Careless]

When was the last time that the team with the largest payroll won the WS? It is not how championships are won.

 

So you're inferring spending money doesn't directly relate to winning? :shock:

 

edit: I'm not being sarcastic!

If that's what you think, you're wrong, btw. I'm not going to do the numbers on this again, but the top 5 payroll teams over the past 10 years have a well above average record. High payrolls do equal winning. that doesn't mean they guarantee a world series or even a playoff berth

[Careless]

I am implying that having winning ballplayers wins championships. For the success of the Yankees(even though they have never won with the highest payroll) and Boston(who has only won one championship) there have been alot of Dodgers, Orioles and Mets. Teams that spend and dont win. So before you go bonzo with the checkbook look at those teams. Heck I remember 91 or 92 when we go George Bell, Danny Jackson and Dave Smith. Spending does not equal winning. Sorry there is not facts to support it.

Yes, the orioles, dodgers, and mets are examples of teams that win far more games than they lose by spending a bunch of money. thanks for proving the opposite of what you intended.

And the "winning ballplayers wins championships" is a 100% retroactive designation, and, as such, is 100% worthless

[Hosak8]

Yes, the orioles, dodgers, and mets are examples of teams that win far more games than they lose by spending a bunch of money. thanks for proving the opposite of what you intended.

And the "winning ballplayers wins championships" is a 100% retroactive designation, and, as such, is 100% worthless

 

Wow. Really? Did you even bother to do any research before writing that? Now, I am not weighing in at all on whether or not you have to spend to win... but I find it humorous that you are ripping another poster when your facts are a little off.

 

You assert that the Mets, Orioles, and Dodgers support your argument that teams who have spent money in the past 10 years win FAR more games than they lose. In reality, those three teams have a combined winning percentage of a whopping .505 in that span, with the Orioles being well under .500 and the Mets being just below .500. So, in the span that you suggested, only the Dodgers have a winning record. Since 2000, the disparity is even worse, with the teams mentioned having a winning percentage of .484. The poster who used those teams as is example did a pretty fair job of selecting teams. You did not do as fair a job of research, or else you just chose your words carelessly.

[Careless]

Yes, the orioles, dodgers, and mets are examples of teams that win far more games than they lose by spending a bunch of money. thanks for proving the opposite of what you intended.

And the "winning ballplayers wins championships" is a 100% retroactive designation, and, as such, is 100% worthless

 

Wow. Really? Did you even bother to do any research before writing that? Now, I am not weighing in at all on whether or not you have to spend to win... but I find it humorous that you are ripping another poster when your facts are a little off.

 

You assert that the Mets, Orioles, and Dodgers support your argument that teams who have spent money in the past 10 years win FAR more games than they lose. In reality, those three teams have a combined winning percentage of a whopping .505 in that span, with the Orioles being well under .500 and the Mets being just below .500. So, in the span that you suggested, only the Dodgers have a winning record. Since 2000, the disparity is even worse, with the teams mentioned having a winning percentage of .484. The poster who used those teams as is example did a pretty fair job of selecting teams. You did not do as fair a job of research, or else you just chose your words carelessly.

:oops: should have remembered me better. The teams were the mariners, dodgers, orioles, and red sox. 3127-2710, a 54% winning percentage.

that's an average of an 88.2 win season.

[RynoRules]

BUMP:

 

All the other Furcal threads seem to have disappeared, so I thought I'd bump this one:

 

According to this morning's Trib (which I read the old fashioned way - it comes to my doorstep), the Atl Journal-Constitution is reporting that the Cubs latest offer is for 5 years and is "pleasing" to Furcal. The Braves offer is "substantially" less than the Cubs. An associate of Furcal's agent was in L.A. yesterday to listen to what the Dodgers have to say as well.

 

The links require registration. May be somone else can post them.

 

My two cents: why would he go to L.A. when they do not have a manager yet? Its gotta be down to the Cubs and Braves.