A strong endorsement of Pierre by . .

[Transmogrified Tiger]

CP20, don't take this sarcastically, but what players DO you like? You seem to...poo-poo...over anyone that's brought up.

 

I like all kinds of players, out of the targets that have been brought up this offseason, I'm a fan of Bradley, Michaels, Wilkerson, Abreu, Giles, Furcal(not a fan of his price most likely), Lugo, etc.

 

While I agree with each player you listed except for Lugo (I question his commitment), you can't be so specific. If a team went into the offseason saying "OK, we have 10 guys to choose from, and we need to sign 4 of them" - you have a very low percentage of that happening.

 

When did I say or even imply this? You asked for players that I liked, so of the current names that have been bandied about I told you which ones I preferred. I just as easily could have said Adam Dunn, Placido Polanco, Lew Ford, Rafael Betancourt, Scott Linebrink, Travis Harper, David Riske, and Coco Crisp.

 

I think you need to realize that you're cheering for the Cubs, and be more satisfied with any upgrade made. I'm not advocating being ok with mediocrity at all, I'm saying an upgrade is an upgrade - and there are outside forces in baseball that Hendry can't control.

 

I'm not going to be very satisfied with any upgrade, considering how terrible we were last season at CF, and that there are several better options out there that are cheaper and/or more effective. Pierre isn't that great. He slaps singles, takes a moderate amount of walks, and gets caught more than he should on the bases. I'm not the one that's trying to give him powers of putting teams over the top or the like. I see him for what he brings to the table, and it's not much IMO.

[cubbyvirus00]

Agreed. Its one thing to not like/want players on the cubs. Its another thing, to be realistic. Your desires and preference of players aren't reasonable, being that none of them really are on the market besides Furcal.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Agreed. Its one thing to not like/want players on the cubs. Its another thing, to be realistic. Your desires and preference of players aren't reasonable, being that none of them really are on the market besides Furcal.

 

What? All of the players I listed at first have been mentioned multiple times in rumors, some(in the case of Bradley and Wilkerson) directly to the Cubs.

[cubbyvirus00]

The rumors were weeny and too iffy. Nothing of substance sadly.

[burnt out cubbie fan]

This thread is quite amusing. Come on CPatt, he's REALLY fast.

[CubsWin]

Agreed. Its one thing to not like/want players on the cubs. Its another thing, to be realistic. Your desires and preference of players aren't reasonable, being that none of them really are on the market besides Furcal.

You may have looked at the wrong list of players, I don't know. CP20 made two lists, maybe there was some confusion. But the list he made of players that he would like the Cubs to acquire were all players that are available. He mentioned Bradley, Michaels, Abreu, Wilkerson, Giles, Furcal and Lugo. All of them have been mentioned in very recent trade talks or are free agents.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

The rumors were weeny and too iffy. Nothing of substance sadly.

 

Wilkerson maybe, but several different outlets have been onto Bradley being on the Cubs radar.

 

Of course, I never said that we had to get these players or bust, I was just asked to name players I liked, and I responded with some of the names that have been discussed.

[CubsWin]

The rumors were weeny and too iffy. Nothing of substance sadly.

Weeny?

[CubsWin]

The rumors were weeny and too iffy. Nothing of substance sadly.

 

Wilkerson maybe, but several different outlets have been onto Bradley being on the Cubs radar.

 

Of course, I never said that we had to get these players or bust, I was just asked to name players I liked, and I responded with some of the names that have been discussed.

ESPN, I believe, was reporting that the Nationals were actively shopping Wilkerson for Vasquez. So he is definitely on the market and being shopped. Whether the Cubs would be willing to part with someone that would bring Wilkerson to Chicago is another matter, but to be wanting and hoping for Hendry to acquire Wilkerson isn't out of the realm of possibility.

 

Now, accusing Hendry of falling down on the job if he isn't willing to trade Zambrano for Wilkerson would be unsupportable but I haven't seen you do that.

[fearthecubs]

Agreed. Its one thing to not like/want players on the cubs. Its another thing, to be realistic. Your desires and preference of players aren't reasonable, being that none of them really are on the market besides Furcal.

 

What? All of the players I listed at first have been mentioned multiple times in rumors, some(in the case of Bradley and Wilkerson) directly to the Cubs.

 

AJ Burnett has been linked to the Cubs in the media, you think we'll sign him? Manny Ramirez has been linked to Seattle, you think they'll sign him?

 

You have to be realistic.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Agreed. Its one thing to not like/want players on the cubs. Its another thing, to be realistic. Your desires and preference of players aren't reasonable, being that none of them really are on the market besides Furcal.

 

What? All of the players I listed at first have been mentioned multiple times in rumors, some(in the case of Bradley and Wilkerson) directly to the Cubs.

 

AJ Burnett has been linked to the Cubs in the media, you think we'll sign him? Manny Ramirez has been linked to Seattle, you think they'll sign him?

 

You have to be realistic.

 

For crying out loud, I never said that we HAD TO GET, or WILL GET any of those players. Where did I say that?

[burnt out cubbie fan]

Agreed. Its one thing to not like/want players on the cubs. Its another thing, to be realistic. Your desires and preference of players aren't reasonable, being that none of them really are on the market besides Furcal.

 

What? All of the players I listed at first have been mentioned multiple times in rumors, some(in the case of Bradley and Wilkerson) directly to the Cubs.

 

AJ Burnett has been linked to the Cubs in the media, you think we'll sign him? Manny Ramirez has been linked to Seattle, you think they'll sign him?

 

You have to be realistic.

 

For crying out loud, I never said that we HAD TO GET, or WILL GET any of those players. Where did I say that?

DEAR GOD MAN, KEEP YOUR DESIRES IN CHECK!

[CubsWin]

Agreed. Its one thing to not like/want players on the cubs. Its another thing, to be realistic. Your desires and preference of players aren't reasonable, being that none of them really are on the market besides Furcal.

 

What? All of the players I listed at first have been mentioned multiple times in rumors, some(in the case of Bradley and Wilkerson) directly to the Cubs.

 

AJ Burnett has been linked to the Cubs in the media, you think we'll sign him? Manny Ramirez has been linked to Seattle, you think they'll sign him?

 

You have to be realistic.

On some, he is. The latest out of Philly is that the OFer they are most willing to part with is Michaels. That lessens the possibility of Abreu being traded, but raises the possibility of the Cubs at least being able to acquire Michaels. Bradley is very attainable. Lugo can be had. Giles was available. Furcal still is. Sure, some on his list are long shots, but some are also very reasonable to hope for. And there is no rule against hoping for a long shot is there?

 

Now, I agree, if you then hold it against the GM for not being able to reel in your longshot, then we have a problem.

[fearthecubs]

For crying out loud, I never said that we HAD TO GET, or WILL GET any of those players. Where did I say that?

 

No, but by only backing "your" players on this forum, you're definately inferring that anyone else is pointless, therefore we most surely "have to get" Player X. That's my entire point - you can't approve the best canidates only, you have to be selective. I'm not implying anything so important to start an argument about, I just think you're too picky man!

[Transmogrified Tiger]

For crying out loud, I never said that we HAD TO GET, or WILL GET any of those players. Where did I say that?

 

No, but by only backing "your" players on this forum, you're definately inferring that anyone else is pointless, therefore we most surely "have to get" Player X. That's my entire point - you can't approve the best canidates only, you have to be selective. I'm not implying anything so important to start an argument about, I just think you're too picky man!

 

What are you talking about? "My" players? Because I'm one of many that don't want Pierre, or whoever else that you think I'm overly critical towards? Because I don't like or want certain players means I only approve of the best candidates only?

 

And inferring that anyone else is pointless? That's an astonishing leap of logic.

[WrigleyinEngland]

IMO Giles was never available and i'm getting that feeling about furcal too. In the same way giles used the dodgers furcal is using us. Also noticed someone dismissing the idea of burnett, i feel he will be back in the picture if furcal stays home.

[Warpticon]

For crying out loud, I never said that we HAD TO GET, or WILL GET any of those players. Where did I say that?

 

No, but by only backing "your" players on this forum, you're definately inferring that anyone else is pointless, therefore we most surely "have to get" Player X. That's my entire point - you can't approve the best canidates only, you have to be selective. I'm not implying anything so important to start an argument about, I just think you're too picky man!

 

I'd just like to remind you that in naming "his" players, he was simply answering the question you asked him. So, essentially, you're saying that by answering your question, he's saying anybody else is pointless. I also would like to point out how counterproductive the line "you can't approve the best candidates only, you have to be selective." So...we're *not* supposed to want the best options? Huh?

[fearthecubs]

For crying out loud, I never said that we HAD TO GET, or WILL GET any of those players. Where did I say that?

 

No, but by only backing "your" players on this forum, you're definately inferring that anyone else is pointless, therefore we most surely "have to get" Player X. That's my entire point - you can't approve the best canidates only, you have to be selective. I'm not implying anything so important to start an argument about, I just think you're too picky man!

 

I'd just like to remind you that in naming "his" players, he was simply answering the question you asked him. So, essentially, you're saying that by answering your question, he's saying anybody else is pointless. I also would like to point out how counterproductive the line "you can't approve the best candidates only, you have to be selective." So...we're *not* supposed to want the best options? Huh?

 

Sorry, let me simplify: I think CPatt is too critical and selective in players he views to be possible future-Cubs. My point was that he needs to be more realistic, and open to the idea that an upgrade is an upgrade, and to take what you can get, especially in a market like this. I've supported players like Juan Pierre and Jacque Jones, two players I view as improvements, and both have been lambasted by Cpatt, among others.

[burnt out cubbie fan]

For crying out loud, I never said that we HAD TO GET, or WILL GET any of those players. Where did I say that?

 

No, but by only backing "your" players on this forum, you're definately inferring that anyone else is pointless, therefore we most surely "have to get" Player X. That's my entire point - you can't approve the best canidates only, you have to be selective. I'm not implying anything so important to start an argument about, I just think you're too picky man!

 

I'd just like to remind you that in naming "his" players, he was simply answering the question you asked him. So, essentially, you're saying that by answering your question, he's saying anybody else is pointless. I also would like to point out how counterproductive the line "you can't approve the best candidates only, you have to be selective." So...we're *not* supposed to want the best options? Huh?

 

Sorry, let me simplify: I think CPatt is too critical and selective in players he views to be possible future-Cubs. My point was that he needs to be more realistic, and open to the idea that an upgrade is an upgrade, and to take what you can get, especially in a market like this. I've supported players like Juan Pierre and Jacque Jones, two players I view as improvements, and both have been lambasted by Cpatt, among others.

I am almost positive that he is hardly the only member of this forum that would not be all that excited if the Cubs got either of those players.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Jacque Jones? The Jacque Jones with the exact same OPS(with lower OBP) than Burnitz last year? The Jacque Jones who was even worse the year before? At least with Pierre you can make the argument that he was better than the embarrassment we trotted out in CF last year. You can't even make that argument with Jones.

[fearthecubs]

I am almost positive that he is hardly the only member of this forum that would not be all that excited if the Cubs got either of those players.

 

Oh, I agree. It's a pandemic way of thinking around here. 8)

[Careless]

For crying out loud, I never said that we HAD TO GET, or WILL GET any of those players. Where did I say that?

 

No, but by only backing "your" players on this forum, you're definately inferring that anyone else is pointless, therefore we most surely "have to get" Player X. That's my entire point - you can't approve the best canidates only, you have to be selective. I'm not implying anything so important to start an argument about, I just think you're too picky man!

Really, I'm not sure what can be said to this.

[The Voice of Reason]

Terence Moore of the AJC and Jack McKeon.

 

Evidently Pierre's "weak arm" doesn't bother two people who've seen him play a lot of ball. I say get him - especially if the Furcal deal falls thru.

 

Pursuing Pierre would behoove Braves|

 

By Terence Moore Wednesday November 30, 2005

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

 

Juan Pierre. He’s exceptional. He’s available. He’s exactly what the Braves need to push their consecutive streak of division titles to 15. Not only that, he’s capable of doing enough with his bat, glove, legs and heart to end their annoying habit of vanishing each October.

 

(Edited by moderator for copyrighted content--posting of entire article is prohibited)

 

Sorry, it was a blog not really an article.

 

 

Yes, Pierre slumped to .276 last season, but that still was just eight points lower than Furcal’s batting average during what was considered a superlative year for the Braves’ catalyst. And Pierre’s lifetime mark is .305 as the leadoff guy. He steals bases, and he rarely is caught (267 out of 363 attempts). He makes contact more often than not (never more than 52 strikeouts in a season).

 

Since Pierre’s first full year in the majors with the Colorado Rockies in 2001, he hasn’t played less than 152 games in a season. He has spent each of his three seasons with the Marlins playing every game, including every inning during the 2004 season.

 

“In all of the decades I’ve been in the game, I’ve only had two workaholics — Tony Gwynn and Juan Pierre,” said McKeon, still employed by the Marlins.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

We had one of the worst outfield's in baseball last season. You can quote Dusty Baker himself on that one. It isn't going to be difficult to find "upgrades" in the OF. I don't think the right way to approach fixing this problem is to compare available options to what we had last season, rather to compare the options to each other.

 

The fact that Jacque Jones and Pierre would be "upgrades" is more of a testament to our woefull 2005 OF than an endorsement of their value as baseball players.

[BigbadB]

He steals bases, and he rarely is caught (267 out of 363 attempts).

 

Ugh. 267-363 and rarely caught probably don't belong in the same sentence.