Amazing_Grace

Is there a list of companies that Sam Zell owns in part or in full? I think I'm going to boycott those too. Also, he'd better never come to west Kentucky lest I take a baseball bat to his groinal region. Or maybe do this. :flame:

I haven't posted on here for many a month now (still lurking about though). I had to comment on this one. Of all the greedy, lowdown, underhanded, dirty ways to make a buck. Corporate executives like Zell are the lowest form of human life. They have more money than most of us could figure out how to spend and they're willing to ignore the common good and other peoples' opinions to make a little bit more. People like this are the reason why Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto. I'm not a socialist myself, but seeing people do things like this tempts me. I can't fathom what it must be like to be so greedy as to even consider doing this. I'm personally going to carry out a lifetime boycott of whatever company that buys the naming rights. I don't care who it is or what they sell. I hate Pepsi, but if Coca-Cola buys the rights, I will instantly become a lifetime Pepsi drinker.

a post that captures why casinos make tons and tons of money Casinos make lots and lots of money because their patrons don't understand regression to the mean. Apparently, other folks don't either. For a board that has so many posters preaching objective analysis, they sure are terribly subjective and biased when it comes to their anointed villains and persona non gratas. Actually, the real reason casinos make money is that the odds of every game are stacked sometimes, more and sometimes less, in their favor. As an individual, you may have a 45-49% chance to "win" in a given game, and you can win with those odds when you play a few times if you get "lucky". However, over hundreds and thousands of plays, the percentages win out, and the casinos have winnings that reflect roughly what their chances of winning the games are. If you believe that over time, there will be regression to the mean, you are correct. If you believe that this fact will favor you in casino games, you are wrong. But none of that has anything to do with this discussion. Guessing baseball player numbers is less like gambling and more like picking stocks. It isn't totally dependent on random chance so you can make some predictions about what will happen. You can say a guy with a .700 career OPS over 7 big league seasons is unlikely to suddenly hit for a .900 OPS. Jones numbers will probably be better in the 2nd half, but how much better is an open question. As for the Pie situation, it's the classic large market team problem with rookies. If they don't produce, they don't stick, because the large market team is usually trying to contend and usually has the resources to go out and get someone better. How many Yankee prospects hit under .250 their first season in the past decade?

Major league baseball is a business with a product. Would you want to be forced to take in a partner you don't like or don't trust? In a free country you don't have to. Maybe you'd like to be a Venezuelan farmer. This is not true. MLB is not a "business" in any sense of the word. It is an organization, or cartel if you prefer, made of several businesses attempting to monopolistically control the market for a single product, baseball. In such organizations, there is a highly variable amount of cohesion and control over the actions of individual members. In the case of MLB, the organization exercises relatively little control over how the individual businesses make decisions such as prices, spending, payroll, etc. The only meaningful thing MLB does as an organization is negotiate with the union for the terms of player contracts, and the union is as much responsible for this situation as is MLB itself. In any event, I really sincerely doubt that the MLB owners will actually veto someone owning the team for anything other than financial reasons. Very few of them want the league to interfere with their internal operations, and probably all of them would like to be able to sell their team to the highest bidder at some point without worrying about the league looking over their shoulder.

I don't have the sabremetric tools to prove it, but I would guess that from a statistical point of view deliberately taking a 2nd strike so Soriano can try to take 2B is a ridiculous decision. Somebody can point me in the right direction, but I think a player's odds of getting on base with 2 strikes are significantly lower than getting on with 1, and that increased probablility of an out more than offsets the expected value of an attempted stolen base. considering that stealing in general is a waste of time it makes no sense to do it with one strike. I think stealing is a good thing as long as you steal at a rate better than 75%. I seem to remember seeing on this board that 75% is the breakeven point.

I have a feeling that most of the NY fans booing him don't know what OPS is and they just think he sucks because he didn't hit 50 homers. So you're saying Yankee fans are stupid. I concur.

Remind you of anyone we know? Who? Jones of course.

Yes it is horrible. 10 NL teams have an OBP above .330 from the 2 spot. Including the Cubs at .353. If they put up a .330 OBP in the 2 spot the offense would be worse than it is, and it's already not very good. Well, I was thinking of how often the 2 hitter has to take pitches allowing Soriano to steal and make contact for hit and runs when I mentioned the 2 spot. I don't want DLee, Ramirez, or DeRosa hitting 2nd if they're going to be taking strike 2 while Soriano steals 2b. Obviously, the manager doesn't have to hit and run and doesn't have to allow Soriano to steal, but realistically, what manager in baseball is going to do that. Theriot is the best choice for that spot at the moment given the limited choices we have. If we acquire another big bat somewhere, then it would probably be better to hit DeRosa/Fontenot 2nd and Theriot 7/8. I also still don't think there's a SS upgrade that's readily available out there. I've heard all the ARod rumors, and I don't believe for one second that the Cubs are going to take on that much payroll with new ownership coming in. Unless ARod were willing to waive the last three years of his deal (presumably by offering some gentleman's agreement that he'll opt out at season's end), the Cubs will not be acquiring him. Tejada is hurt. The only other realistic option we have at SS is Cedeno, and I'd be fine with putting him and Theriot in a platoon the rest of the year to see who is going to be a good option for next year.

If he doesn't sign with the Cubs I hope he signs with the Red Sox just to pissoff every single Yankee fan. I must say that would be enjoyable to watch. I wonder if the Yanks will try to deal him this season hoping he'll like the team he's playing for and stay away from Boston.

Remind you of anyone we know?

Depends on the Yankees. If they make the postseason AND he plays well, I think he stays in NY, maybe threatening to opt out so he can get a renegotiated deal. If the Yanks miss the playoffs or ARod starts playing badly (relatively speaking, bad for ARod is an OPS below .900), then he may opt out. I don't think it's likely he ends up with the Cubs given that the ownership transition will be going on. He would have to wait until January just to negotiate, and risk a very large pay cut because he waited so long to sign. If he really REALLY wants to play for Lou, then I guess he'd probably just opt out, state that he wants to play for the Cubs, and take a one-year deal knowing he'll get another bite at the FA apple when Lou's contract is up. I think the likeliest possibilities are ARod going to the West Coast to play for either the Angels or the Giants (via trade or opt out, anybody's guess).

a 330 OBP does not fit well in the 2 hole, unless by "above 330" you mean 370 Well, ideally, you have a lineup with guys that hit .300, have a .400 OBP, and hit 40 HR a season, but even teams with unlimited resources (Yankees) don't have that. No, .330 is not ideal for a 2 hitter, but it's not horrible either. You have to make choices about where you can make the most improvement with the money that you actually have. There just aren't a lot of good SS in baseball. Theriot's OPS is 18th in MLB out of SS with at least 200 ABs. That's just average, but he's only making league minimum and likely will continue to do so a couple more years. It will cost a LOT to sign a better FA SS. Heck, to get Furcal and his 3 more points of OPS costs 10M more dollars. If we're going to spend that money, why not spend it on Cabrera and move him to right, setting up one of the best offensive outfields in baseball. As far as Cedeno goes, he should be given plenty of attempts once we dump Izturis. We can let Theriot/Cedeno battle for the position for the rest of this season up through next ST. Cedeno has so little value in trade, I'd rather see the Cubs hang on to him.

I never considered Stone a serious GM option, but yeah I'm also not keen on him being our GM, because he's never done it before. We need someone who knows what he's doing, not a deadbeat like Ed Lynch, and not a rookie like Hendry was (and still is by many people's reckoning). Just my 2 cents. I'd still like to see Stone back in the booth at some point, I always enjoyed his color commentary. I don't understand why people think first-time GMs are a bad idea. There's enough retread GMs out there to convince me I'd be more than happy with a guy who has never done it before. Theo Epstein was a first-time GM and brought a title to Boston. That should convince anyone that a first-time GM is no worse than an old veteran. Really, why should our attitude about GMs be any different than players. Just because a guy has experience doesn't mean that he doesn't suck. Because we've been down that road before and have proven we can't pick a rook who has a clue. Who's "we"? New ownership means different people making those decisions. Exactly, the new ownership will have a lot to do with the direction the team takes, starting with who they choose for team president and GM.

If Theriot can keep his OBP above .330 the rest of the year as the full-time SS, I have no problem going into next year with him as the full-time SS (provided we find a decent backup). Speaking realistically, an OBP above .330 is pretty good out of the SS position. If you're not paying over 10M per year for the likes of Furcal, Tejada, Jeter, etc., this is not a bad situation to be in. Theriot also seems to fit in well at the 2 hole. He's a disciplined enough hitter to take strikes when Soriano steals and move the runner along by hitting to RF. He also gets on base at a reasonable clip. As long as that continues, there's no reason to switch. He definitely has had his hot and cold streaks, and that's to be expected from an inexperienced player. However, his overall numbers are not bad for a SS. In fact, his OPS is only 3 points lower than the 12M per year Furcal. The Cubs can live with Theriot at SS if they improve at other positions offensively, notably CF and RF.

I never considered Stone a serious GM option, but yeah I'm also not keen on him being our GM, because he's never done it before. We need someone who knows what he's doing, not a deadbeat like Ed Lynch, and not a rookie like Hendry was (and still is by many people's reckoning). Just my 2 cents. I'd still like to see Stone back in the booth at some point, I always enjoyed his color commentary. I don't understand why people think first-time GMs are a bad idea. There's enough retread GMs out there to convince me I'd be more than happy with a guy who has never done it before. Theo Epstein was a first-time GM and brought a title to Boston. That should convince anyone that a first-time GM is no worse than an old veteran. Really, why should our attitude about GMs be any different than players. Just because a guy has experience doesn't mean that he doesn't suck.

Not that I really care about Bonds -- he's spit to me -- but I find it interesting that his final act as an All-Star in this league is to crap on the fans who got him in. Bonds won't be doing the HR derby, not even in his house, not even for the only fans on the planet who care about him, not even in a season where he has nothing else to play for other than a record which he will break regardless of whether he competes or not. He remains the biggest ass in sports history -- a characteristic I will always associate with him, and not the home run record. As big of an ass as Bonds is, I still think the biggest ass in sports history is Ty Cobb. I put Terrell Owens second and Bonds a close third.

Maybe the poster meant that Dusty's quotes almost never make any sense but this one does. In that sense, perhaps it IS confusing.

I've given this post my full endorsement.

I was going to start my own thread with this thought, but it seems like it will fit better into this one soo... Is anyone else worried that the Cubs are pulling the same crap with Pie that they did with Patterson, yo-yoing the guy up and down hoping he'll produce and pulling him for someone that gives you better numbers in the short-term but aren't worth crap over the long-term (Jones, Pagan). You would think the Cubs learned their lesson with CPatt, but apparently not. They haven't figured out that 24 year olds that have issues with plate discipline don't immediately translate into decent major leaguers. They should have known very well this was what would happen with Pie, and if they weren't willing to live with that, then he should have stayed at AAA until his IsoD was over .075 for a couple hundred ABs. If the Cubs are going to go through this madness again, they should trade Pie now before all his value is shot.

If there's one thing we know Hendry is good at, it's fleecing the Pirates. We could do a lot worse than Nady.

As much as I respect Bruce, I have to believe he needs to call BS on this one. Hendry is trying to sell us a load of crap, but I'm not buying it. There's no way the Cubs will take on a big multi-year deal like ARod, Griffey, etc. with the sale pending. If they could have done that, Zambrano would already be extended.

Correct if I'm wrong, but wasn't Zambrano also questioned as a starter because when he first came up he only had two pitches?

I like several things about Soto. I like that he's supposed to be good defensively. Neither of the guys are exactly "good". I like the .071 IsoD. If he hits .250 in the majors, he'd still have an OBP in the .310-.330 range (not great but way better than the current duo). I also like that he's young and inexpensive. Going young at catcher is always a good idea because of the high risk of injury and the fact that you don't want to be paying a guy 7-10M to play 3/4 of your ballgames. I seriously doubt the Cubs will give Soto a call-up until their current hot streak ends. When the team is winning consistently, managers tend to leave things the way they are. If they continue winning like they have the past 2 weeks, it's probably a September callup for Soto, which would be fine with me, since he would be able to come in without much pressure and maybe make the postseason roster and have an impact in the playoffs.

I would consider flipping Lee and Ramirez. Lee would be a good cleanup hitter. If his stats continue on the pace they are on now, he is a player kind of like Grace was in his heyday. Great BA, tough to K, doubles machine. I've always liked that sort of player in the 4 spot because 3 hitters tend to be high SLG strikeout guys and it's good to have a great hitter behind them for situations where they K. It also means pitchers won't want to walk the 3 hitter for fear of facing the team's best pure hitter with runners on. Sosa and Grace at 3 and 4 in the order was a good combination for a lot of years (just the rest of the team sucked).

It's close between Lee and Ramirez. I went with Ramirez. He has the highest OPS on the team, and has been the Cubs best overall player in the first half. Soriano has contributed to our winning recently, but he also contributed to our losing in April/May. Incidentally, I bet Soriano wins the cubs.com poll.