CubinNY

I'm not much into #s myself. If I played and was great or something I'd be honored if someone wanted to wear the same number as me. However, not giving out # is a time honored tradition in sports. Regardless of Sammy's behavior, giving the likes of Jason Marquis #21 says much more about the Cubs than it does Sosa. They built up Sammy, they let Sammy play his boom box, they gave him special treatment. Then when he's no longer useful they destroy him in the media. The Cubs suck and they have no class.

Go Broncos!!!!111!!!1111111 WMU, representin' They should just call this the Pointless Bowl becuase the game is completely pointless.

Please :roll: So, I've looked at this a few hundred times and I still cant figure out what was so disagreeable with the above statement. Wanna help me? I consider the GM's of the past 2 WS champs baseball "guys" They are not going anywhere. Walt Jocketty might be a baseball guy, but the Cardinals definitely have some very smart stat geek type people working for them. Billy Beane is a baseball guy too. Appearently he learned what not to do from his time in the majors.

I agree 100%. Hendry's been in love with Floyd for a while. I fully believe that Hendry will attempt to bring every ex-Marlin whose won a WS to the Cubs. It really is pathetic

he's got moxie, heart, grit. he chews tobacco and slides headfirst into home plate. he doesn't use daggum computers. he can pick the next sammy sosa out of a group of 100 lanky 13 year-old dominicans just by shaking their hands and staring in their eyes. he doesn't write books about himself. That's good. IMO, a baseball guy is someone who played The Game at some level professionally. Someone who's been a coach, a scout, or an instructor in some capacity. Someone who's "payed his dues" and "earned" his way up the latter by sticking with baseball when he wasn't getting paid a lot of money. Knowledge, skill, and ability factor in way down the line.

While there's no true predictive stat, I look for the best overall stat (I prefer XR, but for ease, I'll end up with EqA). Taveras could potentially fill the OBP need at the top as well as a great defensive player in a diff. position to fill, I already mentioned either way he's going to have to improve, which is exactly the same way Pie will have to improve. If he could improve his approach & learn to get out in front and turn on the inside FB, he could become a quality starting CF'er. But Willy's EqA has been .258 .268 .243 Well below .260 (league average) for his career. That's not good.

It's not that bad. If I remember right Bagwell and Biggio had huge backloaded deals. Pettitte, too. The Astros really had a thing for those backloaded contracts. I call it the Enron effect :wink:

Does this add anything to the discussion at all? I'm honestly just curious. It seems OBP was the end all be all last year...now when that stat doesn't support the argument its OPS+, or whatever stat happens to support and/or detract from the player/s in question. I don't think anyone was arguing that if Tavarez was hypothetically brought here that it would be for his prowess to drive in runs, so I was just curious why OPS+ was the measure which was being used to detract from him. I don't care anymore...I may just go back to arguing the relative merits of Freddy Bynum and Craig Counsell from a few weeks back, it seems just about as relevant at this discussion I think you have a point, kind of. With some guys OBP is more important than SLG (i.e., high order hitters), with OPS = OBP + SLG. OPS+ is just adjusted for the ball park. IMO the park effects can be exagerated and tend to flucuate from year to year. In other words, I'm not sold OPS+ as a predictive stat. I think OPS is just fine to use in many cases. Nevertheless, in order for the Cubs to score runs they need either SLG or OBP and preferably both. A high OPS can be affected by ridicilous SLG and low OBP or vice versa. In either case Tavares provides little.

Three or four wins?

I agree. Might be a long shot, but it would be nice knowing that the AGM reads nsbb regularly. Just imagine if they hired someone from NSBB. The Cubs payroll would be 300 Million in the off seasaon. Then when they don't win everygame, the Cubs would trade every high dollar player and call up AAA guys because we need to see what the kids can do. :D And the Cubs would have a 50-man roster because they'd sign everybody whom everybody here likes. :D Either that or we'd be calling for the person's immediate firing

Yeah, we fixed that problem. :D Okay, back on topic. Going back to my post where I quoted all the Rotoworld excepts on Ryan Church since December, what would be a fair offer for Ryan Church, and is he worth what it would cost? And finally, will Washington continue playing hardball, or will their demands come down the longer he isn't traded. (Using what Bruce Miles has heard through the grapevine as gospel that they are asking for the moon). I don't blame the Nats GM for asking for the "moon", you never know what you might get. The question is: is he willing to deal? My guess is yes, but after all the FAs have signed. At this point if I'm Hendry, I'd try to make nice with JJ. He's the best option.

No it's not. It's in the context of three consecutive posts where he disagreed with/criticized three other posters(me being one of them). I disagree, but I'm not continuing this pointless series any longer. I guess it's no longer scary quiet.

Am I totally misunderstanding you quote below? Ah, finally some sanity. Nope - and I fleshed out my opinion rather than just leaving it at that. I still don't see what the problem is. People criticize each other all over the place here, and yet you have seen fit to accuse me of being judgmental. "ah finally some sanity" is commentary of the entire borad. We're all insane to want the Cubs to get good players. And we're all irrational when we don't get the players we want. Everyone, all the time.

Ah, finally some sanity. That's ridicilous If this place is so insane and the people who post here so unrealistic and unknowledgable why do you or anyone else who is bitching stay here? You are really overreacting to my post and completely missing the point. My point is that I appreciate measured criticism based in fact (like stats) rather than pure speculation such as, "That Hendry stinks because he didn't trade for Chruch. I know they were only asking for (names of players)". I also prefer criticism based on actual results (such as guys we have actually acquired, the team's performance, etc.) rather than "Hendry sucks - he didn't sign Schmidt!" EDIT: For example, many of us (myself included) took shots at Hendry for the contracts he gave to DeRosa and Lilly. I don't have a problem with that. What bothers me is when people slam Hendry for things he cannot control, such as the fact Schmidt apparently preferred to sign on the Coast in spite of the fact that the Cubs offerred him more money and an extra year. Nothing he can do about that, IMO. EDIT No. 2: Please show me where I referred to anyone here as "unknowledgeable". I don't get why the criticism has to be so limited in scope. Getting the job done in the big picture requires getting the job done on specific moves. Under your rules, we can't complain that Hendry went after guys like Perez, Rusch, Burnitz, Jones etc instead of getting a player like Vlad, Tejada or Beltran when they were available. Why can't people just let fans react how they want to the ineptitude of Cubs management? You just completely misstated my position, which is that it is very reasonable to kill Hendry for signing guys like Burnitz, Jones, Rusch, neifi, macias, etc. rather than Vlad and Miggy, simply b/c that is something that actually happened. What I don't like is when people say its Hendry's fault that we can't acquire a guy like Church; these people don't understand Bruce's point, which is that "it takes two to tango". I agree that getting the job done means getting the job done both with specificity and in the "big picture". I don't think I am stating rules and I don't think I am creating some unworkable standard or one that does not subject Hendry to crticisim. Rather, I dislike arguments based on pure speculation and without any ("any" meaning "none", "nada, "zip") basis in reality. People can fire away at Hendry in any way they choose, but that doesn't mean I have to like it or agree with it. As I understand it, I am free to feel that way. When Jason Shmidt signed with LA I didn't read very many posts where people were complaining that Hendry didn't get the job done. Some of the criticism of Hendry is over the top and irrelevent (fat jokes). But, overall I think most of the criticism is based on what he has or hasn't done in relation to what the person wanted him to do. Last year he didn't seem to be interested in Giles at all, and stated that he "wasn't interested in getting into a bidding war". Well there was no such war. I and some others criticized Hendry for not pursing Giles. There were some people who accused us of being unrealistic as "Giles wasn't leaving the West Coast". I think you were among them. In reality we'll never know because Hendry didn't seriously pursue Giles. This year we've seen that when Hendry wants his man he can get him. Even if he doesn't fit what the Cubs need.

Really? I see it as close to 100% that Pie will suck offensively. How will that increase his trade value----when he's posting .280 OBPs and whiffing more than once per game? I don't get it. I don't see how you can see it as close to 100% that he'll suck. If Pie played regurlarly in the bigs next season I would put the over/under at .260 / .315 / .425 for his stat line. No real formula, just my best guess. I don't think that's entirely unrealistic. Do you think that qualifies under "sucking offensively"? I wouldn't, which is why I doubted the absolute declaration he'd be terrible. I think there's a very small chance he'd be good, but also a sizable probability that he won't be terrible. If he's not terrible but also not "good" how will this help the Cubs? What I mean is that they are going to need good production from at least one position from either CF, SS, or 2nd base. I'd rather the City of Chicago gives JJ the keys to the city or something. Or perhaps a big bouquet of roses with a card saying "we're sorry". In other words, I think at this point he is the Cubs best option.

Funny. I nominate goony's evil twin. Now that would be funny.

Ah, finally some sanity. That's ridicilous If this place is so insane and the people who post here so unrealistic and unknowledgable why do you or anyone else who is bitching stay here?

Just in that group, you have 4 pitchers that missed sign. amounts of time due to injuries. It is too dependent on the health of pitchers always being injury free. But isn't that a problem regardless of the set up? Anyway, I suppose one could argue that less pitches per start would equal less injuries. The question seems to be would this be the case? I would love to see this type of thing tried at higher levels in the minors. It would be an interesting experiment. It could be as revolutionary as the five man rotation and closer. Baseball is fighting a never ending battle against history.

I'm not convinced the Cubs have a CF target. This is perhaps the most ridicilous offseason of the Hendry era. They may just rush Pie.

This kind of stuff happens far too often. For conspiracy theory nuts only: When I lived in Columubs OH I use to work out at this gym. The guy who worked there was huge. Becuase I generally worked out around 10:30 am there weren't a lot of people at the gym and I kind of got to know him, but he scared me too much to call him a friend. He use to spot me and we worked out together. He was a bookie, an enforcer, and a drug dealer, mostly steriods. People would come by and give him money all the time and he disappear to his car. Anyway, he told me that there are a lot of guys in big time college and pro sports who are beholden to organized crime. The mobsters get tips about injuries, game plans, and such and pay the player or more often forgive gambling debts. They rarely ask guys to throw games becuase it is almost always too obvious. When/if a guy decides not to play ball with the mobster any number of things can happen including a police tip about drugs, a rape charge, DUI arrest and such. They know the player's lifestyle and habits and use their own behavior against them. Not saying it's true, just interesting

Where do you come up with this stuff? I agree with him. You can't just go to a 4 man rotation b/c it makes statistical sense. If we brought guys up through the minors using a 4 man rotation, the mental approach and physical approach (limiting pitch counts, getting your body adjusted to the different strain and healing processes) would be different. Expecting to take a crowd of guys raised on the 5 man rotation to go to a 4 man rotation and put up similar numbers and avoid injury is silly. I'd be all for going to the 4 man rotation in the minors and raising the next gen of pitchers on it, but converting current ML pitchers to the 4 man is just asking for injuries. Except in the playoffs when it really counts. BTW: I'm not supporting a 4 man rotation. My question had nothing to do with a 4 man rotation. It has to do with the bolded above.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

I was one of them. And I'd still rather have Cedeno than Furcal. But I'd rather have Furcal than Cesear, so now I wish they'd got the contract done. It would also mean they wouldn't have signed Soriano and maybe have gone after Drew. It's the freaking butterfly effect. :spin: If you still want Cedeno rather than Furcal, and you want Furcal rather than Ceasar, does that mean you want Cedeno starting at SS in 2007? Not necessarily. I was thinking about cost and production. Furcal is obviously the best player of the three. I still think Hendry would have picked up Slappy though. The Cubs had no viable alternative at CF after Patterson was traded for two sticks of bubble gum. We just have to hope Izturis has a break out year, just like last year we had to hope Cedeno would carry his good winter league numbers into the season. The Cubs are dependent on "hope" more than other team I can think of.

What does CHONE stand for and how are the predictions calculated?

I was one of them. And I'd still rather have Cedeno than Furcal. But I'd rather have Furcal than Cesear, so now I wish they'd got the contract done. It would also mean they wouldn't have signed Soriano and maybe have gone after Drew. It's the freaking butterfly effect. :spin: