CubinNY
-
Posts
27,793 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
24
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by CubinNY
-
YAY I will never forget that 8000000000 mile blast he hit a few years back (98..99?) that was amazing. That was amazing! I've never seen a blast like that since. It was the second most amazing HR I've ever seen. The first was a Barry Bonds broken bat HR in Miami.
-
I also like the idea that someone else had that bidding on two players is better than bidding on one. I think it may be important to have another guy that speaks the language on the club.
-
I have to say I disagree with this. Threads over 30 pages should be archived and a new thread started. No one wants to read this whole thing and you end up getting repetitive posts. How would you eliminate repetitive posts simply by starting a new thread? Yea, how would you eliminate repetitive posts simply by starting a new thread?
-
It's too bad they are comming to the realization at such a late date and with a depleted talent pool. Imagine if Hendry would have had the epiphany when the Cubs had a lot of power.
-
Rutgers? I don't think they'll beat either Louisville or WVU. Anyway, I guess they've played a marginaly tougher schedule than Louisville. I imagine the winner of the UM/OSU game would only be favored by 30 in the national title game. The Big East is a joke.
-
Besides, signing relievers is not proactive. It's going straight to the used car lot while everybody else is looking for new models. It's not much of an accomplishment to come away with the premier middle relievers on the market. Middle relievers don't win you baseball games. They help you not lose them. But the Cubs have had lineup and rotation weakness for a while now, and Jim ignored both to solidify a secondary unity. I don't agree with this assessment. Signing middle relievers can be as you described, but the Cubs signed the premiere middle relievers available in each of the years we're talking about. These are all guys who had stellar numbers at the time of signing with closer potential. That helps you win. There is no such an animal as a "premire middle releivers". There are only middle relivers who stink and those who are medicore. The very nature of pitching in middle relief spells medicore. I understand what you're trying to say, but it's wrong. There are premier middle relievers. Premier meaning the best of the best. So they are the best of the best of what they do....pitch in middle relief. Some players consistently perform extremely well in the middle relief role and I would consider those players premier middle relievers. I guess. It's like picking the skinniest pig over 300 pounds. The difference between Bob Howry and [insert name here] is not that much.
-
Besides, signing relievers is not proactive. It's going straight to the used car lot while everybody else is looking for new models. It's not much of an accomplishment to come away with the premier middle relievers on the market. Middle relievers don't win you baseball games. They help you not lose them. But the Cubs have had lineup and rotation weakness for a while now, and Jim ignored both to solidify a secondary unity. I don't agree with this assessment. Signing middle relievers can be as you described, but the Cubs signed the premiere middle relievers available in each of the years we're talking about. These are all guys who had stellar numbers at the time of signing with closer potential. That helps you win. There is no such an animal as a "premire middle releivers". There are only middle relivers who stink and those who are medicore. The very nature of pitching in middle relief spells medicore.
-
Number 1 was so good, I can't wait for 2 :D ND sucks. Their fans are more whiny than Sanoma and they don't deserve to be in any BCS bowl game ever, no matter what their record because they don't play in a conference.
-
Are you serious? Feliz, Wright, Rolen, Zimmerman > Ramirez. Wright was among the worst fielding 3Bs this year by BBTF's metric. Most scouts and analysts expect Wright to be a very good defensive 3B, but he wasn't this year. Nor was he last year. The discussion almost got me in big trouble, with the big man. God got angry at you for your opinions on David Wright's fielding? No God's right hand man, Tim.
-
Is June "Run-N-Shoot" Jones still their coach?
-
I hope so too. But I fear he will just look pathatic. I'd rather remember Sammy as he was in 1998.
-
That's some interesting logic. Again, because the costs of doing it are much worse than the costs of not doing it, given the fact that if the team scores a run the odds of the player playing a part in that run are pretty slim. So, putting a defensive upgrade in is a bad move. It's a coaching move that is made based on conventional wisdom that more often than not results in no benefit, and could ultimately result in a bad outcome should the inferior hitter ever come to the plate later in the game.
-
The best defender does not make the best team. You defended a move by saying you have to trust the players. Making a change already indicates you don't trust your players, and simply trusting them is not justification enough for making the move. You have to make the best move for the team, and often times in baseball, that is no move at all. A defensive upgrade is not necessarily the best move just becasue it's a defensive upgrade. There are other factors to consider, and you can't dismiss them simply by saying you trust your players to make those other factors moot. For most of the game I agree with you. But if I have a lead in the ninth, I'd certainly be more inclined to put the better defender to help keep that lead. i think that the benefits of doing that are negligible at best. the chances that the player at said position will make an error to cost the team the game are far less than the chances that the opposing team will tie the score through hitting a home run or driving the ball into a gap, thus making it likely that the player in question will have to come to bat. OK, but why take the risk? Because the costs of doing it are much worse than the costs of not doing it. And the benefits or doing it are so insignificant as to make the move foolish. I haven't heard a good reason to keep a guy on a team soley for defensive purposes in all this debate. If people agree that it shouldn't be done (keeping a guy on the team) then putting him in is a bad idea too.
-
Does it really matter? He's stated he's going to play both sports. IMO, the only way he doesn't is if some team drafts him and sweatens the pot so he doesn't play baseball. I think in that type of scenario he'd have to drop baseball eventually. Maybe he'd be able to be in the minors for a year or two, but his resolve would give out when he's making lots of money in the NFL before he ever got to the majors in MLB. Not to mention the fact that the Cubs would be on the hook for a lot of money.
-
Does it really matter? He's stated he's going to play both sports. IMO, the only way he doesn't is if some team drafts him and sweatens the pot so he doesn't play baseball.
-
That is completely ridicilous. Louisville has beat up on the likes of Temple, Kansas St, Middle Tenn, Cincinnati, and Syracuse. The only half-way decent teams they've beaten are the vastly over-rated Miami and West Virginia. They would get pounded by any number of teams below them including Texas Tennesse ND Auburn USC The Big East is a joke of a Football Conference. When they play in the title game, if they beat the might Rutgers team, they are going to get crushed.
-
A-Rod and Sheff updates
CubinNY replied to Post Count Padder's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
Notice there is no mention of the Cubs. Shef could have a helluva year in the Juice Box. -
Are you serious? Feliz, Wright, Rolen, Zimmerman > Ramirez. Wright was among the worst fielding 3Bs this year by BBTF's metric. Most scouts and analysts expect Wright to be a very good defensive 3B, but he wasn't this year. Nor was he last year. The discussion almost got me in big trouble, with the big man.
-
I want to say sometime Monday... For some reason I so want the Cubs to get this guy. He seems like a can't miss, but I don't really care. I just want them to win something, a bidding war, checkers, anything. I am fired up.
-
BA's Draft Report Cards
CubinNY replied to CaliforniaRaisin's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
OK. I found it in Raisin's post. Now my question, How come the Red Sox, Yankees, and Twins have such good drafts and have good records. Maybe the question is dumb, but what are the Red Sox, Yankees, and Twins know that the Cubs don't? -
Having the guy on the roster in the first place is an issue with the GM. How to use him if he is there is an issue with the manager. Chances are if you have a guy that is good with the glove and can also hit, he probably should be starting. Which is why making a late inning defensive replacement is not a good idea.
-
That's ridiculous. How is that ridiculous? What are the odds that a) a ball is hit to Ortiz b) Ortiz is unable to make a play that Doug would have made c) the play will lead to a run d) the run will matter? Maybe it will happen once a year? Now what are the odds of a) a ball is put in play that neither would make b) a run is scored that has nothing to with Ortiz c) the run will matter? Now if you have Doug in and the team scored a run that mattered. The bad significanlty outwieghs the good. Putting in late inning defensive replacements is one that a manger makes to justify his job. And carrying a guy on your team just to be a late inning defensive replacement is never a good idea. You're looking at it wrong. Who's the better defensive player? Doug M by a wide margin. Who's the better offensive player? Ortiz by a wide margin. You know you have to play defense again to win the game, you may not have to play offense again. If you do, what are the odds Ortiz hits again? Unless he's due up next inning it's better to play Doug M, and even if he is it's a bit of a tossup. I understand what you are saying. And perhaps I'm not explaining my position very well. The one or two times it will matter per season have to weighted against the multiple times you will need a guy to come of the bench to drive in a run or get a hit. Carrying a guy on the bench to be a late inning replacement or multiple guys like the Cubs have done is not a good idea in my opinon. Again, we're not debating that the roster spot should be used on the Doug M player. However, with the assumption that he's already on the team, that's the situation where he should be used. But let's take this to its logical conclusion. If we agree that a roster spot shouldn't be used for an all-glove no bat guy. Then having one on your team to put in is a bad idea. So, puting in a guy for late inning defensive purposes should never occur unless the guy can also hit.
-
That's ridiculous. How is that ridiculous? What are the odds that a) a ball is hit to Ortiz b) Ortiz is unable to make a play that Doug would have made c) the play will lead to a run d) the run will matter? Maybe it will happen once a year? Now what are the odds of a) a ball is put in play that neither would make b) a run is scored that has nothing to with Ortiz c) the run will matter? Now if you have Doug in and the team scored a run that mattered. The bad significanlty outwieghs the good. Putting in late inning defensive replacements is one that a manger makes to justify his job. And carrying a guy on your team just to be a late inning defensive replacement is never a good idea. You're looking at it wrong. Who's the better defensive player? Doug M by a wide margin. Who's the better offensive player? Ortiz by a wide margin. You know you have to play defense again to win the game, you may not have to play offense again. If you do, what are the odds Ortiz hits again? Unless he's due up next inning it's better to play Doug M, and even if he is it's a bit of a tossup. I understand what you are saying. And perhaps I'm not explaining my position very well. The one or two times it will matter per season have to weighted against the multiple times you will need a guy to come of the bench to drive in a run or get a hit. Carrying a guy on the bench to be a late inning replacement or multiple guys like the Cubs have done is not a good idea in my opinon.
-
That's ridiculous. How is that ridiculous? What are the odds that a) a ball is hit to Ortiz b) Ortiz is unable to make a play that Doug would have made c) the play will lead to a run d) the run will matter? Maybe it will happen once a year? Now what are the odds of a) a ball is put in play that neither would make b) a run is scored that has nothing to with Ortiz c) the run will matter? Now if you have Doug in and the team scored a run that mattered. The bad significanlty outwieghs the good. Putting in late inning defensive replacements is one that a manger makes to justify his job. And carrying a guy on your team just to be a late inning defensive replacement is never a good idea. The odds? Depends on who's coming up that inning. If you have a left-handed hitter that likes to pull the ball, I'd say the odds are decent that a ball could get hit to first. Chances are Doug Mietkiewicz shouldn't be on the team in the first place, which somewhat makes all of this moot. But if he is there, it certainly makes sense to use him in that situation. Yes but what are the odds that someone like Neifi Perez or Doug M. makes a play that Todd Walker or Ortiz wouldn't? The second scenirao I put up there is much more likely to occur than the first.
-
That's ridiculous. How is that ridiculous? What are the odds that a) a ball is hit to Ortiz b) Ortiz is unable to make a play that Doug would have made c) the play will lead to a run d) the run will matter? Maybe it will happen once a year? Now what are the odds of a) a ball is put in play that neither would make b) a run is scored that has nothing to with Ortiz c) the run will matter? Now if you have Doug in and the team scored a run that mattered. The bad significanlty outwieghs the good. Putting in late inning defensive replacements is one that a manger makes to justify his job. And carrying a guy on your team just to be a late inning defensive replacement is never a good idea.