CubinNY

So would I. Is your memory infalable or something? All I can tell you I know of what I speak. I have to have the Yankees and Mets crammed down my throat on a daily basis. This is not something that is made up. But anyway, I've already shown two articles talking about his defensive woes. I think I've proved my point. And one more time. I said I've read and heard baseball people talk about Wright as a future 1st baseman (long term). That doesn't mean he won't be an adequate defensive thrid baseman in the near future. All and all, I'd take him right now over Aramis or Rolen.

What are you talking about? Find it. If you can I will never post here again. If not try not do this type of thing again.

Huh? There was a thread last season about Rusch, and someone started talking about how he had become a "pitcher" and that when he came into the league he was throwing heat and striking people out all the time. I'm positive it was you. Nope. Not me. But what does this have to do with this thread?

Huh?

How did he manage in those postseason appearances? Since 1993, Dusty Baker has MORE Manager of the Year Awards than Bobby Cox. That kinda puts that award in perspective, doesn't it. I think he's pretty damn good, the players love to play for him and has an impressive track record. I hope he stays. What impressive track record are you talking about? Is he good at betting on horses?

No he doesn't have a point. He has nothing. EDIT 1: I just did a google search and it took me less than a minute to pull up this article. Now you have to buy it if you want to read it David Wright gets defensive -- Newsday.com The job of improving his defense is so arduous, and David Wright takes it so seriously, that sometimes the work brings the Mets' young third baseman to his ... http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/ ... ,0,3018274. story?coll=ny-sports-headlines&track=rss - 66k - http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/ny-spmets0324,0,3018274.story?coll=ny-sports-headlines&track=rss Edit 2 (two minutes from the last edit) Here is another one from the Mets webpage http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060312&content_id=1346509&vkey=spt2006news&fext=.jsp&c_id=nym Sure doesn't look like you looked too hard there. I am done with this nonsense. It really isn't worth my time. I'm not going to register to read the Newsday article, but here's what your referenced Mets page says: Early last summer, while Wright's error total was steadily increasing, there was a thought, one that had a brief shelf life, that the third baseman of the present and future might be transformed into the first baseman of the future. The thought died quickly, even before Wright made adjustments during the All-Star break and became a more reliable thrower and an improved overall defender. He slowed himself and less rushing meant fewer errors. Wright committed 15 errors in 233 chances (a .936 fielding percentage) before the All-Star break. After the break, he made nine in 228 chances (.961). It goes on to compare him to a young Scott Rolen. Pretty much a ringing endorsement for his defensive abilities, if you ask me........ and no sign of him moving to first base. No it is not a ringing endorsement and it is from the Mets own webpage. If a propaganda piece is printing it, what do you think the scouts are saying. Furtermore now you've read something you said you couldn't find. It took me all of two minutes to find it. Moreover, you said someone wouldn't find it. And I didn't even look that hard You have been shown to be wrong throughout this thread. Yet every time you try to spin something. It is like this with every thred in which you post. You are the very definition of a troll.

Pretty impressive numbers by the pitchers!

No he doesn't have a point. He has nothing. EDIT 1: I just did a google search and it took me less than a minute to pull up this article. Now you have to buy it if you want to read it David Wright gets defensive -- Newsday.com The job of improving his defense is so arduous, and David Wright takes it so seriously, that sometimes the work brings the Mets' young third baseman to his ... http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/ ... ,0,3018274. story?coll=ny-sports-headlines&track=rss - 66k - http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/ny-spmets0324,0,3018274.story?coll=ny-sports-headlines&track=rss Edit 2 (two minutes from the last edit) Here is another one from the Mets webpage http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060312&content_id=1346509&vkey=spt2006news&fext=.jsp&c_id=nym Sure doesn't look like you looked too hard there. I am done with this nonsense. It really isn't worth my time.

You have got to be kidding me. What am I taking at face value? The fact that you are being argumentative over something that is rather insignificant? The fact that I was trying to get the thread back on topic? I'm not getting worked up, I'm just wishing you would shut up. The topic was "Scott Rolen or Aramis Ramirez". Someone pointed out that they'd rather have David Wright (not off-topic, in my opinion..... just a slight diversion). I don't get to see EVERY player perform on a regular basis (Wright is one of them), so I depend heavily on what I read, and what the numbers tell me. That's why I was interested in where the information came from. I really like what I've seen of the kid, and hadn't heard this particular information. So now not only are you trolling you are calling me a liar too? That's ok. As I wrote, I am not going to spend an hour or two seaching for NY Times articles that will cost me money download to satisfy a Cardinal troll. I've read it and I've heard it. I live in NY and I subscribe to the NY times. I get the YES network and MSG, and the new network of the Mets. You didn't even know that Wright wasn't a rookie last year. I have a real hard time beleiving you follow him closely. You are a troll. BA data say his has a FRAA of 0 He had the most errors at his position last year Over his short career he is averaging an error a week. He will likely get better, but right now he is not good. Those are the data. Keep your opinon if that makes you happy.

I agree with almost everything except for the part about Pagan having more pop that hairston. Pagan is a singles hitter, when ha manages to get a hit, which isn't all that often. Don't let the ST numbers fool you. The Cubs are very thin. This injury is the reason some of why some wanted Sing or Restovich.

Does anyone with a medical background know if this type of injury is a chronic thing that can be bothersome for the year?

I wouldn't be so hard on Marshall. He was kind of squeezed in the first inning then settled down until the 5th. Ruch on the other hand. Well, let us just say, "Cinderlla the clock is striking 12". I hope Wood and Prior come back soon and are healthy. Same with Aramis.

I'll take David Wright :D

As has already been pointed out: And that's for a 23-year old kid who is still getting better. He's gone 46 innings this year without a single error. His fielding percentage has been slightly below average over his 235 games, but his range has been above average. You also initially implied that he'd only be at third base for 5 years......... and now you're saying "about age 30". You've also said that you've heard scouts and read reports that say his future is at first base. I simply want to know which reports you've read, and which scouts said that, so that I can determine how much credence to give it. That doesn't seem like a huge request. 1. Average is not good. It is average 2. He will be 24 shortly unless I forgot how to add in five years he will be around 30 3. I've already said where I read the reports and where I've heard them from. I am not going to spend an hour looking stuff up to make you happy. 4. No amount of going round and round on this topic will sway your opinon. And it seems neither will the data so keep your opinion and wait five years to have this conversation again.

I think you mean OldCubsfan. I think he was referring to this: I see. Thanks. Mick Kelleher is also on that list too. Another Cub of the byegone era of futility. No wonder why they weren't so good.

Good point. Last spring there was a series of articles in the NY Times about Wright quoting annymous scouts about his potential. In addition, on WFAN, Mike Francessa and Chris Russo discussed Wright all the time. Let me state this again so no one misunderstands my point here: Wright is a special baseball player. He has a shot at a very long and very good career, but he is nowhere near an elite defensive thirdbaseman. He probaly will be better than average in the near future, but not great. You said (or implied) that the plan was to move him to first base, because he couldn't hack it at 3rd. I simply want to know where that notion comes from. He's good defensively. I said or implied no such thing. I said his eventual future will be at first base (about the age of 30). And I've already explained where that notion comes from. But let us put the opinons aside for a secondd. He is averaging an error a week at third base during the 1.5 years he played the position. How is that good? In what way shape or form is that good? If Rolen averaged an error a week would he still be good? How about Aramis? I've seen him play 3rd base a lot as I watch a lot of Mets games. He is not a great third baseman defensiverly. He will get better, there is no doubt. The hype around this kind of talent is always this way.

I think you mean OldCubsfan.

The Cubs have to win today and tomorrow or the St. Louis serise was pretty much a wash. Come on Angel, Neifi, and Jerry. Make some lemonaide.

Hmm... It's ok with me. I don't want I date until he is slated to start. I like the way the Cubs are handling the rehabing pitchers, at least with the media anyway.

Point taken, let's move on. I hope Lee earns his money!

I would guess what the players have to say is far more important than the opinion of people on a message board. The players know who is a good manager and who is a bad manager. It really is no surprise why people who work in baseball have such a low regard for most message boards. I truly doubt that there ever has been decision made in baseball based on the opinions expressed on any message board. How do you know what people in baseball think about message boards? You can doubt all you want. However just to shine a little light on your dark, dark existence, at least one organization in baseball thinks enough of someone who posts on a message board that they hired him to work for them. His name is Voors Mckracken and he works for the Boston Red Sox. Be that as it may. I would think you are partially correct. It would seem to me that upper management would want a happy clubhouse. But winning trumps everything except for losing. The players can profess their undieng devotion to a manager but if he is a bad manager that won't save him. I am glad Lee likes Dusty, I am also glad that Lee signed an extension with the Cubs. In case you don't know, which I am almost sure you don't, Lee's ties to Dusty go way back well before Lee was even a prospect. Dusty knew Derrek when he was a teenager and his friends with his father Leon. Nice. Way not to make it personal. Before you start taking sides do a search and read his posting history. With him it is always personal.

I'd appreciate an update as well. I am looking forward to going to a number of games when we move to Memphis.

I would guess what the players have to say is far more important than the opinion of people on a message board. The players know who is a good manager and who is a bad manager. It really is no surprise why people who work in baseball have such a low regard for most message boards. I truly doubt that there ever has been decision made in baseball based on the opinions expressed on any message board. How do you know what people in baseball think about message boards? You can doubt all you want. However just to shine a little light on your dark, dark existence, at least one organization in baseball thinks enough of someone who posts on a message board that they hired him to work for them. His name is Voors Mckracken and he works for the Boston Red Sox. Be that as it may. I would think you are partially correct. It would seem to me that upper management would want a happy clubhouse. But winning trumps everything except for losing. The players can profess their undieng devotion to a manager but if he is a bad manager that won't save him. I am glad Lee likes Dusty, I am also glad that Lee signed an extension with the Cubs. In case you don't know, which I am almost sure you don't, Lee's ties to Dusty go way back well before Lee was even a prospect. Dusty knew Derrek when he was a teenager and his friends with his father Leon.

You have a very ironic screen name.

Managing a baseball team is not a popularity contest. If the Cubs don't perform then the manger has to go. Great managers not universally loved by their players: Bobby Cox Billy Martin Casy Stengel Leo Derousher Jim Leyland Chuck Tanner Dick Williams Joe McCarthy Sparky Anderson