CubinNY
-
Posts
27,596 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
23
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
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by CubinNY
-
Football, hockey, & socer are cooperative sports baseball is not. However, the troubles with Philly have as much to do with the lack of a running game, an inaccurate passer, bad 2 and 3 wide recievers, and injuries as it does with any mythical chemistry. Back when Farve was a good QB if a reciever missed an easy ball, he might not see another pass for the entire game. Once again and for the last time, "team chemistry" is an empty phrase that is used to make excuses for poor performance. There is no evidence that team chemistry exists.
-
THANK YOU =D> This thread is overrun with overreaction. I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean. I don't think it is overreaction but reaction. Yes, it is a rumor. But this is a message board too. A message board's life's blood are rumors. It wouldn't be much fun to read, "Oh well, I wait and see what happens.", for five pages, would it?
-
[glow=red]WARNING HIJACK[/glow] I'll be Francis Teireny
-
All great points. I also add that Hendry seems to reward past production/loyalty instead of future probability. If this is true, it's almost like he feels he owes it Perez to give him another contract because he filled in so well. Loyalty is not a good trait for a GM.
-
Current Pictures of Busch Stadium Destruction
CubinNY replied to mjohnson71's topic in General Baseball Talk
Dang! The Cubs look like they had a near dynasty in the 30s. Cubs NL titles prior to 1918: 1876, 1880, 1881, 1882, 1885, 1886, 1906, 1907, 1908 and 1910. Must have been fun, though I bet people were pissed about that 20-year drought from 1886-1906. Its not to have all those winning years but it isnt like there were that many teams back than either. Only a Sox fan would talk trash about stuff from the 1800s. It is to laugh, In addition, I think at least a few of those teams where called "the White Stockings". -
Maybe Hendry is going "under the radar" with Giles??? Let's hope so. It could very well be that Giles is a main target, and the press hasn't gotten wind of it yet. Just to add to the hijack--> I don't understand why Hendry isn't all over Giles. He would be the perfect fit, much more so than either Furcal or Burnett.
-
Big Frank still has some value as a DH. Who in the AL needs a DH?
-
Breath took, feel better. Bad day. No excuses. Oxygen is good.
-
Cheap yes, valuable no. Number four and five pitchers are a dime a dozen, unless they are left handed. Besides, if the are cheap and valuable why not keep the money and trade the guys anyway? Pitching is not this team's problem? I can think up a number of reasons why this is a bad. It just doesn't make any sense to me. 9th best ERA in the NL isn't a problem? Good joke. It wasn't a joke, asshat. Pitching isn't this team's problem and even if it is Burnett isn't that good and is often injured. Let's not get carried away here. LOL. That time of the month? Are you confusing the White Sox w/ the Cubs?? Cub pitchers get hurt often. The Cubs need another really good arm. ...who gets hurt really often and will cost @$10 million/year for the next three or four years. ------------- It is not that time of the month, I'm just fed up with your smartassed comments. You could have ended the above post just fine without the "good joke", but then again you are you.
-
Cheap yes, valuable no. Number four and five pitchers are a dime a dozen, unless they are left handed. Besides, if the are cheap and valuable why not keep the money and trade the guys anyway? Pitching is not this team's problem? I can think up a number of reasons why this is a bad. It just doesn't make any sense to me. 9th best ERA in the NL isn't a problem? Good joke. It wasn't a joke, asshat. Pitching isn't this team's problem and even if it is Burnett isn't that good and is often injured. Let's not get carried away here. Probably should have said "relatively valuable," but valuable nonetheless. Also, unless I'm mistaken, both Hill and Rusch are lefthanded and cheap. I think Hill might have some value but the Cubs cannot trade Rusch until June or something b/c he just signed with them (without his permission). Sign and trade deals are verboten in MLB>
-
Cheap yes, valuable no. Number four and five pitchers are a dime a dozen, unless they are left handed. Besides, if the are cheap and valuable why not keep the money and trade the guys anyway? Pitching is not this team's problem? I can think up a number of reasons why this is a bad. It just doesn't make any sense to me. 9th best ERA in the NL isn't a problem? Good joke. It wasn't a joke, asshat. Pitching isn't this team's problem and even if it is Burnett isn't that good and is often injured. Let's not get carried away here.
-
Cheap yes, valuable no. Number four and five pitchers are a dime a dozen, unless they are left handed. Besides, if the are cheap and valuable why not keep the money and trade the guys anyway? Pitching is not this team's problem? I can think up a number of reasons why this is a bad. It just doesn't make any sense to me.
-
4/40 mil is probably what it would take. I bet he gets more $ then Pavano. I'll go 4/44. Me too. 4/55 is my geuss. Almost 14mil? No way anybody signs him for that. I think the 4th year will be a lot of cash and possible buyout. This is a very lean year for free agents and I think that Burnett is about to take advantage of that. He's a better pitcher than Pavano too. Yeah, in retospect I should have said 4/48. Just something to keep in mind. Imagine having that 3mil Rusch just got and put that towards Burnett. 10 mil or 13 mill a year it wouldn't matter. If this is indeed true why in the heck did we sign Rusch? It makes no freaking sense. Becuase: A>Hendry loves redundency B>Becuase neither Wood nor Burnett will last a whole season, so he figues why not let each pitch 1/2 a season C>He plumb forgot he just signed Rusch My vote is C
-
Current Pictures of Busch Stadium Destruction
CubinNY replied to mjohnson71's topic in General Baseball Talk
Did you know that Wrigley has also hosted 6 World Series? One of which included Babe Ruth pointing at a pitcher and swearing at him, then hitting a HR. -
Why is it everytime I see a trade suggested Mitre's name always comes up as a throw in? If he is so bad why would any team want him? Every trade + Mitre + some other minor leaguer Now don't get me wrong, I think Mitre could be a pretty good #4 or 5 starter. I just think if the person making the suggestion thinks Mitre is so crappy why would the team the person wants to trade him to want him. Life is not like MVP baseball.
-
Phillies hire Gillik; Devil Rays hire Hunsicker
CubinNY replied to E.J.'s topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
Hunsiker left one medeling It doesn't make sense. -
pornography is completely irrelivent. Pornography is a value judgement. Frankly, I find this thread pornographic.
-
Yes, it is. And you used it in completely the wrong sense, as its antonym To explain: unless you think you can repeat this exact baseball season thousands of times to observe the "chemistry" in teams, it's absolutely not empirical. Observation by various sources backs up that chemistry was existent and mattered somewhat w/ most of the title winners. Who? What sources? When? Before we go any further down this dark, dark road, please for the love of Isac Newton define what chemistry is and how one could possibly measure it?
-
Carless, I suppose you are correct in the sense that I suggest the Earth spins on it's axis. :D On a more serious note: The term suggest is much too weak. Science demonstrates and repeated replications verify; failures to replicate falsify. To say that science merely suggest plays right into the hands of the ID folks.
-
a plus for what? Certianly not for winning.
-
Would you trade D. Lee?
CubinNY replied to Quakers's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
I recall similar logic being used by the Cubs when they traded Bill Madlock after a "career year" to the Giants for an over-the hill Bobby Murcer. The problem was Madlock was just hitting his stride and had several more "career years" with the Giants. It was the Pirates and I cried like a baby when he was traded, but then again I was only 5. He was my favorite Cub. I'll cut you some slack since you were only 5. In 1977 the Cubs traded Madlock to the Giants (after he won the batting title). The Giants later traded him to the Pirates. Madlock's career stats - .305. BA, .365 OBP, .807 OPS. I guess back then, the Cubs didn't value OBP as much as they do now. :wink: I had no idea. Did he play any games with the Giants? I only remember him with the Pirates. And I was 8 but I still cried. I had a Bill Madlock glove and I wore wrist bands just like Madlock. I played 3rd base and batted left handed too (the batting left handed part helped me in later life). The only thing I didn't have was an afro, but then again I am White. -
Would you trade D. Lee?
CubinNY replied to Quakers's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
I recall similar logic being used by the Cubs when they traded Bill Madlock after a "career year" to the Giants for an over-the hill Bobby Murcer. The problem was Madlock was just hitting his stride and had several more "career years" with the Giants. It was the Pirates and I cried like a baby when he was traded, but then again I was only 5. He was my favorite Cub. -
Would you trade D. Lee?
CubinNY replied to Quakers's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
Hendry already said something about a deal getting done before ST. IIRC> he said someithing like, "this is the perfect situation. We love him and he loves playing in Chicago." -
I hope that is not the case. I would trade Z if I thought it would make the Cubs a better team, and he is my favorite Cub.
-
What about something that is proven to exist recently? We couldn't see atoms and such in the 1800s, and therefore couldn't measure or prove their existence, so what does that mean when we did discover them? That is a good question. I think that is where things get a bit cofusing to some. There is a difference between the technological ability to measure something. For instance, atoms were hypothosized to exist long before the invetion of the the atom smasher. Scientists hypothosized that atoms could be discovered through measurement. But on the other hand, let us look at something like "team chemistry" What is it? In order for it to exist it must be measurable independent of its definition. Now if someone wants to argue that it is an intagible or something that defies measurement go right ahead. However, if something is said to exist that BY DEFINITION CANNOT BE MEASURED, well then it does not exist. Again, it is a logical imposiblilty to demonstrate that something does not exists and by extension disprove that something exists. One can only demonstrate that something does exist. I know of no way to demonstrate that "team chemistry" exists or more importantly, is an important variable to a winning team. If anyone believes that someithing exists in such a state, it is a belief that is beyond the bounds of sicence. Becuse science is my business and a large part of my life, I choose to believe it does not exist