Jump to content
North Side Baseball

CubinNY

Old-Timey Member
  • Posts

    27,680
  • 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 Pick Tracker

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by CubinNY

  1. IMO, there is no way Hendry even thinks about getting Bradley, no matter how much some of us want him too. Try putting yourself in Hendry's position: 1: He has a young CF that might have been brought up this year if he had not be hurt- I didn't like the idea, but if one believes the media it was true. 2: he spent all last year ridding the team of supposed malcontents that Mr. Playersmanager couldn't control. I would be more than shocked if Bradley becomes a Cub.
  2. Not if you are a Cubs fan. It's all relative brah. Bingo. It's too bad you didn't get that point when you made your original post. It would have saved me the trouble of explaining it to you. Double bingo. It's to bad you didn't end your post with "to me." then we wouldn't have spent time reading your ridiciulus argumetns why Busch stadium has more memories.
  3. The Cubs cannot trade Rusch w/o his permission until June and why in the wide, wide world of sports would Toronto take the Cubs trash for Vernon Wells?
  4. If the person does I don't want him anywhere near a baseball team I root for. Long story short, no.
  5. 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.
  6. 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?
  7. [glow=red]WARNING HIJACK[/glow] I'll be Francis Teireny
  8. 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.
  9. 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".
  10. 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.
  11. Big Frank still has some value as a DH. Who in the AL needs a DH?
  12. Breath took, feel better. Bad day. No excuses. Oxygen is good.
  13. 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.
  14. 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>
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. Hunsiker left one medeling It doesn't make sense.
  21. pornography is completely irrelivent. Pornography is a value judgement. Frankly, I find this thread pornographic.
  22. 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?
  23. 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.
  24. a plus for what? Certianly not for winning.
  25. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...