CubinNY

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

I suppose I could ask you the same question, but I will try not to insult your intelligence. Be that as it may, you are absolutely unequivally and tottally incorrect. Part of the scientific method includes the practice of objective observation and measurement. For example, some scientist a long, long time ago in a country far, far away discovered that water boils at 100 degrees C or 210 degrees F at sea level. Get a thermometer and try it yourself. If you go to a higher altitude it will even boil at a lower temp. I guess one could say that science has disproved that water boils at any other temp besides 100, but then again that is an ass backwards way to look at things, isn't it? Science is fun ---------------- Post script> Maybe prove is the wrong word. From now on let's use the word demonstrate. Again, if a physcial thing cannot (as in impossible to) be measured in some way, shape, or form it a metaphysical sertitude that it does not exist.

It's truly amazing how many things said could not be measured at one time that have been proven to exist later. Saying that something that cannot be measured does not exist is the height of ignorance and arrogance. If you cannot measure something how do you know it exists? You don't. There is a difference between not being able to measure someithg because we don't have the technology and the "intagible" that cannot be measured. The height of ignorance and arrogance is a belief in the non-existent. LOL. And if we humans and our rudimentary understanding of the universe can measure it, it is non-existent? What a pathetic notion. Some people want to believe they can quantify everything because it makes them feel secure in their knowledge of their own existence. However nothing is as certain as the fact that most of what we believe to be true today will likely be contradicted by something later. We don't know everything, or even close to it. Most competant scientists will be the first to tell you this. And as I said, history is rife with things that were said not to exist because there was no proof, only to be later proven. And that trend will only continue. And no, believing we can measure all that exists is the height of arrogance and ignorance, not to mention the hallmark of a narrow and frightened mind. Great minds like Einstein, Newton, Socrates and others all professed this to be true. Saying you know something exists that hasn't been proven is wrong. Saying it doesn't exist because we haven't found a way to measure it is equally wrong. Saying you can't say one way or the other is the right place to be, even if that makes you uncomfortable. "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." - Socrates That's really all I have to say on this issue. If you want to be the consummate skeptic, then so be it. Just remember that total skepticism is as extreme a position as a blind believer. So you cannot back up your statement with facts. That's kind of what I thought. You and Socrates are quite the pair of deep thinkers. And Einstein, Newton, Neil Bohr, and on down the line of physiscists and hard scientists. As much as you are knowledgeable. You cannot disprove something just because you cannot measure it. You have no more fact to back up your position than I do. Whatever, I suggest you ask a physics professor what they think about things that by definition CANNOT BE MEASURED. He or she will laugh you out of the room. It is not about disproving anything it is about proving something. I don't need to disprove that chemistry exista, that is a logical impossiblity. The burden of proof is on those that say it does exist. Just becuase someone says it is so does not make it so. In my field (science) we have a saying, "In God we trust. All others must have data."

It's truly amazing how many things said could not be measured at one time that have been proven to exist later. Saying that something that cannot be measured does not exist is the height of ignorance and arrogance. If you cannot measure something how do you know it exists? You don't. There is a difference between not being able to measure someithg because we don't have the technology and the "intagible" that cannot be measured. The height of ignorance and arrogance is a belief in the non-existent. LOL. And if we humans and our rudimentary understanding of the universe can measure it, it is non-existent? What a pathetic notion. Some people want to believe they can quantify everything because it makes them feel secure in their knowledge of their own existence. However nothing is as certain as the fact that most of what we believe to be true today will likely be contradicted by something later. We don't know everything, or even close to it. Most competant scientists will be the first to tell you this. And as I said, history is rife with things that were said not to exist because there was no proof, only to be later proven. And that trend will only continue. And no, believing we can measure all that exists is the height of arrogance and ignorance, not to mention the hallmark of a narrow and frightened mind. Great minds like Einstein, Newton, Socrates and others all professed this to be true. Saying you know something exists that hasn't been proven is wrong. Saying it doesn't exist because we haven't found a way to measure it is equally wrong. Saying you can't say one way or the other is the right place to be, even if that makes you uncomfortable. "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." - Socrates That's really all I have to say on this issue. If you want to be the consummate skeptic, then so be it. Just remember that total skepticism is as extreme a position as a blind believer. So you cannot back up your statement with facts. That's kind of what I thought. You and Socrates are quite the pair of deep thinkers.

It's truly amazing how many things said could not be measured at one time that have been proven to exist later. Saying that something that cannot be measured does not exist is the height of ignorance and arrogance. Could you enlighten me? Name three physical things that "people" said cannot be measured. ----------------- If you cannot measure something how do you know it exists? You don't. There is a difference between not being able to measure someithg because we don't have the technology and the "intagible" that cannot be measured. The height of ignorance and arrogance is a belief in the non-existent.

If something cannot be measured it does not exist. Love can be measured, crudely, so let's not go down that road. Chemistry is a nonexistent mistress of winning. Charley Finely's A's of the 1970s hated each other by and large and Won a WS. Forget chemistry.

NorthsieAvenger, Let's see the list of charecter assisinations 1. Farns 2. Jenks 3. Patterson 4. Rodriguez You certianly seem to have a handle on the "bad guys" in baseball. Just one more thing, I thought you said you didn't do this type of thing very often? :^o

The Cubs already have a pretty decent lead off hitter in Walker. Unfortunately the Cubs don't know it. So they will go after Juan "slappy" Pierre. Whopie!! My only hope is they make him wear his hat bill forward not cocked to the side.