jjgman21

I think its a generational thing. for alot of people old enough to have been at least in your teens and seen his early years, especially those with the White Sox, but even those with the Cubs, it's hard to get the flailing idiot he could be out of your head. waiting year after year for him to take a pitch and not swing and miss at every single low and away slider. you remember dealing with his injuries and stealing at a terrible percentage and seeing years like 1993 where he there were always tons of guys on base ahead of him, and he hit 33 HRs, yet managed to knock in only 93 runs (clutch may not exist, but the early version of Sammy Sosa presented some pretty compelling evidence of anti-clutch). you remember knowing that walks are valuable long before most ever heard of Bill James because you saw how destructive Sammy Sosa's unwillingness to take one was ... and the maddening amounts of strikeouts (again, this was before knowing strikeouts weren't that big of a deal). you saw a you also remember that he wasn't always the hustler he was made out to be and that the 2004 incarnation was the same guy we saw for 6 years before 1998. if you only became an educated baseball fan around 1996 or so, you think he was undeniably great. if you became in educated baseball fan sometime thereafter, he's a god. I also think his cache is hurt by his generation. yes, he's fifth all time, but about 65% came in the span of only a few years, yet he only won one MVP and two HR crowns. during those years, he was incredible, but wasn't even a top 5 player in the NL most of those six or so years (the numbers bare this out. others in baseball were doing just as much at the same time.

I was a huge Sammy fan. I loved watching him sprint out to RF, and the way he'd interact with the fans in the bleachers. I loved the production he gave the Cubs during his peak. I think it'd be really hard to exclude him from a list of top 10 Cubs of all-time, but there are valid arguments to exclude him from the top 5. It's like making a top 5 of Yankee players. You'd probably go with Ruth, Gehrig, Berra, DiMaggio and Mantle. This isn't to diminish what players like Ford and Jeter did, but they're just not quite good enough to be among the very best in Yankee history. fixed.

it's such a difficult question because you can't throw defense out the window like with alot of other positions and there are alot of longevity problems. for instance, Piazza is far and away the best offensive catcher of all time with about a 20 point edge in OPS+ over all the others, but I don't think you can put him in the top five. Pudge is great defensively, but 10-15 points below alot of the other guys. Bench was great both offensively and defensively, but only caught for about 13 years even though he broke in when he was 19. I mentioned earlier in the thread that what Fisk did was amazing because of longevity, but what Dickey and Hartnett did was perhaps more incredible because they caught for 20 years with old timey equipment, and maintained incredible offensive number right up until retirement. Campy had a great five or six year run. what happened at the beginning and ending of his career is a damn shame, but there's no way of knowing if he would have been as good early in his career considering his average offense at age 26 when he broke in. his career was tragically cut short, but he wasn't that good at that time anyway. so its really hard for me to put him on the my list. Simmons had a run offensively in his prime that was probably only matched by Piazza, but his longevity hurts him because he hung on way too long after he lost the offense. plus he's a Cardinal. just too much to consider to rank the catchers.

for some reason I don't remember feeling the same way about Sandberg in 1999 during that 95 loss campaign. Sosa had the best 6 year run of any Cub in history. the other seven years as a Cub, he was what we all feared Jacque Jones would be this year, a non-walking, toolsy, strikeout machine with massive holes in his swing. plus, his 'bezball beane berry berry guud tu me' routine was pretty much shown to be a big facade after his true character was exposed. alot of people bring up steroids, but there was also the flaming toe, the fear of getting on the plate after being beaned, the corked bat, the embarassment of the HR derby when he swung and missed, the unwillingness to be moved down in the lineup, followed by the alleged walk out. sorry, but many of us judge Sammy by Sammy, not by what is going on with the current Cubs team. some of us were amazed by his baseball exploits during the six year run, yet were not big fans (he was never at any point my favorite Cub). and most of the people in the thread must not be in a sour mood, because they love Sammy and think he should be on the list.

No... According to the link in the first post: The criteria used for the selection of players, according to an MLB news release, are "on-field contributions (including but not limited to: overall statistics, postseason performance, All-Star Game appearances, awards, longevity and Hall of Fame credentials) … character and leadership. it that case, the debate should not be about Sosa, it should be about Hartnett. one of the five greatest catchers of all time, 6 all star games, 1 mvp, 18 years as a Cubs player, 3 as player manager, 4 WS (one as player manager) and a Hall of Famer.

Sosa's getting knocked of because he was on the roids, which IMO is deserved. As for Santo, I could name quite a few other players more deserving. So, should we knock off Jenkins because he did greenies? What no proof? Well, Jenkins was caught smuggling drugs into Canada. That alone should be circumstantial enough to believe he would use performancing enhnacers during his career. pot smokers tend to not be into speed.

obviously a list completely geared to the modern era, and besides Fergie geared to guys considered career Cubs. for that, I think Fergie has to be left off the list. many mentioned Anson, Frank Chance had a career OPS+ of 135, six points higher than Sosa. Grover Cleveland Alexander had an amazing run with the Cubs. Gabby Hartnett gave about 20 years of his life to the Cubs, and had a 126 career OPS+ as a catcher versus Sosa's much shorter run and 129 OPS+ as a rightfielder. on Santo, I really don't think there has been a big sympathy plight for him other than by Cubs fans. the numbers relative to the league at the time show that he was an amazing player. it almost seems his induction to the HOF has been attributable to a bit of a backlash for the sympathy he did get. I heard many commentators say "he should bnot e voted in just because he has diabetes and had his leg amputated." they are right. he should be in based on numbers alone.

no doubt he tries to plow through the middle of an offensive linesman's chest way to often. he'd be much better served to take a shoulder and use his quickness to get around the lineman to make a play. east-west, he's one of the best the game has ever seen.

I can't see him being any worse than Pierre. I'm agreeing with you a lot lately, goony. But that statement is true. Jones might not have the range of Pierre, but I think he gets better jumps. His arm even when spiking the ball in the grass on a third of his throws is better than Pierre. chicken arm aside, I think Pierre has had a pretty solid year defensively for the Cubs. while I don't buy into alot of the defensive metrics, I believe the bear that out. I personally don't want either in center though.

and Ozzie Smith was voted in, I think unanimously, to the baseball hall-of-fame. I'm sure you'll find plenty of people waxing poetic during Urlachers swan song with claims of first ballot hall-of-famer. but Brian didn't bowl and love his momma as much, so maybe he won't make it. Have you ever made a post that wasn't filled with bitterness? yes I have. the question I have is whether there is a poster willing to go tit for tat with me without losing composure and getting personal. your posts in this thread are laced with condescention, sarcasm and vitriol too. (how much "fun" do you think the other poster had when you told him he was "ridiculous" and after your tone with the comments about Peter King?). the tone of my posts almost always reflect the tone of the person I am responding to. I present forceful arguments and think for myself folks. I've been trained to do so. I don't get personal and almost always confine my arguments to the rules of this board. If I am proven wrong, I readily admit it (don't remember the play exactly, if Faneca didn't push Bettis, I accept that). if you feel offended by the things I say, grow a thicker skin. edit - laughing again at the auto edit. gonna have to remember that.

byebye only in house option for interim manager. hello Dusty until the end of the year. I really hate routing for more games like Sunday, but I guess that's what it's going to take, isn't it.

my proposed team has 7 positions likely to be over .350 OBP, and is easily achievable. it's dependant on Murton and Fontenot having an OBP over .350 in 2007, but I don't think that's unrealistic at all. if you think Fontenot isn't capable of a .350 OBP at the ML level, there are lot's of other options to get a .350 for secondbase, and enough payroll and trading chips left over to make that happen.

ESPN quoted Yankees management saying that trading A-Rod would be "idiotic." Frankly, I think it's just Yankees fans being Yankees fans. They want all their players to be Ruth, Gehrig and Dimaggio all rolled into one. And woe be to the player who doesn't do so. And that woe usually involves getting booted. There are two factions of yankees management, the Tampa based faction and the NY based faction. Then there is George. One person saying it would be idiotic does not mean it won't happen. The Yankees are very image conscience. the operative faction is the one bolded above, who is generally in line with the media and fanbase opinion. if he's down on a player, it's not beyond him to run him out of town, no matter who the player is. hence, a reason for optomism that such a trade can go down, slim as the chances may be.

all the patience in the world is of little value (note I said little, not "no value") if it does not result in the player getting on base. whether generated through walks or hits, Anderson's OBP is still in Neifiland. Pie could come up right now and put up a .282/.332 line, and is 4-5 years younger. no, brian anderson is just 24 years old, roughly 3 years older, but hardly an old man. as for his obp not being high, i'm not talking about that. he's not going to be hitting .200 forever and has already showed that he has the discipline to post a high obp once he does start hitting better. it's called IsoD, and his is around .081, which would be 2nd highest on our team. jones doesn't need to be platooned, with the money he is being paid, it's unlikely hendry would allow a platoon anyway. he's doing well now, but he'll never do better, trade him while his value is high. what we need is big bat in right, then we can afford cedeno's rotten bat at short. what you are advocating results in two rotten bats in the lineup, so you need yet another big bat in the lineup, and proposing a trade that would never go down in order to achieve it. Anderson may not be at .200 forever, but with his lack of pop, he needs to raise his average 70 points next year, while maintaining his IsoD, in order to be an adequate option in center. the A's currently have a team IsoD of 81, and they have what you call a crappy offense. again, patience, aka IsoD, is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself, and until Anderson shows some indication that he can put up a good OBP at the major league level, I see no reason to trade for him when there are much better options available. Hendry allowed a platoon in left going into 2005, I see no reason why he wouldn't go for one in right going into 2007, especially considering the Cubs have already dabbled in platooning Jones this season. he's far more likely to go for that than any of the trades you've proposed in this thread. finally, the money Jones is being paid is market value for his career average production. combine his anticipated production with anticipated production of a right handed platoon, and you get a .350/.550 line for roughly 9-10M. perfectly reasonable, and certainly better value than you are likely to get for Abreu alone in 2007.

just a little info on the Kottaras debate. the Padres are currently carrying three catchers. Piazza and a 28 year old switch hitting catcher currently putting up a 1.035 OPS in 110 ABs a 25 year old switch hitting catcher currently putting up a .819 OPS in 41 ABs not that I advocate one way or another, but I'm sure the Pads would be willing to trade Kottaras as they are pretty set at catcher with or without Piazza.

yeah. translates over the course of a season when looking at stats though, since it is situation specific already. way back before the Pierre trade, when the argument was on going whether the Cubs should acquire him or not, my suggestion was to just bring up Bacon and let him play centerfield. couldn't hit a HR to save his family, but I would rather have kept the prospects and taken his 100 BBs and .235 average for a year (I suppose that does get into the predictability factor).

just a minor point, I don't think Papelbon could be a starter this year. his arm is in no condition to throw 7 innings and 100 pitches, and getting it to that point would mean utilizing him very poorly for a month, which the RedSox can't afford to do. they're better off leaving him as closer.

yes. I want to argue that a bases empty walk is usually better than a bases empty single. On what scale? Are you talking about predictability? I don't really want to argue it. I just think a walk is better than a single when nobody is on because it always takes at least four pitches, and most singles don't.

yes. I want to argue that a bases empty walk is usually better than a bases empty single.

and Ozzie Smith was voted in, I think unanimously, to the baseball hall-of-fame. I'm sure you'll find plenty of people waxing poetic during Urlachers swan song with claims of first ballot hall-of-famer. but Brian didn't bowl and love his momma as much, so maybe he won't make it.

spare me with the 'this one play is the definition of these two players' garbage. the play was a matter of physics, not physical ability. a 300 lb object in motion is going to move an off-balance 260 lb object at a relative stand still, especially when the 300 lb. object is also illegal pushed from the back by an offensive lineman, as clearly depicted in your artist's rendering. Urlacher was overrated. he was arguably the best defensive player in the NFL last year. see my debate with Vance a couple weeks ago regarding the meaninglessness of football stats. Bettis is Icky Woods with longevity. what do you say Vance? is Bettis the fifth best rusher of all-time?

I give up. Your ability to read what you want into what everyone posts instead of reading what they actually say, your conspiracy theories about how everyone is in a haste to argue you with you and how sabermatricians are only studying defense to prove it worthless, your begging and pleading for people to read your suggestion of rebuilding the Cubs combined with your unending defensiveness when someone critiques your posts, and your claims that goony constantly insults you while you continue to post the crap above have convinced me that you are a baseball mastermind. Kudos to you. My apologies to the mods if that sounded too much like attacking the poster. absurd. absolute ridiculousness. you don't like forceful argument that poke holes in the little baseball bubble you've made for yourself, don't take me on.

you brought this argument into the area of "relying on players who were hurt in the past." none of what you said here changes the fact that your boy relied on chronically hurt players just as much as any other GM in baseball. yet of course you wind your way to defend that reliance, even though if flies in the face of your original premise. You'd probably get a lot less flack if you'd quit the condescending remarks. I don't give a damn about getting flack. I really don't. and if you took what I said as condescending, that's your gig, not mine. I was merely pointing out that people were arguing with nobody. the results of Kenny Williams was good in 2005 even though, in my and many other people's opinion, he did a crap job, but got good results. the point is that results in this game are not always directly related to philosophy and process. and nobody has to say Beane is perfect to give him more credit than may be warranted, which is my point (so again, stop with the strawman arguments). no, nobody has been in the same position in the draft as Beane the past 6 years. no-bo-dy. great, he's been creative. he still hasn't gotten a "creative" draft pick to the majors. Crosby, Swisher, Harden, Blanton, etc etc are all high picks that got big signing bonuses and were sought by all scouts. signing to 3-4 year deals - I agree. getting good return - - laughable, and part of my point that he hasn't done as good a job as was possible and where he deserves criticism. Mulder - got good return Hudson - got burned by Schuerholz Zito - will probably get nothing but a draft pick. maybe not even that. Rogers - next to nothing (Long) Harang - next to nothing (half a season of Guillen) Foulke and Isringhausen - draft picks Giambi - draft pick Tejada - draft pick Chavez - again, picked the wrong one of the three to hold onto Damon - draft pick Dye - nothing McGwire - burned by Jocketty need I go on?

lot of strawman arguments going here. I don't think anyone but one poster 2 or 3 pages ago slammed Beane or gave an indication that he or his philosophies are bad. if all of this is in response to what I wrote, I was merely stating that I don't think he's done everything that was possible with the situation he's been in, that he's not the boy wonder everyone made him out to be a few years ago, etc. I was not arguing that he is a bad GM. I do take issue with the notion that what the A's have done in his regime is so attributable to him. many GMs could have ripped off a good run with the team, farm system, and draft picks soon to come that he was handed. who couldn't build a good run with Zito, Mulder, Hudson, Giambi, Tejada, Chavez, and the players acquired as a result of trading those guys or via the draft picks they brought. finally, I don't think anyone, including Cubs fans, should be barred from criticizing anybody for any reason, even a GM who has a team that has had a good run recently. I doubt anyone would pay any attention to him whatsoever if not for those who claimed and continue to claim him the boy wonder GM, especially when a pretty solid argument could be made that he hasn't done what was possible with what he was handed and that he's on the verge of some pretty thin years. if he's retained for the next five years and the A's remain competitive like they have the past 5, I'll stop arguing about his greatness. until then, I think his grade has to be an Inc. edit - did he draft one or two of Zito, Hudson, Mulder?

I think the lack of good players that actually answer the intial posters question proves one thing... becoming a Chicago Cub completely ruins your career both in the short term and the long term.