jjgman21

Who here is excercising sensorship? You've been here just has long as I have so I would think you are respected poster. I really don't understand the hang up you have about post counts? The free exchange of ideas means people may disagree. What is the problem? this has all been about this in other words, you are not allowed to disagree with certain criticisms. my obesession with post counts has to do with how many times I have been chastised, and seen others chastised, for saying something to a "long-time respected" poster. I've been around a long time, but have always tried to be an independant thinker. one doesn't become a long-time respected, or have the long-time respecteds come to one's rescue, without subscribing to the same train of thought as said long-time respecteds. in fact, one might say that the long-time respecteds respect noone other than themselves, and they tend to be venomous to those who don't subscribe to their way of thinking. not censorship, but there is certainly a chilling affect. I'm sure many agree, just wish a few more had the guts.

you guys just aren't getting it. most of the people here, including myself, agree that it was a stupid, and in hindsite, indefensible move. but all of my posts have been about protecting people's right to decent on this board. all anyone can say in response is their opinion. that's fine. I have my opinion too. but that's all it is, opinion, and everyone, no matter what his opinion is or how many posts he has racked up or how many friends he has on the board that have his back, has a right to give their opinion. this is a message board, not the current Congress. it's supposed to be about a free exchange of ideas, not the majority crushing all differing opinions. edt: BBB - I apologize for making it seem like I was replying to you. I clicked the wrong button in haste. however, your behavior earlier in this thread, and in a couple other threads I have seen, IS indefensible. you are supposed to be setting an example.

and when it does, the mods are sure to chastise me publicly on the board, unlike others. that's the thing about the long time respecteds. they don't like to argue. THE POINT was that nobody thought the Astros were going anywhere in 2004 either. year after year there are teams far less talented than the 2005 Chicago Cubs that come out of nowhere. BUT I GUESS I CAN'T MAKE THAT POINT BECAUSE I'M NOT SUPPOSED TO ARGUE WITH THE LONG TIME RESPECTEDS. my entire point in this thread is that dialogue shouldn't be restricted because the consensus disagrees. what's your guys reaction? more attempts to restrict dialogue. pathetic.

Why not? because the point is to get to the WS and win it. whether the Cubs were capable of that was debatable. whether Kerry Wood out of the pen would have helped them achieve that is debatable. there's a train of thought that if you have a shot you have to go for it. I don't subscribe to that notion, but believe others should have the right to express it. this situation is not so cut and dry as you make it out to be. the payoff in some people's eyes was the ultimate payoff, winning the world series. therefore a contrarian position is completely justifiable and appropriate, whether you agree with it or not. Anybody who thought the Cubs had a shot at winning the world series when Wood was sent to the pen was insane. Wildcard standings as of 8/5/04 Cubs 60-48 SD 58-50 SF 58-52 Phil 56-52 Hou 54-54 Fla 53-54 insane. INSANE I TELL YOU!! all one needed was a decent short term memory. Furthermore, look at the post above for all the reasons to think they had a shot at the time. between July 25 - August 1, the Cubs had two ninth inning wins, they added Nomar, Williamson, and Lawton, Hill looked incredible in his start, Aram won player of the week for the previous week. even so, your insane comment is only an opinion, thus adding no more weight to the alleged necessity of stiffling all contrary opinions.

stock Card fan reply: "I wouldn't mind. Duncan does wonders with veteran pitchers."

Why not? because the point is to get to the WS and win it. whether the Cubs were capable of that was debatable. whether Kerry Wood out of the pen would have helped them achieve that is debatable. there's a train of thought that if you have a shot you have to go for it. I don't subscribe to that notion, but believe others should have the right to express it. this situation is not so cut and dry as you make it out to be. the payoff in some people's eyes was the ultimate payoff, winning the world series. therefore a contrarian position is completely justifiable and appropriate, whether you agree with it or not.

Will Cedeno be a regular. Zips projections also show Neifi Perez with 450 at bats. If that's the case, we're down to 6 guys with OBP's at .345+. If the right fielder is Jacque Jones, we're down to 5. The line up I would have liked to have seen (assuming that Giles was unattainable and using career OBP's) is: Bradley-.350 Wilkerson- .365 Lee-.363 Ramirez-.358 (using last year's since it's likely a closer projection) Walker-.348 Murton-.350 (assuming a lower one for him, but still respectable) Barrett-.340 (using something closer to last year as a closer projection) Cedeno-.330 Furcal as a replacement at SS-.348 Cliff Floyd platooning with Wilkerson and Murton-.361 Could be regression from any of the players listed above. Could be progression (see Derrek Lee's 2005) from the numbers listed. But, it's a solid line up that was most certainly attainable, except maybe Furcal and the ridiculous contract LA gave him. Using the 8 players in that line up, the Cubs still have enough money left over to sign Millwood, which bulks up the pitching staff and likely replaces Jerome Williams, who was probably involved in the Wilkerson deal. That line up isn't that far off from what we have now, honestly. Pierre could match that OBP next year, though he does give up quite a bit in SLG. Finding someone to provide what Wilkerson could in RF will be the tricky part. Of course, Wilkerson is still available in trade, but what will it take to get him? oh, I am not a Jones advocate, believe me. but as I think you are coming to believe, a Wilkerson or Huff or Green or perhaps even a Sanders/Jones platoon probably gives you pretty close to the team that you wanted, minus the power in the leadoff hole. we're not that far off from not only being a very competetive team for 2005, but set for a few years with a good young core of players. that's why I don't understand all the ranting. disagree with his methods, but we are not all that far away from the team everyone wants. and I would flip flop Wilkerson and Walker in your lineup, but that's just my opinion.

I agree, but I don't think anyone is advocating the Cubs become a small ball team. you are right about the recipe for success, but a team that can scratch out a run here and there will win alot of tough games over teams that cannot. that being said, all is lost in terms of the advantage of playing small ball as our manager wouldn't have the slightest idea when it is a good time to play small ball and when it is a good time to wait for the three run dinger. i'm saying small ball is ineffective. and probably only useful over the course of a small sample size, like in the playoffs, when gambles either pay off big or lose big. playing it over the course of a 162-game season only hurts a good team. a team is more successful if their hitters are allowed to behave normally in a RISP situation. you will never see Jim Edmonds, Albert Pujols, or Scott Rolen EVER intentionally try to hit a ball the other way unless that's where the ball is pitched....ever.never ever. all I'm saying is that a team that can selectively play small ball will have an advantage over a team that can't. if Roy Oswalt is on and hasn't given up a flyball all game, with Lidge looming, small ball can mean the difference in having a chance and having no chance. but I would never condone trying to scratch in a run before the sixth or seventh in that situation, and I would never ask my power hitters to bunt. the bolded part is not true whatsoever. maybe with Edmonds and Rolen, but I have seen Pujols inside out a pitch to get a runner home many many times.

Long before he came back. fair enough. doesn't change that there should be no moritorium on arguing the costs and benefits of the decision. I thought he should be shut down and have surgery as well

I think an argument could also be made that we aren't medical staff, we don't have the x-rays or the experience to make these decisions. I think an argument can be made that WE trusted management to make the decisions that wouldn't hurt the team in the long run. I don't think anyone can be upset at any Cub fan that Kerry Wood might not be ready for the start of opening day, however, regardless of what their opinion was back in August. oh, I'm upset too, but it cuts both ways. everyone gets upset when the Cubs seem to take too long in letting players rehab and now they are upset that they didn't just put him on the shelf. if the Cubs did make a run in August and came up a couple games short because of our terrible pen, people would be up in arms that the Cubs refused to let Wood try to go out of the pen. another thing to keep in mind is that Kerry needed this surgery, but before Wood went into the bullpen, there was no talk whatsoever of surgery, just rest and rehab. had the Cubs not run him out there they may have kept that approach, there would have been no surgery, and the 2006 version of Kerry Wood may very well have looked like the 2004 version of Matt Morris. and I also agree with what someone else said above, even if Wood had the surgery in early August, the Cubs wouldn't let him return until May anyway. edit: I stand correct by UK's post. there was a possibility of surgery.

I remember looking up Jones stats last year when his name was being floated about as a possible acquisition. I noticed he was having a solid OBP year, based mostly on a great walk rate. I though maybe he'd figured it out. then the second half happened: pre all star BB/AB 37/290 post all star BB/AB 14/233 wha? I mean...did he...wha? it really doesn't make sense. why stop taking free bases?

I agree, but I don't think anyone is advocating the Cubs become a small ball team. you are right about the recipe for success, but a team that can scratch out a run here and there will win alot of tough games over teams that cannot. that being said, all is lost in terms of the advantage of playing small ball as our manager wouldn't have the slightest idea when it is a good time to play small ball and when it is a good time to wait for the three run dinger.

thank you for that rather civilized reply. I'm not a big fan of Pierre either and wish we had done better. but he is what he is, and that is a guy who generally scores a 100 runs out of the leadoff hole, in large part due to his usually high OBP. the thing is, using the zips projections posted above, all we need is a .350 OPB out of rightfield and you'll have 7 regulars with OBPs over .345ish, with Cedeno as the only one below. that's real close to what you wished for. thus, I don't see a need for an "impact bat" or a "difference maker" (whatever those terms mean). we just need a solid OF that can put up .350 OBP / .800ish OPS, and we have the team everyone seems to have wanted, Dusty proofing arguments aside.

Not true. You and I have butted heads all offseason, so while you are under the impression I am all gloom and doom while I'm under the impression you believe Hendry can do no wrong, there is a middle point most likely for both of us. ....I said right after the offseason ended to give me a line up with .350+ OBP throughout and this team will win more games than it loses. so would any team, but that's simply not realistic. name five teams that had 8 .350 OBP regulars in the history of baseball. the 2004 RedSox only had seven, and that includes having the DH instead of a pitcher. the bolded part is exactly what you constantly do to make your point. pluck out the worst case scenerio stat to rip on the player you are talking about. nevermind the three and a half seasons of OBP over .361, and his career .355. we'll focus on the year his OBP was .326 and the year it was .332. unless of course we are talking about a player you want, then we ignore the worst stats (ie. noone ever mentions Abreu's 100 point plummet in OPS last year). you have great baseball accumen, why not use it to give a balanced, objective opinion about players instead of cherry picking stats?

I think it was an idiotic move, but believe a contrarian position is legitimate. The doctors said that Wood would do no harm to his shoulder going one inning at a time. so the Cubs said they would use him in relief as long as they were in the wildcard picture. so let's look at was going on at the time he was brought back. the Cubs were 4.5 games back of the WC with tons of games coming up against the teams ahead of them. at that time we expected Nomar back, the addition of Williamson, had just got a leadoff man. there was every reason to believe they could catch up. and your premise is flawed as Wood was working every other day pretty regularly (not once every three days as you state). there was definitely reason to think the Cubs had a chance to get to the playoffs and that Kerry Wood out of the pen would help. Another thing, you'll notice the thread posted by UK was started on August 11, the day after the Cubs had just been swept by the Mets and Reds. there's a huge difference of claiming "we told you so" at that point vs. when Wood actually returned. after that losing streak, there wasn't much point in running him out there. however, if I am not mistaken, the doctors didn't say surgery was necessary until about August 24. that is where the true blunders came. when they ran him out there after saying he needed surgery. but anytime before that, there certainly is a case to be made that the criticism is overblown.

c'mon. I was on the espn board back then too. we all predicted everyone from that Boise team to be superstars. there was no way to distinguish who was best, particularly the guy with the hurky-gerky, unrepeatable delivery. No, I mean they distinguished Willis (and Guzman to a lesser extent) from the others. Thanks for the stats. I don't recall ever hearing about that, and would be interested to know if those comments were made in hindsite. GMs are not above building their resumes by saying something like that later on. I have a hard time believing the choice of him over the others was anything other than a crapshoot. stats wise its tough to distinguish, why go with the guy who appeared to be getting it done with trickery? if they did distinguish him, I think that's got to be a kudos to the Marlins more than a knock on the Cubs scouting. were talking about short season. certainly not something to completely bank a long term assessment on and certainly not something to hold up in the air and say "you blew it Cubs organization." furthermore, if it was some incredibly poor oversite by someone from the Cubs, the blame probably has to go to Fleita, not Hendry/MacPhail. and you're welcome for the stats. I had alot of time on my hands in winter of 2001-2002. edit: I think I mistook your post again. who could have done any predicting on Willis? who do you know that attended multiple starts of Guzman, Pignatello, Mitre and Willis in the pacific northwest in 2001? if someone from outside of the baseball establishment distinguished Willis from the others, they would have either have had to attend the games or, as I said before, be clairvoyant.

do non-tender FAs v. 6 year FAs differ in that there are no restrictions on non-tender FAs, where as there are with 6 years? if so, I think that answers alot of peoples questions. in this situation: Brewers: hey, we like you but don't want to pay you what you will get in arbitration Kolb: I like being here and am glad you guys got me back. I know it is tough on you to have to give me more than I made last year considering my performance last year. Brewers: well how about we don't offer you arb, but you sign with us at a figure we can agree on. Kolb: sounds like a plan.

Am I mistaken or didn't they ask for Guzman first from that Boise team? And I know a couple people who predicted Willis' success before he was traded. oh if only MacPhail/Hendry caved on Guzman. but then again, they are supposed to be clairvoyant. Why go here. Nobody has said any such thing. While there is no requirement to be an oracle while holding a MLB organizational position, it is incumbent, particularly from the GM, that a pattern doesn't develop wherein talent is continually forfeit without proper return. That is all anyone is saying. on the other hand, if one challenges the existence of said pattern, as I and others do above, a lively quip, to emphasize the rarity of said organization forfeiting without proper return and to note that said GM is human, is not out of bounds. indeed, but for this one transaction, one would have a difficult time arguing said GM ever made a bad trade. not intentionally, but I did notice it some paterns developing as I was writing it. sort of felt like I was writing Phish lyrics. or maybe haikus. are you posting in iambic pentameter? That would be impressive. not intentionally, but I did notice it some paterns developing as I was writing it. sort of felt like I was writing Phish lyrics. or maybe haikus.

Am I mistaken or didn't they ask for Guzman first from that Boise team? And I know a couple people who predicted Willis' success before he was traded. oh if only MacPhail/Hendry caved on Guzman. but then again, they are supposed to be clairvoyant. Why go here. Nobody has said any such thing. While there is no requirement to be an oracle while holding a MLB organizational position, it is incumbent, particularly from the GM, that a pattern doesn't develop wherein talent is continually forfeit without proper return. That is all anyone is saying. on the other hand, if one challenges the existence of said pattern, as I and others do above, a lively quip, to emphasize the rarity of said organization forfeiting without proper return and to note that said GM is human, is not out of bounds. indeed, but for this one transaction, one would have a difficult time arguing said GM ever made a bad trade.

c'mon. I was on the espn board back then too. we all predicted everyone from that Boise team to be superstars. there was no way to distinguish who was best, particularly the guy with the hurky-gerky, unrepeatable delivery.

Am I mistaken or didn't they ask for Guzman first from that Boise team? And I know a couple people who predicted Willis' success before he was traded. oh if only MacPhail/Hendry caved on Guzman. but then again, they are supposed to be clairvoyant.

Great? He pitched a total 28 innings in the Cubs system, posting a 3.86 ERA and a 1.21 WHIP. We all have our own definition of great, but I'm sure most would agree that that isn't "great." 28 innings doesn't sound right to me. Are you sure? That's what the Baseball Cube says, but it's missing his 2001, where he pitched 93 innings for Boise, with a WHIP of almost exactly 1.00 and a 2.98 ERA. Wasn't 2001 the year the Baseball Cube was missing for Nic Jackson too? I have all the Cubs system minor league stats for 2001 if it is of interest to NSBB. I'd post it here but don't know how to format it to be intelligible. starters for 2001 Boise GS/ERA/IP/K/BB/WHIP (noone other than Wynegar had more that 2 HRs, he had 7) Guzman 14/2.23/76.7/63/19/1.14 Mitre 15/3.07/91/71/18/1.13 Pignatello 12/3.00/78/83/22/1.18 Willis 15/2.98/93.7/77/19/1.02 Wynegar 12/2.92/71/63/19/1.35 and from that group, Willis was allegedly the deal breaker.

Well, reality tells us that the Cubs aren't a very good team, but they are a very expensive team. So, when you add up all the "piles" of his deals, the results do not at all tilt in his favor, because the team he built isn't good. That's what matters, and that is what makes me think the way I do about Hendry's moves, on the whole. that's fine, but let's stick to the topic at hand. we weren't talking about all his deals. his ability to sign FA's just stinks. some of his priorities (ie Furcal instead of Giles) are just whack. but what we were talking about is one aspect of GM'ing, trading prospects for veterans. you implied Hendry was terrible at it because of one trade which can't be evaluated for probably 4 years at the earliest. all the evidence we currently have, when looked at objectively and not through eyes with nothing but hatred for Hendry, turns out he's pretty damn good in at least that one aspect.

add in a bucket of chicken wings and half the people here things it should land Abreu. Add Williams and Harvey and I think it gets you Abreu. Unfortunately, you're not the Phil's GM. Everything I read said they want a #1 SP for Abreu. Nowhere in that list of names is anything above a #3 SP maybe. well who cares what the Phil's GM says. Hendry should make that deal work anyway because we really really want Abreu.

That is meaningless to me. Everybody reported that Hendry was the one who put together that deal. It was a Hendry deal all the way. fine. I'm apt to think that anything anyone tries to put in Hendry's favor is meaningless to you, but let's put them all into piles Cubs get three years of Clement Aramis Ramirez Michael Barrett 1/2 year of Nomar Matt Murton Derrek Lee Cubs gave away Willis Taveraz a handful of bench players and prospects that never made it. seems to me Hendry has a long track record of doing what you want, only trade prospects if you are going to get good solid veteran players in return. no matter how the Pierre trade ends up in retrospect, the scales still tilt way in Hendry's favor when it comes to trading prospects for veterans. seriously, besides Willis, name one above average major league player the Cubs gave up in the prospect stage. I too hate some of the things Hendry does, but that is tempered by reality.