Jump to content
North Side Baseball

biittner77

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    9,035

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 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 biittner77

  1. biittner77
    The question was: Should the Cubs evaluate kids at the expense of trying to win? A dumb question in that it implies winning and playing young players are mutually exclusive. The answer was: "I'm trying to do both," Baker said. That part is fine. But then he continued: "It's a situation where you have to find something to play for. I learned that from Steve Garvey. On days he had a migraine and didn't feel like playing, he played for a sick child or an older person in the hospital or something." This is the part that makes no sense. How are motivation and playing young players in any way related? It seems to me that motivation would not be an issue to young players trying to prove themselves. So who is it exactly that has to empathize with the less fortunate to get up for a meaningless game then? If you want to blame the author of the article for putting the two disjointed thoughts together that's fine. Blame the author for making Baker look bad. The fact is that Baker says enough bizarre things that it's not too much of a stretch to believe that he said the 2nd part in response to the first question.
  2. biittner77
    I seem to remember a lot of people here thinking that Castillo wouldn't age well. He doesn't hit for much power and if he can't run as well- a real concern at the time- he could become a big liability. In other words he wasn't worth the risk of the long term contract that it would take to get him to sign with the Cubs.
  3. biittner77
    Only twice in his last start. But it wasn't so much blasting them as being a cry baby jerk. Not that I don't like Zambrano but he still has some growing up to do. It would have been pretty tough for Cedeno to turn two on the ball he caught. The pitcher would have scored anyway on the single two batters later when Murton screwed up throwing to 2nd instead of the cutoff man. He has been a LOT better this year than he has in the past. Either that or he is making it less noticable. I agree. The announcers from ESPN seem to want him to act up but except for the recent outburst I haven't seen it.
  4. biittner77
    Only twice in his last start. But it wasn't so much blasting them as being a cry baby jerk. Not that I don't like Zambrano but he still has some growing up to do. It would have been pretty tough for Cedeno to turn two on the ball he caught. The pitcher would have scored anyway on the single two batters later when Murton screwed up throwing to 2nd instead of the cutoff man.
  5. biittner77
    The gutting of cancers wasn't bad. It was the replacing them with mediocrity that hurt.
  6. biittner77
    Just out of curiosity, who needs a SS or 2nd base badly enough to start Perez? Please don't answer the Cubs.
  7. biittner77
    This discussion has been going on for weeks now. It would have been going on longer but Perez wasn't hitting much before then. Perez and Patterson are two separate issues. There are plenty of people here that criticize both. This discussion is relatively pointless now that Cedeno is on the DL. With Ramirez and Cedeno out, Perez is the best remaining option at SS. I hope he plays well enough to earn a starting job for some other team.
  8. biittner77
    I can see your point but this year is different than 2003. The difference is the expectations. The Cubs were supposed to make the playoffs, not rally to finish .500. Baker may get credit because the team didn't quit on him down the stretch. If he does I don't have a problem with that. As much as I dislike Baker ther are lots of managers whose players would have mailed it in after that last 8 game losing streak.
  9. biittner77
    I disagree for 4 reasons: 1. Baker is back next year no matter what happens down the stretch this season. 2. An over .500 season is meaningful because the Cubs still need to show that they are a consistently winning franchise. 3. The Cubs were without much of that talent for a significant part of the season. I don't like the injuries but they sure didn't help. 4. Barring a miraculous 2nd place finish, I doubt anyone will praise Baker for managing to finish 82-80
  10. biittner77
    8 innings of no hit ball but gets doubled switched out so Baker can get Perez into the game and because Dempster needs more work since he's only pitched 3 times in the last 5 days.
  11. biittner77
    As bad as has season has been, Patterson still has 12 HRs. Murton, over a full season should be able to hit 10. So as long as the RF hits at least 8 HRs The Cubs will be above that threshold. LF Murton 2nd Walker 1st Lee RF LH hitting new RF 3rd Ramirez SS Nomar C Barrett CF Patterson P There's one way. The advantage of having Barrett- a good hitting catcher- is that it eases the pain of having low production from somewhere else.
  12. biittner77
    I'm pretty sure the Cubs go to Kaufmann in '06. The two teams played in Wrigley last time. I remember because the Cubs had to come from behind to win 2 of the games. Of course I think the Royals still had Dye and Damon on that team.
  13. biittner77
    I'd have an easier time believing the Cubs were going to keep playing well if they hadn't just spent this entire season alternating long winning and even longer losing streaks. The assumption has always been that the East teams will continue to beat each other up. I've always believed that one of them will step up and start playing better. With the Mets fading fast, whoever has the most games left with them probably wins the WC. I hope it's the Phillies as I hate them the least of the contenders. That being said, I'm gald to see the Cubs playing better.
  14. biittner77
    There's a lot to be said for watching the game. The eyes can tell a much different story than the box score. But that doesn't mean stats should be ignored. The reason so many people think Perez has had agood season is that they are remembering his hot streaks but are forgetting his slumps. Conversely, many of the people that dislike Perez tend to downplay his contributions and remember his hsitoric number of GIDP. Since there are two differing perceptions of Perez's season, the final arbitor has to be the stats because they don't lie. They aren't fool proof but even the most conventional stats show that Perez is not very good. Patterson has had a horrific season and has been painful to watch. The nicest thing I've read by even the biggest Patterson fan is that his season was disappointing. Even that very generous discription is a far cry from anyone claiming that Patterson was having a better year than Perez. Both players have been villified- perhaps unjustly- as well as defended. The reason why many of us here continue to defend Patterson is that at age 26 he still has a glimmer of hope of becoming the player that we all hoped he'd become. Perez is as good as he's ever going to be. There's a better chance of Perez getting worse then there is that Patterson won't get at least a tiny bit better.
  15. biittner77
    Isn't there a better than average chance that he'll get fired? I thought I read that in the Lou Piniella threads that both he and LaMar were gone at the end of the season. Might be wishful thinking.
  16. biittner77
    Macias' versatility would actually be useful if the Cubs had some guys that could hit on the bench. If the rest of the bench are guys like Glenallen Hill then Macias isn't such a liability. His only chance of justifying his existence is as a defensive replacement. I haven't seen Macias used as a defensive replacement. Could that be because, defensively, he isn't better than any of the starters?
  17. biittner77
    Also, Wellemeyer and Mitre are out of options so they either make the team or get traded as neither clears waivers- at least not until the season starts and they don't show anything ala Bartosh. What they'll actually do depends on how the rotation shakes out. Williams, Mitre and Hill battle it out for 5th starter. One gets traded and the other goes to the pen.
  18. biittner77
    Where are all the people that thought the Cubs should sign Thome back when he was a FA? Why aren't they clamoring for a trade? Any team would be foolish to give up any talent for Thome unless the Phillies pay the majority of his contract.
  19. biittner77
    a three hour tour
  20. biittner77
    "They" meaning whom? It seems that they premiere QB's in the league (and thus, who the league is marketing themselves with) are all black. McNabb, Vick, Culpepper, Leftwich. You can't say that Brady, Manning or Favre get better coverage or more exposure. Look at video games in particular and whom they market themselves with. By "They" I mean coaches on all levels. Perhaps they're not consciously doing it. Perhaps they're becoming more aware and that's why you're able to name 4 black NFL QBs. Add Aaron Brooks and the guy from Tenn that never practices because he's always hurt and that's 6. Let's say there are another 6 that we've missed. That makes 12. There are 31 teams, each with 3 QBs. That means 12 of 93 NFL QBs are black. That's an almost 8-1 ratio. Look back at all the black QBs that have played in the NFL, almost every one of them has these things in common: 1. a cannon for an arm 2. the ability to run Those qualities are good to have in a QB but there have been a lot of white QBs that had one or neither of those qualities. I'm not saying that these coaches wouldn't play a great black QB but they will convert an average one to another position.
  21. biittner77
    "Dude, I totally played a quarterback FBI agent... Totally awesome!" http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y168/m_scafide/099d5630.jpg Johnny Utah was no Shane Falco
  22. biittner77
    It seems to me Willis gets plenty of exposure. Any exposure he gets should be because he's good not because he's black. I don't believe MLB is actively or even passively discriminating against black players. Therefore, I don't care what the ethnic make up of the league is. All I want to know or see is if the guy can play. The NFL, or rather football in general, is a different story. I believe they do passively discriminate against black QBs.
  23. biittner77
    The words Aramis Ramirez and sac bunt should never be used in the same situation. Ramirez is the 2nd best hitter on the team. I never want him to bunt, ever.
  24. biittner77
    Eligibility is also more of a factor for Baseball than football or basketball. It seems like football players get cut a lot of slack since it's the beginning of the new school year. Basketball players only have to make it to Christmas. But baseball players have to keep their grades up through the spring and that's beyond what a lot of them are willing to do. This applies to all races. I've had plenty of white kids that told me how they would be the next Barry Bonds in Sept. that weren't eligible by spring. Speaking only from the experiences at our school, there are very few Black kids that try out for baseball. There's a perception that the baseball coach doesn't want black players which is absurd but it doesn't matter because it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. When no black kids go out for baseball then people say "see, he must not want black kids there aren't any on the team."
  25. biittner77
    Patterson starting the season in CF shouldn't shock anyone. Patterson finishing the season as a Cub is a different story. At the very least he gets 1-2 months to prove that he can turn it around. The Cubs have invested a lot of money in Patterson and are historically slow to give up on their veteran players. Yes, Patterson is a veteran. If nothing else, Patterson buys Pie some time at AAA to see if he is fully recovered from his injury and is actually ready to play at the next level. It's a risk/ reward situation. If they bring Patterson back and he stinks, all they've lost is money and some production from a primarily defensive position. If he was able to turn it around it would be a huge bonus. This, of course is predicated on the Cubs getting at least 1 bona fide corner OF. They should get good production from the infield including the catcher. If Patterson in CF is dead weight offensively it won't hurt them too much so long as he's relegated to the bottom of the order.
×
×
  • Create New...