Jump to content
North Side Baseball

wilk

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    366

  • 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 wilk

  1. wilk
    Oh, definitely it wasn't a matter of just Morgan. But in the frustration that he didn't make it, it just seems a lot of people have been latching onto Morgan as a figurehead for the general elitist attitude of the committee. I just thought it was interested he said he voted for him despite what most people believe to be true. Santo received 57 of 82 votes (needing 62) this year, and 52 of 80 votes (needing 60) in 2005.
  2. wilk
    But Morgan's claim is he didn't change his vote because he has recently voted yes. I've never liked Morgan so I'm not going to claim he's telling the truth - but he is claiming he voted for Santo to get in.
  3. wilk
    For what it's worth, Joe Morgan said on a radio conference call last night that he did vote for Santo, has in the past, and will continue to. There's also a blurb in the NY Times about this comment for reference -- though that simply says he was surprised Ronny didn't make it rather than the direct quote that he placed a vote himself.
  4. wilk
    Just to clarify he's not saying he'd skip a start - just give a stricter pitch count limit in a start following a heavy one. Besides injury, I don't think you'll see Piniella skip anyone's starts this year.
  5. wilk
    I think the better player to fill that 25th spot should be another middle infielder. Preferably with some speed for pinch running duties and ideally someone who can face lefties. DeRosa can play RF for Jones against LHP and Theriot could take 2B. In any event, we could use another utility infielder before we see a 6th OF -- and 8th player who could be plugged into the outfield (Soriano, Jones, Murton, Floyd, Ward, DeRosa, Theriot).
  6. wilk
    The Bigs isn't intended to be a baseball simulation game. It's also not being designed solely for the Wii (it'll be out on PS systems and 360 too). As others pointed out, it'll be an arcade game not far from NBA Jam or NFL Street. There will be power-ups you can attain and special moves, etc. Gameplay will be purposely over the top and exaggerated.
  7. wilk
    what?? a guy that can steal 40 plus bases doesn't have a verticle leaping ability or lateral speed. As a track coach that seems strange But this isn't hypothetical theories of "a guy," this is Soriano. You wouldn't get any arguments from any baseball coaches or scouts over those Soriano comments. You don't need vertical leap or lateral speed to steal bases. These are issues, however, that have made his defense so bad in the past (especially middle infield).
  8. wilk
    But before you even get to the bricks or backdrop the primary issue is the slice off the bat. Especially when Soriano was in left, he himself talked about his issues reading the ball of a lefty's bat. The hardest ball to read in center is going to be the linedrive right at him, and in judging its distance. Since Soriano has poor lateral speed and no vertical leap, his range in center will be an issue on these that his running speed can't always make up for. But in general, Soriano will have an easier time reading the ball off the bat in center than he would in a corner. Personally though, I think Jacque is our best centerfielder of the four.
  9. wilk
    You're right, they'll have people to share and back up also. The fact that Bruce differentiated between "sharing" and "platoon" shows that he didn't intend for them to be interchangeable terms as you are assuming they should be. This "sharing" concept came from statements of his to begin with and within it he noted a difference between the two. A reporter says "sharing, [which is not the same as a platoon]" and you say "it is the same as a platoon and the same as meaning he's going to get less than 400 appearances." Sounds more like hyperbole than "every indication" to me. Especially since "other" indications such as the manager and GM have pointed to Murton being the primary outfielder. It'd be rather clueless, and an absolute mistake, to deprive the team of depth simply to force a popular sophomore to get every at-bat. He'll get the majority of them and nothing has indicated otherwise.
  10. wilk
    Otherwise, anyone who doesn't play 162 games is apparently in a platoon. "Platoon" and "share time" might be semantics on a layman's level but they are certainly different intentions when it comes to managing a club. The funny thing is we're debating whether "share time" actually means "platoon" when the person who used the phrase clarified he didn't mean a platoon. The concept of a platoon essentially is allocating the position amongst multiple players around a predetermined variable - speed vs power, RHP vs. LHP, etc. Signing a backup for the position is not assigning a platoon and so far every indication from the club, and those close to it, are that Murton is the primary LF.
  11. wilk
    I wish someone was willing to put money on this. :wink: You point to Bruce Miles' comments as reference but he specifically says it's not a platoon situation. The Cubs are looking for a strong lefty 4th OF bat for some tough righties and pinch hit duties and insurance for skids and whatnot but Murton isn't going to sit 50 games on the bench.
  12. wilk
    :shock: Poor reads, poor first step, terrible lateral acceleration, no vertical leap... I think it'd be one of the worst defensive shortstop contributions we've seen in quite a long time. :lol:
  13. wilk
    Thanks. I figured if I'm going sarcastic I might as well start it as absurd as possible. When the first handful of people figured I was serious, I felt I possibly represented a monster of our actual fanbase. :o I know, I know... it's all sarcasm and the internet. :lol:
  14. wilk
    God, Hendry is so stupid. I absolutely hate depth. We either need 25 superstars or plainly one popular sophomore with no backups. Hendry goes out and gets FLOYD of all people... a cheap power option for the bench that IF healthy makes the team much stronger but since when are there "IFs" in baseball?? All my buddies are talking about Crawford, Vernon Wells, Andruw Jones so it's either one of them or Murton vs. the volcano. Cliff Floyd is like, older than my dad and my dad is horrible at baseball. Simple math. But does Hendry listen? We know Theriot will easily outperform any other middle infield option just like we knew with Cedeno. We'd be right yet again, all you have to do is realize Theriot had a .412 OBP which is at least 100 points better than DeRosa is capable of because he's not nearly as hip to the bone. But I digress. Someone please make Hendry aware of who Carl Crawford is!!!!!!!!!!!! Or at least give him a lesson in Cliff Floyd vs. Ryan Church. Church can be had for our leftover junk that Hendry would de-roster if he had any brains and his OPS is hundreds better than Floyd's in 2007. UGH.
  15. wilk
    No, they would be good but you hadn't given one... A quote from a MLB.com writer saying Schmidt's agent hadn't ruled out St. Louis is not a quote from Schmidt stating interest in Chicago. Which leads me to: Then I guess the problem was in how you worded it. You have to understand when you attribute a quote to someone and say you could provide it that's quite different than saying your opinion is that West coast isn't a necessity since he hadn't publically stated zero interest in all the non-West teams in circulating rumors. The latter (what you actually meant) is an opinion and something I would have had no questions with. The first (what you actually said) was not a matter of opinion since you claimed you could provide a published statement of interest. I only wanted to know if I missed something or if you had meant something other than you said. Glad we got that cleared up.
  16. wilk
    How absurd could this be? It's your opinion that Schmidt has a published quote stating interest in playing for Chicago that can't be materialized? No. I never questioned your opinion, I questioned your claim: So I asked you to. You quote Rotoworld twice and neither are Schmidt nor his agent mentioning interest in Chicago. The "..." was St. Louis, which I wasn't interested in you "digging up" since I saw Schmidt's agent say he "wouldn't mind St. Louis" and the semantics didn't matter to me. But quotes FROM SCHMIDT stating INTEREST IN CHICAGO I'd like to see. I clarify if you're just assuming with a little leap of Cub faith and there aren't actual quotes from Schmidt (or his agent) mentioning Chicago ... and this causes your apparently caustic turn. I never mentioned my opinion to that point at all and I never questioned your opinion. If your post had said "I think Schmidt would come to Chicago because the Cubs have tons of money to throw at him," I wouldn't have questioned a thing. But you instead said: "I can dig up quotes where Schmidt has stated that he has interest in Chicago." And then you rationalize the sarcasm by once and for all saying you can't find anything out of Schmidt's mouth (your original claim). Again, that's the only thing I called into question. Don't blame me.
  17. wilk
    I'm not sure if this is sarcastic or not. You're obviously allowed to have any opinion you want. It's when you said there were quotes from Schmidt that I was interested in materializing it. I don't think the Cubs have been entirely ruled out from his side--mostly since they're throwing around money--but I think they'd be lower than teams like the Dodgers, Mariners and even Cardinals. Of course, that would mean they'd have to give significantly more than them if Chicago is even an option to him at all.
  18. wilk
    A direct quote from the Cardinal's GM. The comments from his agent that Rotoworld refers to is: "Hendricks acknowledged that despite a couple of perceived hindrances to a deal, Schmidt wouldn't mind being a Cardinal. He said that Schmidt's preference to remain on the West Coast is real, but has been overblown..." So his preference to stay on the West coast is "real" but he "wouldn't mind" being a Cardinal. Again, far from a direct quote where Schmidt states he has interest in Chicago. Even "wouldn't mind" and "interest in" are very different and the defending champions are quite different from a last place team even if they're both central teams. They're not going to quickly dismiss offers from teams with a lot of money or defending champions because obviously this is significant leverage. I'm not saying it's impossible Schmidt settles on a team east of where he has previously stated but it's clearly his preference. You said you could dig up quotes "where Schmidt has stated that he has interest in Chicago," are we concluding that while we could make assumptions such that West Coast isn't a necessity, neither he nor his agent has mentioned interest in Chicago?
  19. wilk
    Please do? Per Rotoworld: The Brewers kicked the tires on free agent Jason Schmidt, but they got the idea he wasn't interested in playing in Milwaukee. Schmidt would prefer to stay on the West Coast, though he is believed to be considering the Cubs and Cardinals. Source: Brewers.mlb.com That's Rotoworld's speculation based on the rumors that the Cubs had offers on the table. A quote from ROTOWORLD that he is "believed to be considering" is far from a quote "where Schmidt has stated that he has interest in Chicago." I'm not trying to start an argument here but I don't believe such a quote exists. Anything out of Schmidt's mouth has been that he wants to stay in the West Coast or go back home to Seattle. The best we've had is rumored offers that were subsequently shot down. If you think someone in Schmidt's party has said otherwise, please do find it.
  20. wilk
    Please do?
  21. wilk
    This thread has become as bad as Cubs.com. I have a list of about a dozen points to refute/discuss but everyone is so positive of their guesses and assumptions, and a coherent discussion has been so far derailed, that I think attempting to would be asinine. Oh well.
  22. wilk
    Two lesser free agents in the rotation unless something happens with Schmidt that changes everybody's minds and allows him to come here. For now, they'll pencil Jones in center. If they can find a left-handed bat who can play CF, they'll try to trade Jones. The wild card is Pie. If he tells the Cubs he's ready (by his play, of course), he could be in CF sometime in 2007. The center-field situation is very fluid right now. I expect a lot of activity in Orlando next week. Do you think the Cubs still have much interest in Lugo? If so, would he become the favorite for CF? I'd hope they'd see him as the SS. How about Izturis? Is he being shopped or does Hendry see him as our starting shortstop?
  23. wilk
    I wonder how that signing bonus is allocated but as long as a large chunk of it isn't upfront it looks like we have more payroll flexibility remaining this offseason than imagined.
  24. wilk
    What about OPS or OPS+, Win shares, EqA, WARP... I guess that's enough for starters. Are those not important at all in this case either? Or, how about, what do you think of Hawpe's BABIP? Which statistics ARE important? 15 OBP-BA points and a handful of extra linedrives that fill in for Hawpe? You're exaggerating. Hawpe isn't "better" right now as he's less productive - but you might prefer his contract.
  25. wilk
    But that isn't a source. It's just Rotoworld's personal speculation and they are very often wrong when it comes to that. Rotoworld should only be used for their black print and almost all blue print should be ignored.
×
×
  • Create New...