BigbadB

If I knew it as fact, then yeah, I'd have an issue with the way Washington has dealt with this as well. But, I don't know that as fact.

I don't see this the same way you do. You are certainly welcome to be supportive (you being a generalization and not you directly) of every decision made by the Cubs organization. But, people have their reasons for why they can't or won't be supportive of those same decisions. Maybe it's because of the futile history of this organization. Maybe it's because Dusty hasn't given them reason to be optimistic. Maybe it's a combination of things. But, there is certainly no more wrong in believing that the sky is falling as there is in believing this organization can do no wrong. Argue those points without labeling someone who doesn't agree with you and we can achieve a great debate. If any organization should have a lot of pessimistic fans, it's the Cubs. Being pessimistic is not nearly as healthy as being optimistic. Some of the pessimistic fans were optimistic at one time, but something finally sent them over the edge. But, even the most pessimistic fans still want this organization to win. Wanting the organization to win and having the faith that they can do so are two different things. I didn't really come on board as a Cub fan until 1971. I basically missed the comedy that was 1969. I cannot show any disrespect to someone who lived through the heartache of 1969 because they lost their faith in this organization. Especially when they still follow them closely. One thing we all seem to have in common here is a geniune love for this baseball team. We aren't always going to agree on things because we are all totally different individuals. As long as we keep the debates from getting personal, we can agree to disagree and respect each others opinions. My reason for jumping into this thread is to stop the labeling and insults from getting out of hand. I haven't shared an opinion either way about the topic at hand.

Oh, I completely agree with you on the bar thing. We've had that ban here for years, and I don't mind going outside to smoke. The ban I'm speaking of is ANYWHERE within the stadium grounds at Petco Park. It's a hike and a half to leave the grounds to have a smoke. The choices are: 1) don't go, which I believe a lot of smokers have decided to do (season ticket holders included) 2) light up anyway, which will probably happen around lots of nonsmokers as I witnessed last night 3) try to make it a whole game without smoking, like I did last night. But, I only did that because it was a special game and felt like I could do so because it was a special game. I won't be going to any other games there this year and considering the hassles of getting to the park in the first place, this choice does not hurt my feelings at all. 4)leave the grounds to smoke (which doesn't appear to be the popular choice) The designated area seems to me to be the "compromise" method that would work best. I don't care if it is an enclosed tent at the far reaches of the stadium grounds where no non smoker can be offended. It's still better than having to exit the stadium. And it has to be better than what I witnessed last night. They just lit them up wherever they wanted to since there was no designated area and people were not willing to leave the grounds and miss an inning or two of the game.

I disagree that's any attack of person, it may be an attack of a group think though. And Thank you, I've gone 5-10 days at a time not smoking, but the minute I have a beer, it's all over. Yeah, I don't believe I ever said you attacked an individual poster. I feel horrible for the stadium security people. Instead of watching for fights and drunkeness, they have to run around like chickens with their heads cut off telling people to put out their cigarettes. I'm thinking the smoking ban is going to go over like a lead balloon, with much worse results than a designated smoking area. 29yearsloyal and I just shook our heads in amazement of how poor of an idea this was.

I've never even heard of that, and I'm not sure I want to know what that is. :shock: Bad timing anyway. I'm leaving for Vegas tomorrow for a week. I smoke like a chimney there, because I can. :roll: [-(

What's with the shouting all of a sudden? That's an insult. Sorry bout the shouting. I'm trying to quit smoking and this thread is aggravating my nerves. And whom specifically am I insulting? Or am I attacking a viewpoint? The viewpoint that Chicken Littles everything Neifi does? I don't recall ever mentioning a poster by name or by quote, therefore I can't be attacking a poster. It wasn't an attack of an individual poster, but rather a group of posters. Good luck with the no smoking thing. I attempted to quit not that long ago and my wife went and bought me a pack just to shut me up. I was starting to unravel a bit in that long 9th inning last night also. Petco doesn't allow any smoking anywhere on the stadium grounds. And how is that working? People are smoking everywhere now instead of in designated areas. Great plan! Not me, of course. I respected their rules last night.

Well, after watching Wily Mo barely make it around the 1st base bag on a dropped fly ball by the Cuban LFer, my opinion of Wily Mo has dropped significantly. Lazy ballplayer that lacks heart and hustle. How coincidental that he got traded a day later.

What's with the shouting all of a sudden? That's an insult.

I like how you posted the word OPINION in big letters. Because people here are allowed to post their OPINIONS, and if their OPINION does not agree with yours, their OPINION is apparently incorrect, or should I say a false misrepresentation? According to your interpretation or your OPINION, there was nothing in the quote to suggest that Cedeno was getting demoted. But, is it actually a fact or is it simply your opinion? Everyone has an opinion. You are welcome to disagree with someone's opinion, but you are not welcome to insult people who have differing opinions, which is basically what you have done.

All of this could have easily been avoided if you just stop going poop. :D I don't think this attitude will ever change. The United States isn't run in a way that would bring the races closer together. And it is sad.

Thanks Bruce. Not the first time posters have ignored the whole story, and only focused on the part that fits their agenda. What adgenda is that? It is about time for this stuff to stop. Only time will tell what Dusty will do. I don't know if it's an "agenda" but I'd qualify it as a propensity to misrepresent stories and quotes to fit one's viewpoint. Why? Every word should be viewed the same way by everyone based on how you view it, otherwise it's a propensity to misrepresent stories and quotes to fit one's viewpoint? I see nothing wrong with people reading something and making their own judgments as to the meaning.

I would agree with that. But, I think the US would win if they put together the right team. That would require leaving a lot of the million dollar babies at home, however.

to bad thats all he can do, whats his career BA and OBP? But I would still rather have his potential over Arroyo. You have to basically have had a career before you can look at things like career BA and OBP. The kid just turned 24. Our very own Derrek Lee had a .206 AVG and a .263 OBP at the age of 23, and the stats would be pretty similar for his "career" up to that point with Wily Mo. Sammy Sosa had a .260/.317 at the age of 23. And that was his highest OBP to date. Sosa only hit 8 HR's that year. Is it safe to say that what these guys did at 23 is not an accurate assessment of how their careers turned out?

It's bad enough that there are people with the Cubs that I do not like. It would be something entirely different to then also have a player on the team that I can't stand. Selfish players who think they are bigger than the game themselves are not welcome. I hope he sits out all season. I applaud the Nationals for taking a stand against Soriano.

I definitely enjoyed it. I went to the Saturday day game and the Monday night game. The crowd was nothing like any crowd I've ever seen for a game before. Very fun watching fans from other countries support their teams. It was also enjoyable watching teams play baseball the way it's supposed to be played. Hustle, backing each other up, etc...

Clement's price tag is much larger than Arroyo.

One problem with your argument. Wily Mo just turned 24 and has about a season and a half worth of at bats. Neifi is 33 and is past his prime. What had Sammy Sosa done by the time he turned 24? 26 HR's in 336 at bats in 2004 shows tremendous power potential.

From what I've read it'll help increase it just a bit because Arroyo was headed to the bullpen to open the season in BOS. While he is moving from AL to NL he is moving into the hitter-friendly GAB. I didn't realize Arroyo was slated for a bulpen spot in Boston. How good is Cincy's bullpen? Will they lose a lot of his leads? Arroyo won't have a lot of leads to lose because he's not a good starting pitcher. I would have been happy to send our 6th starter (Rusch) to Cincy for Pena, even with our current situation. That was a real boneheaded move by Cincy. How closely does Wily Mo's offensive production match a young Sammy Sosa? He may not ever be what Sammy became, but it was foolish for the Reds to just let a guy like that go before he's even entered his prime. It has the chance to look like a George Bell/Sammy Sosa trade down the road.

No, it's not the same. Jordan did play for the Clippers. Or a team as bad as the Clippers anyway. When he was with the Bulls in his early days, the Bulls only had Jordan and they won nothing. It wasn't until Jordan had a good supporting cast (Grant, Armstrong, Pippen, Paxson, Cartwright) that they won championships. Jordan was a good player before those guys got there. He led the league in scoring many times before those guys got there. But, if he never would have had those guys on his team, he would have had a career that resembled George Gervin. A great player that never won anything because his teammates were never good enough to make the playoffs. Yeah, I know the Bulls had a bad supporting cast in Jordan's early years, but the question is whether people would have regarded him as one of the greatest players ever if he played for a bad team every year. Championships don't determine the value of a player. Are you prepared to say that A-Rod is not a great player because he's never won a championship? Walter Payton was the greatest running back of all time BEFORE the Bears won the Super Bowl.

Clemens started in 32 games and pitched in a total of 211 innings last year. He had 11 no decisions. At least 4 of those no decisions were games he left having given up zero runs. His 13-8 record doesn't tell you he started 32 games. If Clemens pitched for a better offensive team than the horrible Houston Astros last year, he would have been a 20 game winner easily. Kerry Wood could have been a 20 game winner in 2003 with better run support, or at the very least, a better bullpen.

Pena is only 24, and somewhat reminds me of a young Sammy Sosa. Red Sox just made their offense even better.

Theoretically, if Neifi keeps the other team off the bases one more time a game, and Walker gets on base one more time a game than Neifi...wouldn't it be a net wash between the two of them? With a possible edge to Neifi as the extra out would save our staff pitches which historically seems to be an issue with us. (Note, I'm not advocating Neifi...just speaking hypotheticals here) We mustn't forget that Neifi is very good at making 2 outs with one swing of the bat, also.

No, it's not the same. Jordan did play for the Clippers. Or a team as bad as the Clippers anyway. When he was with the Bulls in his early days, the Bulls only had Jordan and they won nothing. It wasn't until Jordan had a good supporting cast (Grant, Armstrong, Pippen, Paxson, Cartwright) that they won championships. Jordan was a good player before those guys got there. He led the league in scoring many times before those guys got there. But, if he never would have had those guys on his team, he would have had a career that resembled George Gervin. A great player that never won anything because his teammates were never good enough to make the playoffs.

823 plays on a ball to 680 is less than 1 extra play per game. How much of an impact can one more hit by the opposing team (Perez) per game be as opposed to getting on base (Walker's OBP compared to Neifi's) nearly 1 more time per game?

No cheating by looking this up. I am copying the game log from a pitcher in the last 5 years. Tell me what this pitchers record should resemble. By the way, instead of ERA, I'm using all runs scored while this pitcher was on the mound. April game 1- 7 innings, 1 run April game 2- 7 innings , 0 runs April game 3- 7 innings, 0 runs April game 4- 7 innings, 0 runs April game 5- 7 innings, 3 runs 5 starts in April, 4 runs given up. What should this pitchers record be? 4-1 or maybe even 5-0? No argument from me on either one. May game 1- 7 innings, 2 runs May game 2- 7 innings, 0 runs May game 3- 8 innings, 1 run May game 4- 6 innings, 3 runs May game 5- 5 innings, 0 runs May game 6- 8 innings, 2 runs 6 starts in May, 8 total runs given up. Combined with April, this guys Runs Averaged per start is just a hair over 1 run a game. Dominant. What should this guys record be at this stage? Just for fun, let's give him 2 losses, to make him 4-2 for the month. 8-3 so far for the year? June was just as strong as April and May. This pitcher gave up 4 runs in his first start in June, but only 1, 0, 2, and 1 in his other 4. In other words, I'm not going to continue this chirade. By the end of June, Roger Clemens (in 2005) had an ERA of 1.50 and his record after 16 starts was 6-3, when arguably he could or should have had at least 12 wins. Of those 16 starts, he gave up more than 2 runs only 3 times. Wins are a metric of of evaulating a pitcher, but a very poor one. Look at Roger's April once again. He ended up going 1-1 for the month with a 1.03 ERA. After May, he was 3-3. Yes, 3-3. He didn't even have a winning record with his 1.30 ERA. That's just ridiculous. That's because Houston's offense sucked when he was on the mound. So, the theory that a good pitcher knows how to win is inaccurate. A pitcher cannot control how well or how poorly his team will hit and score. There have been dominant pitchers that always pitched for bad teams who don't have good winning records because the offense didn't put him in enough positions to win games. Roger Clemens was the best pitcher in the NL last year, and it's not even arguable. Yet, he only won 13 games. In April, Clemens threw 3 straight shut outs, and he ended up with no record at all in those 3 games, as his team lost all 3 games 1-0 after he left the game. Can you arguably say a good pitcher knows how to win when the greatest pitching in the world will not guarantee him a win? His offense has too much of an impact of whether he wins or loses.