brfahey

This is a serious question. Is it a warning only when a mod is called nuts or when any poster is called nuts? When anyone is called nuts. But I have banning power! :w00t: :assault: So are you serious or what?

This is a serious question. Is it a warning only when a mod is called nuts or when any poster is called nuts?

Let's not lose track in this thread of what a moron Rogers is. This is the third time in about ten days where he has pushed trading Zambrano. He hates the Cubs and knows tha trading Z is a huge mistake which would greatly harm the team. Very creative in this column on how he works his White Sox buddies into the mix. I love that angle, they give up a bunch of spare parts and come out of the trade with two starters and a lefthander for their pen. I like how he says at the end "if the orioles will take Zambrano." Like they are doing us a favor or something. Why doesn't this guy either shut up or come out and admit that he hates Zambrano and/or the Cubs. Then his column can be published in the correct place: in the White Sox newsletter. Maybe someone should ask Miles the next time he is on here why this idiot Rogers is so fixated on trading Carlos.

He's 25 years old. He's still learning to be better and better. You can't expect him to be perfect now. And unlike guys like Peavy or Willis, he doesn't have the benefit of cavernous ballparks to hold his mistakes. Just so I understand: is your comment on the cavernous ballparks a way of explaining why he nibbles at times?

I like Prior as well as the next guy and am not a big proponent of trading him, but... I don't think the concern about him should be injury related. I think there should be worry about his tendency to throw a ton of pitches early in a game. He did if a lot last year, where he'd be at 100 pitches in the 5th. He seems to nibble around at times. He averaged about 6 1/3 per start last year and about 5 2/3 in 2004. Zambrano averaged over 6 2/3 each of those years. Prior's great while he's in there; I just wish he was around more, later in games.

Don't see the point of that question. You don't choose to be a fan. at least, real fans don't. sometimes real fans have to be pessimistic because their team gives them no alternative. That question was not about choosing. It asked you, as a Cub fan who is one because he can do no other, whether or not any pleasure results from your following the team. I ask because of the unrelenting negativity here, much of which is understanable. There is much to criticize about the team. Having said that, it seems that every piece of news about the Cubs is greeted by some with derision to the point where it seems some people almost wallow in the negativity.

You think they're serious? The vast majority of people who say that sort of thing are blowing off steam. You'r probably right but it gets tiresome, day after day. I agree it's overused, to the point when that sort of thing should be effective(like when we're about to give away Prior) it comes off like it does. Why would somebody get upset at a Cubs fan for talking like that? It's not like the Cubs have done a single thing to earn our loyalts, or that this person is bailing on you. This isn't a Yankees fan threatening to walk away from the team for not doing things the "Yankee way". We're not talking about Marlins fans who aren't happy with 2 WS in 8 years and are all pissed about the fire sale. We're talking about the Cubs and their inept front office. It's not a matter of sticking by them through thick and thin, there's been no thick. Do you gey any pleasure out of being a Cub fan? If no, are you truly a masochist?

You think they're serious? The vast majority of people who say that sort of thing are blowing off steam. You'r probably right but it gets tiresome, day after day.

Yeah.... and you can still be disowned, boy !! If you disown me for this, the terrorists win! I don't think I like the Prior proposal any more than most of the people here, but I will state the following: to all those talking about defecting to the A's or buying an O's hat etc, don't let the door hit you in the behind on the way out. The Cubs wil be around a lot longer than Prior or any player or Hendry or any GM or Baker or any manager. I thought we were fans of the TEAM. People come and go.

I think Carlos must have smacked him upside his pointy head.

When teams trade a guy, it's not cutting. Boston didn't just cut Damon, they decided they didn't want to pay what he wanted. Are you telling me they decided to cut ties with him and were just looking for somebody else to take him? No, Walker isn't as good as Damon, but Walker was in a similar situation. Boston was tight in the salary dept that year. They were going to go hard after Schilling and find financial room for Pedro, Foulke and raises for others. They had Bellhorn making nothing in the wings, and Walker was asking for 3/15. That's not cutting a guy. Neifi Perez is a guy who was cut. Sidney Ponson was cut. But the vast majority of player movement is based on teams going in another direction, stressing one area over another, weighing cost benefits, not cutting people. Boston cut their ties with Damon. I know they didn't release him. Not that Damon has anything to do with this disucssion. I know (at least I think I do) that walker has never been released. I knew that at the beginning of this discussion. To me, if a team makes a decision not to keep a guy they could if they wanted to keep, they have cut their ties to him or moved on etc. You are very sensitive about the semantics of a player leaving a team and that is your right. I am not. And I know the difference between releasing and trading and non-tendering and chooisng not to resign.

Nobody cut him. Sorry. Why some teams chose to end their contractual relationship with him. Is that better or do I get homework tonight? I just think it's dishonest, unfair and leading to phrase it like "cutting him" "cut their ties", "got rid of". Guys get traded or are allowed to walk all the time. Minnesota "cut their ties" with David Ortiz because they were cheap bastards. All sorts of supposedly good guys have been on loads of teams. The story on Walker is he's good, but not special. He's a good hitting 2B, but not good on defense. I'd say he's about average, some will say below average. His value is in his cost/production. His production comes cheap. At 3/15 he'd be overpaid, just like Grudz wasn't worth such a contract, and Jones isn't worth it. Not to extend this discussion, but what do you call it when a team has the option to keep and chooses not to do so? Whether it's for a good or bad reasson, they've passed on the guy or cut their ties with the guy, or gotten rid of the guy. Why so sensitive about phrasing.

Nobody cut him. Sorry. Why some teams chose to end their contractual relationship with him. Is that better or do I get homework tonight?

Well, in Boston they didn't want to give him a 3/$15m contract that was talked about before he left. He made 3.5 the year before and wasn't expecting the paycut he ended up taking with the Cubs. And they had a very cheap Bellhorn ready to take his place. I think Minny got rid of him because of some rift with Kelly. I think the other teams just thought they had good enough cheap young talent to replace him. I don't agree with the notion that a player wears out his welcome everytime he is traded. It's like when people say they "got rid of" some player when they trade him. These are business decisions. When a guy is getting late into his arbitration years or approaching free agency, and he is on a very bad team, especially one with payroll issues, they are going to try and trade him more often than not. Your answer explains well why some teams cut him. The question I keep coming back to is why he had no offers other than Cleveland and the Cubs (for the paycut you mentioned) coming off a career year in 2003. And the Cleveland offer couldn't have been that much better. A guy who threw up the numbers he did that year and who had a good playoffs should have had more options. You can't tell me every other team in the 2003-2004 offseason had a better option on paper that Walker at second base.

Bruce, why is Hendry still set on moving Walker? If he were the trade chip for a rightfielder, I could understand...but that spot is filled. What beneift could the Cubs get from trading him? Is there something about him that we don't know, or is Hendry that clueless? Boy would I love to hear a candid answer tothat question. I always give candid answers, both here and in the newspaper. The Cubs, as Goony mentioned, are stressing defense, for better or worse. They don't seem to like the way Walker plays the position compared with other second baseman. There are pitchers who've also voiced concern about the defense behind them. The Cubs feel, again right or wrong, that if the defense can turn the double play instead of extending the inning, their pitchers will have a better chance. I, too, am dismayed by the Cubs' seeming lack of emphasis on OBP and OPS. From an offensive standpoint, Walker certainly would look good in the No. 2 spot. And for the money _ and considering what they spent for a lot of mid-level guys _ Walker is an absolute bargain. Walker might annoy them with some of his comments to the media from time to time, but that really has no bearing on them not wanting to keep him. It's interesting to note, however, that Walker has worn out his welcome with other teams.If he does go, I'll miss him, not only because he provides provocative and juicy quotes. He's one of the best guys I've dealt with. That is interesting to hear. I suppose it possible there is a reason no one wants him. Can't imagine what that reason is. I thank Mr. Miles for his answer. I am left wondering if he has any idea or theory why Walker appeared to wear out his welcome with a number of other teams. There has to be some reason why several teams have gotten rid of him or just let him walk. Maybe it is just his defense. Maybe not.

Bruce, why is Hendry still set on moving Walker? If he were the trade chip for a rightfielder, I could understand...but that spot is filled. What beneift could the Cubs get from trading him? Is there something about him that we don't know, or is Hendry that clueless? Boy would I love to hear a candid answer tothat question.

I get the impression that some here think Choi is a good player while almost all appear to think Jacque Jones is a terrible player. Just looked at their hitting numbers and don't see a big difference. Jones hits for a better average and Choi walks more and Jones slugs better and it all pretty much evens out. Why the discrepency in opinions? Is it just the fact of the length of Jones' deal? Just wondering.

I am not crazy about this signing either, but if Jones and the Cubs have a good year this board will have to set some sort of world record for crow-eating. Man, just relentless about this signing.

Agreed as to the first part. Either most people in baseball completely miss the boat on Walker or many on this board overrate him. That doesn't seem to be very much interest in him, going back to after 2003 when he was a free agent.

He walked a ton at the Major League level last year, but he really didn't walk a ton of guys at AA and especially AAA. I think that's why the home runs went up, becuase he's made some adjustment to be around the plate more. Looking at his career, before this year he walked an insane amount of hitters, and didn't give up very many HR. Last year, he walked guys at a pretty reasonable rate, and gave up a bunch of HR. Seems to me that it's almost like an either/or with the BB and HR, not both. Give me the HRs over the walks. Fergie Jenkins used to give up tons of homers every year but he didn't walk anybody (less than 2 per game). The results speak for themselves.

I wouldn't mind him either, but the best in the majors. I don't know. On second thought, he must be because the genius traded for him.

Amen brother.

Is there any lingering doubt that Phil Rogers is an anti-Cub tool? In today's valentine to the White Sox and Ken Williams, Rogers lavishes praise upon them for a good prospect for Vasquez while admitting he has criticized the Cubs for even thinking about doing the same. The difference: "I can't fault the White Sox for dealing him to get Vazquez." But he can fault the Cubs. Other gems: Mackowiak is "arguably the best bench player in the majors." Paying Konerko $60 million is a resonable price. Give me a break. Man, I know most reporters are front-running bootlickers of who ever is on top at a moment in time, but this guy is taking it to a new level.

I am so happy to write this post because at long last I agree, 100%, with every word you wrote. If all of those guys repeat those performances it would be a miracle, and I think you only get one of those in a generation. Now they have acquired Vazquez and everybody expects him to be lights out. I am not so sure. The White Sox and Williams are the flavor of the month for the media, so every move is gold. Why do I get the feeling that if the Cubs had just acquired a guy with Vazquez's numbers who makes what he makes and giving up a good prospect and two major leaguers in the process the media would not be as supportive. :shock: Welcome to the dark side.... More than likely it won't be a habit but who knows.

I am so happy to write this post because at long last I agree, 100%, with every word you wrote. If all of those guys repeat those performances it would be a miracle, and I think you only get one of those in a generation. Now they have acquired Vazquez and everybody expects him to be lights out. I am not so sure. The White Sox and Williams are the flavor of the month for the media, so every move is gold. Why do I get the feeling that if the Cubs had just acquired a guy with Vazquez's numbers who makes what he makes and giving up a good prospect and two major leaguers in the process the media would not be as supportive.