Jump to content
North Side Baseball

goonys evil twin

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    13,551

  • 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 goonys evil twin

  1. goonys evil twin
    He's not average to above average. He's below average. He's bad. Bottom of the league production from RF is not a good thing, and that's what Burnitz brought last year. It's not wanting an all-star laden team to want competent production out of RF. Above average is not all star. And neither Jones nor Burnitz are going to give the Cubs above average production out of RF. Quit trying to pretend I'm being unrealistic by wanting something more than bottom of the barrell, which is what Burnitz brought last year.
  2. goonys evil twin
    I just don't see why people have to lie to themselves, and everybody else, about the likelihood of Pagan turning into a good starting position player. You can be happy for a guy to reach a lifelong dream of making a team without being delusional about his future.
  3. goonys evil twin
    No, that's not even close to a good comparison. Most closers are failed starters. Good starting position players don't come out of nowhere.
  4. goonys evil twin
    They are too bad. Who cares if Burnitz was better than Neifi Perez? That's not how you rank players. You compare players with other guys at their position. Of course a RF is going to be better than your typical CF or SS. That doesn't mean a thing. Burnitz sucked because Burnitz was one of the worst RF in the league, and the Cubs got some of the worst production from RF in the league. Jones is no better, so unless you're happy with way below average produciton, you can't be happy with Jones.
  5. goonys evil twin
    Burnitz sucked. The Cubs RF production was about 14th or 15th in the NL (that's 16 teams). The reason I am down on Jones is because he's no better than Burnitz. That increase in speed doesn't mean a thing unless in translates into better production, which it never has.
  6. goonys evil twin
    What is the opposite of that? Guys who have done nothing in the minors then turned into Carlos Beltran? Just because a guy hasn't played in the majors doesn't mean you can't have a pretty good idea of what his limitations will be in the majors.
  7. goonys evil twin

    goonys evil twin replied to Tim's topic in Fantasy Sports

    Why don't we add a DL, keep the bench spots, and get rid of the ability to keep 10 major leaguers in the minors?
  8. goonys evil twin
    I haven't? Maybe you missed it. Spring training numbers don't tell you anything because: A) Small sample size B) Varied competition (NRI, rehabbers, other minor leaguers, washed up vets going for one last try, B squads) C) The games aren't for real, and players have different levels of intensity (you can face a guy trying to crack a rotation who is throwing his hardest, or a vet who doesn't carry and is just loosening up) D) The game conditions themselves are completely different. High skies affects outfielders, lesser quality infields affect ground balls, atmosphere affects long outs/homeruns, breaking balls don't break. E) Preparation does not equal better numbers. One guy can work his butt off all winter, play in the caribbean and do well against quality pitching, then suck in spring training (Ronny Cedeno), and another guy can just prepare like an average guy and just run across one week of hot streak which would completely skew his spring stats. I don't care what some MLB execs say about what they think of spring stats. Baseball people do a lot of irrational stuff. One of them is putting unwarrented emphasis on spring stats. If you want me to admit they have some small meaning fine. If you have a mediocre prospect who is 0 for the spring, then it's pretty safe to say he shouldn't get a major league job. But then again, you can have a mediocre prospect who has an ungodly spring, and it doesn't mean he's ready for anything. You never can tell. Spring stats do not correlate to readiness for the major league baseball season. I don't see the point in discussing this further. Spring training stats don't tell you anything. They don't tell you who prepared better or who is more ready for the major league season. They can't tell you who deserves a job. If you believe they do, go ahead, put your faith in those stats. Give Fox the backup catcher job, give Moore a spot on the bench. Give Aardsma and Koronka bullpen jobs, and send down Ohman, Williams and Wuertz. Because you can't pick and choose and say spring stats are meaningful in certain spots and meaningless in others.
  9. goonys evil twin
    http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/boxscore.jsp?gid=2006_03_28_chnmlb_seamlb_1 MLB says Williamson pitched a third of an inning. It would be odd if that was planned.
  10. goonys evil twin
    Then why do they even have competitions for roster spots and starting jobs? You can have competition for spots. But you shouldn't determine the winner of those competitions based on spring training numbers.
  11. goonys evil twin
    Restovich could still be a viable RH threat. Jones everyday does not suck anymore than Jones/Grissom everyday. Marquis sucks, but he could have made the team if he didn't retire. We should be happy he retired. What I meant was I'm bummed Grissom couldn't reproduce his recent success against LHP and threaten Jones' everyday status. Obviously in light of his severely diminished skills there's no reason to be sad about his retirement. Oh, well, I never thought he could do much anyway, so I guess that's why I don't find any reason to be bummed.
  12. goonys evil twin
    You keep throwing in vague terms like prepared and attitude into this discussion. Spring training numbers don't tell you who is more prepared or has a better attitude. Again, what does any of this have to do with judging guys on spring training stats. Your pointless Grissom/Bonds analogy just serves to further belittle your own argument. Grissom's numbers didn't prove he had nothing left. He could have hit 2 homeruns and completely changed his spring training numbers and still be done. I'm not basing my opinion on his career on his spring numbers, and I bet the Cubs aren't either. They looked at him move and realized he doesn't have it. I looked at his previous season, career and age and predicted he had nothing left. Thankfully he made the decision easy by admitting his weaknesses and retiring. If you go into spring training with two rookies competing for the same job, and you base your decision off of spring training numbers, you are not doing a good job of evaluating players.
  13. goonys evil twin
    I'm guessing/hoping he just meant that the #5 starter wouldn't break camp with the team period. They originally wanted Guzman, Marshall, and Hill to all pitch at either AA or AAA for a couple of weeks to win the job, so hopefully they realize just how bad of a decision putting the 5th starter in the bullpen would be. that's what i though too. but when mentioning marshall he said he put himself in the position "to make the club." to me, that sounds like breaking camp w/ the team. Marshall going to the back of the bullpen would be really dumb. I'm assuming they are talking about the 5th starter's role (or possibly Williams' job) when they talk about breaking camp with the team.
  14. goonys evil twin
    Did he get sent to AA or AAA? He's going to rake this year. I think it's sad he won't get a shot. A shot at what? Rotting on the bench? It's a blessing in disguise, career-wise. I know. I don't argue it. I just like him. I hope he does well in the future on a team we never play 8) Yeah, I don't see him in Wrigley. :( But hey, we have Jock Jones! Cheer up. :D I think rotting on the bench is a bit of hyperbole. But no matter how you phrase it, I think bench time would have been perfectly fine for Sing. His future is as a role player. He's not an everyday guy. He's got plenty of pro experience, more time starting in the minors is not going to change his situation. You might as well get him used to major league pitching, and being a backup sooner rather than later. If he was a 21 year old with tremendous upside, the minors would be a blessing over the major league bench. He's not though. And we've seen how favorable baseball people look upon players who already have major league experience. Most always get more chances. It's hard to get that first one though.
  15. goonys evil twin
    Non game shape competition is only one part of the problem. The other is guys don't face the same competition. They don't face the same guys, they don't face the same type of guys. It's a widely varied hodge podge of matchups in spring training. It's a bogus collection of stats in the end. What does the question of attitude have to do with the relevence of spring training stats? Nothing. Attitude doesn't make a guy have a 1500 OPS in the spring. A bad attitude doesn't give a pitcher a 9.50 ERA. If you want to allow your perception of a player's attitude to influence your personel decisions, go right ahead. But that doesn't have anything to do with spring training numbers.
  16. goonys evil twin
    Do you really need the list of fringe players who ripped up spring training, made their team and sucked? I understand what you are saying, and I think it's completely wrong. Spring training stats don't tell you a thing. They don't tell you who your starter should be, they don't tell you who your backup should be, they don't tell you who is poised for a breakout season, they don't tell you who is the best 25th man. They don't tell you which player is more ready to make the jump. Spring training numbers are accumulated over widely scattered level of competition, over an extremely small period of time in non-competitive game situations and far from normal conditions. They don't tell you anything. No they don't. And who are the rookies you speak of? Pagan is a career minor leaguer who has always been mediocre. Restovich is a guy with varied major league success who actually had a pretty solid minor league career. Grissom was an aging vet with nothing left in the tank. There is no rookie vs rookie competition. And even if there were, you are much better off basing your decision off of their career production than meaningless games in Arizona in March against a collection of B squads, non-roster invitees, uninspired veterans, rehabbers and the like.
  17. goonys evil twin
    Restovich could still be a viable RH threat. Jones everyday does not suck anymore than Jones/Grissom everyday. Marquis sucks, but he could have made the team if he didn't retire. We should be happy he retired.
  18. goonys evil twin
    What? That's not even close to true.
  19. goonys evil twin
    2) You can still start off with a 4 man rotation and 7 in the pen. The 5th starter would beging in the minors to get on schedule for his first start mid-month. 3 and 4) Neither of these guys necessarily has to pitch a full season in the majors. They could be used primarily in April and May. By May or June, the Cubs might have Wood, Prior, Miller, Zambrano and Maddux. These guys are assets that can be used in the short-term to help the team. In the longterm they can be handled in a way that allows for them to avoid late season dead arm syndrome and/or going much past realistic innings/games pitched parameters.
  20. goonys evil twin
    No, they don't. Just because you say it enough doesn't make it true. Spring training stats are not close to a good measure of how a guy can handle competing against major leaguers. Much of the time you aren't even facing major leaguers. Another good chunk of the time your facing guys who aren't in game shape. And further more, hits in Arizona are not the same as hits in most major league parks. The numbers are meaningless. Good spring training numbers do not tell you if a guy can do anything good for your major league team. It's a bad way to make personel decisions.
  21. goonys evil twin
    Nomar is a beast? Nomar is a shell of his former self with no chance of being a solid full-time shortstop. His spring training hot streak fooled a lot of people into thinking he was back to his original self. Who's to say he wouldn't have been over the full season had the Groin Rip not occurred? After all, he started raking when he came back in a much larger sample size of AB's than his pre-injury season. Who's to say Patterson wouldn't have become a hall of famer if he came up with some other organization? Nomar is done as a star SS. His spring was not indicative of what his regular season could be. The point is spring numbers are meaningless.
  22. goonys evil twin
    Wade Miller must be placed on the 40-man, so my guess is this trade opens up his spot. ah. I misread what was written on the previous page. however, I don't see too much dead weight to cut in order to free up a spot for one or the other. Koronka and maybe Reyes. I think Aardsma or Novoa could be added to that list depending how things shake out. Novoa wasn't good before getting knocked out for all of spring. If he's not good enough to be on the opening day roster, he doesn't have much value for the team. There are other arms as good or better than him that can be used at the back of the pen.
  23. goonys evil twin
    Nomar is a beast? Nomar is a shell of his former self with no chance of being a solid full-time shortstop. His spring training hot streak fooled a lot of people into thinking he was back to his original self.
  24. goonys evil twin
    No, those numbers don't mean a thing actually. Using them to determine who makes it is just as good as arbitrarily pulling a name out of a hat.
  25. goonys evil twin
    It'll be 6 to start. 2 of Walker, Hairston and Neifi will be there, unless Todd is traded. Restovich should make the team as the only RH threat of any kind.
×
×
  • Create New...