goonys evil twin

A) It doesn't matter who said it first, calling somebody chicken little is hardly in-line with the don't insult posters part of this board. B) It doesn't matter if they've said he's the starter, their track record indicates he won't get much of a leash. C) If people think his leash will be short, and you believe otherwise, then simply state that fact, don't rip to shreds those people who think the Cubs will screw it up. D) Just becuase you think something is Chicken Little, doesn't mean it is. Just because you think the trend has been ad nauseam, doesn't mean it's to a disgusting or ridiculous degree in other people's opinions. And just because a lot of people share the opinion that the Cubs are going to give Neifi more time than they should, doesn't give you the right to start playing vigilante and ripping to shreds people who think that. This message board, being a Chicago Cubs message board, is going to hit on the same storylines all of the time. The same topics are going to be discussed over and over. If you get sick of them, as I do at times, then you stay out of the debate. But you can't stop people from saying Dusty will give the SS job to Neifi eventually by telling those people to shut up because Hendry and Dusty already said it's Ronny's job. Just like you can't stop people from talking about Wood and Prior being injury prone and you can't stop people talking about the Cubs futile history. If you think Ronny is going to get 120-130 starts, and that he is not in jeopardy of losing his job, even if he struggles. Fine. I hope you're right. But it doesn't make much sense to argue with people who don't agree with you on that topic, because nothing will be proven until much later this summer. And it doesn't make any sense to call people names for thinking Ronny is going to have a tough time keeping Dusty from replacing him with Neifi.

Then he's got to live with the consequences. The CBA dictates that players after signing their first contract and before free agency don't have a say in where they play or what position they play.

I thought you said you didn't do that sort of thing? Oh please you know what I meant. If people post THAT crap, to use Goony's language, I am going to call out their arguments as being innacurate. How in the world can you justify referring to somebody who thinks Neifi will get 300 AB as Chicken Little? If somebody said Dusty is going to start Neifi every day and never give Ronny a major league at bat this year, then maybe you are justified with the Chicken Little arguement. Although the whole concept of belittling the person with such a label still goes against the stated policies of this board. But stating Neifi is going to get 300 AB is nowhere near Chicken Little. Instead, it's highly likely. That's less than 50% of SS time, and if you give him some 2B time as well as the occasional 3B time, and numerous pinch hitting opportunities, it will be next to impossible to avoid that many at bats barring injury.

No, I'm not a mod. But it seems pretty clear to me that there are rules on this board about attacking ideas, and not the people who espouse them. If somebody says "Dusty benched Cedeno today, that means Neifi will start the rest of the year." Then you describe why you disagree. When somebody says "I think Neifi is going to get 300 ABs this year", if you disagree, make a case against that theory. Don't go around calling them Chicken Little. That's childish, and completely against the whole notion of trying to keep civilized debate on this board.

Without regard to the specific quotation in question, I believe what you wrote here is exactly the problem in baseball. The absurdity in simply relying on proven veterans with track records, when those track records are nothing but disappointing, is where the hypocricy lies. Dusty might not be more of a hyprocrite than many other baseball people, but that doesn't mean he isn't a hypocrite. But why should a guy get the benefit of the doubt simply because he's been there, when all he's done when there is fail, repeatedly? The sport of football, is all about performance. Do it now, on the field, and it doesn't matter if you're 23 or 32. There are certain coaches who abhor using rookies, like Parcells. But of the most part, you earn your job on the field, and can lose your job on the field. You don't just get to keep a job because you did it before, and as a rookie you aren't precluded from taking a vets job just because he's still breathing and wants the job. Baseball is so stuck on the notion of service time and tenure that merit takes a back seat when it comes to dividing up time. Baseball people think there is a "right way to do things", so they arbitrarily follow this unwritten code of posterity for all sorts of things, like "leadoff must be a fast guy", "proven veteran is better than unknown rookie", "strikeouts are the worst possible thing in the world", "baseball was better in the X era".

People don't have a problem with that. They do have a problem with you blasting others for sharing their doubts. You can have whatever opinion you want about Cubs management. Those who disagree aren't going to bombard you with BS akin to your Chicken Little crap. It's when you blast the posters who don't have faith in management for not having faith in management that people will have a problem with you. Share your opinion without labeling those who disagree with the absurd Chicken Little garbage, and similar trash, and there won't be a problem.

This tournament didn't come close to proving anything about who was best. Korea's record in 7 games doesn't prove a thing, neither does their 2 for 3 record against Japan. Neither does Japan's win against Cuba. This tournament proved there is tremendous interest in baseball worldwide despite the euro-centric Olympic belief that it's soley an American sport. It proved that players can still get excited to play for their country, and their countrymen will get excited to support them, and that otherwise ambivalent Americans can pick somebody else to root for if their team falls out. It proved there might be a future for international baseball competition on a larger scale than previously experienced. But it didn't prove who the best team was, or which country was most baseball craved or had the most talent.

Impossible. I've been worried about the fair distribution of playing time ever since Dusty came over. He's not likely to stick long in the regular season with a young player who shows any sort of prolonged struggle. And it's very rare that any rookie is able to go a season without prolonged periods of struggle.

Present one example. Just one. See the problem is that you and some others have a problem with people criticizing the Cubs. There is nothing chicken little about it. People questioned why Prior was being held out of games. You and some others made statements to the effect that those people were being overly cirticial. What happens next, low and behold Prior comes up with a shoulder strain. But we are supposed to believe that nothing was wrong with him before that. Dusty has a track record of looking over poor play by "proven veterns" yet keys on poor play by minor leaguers. Time will tell what Dusty will do. Untill then it is better to come up with your own argument why you belive what you do rather than point out the faults of people who post here. The second post of this thread. Not even close. You're completely wrong. the guy said Dusty is laying the foundation for neifi. That's Neifi Chicken Little. Confirmed. I read 300 ABs (or was it PAs?) for Neifi. That's not the same as "starting X position guy". Claiming Neifi will get 300 ABs or PAs is nowhere close to Chicken Little. Why do people have such a problem with Cubs fans who don't have much faith in the decision makers of this organization? It's baffling. They've shown the willingness to make the wrong decision over and over again, and yet, when somebody predicts they'll make another bad decision, people get all uptight and defensive, blasting the supposedly outlanding insinuation that maybe, just maybe, the guys in charge of the Cubs aren't doing a great job.

I don't think either team would do that.

So did I, and I'm worried that could be optimistic. It's not the head to heads against the Cards that will be their downfall. I think they can win 9 or 10 against them. But that doesn't mean they'll be the better team over 162 games. It's the Cubs way to allow Pittsburgh and Cincy to destroy your postseason hopes.

Basically all he would be good for then is to reduce Murton's playing time. I don't see that improving the team.

Seconded. I've actually shown it to several co-workers. Or photos posted could actually be related to baseball, instead of sex. Sex? Get your mind out of the gutter. I'm just supporting the local hoops team.

Fine, but then you still can't qualify it as guys needing to step up and prove they want the job*. *Apologies if you didn't write something like this, maybe it was just others. If people have a problem with the picture, and mods want me to remove it, I will. But I suggest if you want to read a post I write then scroll so that the picture stays off the screen, then jump ahead when you're done. Better yet, ignore my posts because they're mostly trash.

The mitigating factor of Blanco is huge. Just like the mitigating factor of Grissom, Mabry and Perez affecting those others positions. You have to remember it's not just the starters that matter, but the guys who will get serious playing time. C: .320/.450 2B: .330/.420 LF: .340/.450

Bruce for MVP. I think people are overreacting a bit when they talk of pitchers "not stepping up" when it comes to this spring competition for the 5th spot (or even 3rd and 4th if you count Williams and Rusch). Spring results flat out do not matter. Some of the best pitchers get rocked and look horrible in spring training. Mediocre players end up looking great from time to time. An ugly innings is really meaningless, even if it happens once every spring game. You have to look at these guys entire body of work to judge who is worthy of the spot. You don't just hand it to the guy with the best spring record. Take this game, according to Bruce's recap, it sounded like Guzman was pretty bad early on, then he settled down. 3 IP with 2 ER, is really bad for the ERA, but it doesn't mean he should or should not get the job to start the season.

This isn't a court of law, so proof beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't matter. A reasonable look at the evidence is more than enough to judge.

Try that strategy for long and you'll get burned a lot. Most runs don't score because of the marginal rate of speed of the runners. Most runs score by a hit that leaves little doubt as to the result.

It kills you? Ramirez I can see. But Walker isn't nearly as slow as him, and Murton is reasonably fast himself. Anyway, I highly doubt there are many situations in which Dusty left a speedster on the bench in the 9th with Ramirez on base and the team down by a run.

I'm guessing it would work out as some sort of platoon with Hairston if Walker stays (which might lead to even less playing time for Cedeno). But I can't imagine they will give him the full-time gig after all that's happened here.

But even on that topic, Sammy's took place over time in his mid-to-late 20's. Everybody looks at pictures of him when he was a 19 year old in Texas to compare. But he was bigger in his first years with the Cubs than he was in Texas, or the White Sox. He was a pretty big dude in the mid-90's as well, with big guns. Yes, he did then get to a cartoonish size in 98, but it was also his late 20's, which is relatively normal, compared to a guy like Bonds doing so at 37, after so many years of stability.

I don't think it's nearly as obvious as with Bonds. Sammy went from a swing at everything guy to a guy who would take walks. He was hitting lots of homers pre-98. Sammy was turning into a power hitter in his mid to late 20's. He took his last leap of power when he was 29. It was not an overnight change, nor was it an oddly timed changed. Bonds plateaud at the same level for years, then came out of nowhere at 37 with an entirely new body and power stroke. I'm not saying Sammy didn't. But the level of evidence against him doesn't come close to that of Bonds.

2nd man as in 2nd baseman? Sounds to me like he is clearly giving the job to somebody other than Walker, most likely Hairston with a healthy dose of Neifi, but leaving a slight opening for more Walker playing time if he's around. I highly doubt the Cubs are going to start a guy they are obviously so desperate to dump.

Career-wise, he's .98 in GB/FB. This will turn out well. I noticed MLB.com lists the stat as GO/AO, defining it as ground outs and fly outs. And they have him at .97. Is GB/FB, for all balls put in play? Is there a difference in stats here or are they just labeled differently?

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.