Jump to content
North Side Baseball

goonys evil twin

Old-Timey Member
  • 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. LOL, in general I agree with you but if we're going to talk about value it has to include the importance the pitcher has to his team. It's hard to argue that Hermanson wasn't an important part of the 2005 White Sox. He was injured late but he helped that team get out to it's big lead by saving many close games. Hermanson is an older mediocre talent with little future. Wood and Prior were elite younger talents with almost unlimited upside. Would you please stop pretending the stories are at all similar?
  2. There should be more studies. In the meantime, it's asinine to completely ignore the idea there might be a correlation and go the extreme in the opposite direction, failing to practice even the slightest bit of moderation. I do hate Dusty as Cubs manager, I did before he got the job, but I don't have to BS to make something fit my argument.
  3. He's spare parts no matter how they label him. He was one of a few fallback options for the job going into 2005. It's a huge difference than Wood and Prior.
  4. I can, and I did, and I will. The opposite of the "take some precautions and don't push the envelope" thought is the "we don't even know exactly what causes injuries so I'm not going to pay any attention to pitch counts" thought.
  5. I don't want to pretend Ozzie is some genius at taking care of pitchers. But there's a big difference between abusing a guy like Harmanson, and guys like Wood and Prior. Hermanson is spare parts. If he goes down, so be it. It's like Rusch.
  6. Not every pitcher (especially Mr. quarantine himself Roberto Novoa), but that doesn't necessarily mean anything aside from the fact that he was behind, which I think we'd all agree on. Can we stop pretending?
  7. Dusty's lack of faith in his bullpen is no justification for the usage patterns.
  8. I was assuming he wasn't going to make his first start, going off the way they treated him early. So, if this isn't that serious, it hopefully won't push him back much further from what I was expecting anyway, which would be mid-April.
  9. The first couple times I read the original post I thought it said "Worth Nothing", which I thought was unfair for Mitre, but pretty accurate for the others.
  10. None, he's a step below Muhsin at this point.
  11. Well, they didn't introduce him slowly in 2002, and shut him down in late August because he was complaining about shoulder soreness. It was 2003, with Dusty "Pitchers are my playthings" Baker where he was amped way the heck up. So Prior's been complaining of soreness going on his fourth year now. All of this may not be the Cubs use of him. He may just be susceptible to soreness that needs to be accurately addressed. Prior supposedly hurt his hamstrings in 2002 before being shut down. I never heard about him complaining of shoulder soreness that year. He was also in his first pro season, at 21, throwing 40 more innings than he had ever before.
  12. B freaking S. Baltimore showed interest, but didn't want to trade for him without a new deal, which tells me they weren't that interested. Nobody else was after him. That's freaking absurd to suggest everybody was after him. He was after, very much an afterthought when talking about the elite first baseman, not even in the discussion actually. Revisionist history man. He was the 6 hitter on a slightly above average lineup in Florida. He was no star or anywhere close.
  13. Here we go again, the bury your head in the sand approach. Until you prove it 100% we'll keep running guys out there more than just about everybody else. There's a place for moderation. You don't have to pull guys at 99 pitches and skip a start every month. Moderation, that's the key. If you refuse to acknowledge there is even a chance of a correlation until it's proved completely (and we know how willing many baseball people are to admit when something has been proven that is opposite of conventional wisdom), and then take the extreme position in the opposite direction, you're basing your theory on pure speculation as well (it's all luck anyway, we can't control it).
  14. Maybe I wouldn't care as much, can't say, the Cubs have never been close to winning a world series. But it wouldn't change the fact that the manager has that responsibility. The overuse didn't help them win more than they would have done otherwise. Much of it happened in games they lost or won big. The problem is thinking that throwing your pitcher out there for pitches 120-140 is a better option than going to your bullpen. Just because he's better from 0-120 doesn't mean he's better later. And often times the guy struggled in his next outing after being extended, which negates whatever minimal value you might have received for keeping him in in the first place.
  15. Regardless of how effiicient the pitcher is, or how much faith the manager has in his bullpen, the man in charge is obligated to not overuse his starting pitchers. It's just not an excuse.
  16. He didn't say they didn't get peak value, he said he wasn't traded "at his peak value". And let's not forget that Lee was an average first baseman when the Cubs got him. Nobody else was going after him because teams that could afford him either had first baseman or wanted better first baseman. DLee circa 2005 was nothing like DLee the rest of his career.
  17. Or maybe the Cubs did a poor job of introducing him slowly to a major league workload, and he would have been fine if he wasn't among the league leaders in pitches thrown so early in his careerm, and wasn't left out there for 120+ pitches so often.
  18. Maybe in the CBA the players give up that right.
  19. Draft Tex.
  20. That's a standard law (HIPAA). Your employer can't do it either Although there's some question about how that works in the sports world, where information is released all the time, presumably not always with the player's consent. This law covers the the sports world. Medical information that is leaked is usually done anonymously. It is a violation of HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) because the assumption is that the information was optained by someone with access to medical records. If the source was disclosed, the person would face prosecution. I realize it's covered in theory, but my point is it happens all the time and there's never any hint of prosecution. Occasionally an agent will complain if it happens during contract negotiations, but that's about it.
  21. Why is this the first I've seen of this. I'll contribute.
  22. Your printer is broken but the Cubs won't let you know for 3 weeks.
  23. It's not a choice involving rational thought or logic.
  24. That's a standard law (HIPAA). Your employer can't do it either Although there's some question about how that works in the sports world, where information is released all the time, presumably not always with the player's consent.
×
×
  • Create New...