atcfootball

I give up.

I really don't believe I'm doing this; to talk about what should be considered freaky is.........freaking me out! Once again: "Never argue with unreasonable people; because you can't reason with them". I should make that my sig. Can we agree that a good definition of freaky could be: "An accident that occurs when you would otherwise NOT expect one to occur." (in this situation?). If no, I give up, you have beat me into submission. If yes, please continue to read. Some situations that would NOT considered to be freaky would be: A batter being hit in the hand and breaking it. A base runner twisting an ankle or a leg injury of some kind. A player being hit in the face with the baseball and having a fractured face. A player swinging a bat and pulling a muscle in his ribs. A player stretching out and diving for a hit ball into a wall, hurting any number of things possibly. Do you see to connection between the two? Something happens that forces injury to occur and the situation is obvious to most that an injury should/could have occurred as a result of the action. Some situations that would BE considered freaky could be: 1. A player getting hit in the hand and tearing his ACL. 2. A player running the bases and pulling his pectoral muscle. 3. A player being hit in the face and breaking his leg during the fall. 4. A player swinging a bat and hitting himself in the head; thus causing him to pull a hamstring. 5. A player getting hit (in the leg) with a BUNTED ball and breaking his leg. It would seem (in most cases I would not "normally" expect this to happen.) 6. A sneezing and causing him to go on the DL for 30 days. I will admit I have sneezed and it's caused my back and chest to hurt; but never with the force that it would cause me to miss 30 days of work. Now lets move on to the situation at hand. Using your words "Bud Black holding him back made the injury happen". I assume he was holding (okay I have seen it) him back in a bear hug fashion around the chest/arms of some nature, correct? He was in no way holding onto his legs or feet, correct? I could then assume based on the above an injury to the chest, back or arms could occur and it would be considered a expected event. I would never assume a leg injury to occur. Same if Bud Black was holding onto his feet/legs I would never assume a chest or arm injury to occur. I leave back out because it's such a diverse part of the body that easy injured doing many things. Using your own words "but what actually CAUSED it was slightly twisting his leg." If I slightly twist my leg I would not "normally expect" to tear my ACL; it's that simple. Please see points 5 and 6 above for my logic. If you have made it to this point I assume you did agree that a good definition of freaky was: "An accident that occurs when you would otherwise NOT expect one to occur." (in this situation?). There is no way you could expect an accident to occur with a "slight" twist of a leg. By the way this is a article in the Washington Post at the time: "Bradley will miss the rest of the year with a torn anterior cruciate ligament in his right knee. He was injured when his own manager spun him to the ground while trying to keep him from going after umpire Mike Winters during an eighth-inning confrontation in Sunday's 7-3 loss to Colorado at Petco Park." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092400863.html This was on ESPN: "Black yanked. And tugged. And pushed. And pulled. Did everything, in fact, but call out the National Guard. Until finally, he and Bradley twisted wildly. And down went Bradley with one of the strangest injuries we've ever witnessed -- a right knee seriously injured in a wrestling match with his own manage." http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=3033679 This would refute your "slight twist" by the way: And if this is truly what happened well then nothing at all was freaky about it. I would expect any player being in a wrestling match with his own manager or being yanked, tugged, pushed, pulled, spun and twisted wildly to the ground to have any number of injuries as a result. If you maintain a "slight twist" well there is no way you could expect an ACL tear. I'm done with this.

I'm going to do this even though it's against my better judgment.. When I was young my mother would tell me: "Never argue with unreasonable people; because you can't reason with them". But here I go anyways. A freak accident should be defined as: An accident that occurs when you would otherwise NOT expect one to occur. 1. D. Lee breaking his wrist: No way anyone would not expect that to happen after his hand, wrist were hit like they were. Take 100 people in the exact same situation and probably 80% it would have resulted in a break. 2. Any pitcher who has arm issues: The arm issue would be a result of the violent movement of the arm when throwing a baseball (arm should include elbow, shoulder and so on). 3. Mark Prior taking a line drive to the elbow; of course he got hurt, nothing freaky about that. The fact he got hit could be called a "freak" thing because players don't often get hit with baseballs when on defense. However his being injured once hit; nothing freaky about that. Anytime someone is hit with a hard object going over 100mph I would have to say an accident is expected. 4. A player swinging a bat; you can't break down every injury that could be expected; but side (oblique’s), back, wrists, fingers, thumbs and possibly hips could become injured during this process. Nothing freaky about that, because one could reasonably expect it to happen. THE LIST GOES ON..... I would have to say anyone tearing an ACL when being held back is not something you would reasonably (keyword) expect to happen. Take 100 people in the exact same situation and a LOT less than 80% would end in an ACL tear. That to me makes it a freak accident. Sammy Sosa sneezing and hurting his back (out 30 days); to me that is a freak accident; you just don't NORMALLY expect someone to miss 30 days because of a sneeze.

It very well could have been, but I would have to wonder, why? What is to be gained? If he said that, would it drive down the price of Bradley (or other F.A.'s), how would it change the things with Peavy? Would Towers have said, look I know your payroll is tight, so I will cut my player requests in return so you take this guy off my hands and I don't have to pay him? While it could have been a red herring as well, I fail to see the point of why he would have done that.

Reading reports now... 1. Marquis to be traded and we save 5M basically. 2. Bradley will be signed soon. 3. 5M spent on Miles. 4. Peavy talks back on. Hendry has said more then once that I know of he would have to get "new" ownership approval to make any "major" moves. While I don't consider saving 5M a major move or spending 5M on Miles (even if it's a questionable move at this point), I would consider a Bradley signing a major move. I would also consider Peavy talks being back on and if it happens that would be a major move also. Any chance the Cubs know who the next owner will be (provided MLB approves him/her) and Hendry has already spoken to them, knows what they are looking to spend in payroll this season and has been told to press ahead? If this would be the case, do we consider this a good sign that new ownership is willing to spend money? Now I would always consider it a good sign, but does it in anyway tell us who it may be? Just wanted thoughts of the board.

If we let him test the market would have he come close to getting 52M/4Yr's he got from the Cubs (I understand he was a FA, and "tested" the market)? I understand you want to sign the guy before having his price go up by other teams making offers, but in this case with this year, did JH jump the gun on this one? I have to think if we waited a few more weeks, let him see the offers on the table for him, we could have got him for less money. Just a thought.

I promised myself I was going to become a Twins fan and have not visited the boards since the playoffs. Being a Cubs fan is harder to beat then a crack addiction. -- Anyway, on the the reason I'm posting. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3687064 Top items in article The article also lists the Braves, Dodgers and Cubs as the top 3 teams in the hunt for his services. What to me is most telling in the article "Some of them involved third teams and potentially fourth teams, so it becomes a little more complicated" - That to me has Hendry wrote all over it and is what gives me hope. Up to this point everything I have read is speculation by reporters saying the Cubs were in the top, to hear/read it from Towers, I put a little more weight on that. Sorry if this has already been posted.

Spending my winter in Iraq, about +7 hours from EST, I can do without the 5am games! So please bring some primetime Cubs games my way. =D>

Not a story about Fontenot, I always think its great when something like that happens.... Here is my story.... but it was I would guess kind of NOT a good one dealing with a Cubs player (I have one other I have shared in the past - Good one). I'm at a game in Atlanta in 2001 with my wife. We were along the third base line about 20 rows up and and about half way between the wall and 3rd base! My wife was watching the bullpen to see who was warming up or if the Cubs were getting anyone up to warm up, I guess! (Thats her story so I will buy it)! Anyways; I turn around to look as well at about the same time Robert Machado (remember him?) was standing on a chair in the bullpen waving at my wife to come over! - I WAS SEATING RIGHT NEXT TO HER! She stood up because as I'm sure you know there are many people there, to make sure he was waving at her. She pointed to herself and he started doing the YES motion with his head! I will not tell you the end of the story, but I did get a team autographed baseball and bat! JUST KIDDING! She took her seat again next to me and then we talked about the whole thing for the next inning! Just seemed odd! Maybe he just wanted to tell her he liked her shirt or something! hahaha! Anyways - That's my story!

Are you kidding me? What difference dose it make who is on the list? Do you have a list fetish and once you see a list you forget everything prior to that and focus only on "the list"? Here: Villone, Lopez and Izturis Delete "Lopez" add any of the following from 07 (if any of the below players are in the "lucky" section I'm sorry I posted them please feel free to remove as you see fit). Scott Spiezio Gary Bennett Kelly Stinnett Miguel Cairo Preston Wilson Kip Wells Russell Branyan (Had 32 AB in 07 - Seems to be magic number to confirm success/failure) Brad Thompson Mike Maroth Brian Falkenborg Randy Keisler Will this list be more palpable to your fetish and the post itself? :banghead: Would any of the following names on the list change anything within the post itself? Okay, I can agree with you that it would provide better supporting evidence as to the theory I provided, however you don't seem like a lazy person .901 OPS, 32 AB's, you seem willing to dig into the stats yourself! So I'm sure you can provide yourself "a list" of players to support or argue against the theory I have provided. Really, I have come here for 2 years now, I read the board every day! However you know what stops me from posting here for the most part? I have no problem with people having a different opinion then me, in fact to the best of my knowledge I kind of feel like that is what this is about, post your opinion and talk about it with other people! However in the past I have not posted for the simple fact that "some" people feel like it's there duty to take one word of an entire post and focus on that one thing! Dose the fact that "Lopez" has made THE LIST, diminish the point of the post for others to talk about? It don't matter who is on "the list", here completely remove the list of 3 players, it don't change the post being about: Why I think the Cards "seem" to be more lucky (but they really are not), they just take more chances on unknown players! This is I'm sure due to a number of reasons; GM thoughts over the years, player development, scouts, organizational philosophy, money "the list" could go on!

If we are not going to follow the logic and line of thinking in the post, I'm sure in my spear time I can look at the stats and produce a list of Cards players (over the last 4 years) and place them into a "lucky" section and a "failure" section for you. However you must provide me with a statistical measurement to use to determine "lucky", "expected" and "failure" so we can see who meets them section based on your own definition. I'm sure it would be different for everyone, since we are not just following simple logic and want to single out 1 sentence in a group of about 30 or so (the 30 in this situation doesn't represent an exact count, but more a rough estimate).

He has 32 AB's, are we really going to sample that number and say "oh the Cards are lucky again?" I sure hope we are not going to do that! When I put him into the list of "Villone, Lopez and Izturis" it was assumed the readers would follow the thinking of the post (that not all Cards transactions are "lucky") rather then look for one minor issue a .901 OPS in 32 AB's.

I'm not sold on the Cardinals being lucky! I may be the only one in the world who thinks this, but I think they just take more chances and that makes them seem to be lucky! I mean do you think for one second the Cubs would have taken the risk of putting Ludwick in left two years ago? It seems the Cubs as an organization don't seem to keen on letting there own farm players play, let alone another teams! The Cubs spend money and seem more interested in "proven" MLB players (See: Soriano, Fukudome, Johnson and Edmonds) and don't really seem interested in young kids in or out of our organization (See: Pie, Hoffpauir). It seems while the Cards are willing to take a chance (high risk/high reward) the Cubs seem more interested in just going with proven production. I'm very sure it has to do with GM, scouts and organization philosophy as well! Take the example of Fukudome and Ludwick. The Cards were more inclined to give the OF position to a young man who has been injured BUT has a proven record in the minors as a power hitter! The Cubs on the other hand elected to spend 48M and import virtually the same age player as Ludwick from Japan. I'm NOT saying it was a bad move either way, but I think it just goes to show the different ideas on how to run a baseball club between the Cubs and Cards. The Cubs had "kind" of an idea what they would get (I'm not sure he has lived up to all of them) from Fukudome, the Cards had no real idea on Ludwick, just that he has done well in the minors. So any output at all would be "above" what was expected, thus making it seem lucky! In the end the Cards just take more chances with players, the Cubs take less chances, just try to bank on the player preforming at "normal" levels. I'm sure for every Ludwick the Cards take a chance on there is a Villone, Lopez and Izturis that don't work out so well for them!

I could not agree more, however Dirty Dog Sparly says it so much better!

I was intimidated by it at first, having played Mogul prior to playing Out Of The Park. Seems that there are a ton more options for total control of the baseball simulation, draft, scouting, just overall everything. How it compares is: I played Mogul for some time prior to playing this game. When I installed it and started to play it, I soon realized its depth and amount of control(s). I thought I will never get this, its to much the manual at the time was over 500 pages, if I remember correctly. Slowly I learned and also started to enjoy the game much more then Mogul. I also at the time was playing "Inside the Park" baseball sim, that allows you to control the player, workouts, going to the bar, auction, home and so on. Its an easy game to play but lots of fun... by makers of out of the park. Please don't read this as spam, I'm not the maker of the game and have nothing to do with and I don't make any money if you buy it. I'm sure others can give you or anyone else an idea about what they think of the game, I would not take just one persons advice. :)

Not sure of the right "area" for this topic... but Out Of The Park Baseball 9 has been released today! I know some of you will not care, but this is a great sim if you have never tried it... I learned of this game from members of NSBB so I figured some may want to know a new one has been released.

I don't see the bullpen as the issue in this situation. I see the issue being our starter's have not been able pitch 6 - 7 innings of solid baseball each time out. I think Lieber would at least give us 6-7 innings each time out. Dempster avg 6.2 IP per start (if last years closer is leading your team in IP per start; I think starting pitching "may" be a problem) Zambrano avg 6 IP per start Marquis avg 5 2/3 IP per start Lilly avg 5 IP per start Hill avg 4 2/3 IP per start Starters 149 2/3 IP Bullpen 91 2/3 IP I think if we could get the IP Per start up with each starter the pen would work itself. I just can't help but think Lieber should be in the rotation. I'm 100% he is a better starter then Marquis and at this point Lilly and Hill if you go from this season only. Also if you moved Dempster (I'm afraid to say it), but it may make the pen a little stronger it also "may" satisfy the ones that say our bullpen needs some help - lou. However I also see the argument that I can't argue for more innings pitched by our starters and then say lets move our #1 IP per start starter back into the pen.

HAHA... It did not continue to grow! Actually I think either later that winter or into that summer he was traded and I never sent another message to him.

I talked with Lou today during breakfest over the phone at an unnamed place. He says, Whats up NSBB... Also he wanted to pass along that he is not fed up with Pie, but he don't care for cake anymore.. On a side note: Really has anyone ever come across one of the Cubs players MSN, yahoo or so on Messenger ID? This is the honest truth back in about 96 or 97 I was looking for someone on AOL instant messenger, "my last name is Adams". I came across something that seemed kind of odd. I did some checking and sure enough Same birthday, hometown, birthtown and so on... everything matched to be Terry Adams. I thought oh well, i sent the dude a simple message and just talked for a little while. (I'm not gay!) Anyways this went on for about 2 weeks, 10 minutes at a time (not more). Then I just asked, if he was a baseball player for the Cubs. He said yes he was. Now naturally I have NO WAY of knowing for sure, but I have to think if someone was pulling my leg I would have been able to figure it out... Online during a game and so on, not knowing the score of a game (fast reply back) or something along them lines. Not once did suspect he was someone other then who he said he was! By the way, I never did get any inside info, In fact I think I was the one that broke it to him that we had signed Benito Santiago that winter.

Batting 9th today... 375% OBP I have to guess that it will go DOWN.. or maybe it will be another one of them Cards Magic and his 298% career OBP will become 350% for the magical 2/3 seasons he plays for the Cards. Come to think of it i'm laying my money on this one. On another note: I'm sure its on the board someplace.. but what is your thoughts on this position player hitting 9th? You know, with our leadoff hitter (Soriano) it may not be that bad of an idea and it would give the 2nd hitter a few more RBI chances.. provided we can find a good number 2 hitter.

Now this is funny. This makes me laugh so hard. I can just see the face of some poor soul... looking so lost!

You know the over reaction's are coming... I don't think it would be an over reaction to say: This team ofter 2 games and 1 inning looks like a little league team in the field. It may hurt us to have a rookie catching and in CF. Also to have a converted 2nd baseman playing SS and a "super" sub playing 2nd may not be the best way to go up the middle..... Hey, whats up with Jason Kendall? ---- What a stud!!!! HE IS! (classic over reaction). Just a few random thoughts.

Sorry about missing Lee... Your 100% right on that one, it was a great trade that he made! I guess I should just let the games won speak for his ability as a GM. :banghead: Also the number of high priced FA he has brought to the cubs over the years, only to dump them for a bag of balls one/two years later!

Sorry to Quote myself.... I should say the thread is about Hendry so it would be a good idea to debate his moves. However I did not want to debate EVERYONE of them... Just thought I should say that before someone says something like. "well this is a topic about our GM, so every move he made is important to talk about".. =P~

No real reason to green/red the Miller trade. I tried of course to green what I feel were good. Red what I think were bad. However in doing so if I did that with most or every one of the moves I would open this topic up for major debate about what others (myself also) feel are good/bad moves. I did not want to do that with every trade or FA; simply because of time and also I don't want to be hit with... "well the move was great".... "NO it was not" type of a thread. Just to keep the noise down I guess! :)