inari

I'd love to hear someone cherry pick stats that make Rowand on par with Bradley. They're not there. There's absolutely no cherry picking required (nor was any done) to demonstrate that Milton Bradley is a good deal better than Aaron Rowand.

Are you referring to the Aaron Rowand argument?

Well, Harden has a history of success. Wells has a history of being pretty mediocre and has had some success this year which recently is not looking good.

That and you're a misery junkie. Seriously, hes acting like [expletive] eric316 today lol. Relax UM, Christ ??? Fine I'll go ahead and leave the game thread. Enjoy the game, go Bears! Not sure why you have to leave the game thread. To be bitchy, it seems.

What an absolutely garbage call.

Iowa at #6? Let's not get silly here.....you're going to lose 2 or 3 games this year. Really? Name them. either at wisconsin or at michigan st, and at ohio st. Agreed. I doubt they win at the 'Shoe, and back-to-back roadies against Bucky and Sparty figures to be a difficult task (though, individually, Iowa is superior to both). Iowa is vastly superior to MSU. Road game or not, it'd be a stretch to have them losing that game. Wisconsin will be tough, but still. If the better team wins every game, Iowa should be 11-1. Doesn't mean they will. But they could be. There's no basis to say they'll definitely lose 2 or 3 this year.

You can't really believe that Milton Bradley isn't a heck of a lot better than Reed Johnson and Aaron Rowand.

Without question. Cameron is worlds better than Rowand, the overall financial expenditure would be about the same, and we only would have an obligation for 2 years. I'm glad you're not handling the finances for the Cubs. Let me get this straight, you're saying that for 2010-2011, you would rather spend approximately $18 million per year for Cameron to play CF than Rowand. Cameron is better, but not that much. I'll take Rowand with the Giants sending us money and/or a prospect. Cameron is leaps and bounds better than Rowand. Not $6 million per year better. Definitely $6 million per year better.

Iowa is up at 13 on the AP poll. Awesome!

Without question. Cameron is worlds better than Rowand, the overall financial expenditure would be about the same, and we only would have an obligation for 2 years. I'm glad you're not handling the finances for the Cubs. Let me get this straight, you're saying that for 2010-2011, you would rather spend approximately $18 million per year for Cameron to play CF than Rowand. Cameron is better, but not that much. I'll take Rowand with the Giants sending us money and/or a prospect. Cameron is leaps and bounds better than Rowand.

From Phil Rogers this morning. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-27-rogers-whispers-sep27,0,5280968.column The same article also suggests the Cubs may be interested in trading Bradley to SD for Chris Young. After trading for Peavy, Williams isn't going to trade him. I still say Zambrano won't waive his NTC to go to the AL where he won't get to bat and his ERA will go up. Finally, Zambrano enjoys being the "ace of the staff" recognition (true or not) that he gets on the north side. There's nothing Z has said that suggests he wouldn't jump at a chance to play for Ozzie Guillen. Your belief just isn't true in this case.

17? Nice.

I'm still drunk

If they're talking about this there's no way it doesn't happen. This would make the fanbase need a new pair of pants real quick. If they got DeRosa at second and Rowand in right, we'd have the most loved 83 win team in history.

Something tells me you don't understand the logic if you are trying to extend it to those guys. actually i understand it perfectly. the logic is good. the argument is poor. i don't think you understand how vacuous the argument is. it doesn't make sense to say that player x was brought in to help win this year. by that definition EVERY player who is brought in by teams are brought in to help win this year. the argument should be to help make us better. and by that definition, he's failed. he's played enough games to have a fairly good sample size to look at. with the exception of hits, runs, base on balls, and on base percentages, according to yahoo sports as of today before the game, mike fontenot is the same player as milton bradley statistically with 30 less at bats. their slugging pecentages differ by 7 hundreths of a point. bradley has 3 more home runs. fontenot hits better from the left side than bradley. we are paying $10 for slightly better than mike fontenot numbers this year. and yahoo doesn't list other stats like average with runners on or in scoring position where we know what that number is for bradley. i see people on this message board talk about possibly shipping off fontenot in trade opportunities. when talking strictly what he has done on the field, by this logic talks about trading bradley are equally as valid. i have pretty much stated as much in this thread. i don't want bradley around because he doesn't help any to the offense. these numbers don't lie. and with no one really hitting other than lee and ramirez this year bradley adds as much to the offense as mike fontenot. getting on base means nothing if no one brings you in. You know, normally I'd just launch headlong into this and point out exactly what's wrong with the way you tried to evaluate Bradley. But just this once, before I go to the trouble let me ask you this. Do you want to learn how to properly evaluate a player statistically? We wouldn't even have to apply it to Bradley... we could just teach you some of the basics. Because you are obviously very confused. oh sure. but see i don't think that would accomplish much. you can make stats say anything you want. you could make those same stats say that milton bradley is a much needed piece to make the team go while i could make those same stats say that milton is very easily replaceable with a much cheaper option. by the way i am being serious when i said yes. i'm not a stat-head. the only stat i find reasonably reliable and one i trust implicitly is the win-loss stat for the team. i go mainly by what i see and that hasn't been much for bradley. Surely you can at least see why "Bradley is pretty much Mike Fontenot if you leave out everything" got a great deal of criticism.

I thought SEC games were usually... good.

This seems like as good a place for this news as any. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-23-cubs-brewers-chicago-sep23,0,6770078.story Aramis is going to base his decision on whether or not to opt out primarily on whether or not the Cubs field a winner next year. That's what he says, anyway.

I was kidding with the "Stanzi the manzi" stuff, but I do think you guys are being too hard on him.

You can keep burying your head and the sand and saying Mike Cameron isn't good if you want, but a few people have already shown he's a pretty good player.

Oh my God, HE'S MARK-FREAKIN'-DEROSA. Yeah well if his replacement is Joe-Freakin'-Thurston, Julio Lugo, or Kahlil Greene I think losing DeRosa would have a pretty big impact on the Cards. Considering how DeRosa has played for the Cardinals, that's no guarantee.

This is probably Aramis' third best season as a Cub even stretched out over a full season. Next step? Eh.

This is probably Aramis' third best season as a Cub even stretched out over a full season. Next step? Eh.

You guys clearly aren't aware that Stanzi is the manzi.

IMHO Cameron would= the 2009 equivelant of Jeromy Burnitz except that he's nothing like jeromy burnitz in any way Hes over the hill, mediocre at best, and we dont need him. Thats all the similarity I need. We already have 2 strong defensive outfielders who are streaky offensively. Not true, definitely not true, arguable. That was easy.

Man, this season has sucked but I am gonna miss baseball when it's gone.