jersey cubs fan

Remember Carlos, they pay you to win.

Not interested.

Blowout, hands down. It's the easiest to laugh off. Blowout with a fake rally is probably the kind I most remember, since it's been happening for years. Score early, then shut down and watch the lead evaporate is the most frustrating.

good for arod

I'm not saying, I'm just sayin'

Huh?

Do you? A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal. You may have described an inefficient use of roster space. But you have not proved the notion that some pitchers are only good at getting LH hitters out, is a myth.

Loogys are a myth because: #1 cant be used on 11 man pitching staffs b/c lack of innings #2 cant be helpful in a bullpen b/c they dont throw a lot of innings and most important #3 managers can pitch hit for the left handed batter with a right hander leaving the decision to take the Loogy out after 1 pitch or let him face the righty. Either way, not a good scenario as Ohman has shown all year b/c they are totally ineffective against rightys usually. Now there will be those that scream and say that you should only face the guys you know that wont be pinch hit for- all that does is cut down their innings further. On most teams that would be only 1 guy and on several teams that would be no one at all. Therefore in summation after factoring pi to the 13th power, Loogy=myth. Do you know what myth means?

I don't know about you, but I've lost my appetite for his hard throwing walkathon pitchers. I'd rather employ guys who can find guys who don't issue free passes at will. Agreed, but I don't know that to be Hendry's fault. It could have to with the coaching these guys receive as they make their way up the system. I believe Hendry's general lack of respect for the value of a walk works both ways. His pitchers have always given up walks, while his hitters have always refused them. I'm sure coaching plays a role, but Jim employs the coaches.

I think you have to be willing to trade spare parts for veteran relievers from time to time. The important thing is to not get into longterm contracts with them, or trade very good prospects. You have to be willing and able to cut bait with guys as soon as they begin to crumble. And you have to be flexible enough to be able to bring in a whole new batch right away.

Do you really think they're that close? I don't see where else they could get an influx of difference making talent. It's a lot to ask Patterson and Pie to step in and fill two holes. Even then they still need a new catcher and SS. $$$$ They have, and spend, more than most other teams. They will always have the financial advantage over the division, and don't have to worry about contending with the Yankees or Red Sox in the league. The Mets and Dodgers are the only legit competition, from a financial standpoint. I really think this team is capable of winning 95 games within the next 2 years, if they get a good GM. Hendry's recent contract splurge hurts a bit, but there's still room to maneuver around his mistakes. If the new GM wants to trade Lee and Ramirez and go with a complete overhaul, sans the untradable Soriano, then I'm not going to cry about it. But I like both of those players, and think the team can definitely win with them.

Um, the team is well under .500 under his control. I honestly don't see how anybody can not get the reason why people want him fired. He's a bad GM. Cubs fans want the Cubs to be good. In order to be good you need a good GM. So we want a good GM. Hendry doesn't fit the bill.

That's something Yogi might say. :lol: I originally listed just Bench and Biggio, and later added Yogi. Guess I did a poor job making those changes.

True. There's probably little value firing Jim now since the new owners will probably want to bring in their own people from the start anyway. It would be a great opportunity for someone to show what they could do. It would be sort of like an extended interview. I don't believe that the mess Hendry has made is as bad as it seems. Soriano's contract will be a millstone around the franchise's neck for some time but the Cubs can probably get out from Ramirez, Lee and what they would have had to pay Zambrano. Trade those guys for some young talent and reload. How about Zambrano and Ramirez for Cabrera? Could the Marlins turn that down? It gives them a chance to win now or they could flip one or both for someone else that they want. The Cubs get the best RH hitter in the NL without getting older and are no worse off financially. I don't really see the need for trading Lee and Ramirez to get better. This team can win big with those guys on the team, within the next couple years.

The cap makes the rule unnecessary. If you already have a cap, the rule is just a pointless addition to make it more difficult to improve your team. A hard cap would make the rule unnecessary. The NBA uses a soft cap. Did you read CubColtPacer's post? Yes, I just don't see how it's true. Obviously it hasn't kept good teams from being dominant, as the same teams keep winning. Not allowing teams to trade actually pretty much guarantees that bad teams will stay bad and great teams will stay great. But I guess this is the closest anybody has come to supplying a reason for the rule. It's not like the NBA is the only league with foolish rules. It just seems to me that most leagues have these rules set up for a legit reason to benefit either the teams or the players. If you have a salary cap and then tax every dollar spent above that cap, then why can't they just tax the added dollars that come via a trade? It's not like teams are just going to be giving away Kobe Bryant and Allen Iverson type players to the dominant teams and not take market value back. It appears to me to be an unnecessary barrier to trade. A man-made inefficiency that doesn't help anybody. A lawyerly creation designed to look smart but in practice and in reality, without purpose. The NBA is still a team dominated by the teams that win in the draft. It takes teams forever to get any good. More ability to trade would allow the better GMs to go from have nots to haves in a more timely fashion. The current system just seems to doom the bad teams to poisoning their home market.

I don't know about you, but I've lost my appetite for his hard throwing walkathon pitchers. I'd rather employ guys who can find guys who don't issue free passes at will.

The cap makes the rule unnecessary. If you already have a cap, the rule is just a pointless addition to make it more difficult to improve your team. I still haven't heard anybody justify the rules existence. That is what I was asking. I'm not here to lay out my plans for the NBA. I just don't understand the point of a rule that only makes it harder to fix roster problems. All it has accomplished is create a market for overpaid veterans with one year left on their contract.

Slip sliding away. The Cubs are in danger of letting go of their pythagorean title along with their hopes of the real life version of the thing. They've been held to 4 or less in 7 of 8 games and given up 5 or more in 4 of 8 games. They've lost 6 of 7 series and are assured of back to back sub .500 months. I'm guessing today is the day they win 6-1 to put some hope back in the theory that they are much better than their record says. Their next game starts the always forgiving month of June. If they fall any further back in that 28 games in 30 day stretch, those pythagorean hopes may be completely dashed.

The majority of NBA teams are over the salary cap but under the luxury tax threshold. If a team is over the salary cap, the salaries of the traded players need to match up within 25% of each other. I understand that they need to, but my question is what's the purpose? I generally understand the rules of baseball's CBA and the reasons for specific rules. But I don't get the point of the NBA having this rule. The only goal, it seems, is to stop teams from making trades. Unless it was just a failed attempt to force teams to think twice before signing guys to bad deals in the first place. What would you suggest as the alternative? It's hard to suggest an alternative to a concept without knowing the desired goals. It seems to me rather pointless and redundent to have these rules on trades. If you have a salary cap, and a luxury tax, you can enforce those to maintain a competitive balance. Artificially handicapping the teams by placing heavy restrictions on trades doesn't seem to serve any purpose whatsoever, accept for giving ESPN a reason to start that trade machine thing.

Absolutely not. Selective means choosing the right pitch to hit regardless of the count, whereas patience means working the count - which in turn translates to two quick strikes and a third one in the dirt swung at. I wouldn't say absolutely not. They are very similar. You have to be patient in order to be selective. It's one thing if you just refuse to ever swing until you have 2 strikes, but I don't think that's what anybody really means when they talk about patience. I think it's the other way around. If you are selective, then you automatically become patient. My favorite example is Sammy Sosa. He was the least patient hitter I had ever seen as a young player. He did not become an elite player until he realized, "hey, I can hit a thigh high, middle-in fast ball or a mistake slider". He didn't swing at anything other than that until he got 2 strikes. Because he became a selective hitter, he was patient. Well I'm not arguing the chicken or egg theory. I'm just saying selectivity and patience are tied at the hip. chris and grace is saying they are completely different.

The Cubs financial situation will always keep them within 2 years of contending. As bad as Hendry has been, this team is not barren of talent. And given the money they have, they can make moves to get them to the top rather quickly. The key is to stop Hendry from doing anymore damage. And they desperately need a great draft from Wilken this year that can produce a couple guys who will contribute within the next 3-5 years.

As per usual.

The majority of NBA teams are over the salary cap but under the luxury tax threshold. If a team is over the salary cap, the salaries of the traded players need to match up within 25% of each other. I understand that they need to, but my question is what's the purpose? I generally understand the rules of baseball's CBA and the reasons for specific rules. But I don't get the point of the NBA having this rule. The only goal, it seems, is to stop teams from making trades. Unless it was just a failed attempt to force teams to think twice before signing guys to bad deals in the first place.

Honestly, you haven't been watching the Cubs swinging the bats pretty well lately. Aside from one good inning in LA, this team hasn't done crap offensively since the White Sox series. They've put up a bunch of zeroes, and far too few crooked numbers over that time.

I disagree. Good hitters should be able to launch first pitch fastballs right down the pipe over the bleachers. That doesn't negate the need for patience. A selective hitter can swing on the first pitch if it's in his zone. But if he's impatient, he'll also swing at the face high fastball or slider low and away. You are confusing patience with deciding before the pitch you are not going to swing. That's not patience. That's predetermined.