abuck1220
-
Posts
17,511 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
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 abuck1220
-
Re: Sosa tested positive in 2003 per NY Times
abuck1220 replied to SouthSideRyan's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
Nobody said they didn't help. The issue is that people seem to think one kind of illegal help is too far, and any other kind of illegal help in the past is ok. my point is steroids are illegal and helped A TON, while greenies (whatever the hell they are) were illegal and probably didn't help all that much (at least compared to roids). -
Re: Sosa tested positive in 2003 per NY Times
abuck1220 replied to SouthSideRyan's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
nobody's saying they magically make you great. but i don't know what to tell you if you don't think steroids helped bonds hit 73 homeruns when he was 40 years old or clemens post a 2.00 era when he was 45. -
Re: Sosa tested positive in 2003 per NY Times
abuck1220 replied to SouthSideRyan's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
really? people don't think steroids gave guys that much of an advantage? quite a coincidence then that four of the absolute best hitters from 1998-2003 have all been busted. if everybody was using them (clearly not the case), the steroid-aided efforts of sosa, bonds, etc would have been neutralized to some extent by some steroid using pitchers. -
Re: Sosa tested positive in 2003 per NY Times
abuck1220 replied to SouthSideRyan's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
You don't see an appreciable difference between taking greenies and taking PEDs today? You don't think one improves performance at a significantly greater clip than the other? Or you just don't care? Regardless of the difference, the intent of the player is the same: to gain an advantage. Seems hypocritical to me to give players from previous decades a pass on taking one substance but condemning more recent players for taking another. why? one gives the player a MUCH, MUCH bigger advantage. do people really not think there's a difference? -
i'm not a fan of just dropping a guy that sucks mid-week to pick up a FA replacement. i guess benching a guy who is benched in real life and replacing him with one of your reserves isn't so bad. problem is, what constitutes "sucking" and what constitutes a "benching?"
-
what? i thought it was determined to be ok??
-
nobody's going to have any draft picks left to trade me. :(
-
Re: Sosa tested positive in 2003 per NY Times
abuck1220 replied to SouthSideRyan's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
This doesnt meen using Steroids is okay but they dont just magically make you stronger. Sosa and the rest are still a big disappointment for using the roids. But, I can guarantee you they were still busting their ass in the weight room. You dont just explode by putting a needle in you, to get Sosa type big, you need to live in the gym (even with the roids). Roger Clemens, Bonds, McGwire as well, all shady but they were not lazy or just taking roids to make them stronger without working. They took the roids to enhance their workout that much more, and for recovery. Again Roids are not okay but these guys werent just working out 15 minutes then showering up for the ladies. yeah, if it was easy as a shot and a 15 minute workout, 50% of the male population would look like sosa. -
ok. i hope you're right.
-
still a good deal for don. he can trade felix for a 1st rounder after the season in a heartbeat.
-
well, i guess i won't be trading peavy to don...
-
or am i getting him confused with cal ripken?
-
isn't his nickname "ironman?"
-
i was stunned.
-
direct all those trade offers to me please.
-
oh no, i hope you don't have someone named hill on your team...
-
you peaked at "cherry pie" and it's been down hill ever since.
-
the jinx maybe, but not the joke.
-
come on, man.
-
peavy missing a month only makes him easier to keep. price just went up!
-
why do you care if you (or anybody) throws in a 2nd rounder for teixeira? you'll be getting one back (at worst) after the season anyway.
-
for the reasons i already went through, i think it's a really dumb procedure. but if we're leaving how it is now, whatever, i just want to know before i trade off my entire team. and if we're going to continue to allow post-season trades of draft picks, anybody making me an offer may as well tack on a draft pick to whatever offer they're going to make since i'll just assume you're going to get one back for the player i'm giving.
-
well, yeah, that's obviously part of the problem...people making stupid trades.
-
It seems logical to me that a player's trade value would be higher during the season than after. For example, last offseason we talked about me trading my 1st round pick to you for Prince Fielder, but I decided against it because I didn't want to have to carry his points. However, during the season I'd be much more likely to make such a trade (and perhaps even include a minor leaguer as well) because it would increase my chances of winning that season. So I don't think your analogy of trading Peavy for the 14th pick during the season vs. the 3rd pick after the season is valid, because I think during the season somebody would offer you more than just the first round pick. But if you're willing to trade Peavy during the season for a 1st round pick, let's talk. :D while i disagree with pretty much everything you've said in this thread, thanks for boosting peavy's trade value.
-
you're not doing it "later" in the year, you're doing it after the season. you really don't see the difference? but it's fair for you to trade your first round pick for a stud now and then trade the same stud for even better first round draft picks after the season? so you essentially get a free stud for three months and an upgraded draft pick?