abuck1220
-
Posts
17,504 -
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
-
this actually helps me quite a bit. sheets only went up a little and hill and papelbon are exempt.
-
pfft. You're going to have like three guys on your team! they'll just have to be three really good guys, i guess. :D
-
yep, you've got yourself primed to make another run at 2nd place. :twisted:
-
And then we would have had about 100 pages on what a jerk Hendry is for letting someone outbid him on Soriano. I'm not happy about the contract, but Hendry (and Piniella) decided he was the man that they needed and he went out and got him. It certainly doesn't look like the money has hindered him from signing other players. unfortunately.
-
ahh...i was wondering what the "he lead the NL in hitting for two months" and "he was third in batting average with runners in scoring position among guys with 150 strikeouts" was going to be this year.
-
those guys were all very highly thought of prospects, and any iffy numbers they put up in the minors were when they were playing at levels high for their age. soriano was jacking 40 hrs when he was pagan's age, and reyes and cano are still 2-3 years younger than pagan. pagan is not good. he wasn't good in the bigs last year, he wasn't good in the 2,500 minor league ab's that he had, and he's going to be 26 next season. what leads you to think otherwise?
-
please provide me with a better predictor of future performance thanks! Why? Do you think minor league stats can be equated to major league performance absolutely? If so, you have your opinion already. great answer. you've really provided a lot of support for your position. Be reasonable. It wouldn't matter what he or anyone said to you. Your opinion won't ever change. Thanks for keeping an open mind! give me something to keep an open mind about. you're saying that bad minor league players can turn into good major league players...throw some names at me.
-
please provide me with a better predictor of future performance thanks! Why? Do you think minor league stats can be equated to major league performance absolutely? If so, you have your opinion already. great answer. you've really provided a lot of support for your position.
-
i agree that some good minor leaguers end up being bad major leaguers. but that sure as hell doesn't mean that bad minor leaguers end up being good major leaguers.
-
also, just because some guys have good minor league numbers and end up not being good major leaguers does NOT mean that some guys with bad minor league numbers end up with good major league numbers. it doesn't work both ways. i can't even believe you're trying to make that argument.
-
i would love to see a list of guys who had a .700 career minor league OPS and ended up being decent big league players. please do list the myriad examples of this. i have a stat to show that he's not. career minor league OPS (2,500+ PA's): .705 career major league OPS: .701 funny how that works out. It's pretty frustrating when you intentionally misread what I write and regurgitate what I didn't say so you can attempt to prove your point to yourself. I said there are a myriad examples of players who had minor league numbers that didn't translate, not .700 OPS guys who ended up being decent big league players. I pointed out that there are ballplayers who the stats guys find that scouts don't and ballplayers that scouts find that stats guys don't. Pagan is an example of this, IMO. Why on earth would Pagan's minor and major league stats be a counter to this argument? BECAUSE THEY SUCK AND SO DOES HE. your argument is that pagan is some kind of diamond in the rough who had bad/mediocre minor league stats, but the scouts found him anyway and now he's a contributor. except he's not. to make your argument, pagan would have to actually be, you know, good.
-
i would love to see a list of guys who had a .700 career minor league OPS and ended up being decent big league players. please do list the myriad examples of this. i have a stat to show that he's not. career minor league OPS (2,500+ PA's): .705 career major league OPS: .701 funny how that works out.
-
wow. how can pagan be said to have "done his time" in the minors yet still be considered an unknown? he had 2500 mediocre at best minor league ab's...i think it was pretty clear what he brought to the table (not much). Pagan spent 6 years in the minors. That's "doing your time." He never made it to the show, meaning it was an unknown how he'd perform at the ML level. That's all I meant by calling him an "unknown." actually a guy's minor league numbers can be a pretty good indicator of what type of major league player he'll be. he was quite "known". and what a surprise...pagan's big league numbers were right in line with his career minor league numbers...terrible.
-
thanks for the explanation.
-
Kerry Wood interview WGN TV9 Sports
abuck1220 replied to Sweet Swinging Billy's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
yeah, i remember that one time when rothschild begged with him to change his mechanics and wood told him to shut his stupid mouth and then he punched him. i think it was like the day after hendry turned down a trade offer of dunn, ken griffey jr., the 1970 version of johnny bench and $150 mil for rich hill. -
wow. how can pagan be said to have "done his time" in the minors yet still be considered an unknown? he had 2500 mediocre at best minor league ab's...i think it was pretty clear what he brought to the table (not much).
-
Hendry subcribes to the "earn it" policy. Some guys don't get it done in ST, others step up. Pagan stepped it up bigtime. IIRC, the Cubs players were rumored to have really lobbied for Pagan to make the roster. Let's blame the Cubs players for Pagan. Personally, I like Pagan. Good speed. His injury kept him from beating out a lot of infield singles (raising his BA). His defense is fine. His speed makes up for a lot of his indecisions, giving him average range. That's fine. You can learn to read the ball better. You can't learn speed. Pagan showed a some pop last season, which scouts long predicted even if the numbers weren't there. He'd out OPS Pierre in a full season, but that's not saying much. I'd rather have Church, but Pagan in CF is a better option than dealing Jock and putting some runtown vet out there for several million. Pagan isn't high on my list for the CF job, but he's better than some options out there. so he's in the 'earn it' business except you 'earn it' by having a lucky two week run of 20 ab's in spring training? and nevermind the thousands of previous terrible at bats? that's a pretty stupid way to evaluate players. and pagan is brutal defensively. worse than murton, worse than jones.
-
pagan shouldn't be a starter on a team with a $20 mil payroll, let alone one with a $120+ payroll.
-
http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/braves/entries/2006/12/11/braves_face_tue.html sign giles, derosa in rf, soriano in cf.
-
I absolutely do not want the Cubs wasting precious resources on a "closer." The cash and talent spent to acquire somebody to do that job wouldn't be near as much of an upgrade (if at all) in the bullpen than it would be if it were spent on SS or CF. Wood Howry Eyre Dempster Ohman Wuertz That's a freaking stacked bullpen. (relievers not listed in order of talent, but in the likely hierarchy Lou sees them in... Wuertz for closer, w00t!) how is that a stacked bullpen? besides wood, it's the same pen they had last year, and it wasn't anything special.
-
the pain is eased by the comedy that comes from referring to macias' .626 2003 OPS as "valuable."
-
Not exactly true... In those two quotes, you are saying that the Cubs would trade Hill for a turd like OFer and that Hendry doesn't really like Hill. that doesn't really prove any point, but ok...
-
fine. but none of that indicates that hill is hendry's pet or that he favors him or that he has a "thing" for him. But it does successfully disprove your whole "Hendry refused to bring up Hill and favored Rusch over Hill" thing. As far as Hendry liking Hill enough to not want to trade him for just anybody, you don't have to look far. says chicagosports.com.
-
Because they are commodities with value that should not just be given away. what else are you going to trade them for? the cubs have 1b, 2b, 3b, lf, rf, cf (pie), four spots in the rotation (prior, hill, lilly, marquis) and a bunch of pen guys (dempster, howry, eyre, etc) signed for next season. some of those spots are taken care of for the next 3-5 years.
-
fine. but none of that indicates that hill is hendry's pet or that he favors him or that he has a "thing" for him. t also doesn't indicate he's out to get him or in the doghouse or Lord knows what other conspiracy theory of the week is being tossed out in the great "Cubs vs. Rich Hill" battle. i never said the cubs hate him or are out to get him. nothing like that at all. someone said that hendry has a "thing" for hill, and i said i didn't think he did. that's all i've said about it. my original contention was that if everybody was healthy, hill could get pushed out of the rotation.