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
-
i thought 2/14.
-
then hendry should give it to him.
-
oh well, if they ended up in the minors they could possibly be considered minor leaguers. however, it doesn't matter (as far as i understand) whether or not a guy was promoted to your roster. if he's in the bigs and is no longer eligible to be in the minors, you can't keep him on your minor league roster.
-
Free Agent Predictions
abuck1220 replied to b_wiggy_66's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
IMO, Soriano is a pretty big gamble to be really good next year. What's the difference between him and Carlos Lee? soriano's ability to play 2b or possibly cf...two huge holes for the cubs. additionally, his offense at those two spots would be elite, and that's not the case for lee if lf. additionally, signing lee means you bump murton/jones, and you haven't reallly filled any holes. -
Free Agent Predictions
abuck1220 replied to b_wiggy_66's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
if the cubs are going to spend that kind of money on a handful of crappy players, i'd rather just have them give soriano a 25 mil/year contract. at least you'd get one good player for your money. -
in my opinion... marmol, league, floyd, shelton, and hansen are exempt, but they can't be kept as a minor leaguers. they're points don't count toward your cap, but they count toward your 10 player roster limit. in other words, your total points for all those guys would be 0, but they take up 5 of the 10 spots on your roster. looks like jackson had neither 10 starts nor 25 appearances, so he can be kept as a minor leaguer, points free. he does not count toward your cap or your 10 player roster limit. at least that's my understanding.
-
where would you prefer the much needed offense to come from? i don't love soriano or anything, but he's the best hope for making this offense respectable. Get a 2B in Free Agency(Durham and Iwamura are my favorites, Loretta would be okay too), and revamp the OF in trade. Kearns, Burrell, A-Rod(which isn't the OF, but still), Sheffield, maybe Cabrera, Hawpe, or Cuddyer if they come available. What and alomst completely strip our farm system of any of the A prospects left of it? I'd rather keep the prospects and sign big free agents when they become available, somewhat simular to the mets. If we would have done it that way a few years ago, just for example. We could have a guy like Beltran and still have guys like Willis, Garland. . ect. . Instead we trade the Willis' and Garland's for mediocre crap and think we're gonna contend. (we=JH). . Your hate for Hendry is blinding. Garland was traded 8 years ago, when Hendry might not have even been in the organization. And Willis was traded before Hendry was GM too. Next time you try and trash Hendry, at least criticize him for things he's actually done. It's very easy to second guess. yeah, it's almost like somebody saying they knew jeff weaver was going to pitch the cardinals to the world series.
-
where would you prefer the much needed offense to come from? i don't love soriano or anything, but he's the best hope for making this offense respectable. I would prefer a trade with Washington to get Church to fill CF, not block Pie, and save a ton of $. I'd also want to acquire Kearns and Vidro and get rid of Jaque at the same time. church isn't as good as soriano, plus you'd have to give something up to get him. additionally, the cubs aren't in a position where they have to pinch pennies. saving money should be the last things the cubs worry about (as long as they're spending on good players). i like all the guys TT mentioned, but i don't know if the cubs have the players it will take to get them...and if they do, i'm not so sure i want to give them up. i'd rather just sign soriano, take the hit financially, and not have to lose any of the few decent players the cubs have.
-
where would you prefer the much needed offense to come from? i don't love soriano or anything, but he's the best hope for making this offense respectable.
-
And has that model worked? I really don't see a point in following a model that hasnt worked. You dont need a superstar line-up to win. You also dont need to have a $200 million payroll to win either. Pitching comes first, then you go out and get your hitting. The. Cardinals. Didn't. Have. Great. Pitching. They didnt have great pitching, but their pitching stepped up when it matter the most. Which, in the end, gave them a World Series victory. oh. my. so when you say "pitching comes first," you're saying that teams need to focus on geting pitching that "steps up when it matters the most."
-
Based on your logic, the Angels, Astros, and Blue Jays should have all made the postseason since their pitching staffs gave up fewer runs this season than the Cardinals. If you go by team ERA, you can add the Marlins, Indians, Diamondbacks, Reds, and Pirates to that list. Also, based on your logic, San Diego should have beat St. Louis in the NLDS and then the Mets in the NLCS. Based on your logic, the Indians, Phillies, Whitesox, Red Sox, Atlanta, and Rangers should have all made the playoffs since their hitting was in the top 10 in all of baseball. Also, based on your logic, the Yankees should have beat the Tigers in the ALDS, and then the A's in the ALCS. to review...your logic has been proven wrong. and so has this imaginary logic that you've magically attributed to no one in particular.
-
my goodness.
-
nope. good hitting beats good pitching. eckstein, molina, rolen, etc were just better than pudge, guillen and granderson. prove me wrong. It's pretty sad that you believe "good hitting beats good pitching". There really is no use arguing this if you already believe that. If you think "good hitting" is the way to win a world series, then why didnt the Whitesox win it this year? Why didnt they make the playoffs? Why didnt the Red Sox win it this year? Why didnt he Yankees win it this year? Plain and simple, they didnt have the pitching to get it done. if you think good pitching is the way to win a world series, then WHY THE HOLY HELL DID THE DETROIT FREAKING TIGERS, WHO HAD THE ABSOLUTE, WITHOUT A DOUBT, BESTEST IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD PITCHING WIN THE WORLD SERIES???????????????????????????????????????????
-
i hope you realize that my terrible logic was used in an effort to show how terrible other's logic was.
-
detroit's good pitching didn't shut down st. louis' good hitting. Well game 1 Verlander gave up 6 runs and they lost. Game 2 Rogers pitched good and they won. Game 3 they gave up 3 runs and Carp gave up 0 and the Cards won, game 4 they got some bad breaks gave up 3 runs and lost. And game 5 again bad breaks and gave up 2 runs and lost. So they pitched OK in the W.S., but the cards pitched better and guess what, the better pitching won. well, game 1 the cards offense scored six runs and they won. in game 2, the cards scored one run and they lost. in game 3 they scored five runs and they won. in game 4 they scored five runs and they won. in game 5 they scored four runs and they won. clearly, when the offense scored runs, the cardinals won. offense wins championships.
-
detroit had a great rotation and they lost.
-
nope. the better hitting won.
-
nope. good hitting beats good pitching. eckstein, molina, rolen, etc were just better than pudge, guillen and granderson. prove me wrong.
-
detroit's good pitching didn't shut down st. louis' good hitting. Well game 1 Verlander gave up 6 runs and they lost. Game 2 Rogers pitched good and they won. Game 3 they gave up 3 runs and Carp gave up 0 and the Cards won, game 4 they got some bad breaks gave up 3 runs and lost. And game 5 again bad breaks and gave up 2 runs and lost. So they pitched OK in the W.S., but the cards pitched better and guess what, the better pitching won. ugh...this is such after-the-fact analysis that i can't believe you don't see the flaw in your logic. let's take last night's game -- verlander vs. weaver. verlander is clearly the better pitcher, so going in you (using your pitching beats hitting philosophy) would say the tigers should win since they have the better pitcher. then weaver outpitches verlander and you say 'well, good pitching beats good hitting' and weaver pitched better than verlander. i don't see how anyone can subscribe to this idiotic 'good pitching beats good hitting' mantra and then cite the 2006 world series, in which the team with the team with the BEST PITCHING IN ALL OF MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL got beat by a team with the 16TH BEST PITCHING IN ALL OF MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL.
-
detroit's good pitching didn't shut down st. louis' good hitting.
-
look at the last few w.s. champs: 2000: nyy (posada, jeter, williams) 2001: ariz (gonzalez, sanders, grace) 2002: anaheim (glaus, salmon, anderson) 2003: florida (lee, lowell, pudge, castillo) 2004: boston (ortiz, manny, damon) 2005: chicago (dye, konerko, iguchi) 2006: st louis (pujols, edmonds, rolen) hitting wins in the postseason, plain and simple.
-
so then the tigers should have won because they had the best pitching in baseball.
-
i think it shows that the tigers' hitting sucks (b/c the cardinals' pitching isn't very good). therefore, instead of saying the cardinals' pitching won, i'm gonna say the tigers' offense lost. more bats, please!
-
A-Ram update
abuck1220 replied to Post Count Padder's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
Agreed, the last thing I am worried about is Aramis signing now. Larger, fish are ready to be caught. Let's go get a stud bat and a stud pitcher and play in late October come 07. if the cubs lose ramirez, adding one stud bat (who will undoubtedly be less of a stud than ramirez) and one stud pitcher will get them nowhere close to october. -
Freddy Garcia
abuck1220 replied to don_kessinger_was_good's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
I'm counting Hill as a 5 possibly 4 until he proves he can pitch as well as he did at the end of 2006. didn't he prove he can pitch as well as he did at the end of 2006 at the end of 2006?