Jump to content
North Side Baseball

davearm2

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,776

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 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 davearm2

  1. davearm2
    Right, and I think that's significantly different than what people are typically talking about when it comes to "chemistry," which is in regards to the players getting along. Someone's capability as a leader is very, very different. Who ever struck out or made an error because of Piniella's (or anyone else's) capability (or lack thereof) as a leader? Link to the boxscore please. Look either this intangible stuff matters, or it doesn't. You don't get to pick and choose which elements impact a player's psyche in a meaningful way and which don't, and say one is "very very different" from another. That's total BS.
  2. davearm2
    Cubs playing .600 ball, but .500 ball without Castro.
  3. davearm2
    Since you need it spelled out for you, the theory has long been that Wrigley insulates the Cubs from the sort of performance-based attendance cycles you're describing. If that's not so true anymore, it's a story. But that theory doesn't really hold up to close scrutiny. Again, look at long stretches of the 90's, the 80's and the 70's: when the team sucked they didn't sell nearly as many tickets as when they didn't suck. You'd need to compare the impact of performance on attendance relative to every other club in MLB for this theory to hold any water. How the hell did you come to that conclusion? You don't have to look at other teams to know that the Cubs aren't "insulated" from poorer ticket sales and attendance due sustained periods of mediocrity or worse. It's just common sense. I'd be careful with the strong language. It's becoming clear you don't know what you're talking about. Just to pull some random round numbers: if the Cubs' ticket sales go down 1% in a bad year, but the average team loses 10% in a bad year, then yes they're insulated. Meanwhile you see that 1% and think your point is proven -- losing record = lower sales. It's not that simple.
  4. davearm2
    Since you need it spelled out for you, the theory has long been that Wrigley insulates the Cubs from the sort of performance-based attendance cycles you're describing. If that's not so true anymore, it's a story. But that theory doesn't really hold up to close scrutiny. Again, look at long stretches of the 90's, the 80's and the 70's: when the team sucked they didn't sell nearly as many tickets as when they didn't suck. You'd need to compare the impact of performance on attendance relative to every other club in MLB for this theory to hold any water.
  5. davearm2
    Deux? More like Part One Million. Hm. Wonder who got it going this time... Kevin Millar
  6. davearm2
    Nobody struck out or dropped a popup because the lineup wasn't posted early enough, therefore none of this intangible team chemistry crap matters in baseball. Agree or disagree? finally you're understanding So Kevin Millar and Alfonso Soriano really need to pay attention to what you have to say about what does and doesn't impact players' and teams' performance in MLB then? Since you know better than them.
  7. davearm2
    Deux? More like Part One Million.
  8. davearm2
    Nobody struck out or dropped a popup because the lineup wasn't posted early enough, therefore none of this intangible team chemistry crap matters in baseball. Agree or disagree?
  9. davearm2
    The problem, of course, is that you and others seem to believe the second sentence proves the first.
  10. davearm2
    Since you need it spelled out for you, the theory has long been that Wrigley insulates the Cubs from the sort of performance-based attendance cycles you're describing. If that's not so true anymore, it's a story.
  11. davearm2
    Somebody needs to tell Millar that none of this intangible team chemistry crap matters in baseball. Nobody struck out or dropped a popup because the lineup wasn't posted early enough.
  12. davearm2
    I dunno, if attendance is returning to 2002 levels, I'd say that's a pretty big story. (Not that one game proves this is happening.)
  13. davearm2
    Interesting responses to the Beltran idea. Personally I think it makes a ton of sense, if... * Beltran is healthy and outperforming Byrd, and * The Cubs are in contention, and * Brett Jackson continues to look like he's ready to take over CF in 2012. ... all of which I would expect to be true. Beyond that, with the ownership mess the Mets are a team that needs as many budget-friendly regulars as they can get their hands on. They'd probably love to have ~1.5 years of Byrd in CF.
  14. davearm2
    This is a total aside, but does anyone (beside me) ever wonder how Arizona Phil recognizes all of these dudes, and keeps them all straight? The Cubs had (or will have) something like 200 ballplayers in Mesa this spring. And none of them had names on their jerseys, right?
  15. davearm2
    This may sound nitpicky but the BoSox moved Crawford down temporarily, hoping to get him to calm down and relax at the plate. It's not like they decided after 2 days that the guy they gave $140M actually isn't cut out for the role they had in mind for him. Conversely most folks here want Byrd moved down permanently.
  16. davearm2
    Stone is an interesting case. He could truly be off his rocker, even though in the Harry Caray days, his analysis used to be pretty sharp. He could be genuinely filled with spite and hatred for the Cubs. He could be swept up in the current media trend of standing out from the crowd by being intentionally edgy and controversial, no matter how irrational and logic-defying this requires one to be. See also Jay Mariotti, Skip Bayless, Colin Cowherd, etc. Like Howard Stern taught us decades ago, the more people hate you the higher your ratings climb.
  17. davearm2
    This I enjoyed.
  18. davearm2
    I'm really excited, too. Ominous. Very ominous.
  19. davearm2
    The Orioles are in first place and Brian Roberts is an MVP candidate
  20. davearm2
    Is there any other kind? Yes, preventative. Yes it's becoming more common for surgeons just to go ahead and remove the appendix if they're already in there doing another procedure.
  21. davearm2
    There are a few different surgical options here, from the traditional approach where the surgeon cuts through the abdominal muscle, to more advanced laproscopic procedures where just small holes in the muscle are made. The amount of scarring done to the abdominal muscle will largely drive recovery time. Of course another issue is whether the appendix burst, potentially spreading infection in the abdominal cavity.
  22. davearm2
    Haha seriously? Pujols got booed at Busch?!?
  23. davearm2
    Right, this is the point. Why spend a high first round pick on a guy like Starling when there are other options on the board that are roughly as good, and don't have the added leverage that will cost you millions extra. Let Starling fall into Rick Porcello range, or heck, even Samardzija range.
  24. davearm2
    You're being silly. No GM is thinking, "yeah give me the guaranteed .620 OPS." If they think they know what they're going to get, they obviously have their sights set higher than that. But how is that then "knowing what you are going to get"? That's hoping for something better than what is probable. Look you asked, "If you know a player is probably going to give you an OPS of .620, but you aren't quite sure about another second baseman, isn't the smart choice to go with the unknown?" And my response was, there isn't a GM in baseball that would disagree with that. So who exactly are you calling out here?
  25. davearm2
    I'm surprised to see Starling that high, given the football commitment you'd have to overcome.
×
×
  • Create New...