minnesotacubsfan

(sarcasm on)Dang, man...you gotta throw the grammar thing in my face? (sarcasm off) I didn't think it was all that unclear. Then again, I wrote it. I was simply stating that I didn't want to be perceived as a blind Billy Beane supporter, but the A's have done it, for the most part, the right way for ten years. He's from Minnesota. Enough said. :wink: HEY!!!! I'm from ILLINOIS!!! I just LIVE in MN!!!!! Hey, 6 of one, half dozen of the other... your Hawkeyes be damned this fall.......grrrrrrrr

(sarcasm on)Dang, man...you gotta throw the grammar thing in my face? (sarcasm off) I didn't think it was all that unclear. Then again, I wrote it. I was simply stating that I didn't want to be perceived as a blind Billy Beane supporter, but the A's have done it, for the most part, the right way for ten years. He's from Minnesota. Enough said. :wink: HEY!!!! I'm from ILLINOIS!!! I just LIVE in MN!!!!!

(sarcasm on)Dang, man...you gotta throw the grammar thing in my face? (sarcasm off) I didn't think it was all that unclear. Then again, I wrote it. I was simply stating that I didn't want to be perceived as a blind Billy Beane supporter, but the A's have done it, for the most part, the right way for ten years. sorry man....I just wasnt understanding what you wrote...but on that note, I gotta say I totally agree with ya :wtg:

this post makse little sense to me. Moneyball=Oakland. most of the MLB does not follow Moneyball... What doesn't make sense? His point was that most teams don't follow the efficiency model that Oakland uses, even though Oakland has shown it can do a lot more with a lot less than other teams, for a long time. His point was that most teams don't operate that way, and it's stupid that they don't. to clarify: I read: "I don't want to be Mr. Moneyball (because I think it can be taken too far), but I just don't understand why baseball is attached to this line of thinking" This to me reads as if MLB's prevailing thought process is Moneyball..but: "A's has proven for nearly 10 years that shrewd use of young players and refusing to overpay for mediocre veterans is not only a successful long-term strategy, but also can work in the short-term" It simply read as if Oakland was opposed to Moneyball...which as I understand it, they are not. The wording of the post is unclear. I agree with it, and it took me awhile to make sense of it (and only did through others posts), but it isnt written well...hence my questioning... sorry for being the grammar police, I just wasnt sure what the poster was saying... edit: for my own grammar :wall:

Whether it's right or wrong, it's like this on every team in baseball and in many industries: Young workers (or baseball players) have to prove themselves, and experienced hands get the benefit of the doubt. On top of it, the front office signed Neifi to a guaranteed two-year deal. You're right about every team in baseball. Except, of course, for the Oakland A's. Sure has hurt their chances this year. The A's haven't played a game yet. We'll see what their chances are. The Cubs will have two young players, almost rookies, in their starting lineup: Cedeno and Murton. They'll also start a rookie on ESPN Sunday night baseball: Sean Marshall. They also used more young players in spring training than I've seen in nine years of traveling with the team. Let's see how it plays out. Oh, and I picked the A's to win their division. I don't want to be Mr. Moneyball (because I think it can be taken too far), but I just don't understand why baseball is attached to this line of thinking when a team like the A's has proven for nearly 10 years that shrewd use of young players and refusing to overpay for mediocre veterans is not only a successful long-term strategy, but also can work in the short-term (thus insuring the job security so many GMs cite as the reason they stick with mediocre veterans). If I'm running a business and a competitor is doing as well as I am, but doing it more efficiently and with lower costs, I'm going to steal his idea. Why don't GMs get this? Is "traditional values" that powerful of a restraint? this post makse little sense to me. Moneyball=Oakland. most of the MLB does not follow Moneyball...

ooo man thats thouching.......

who the hell is Walter E Smith?????

I read that too...GREAT... hey, how fast is Marshalls fastball? what are his pitches? I hoenstly know little about the kid

you been drinking??? seriously though, I think the "youth movement" is due more to balancing the budget and need then a philospohy movement

It makes me want him to be healthy from now out, so he can remain a lifelong Cub as he should be. off topic: hey badger..you living in Uptown now? we should get together for a game sometime. I live near Lake Nokomis

No, no, no. Angel Pagan = Ty Cobb. No no no....Cobb stunk. He got those .420, .409, .401, .390, and .389 seasons playing in an era when the pitchers lobbed the ball underhand up there. Considering the fact that the average player in those days hit .250, Cobb stunk, but everyone else must have really stunk. Regardless, Pagan is a far superior talent to Cobb. He plays in the modern era where athletes are big and strong. Disregard the fact that Cobb himself was 6'2, 200 and his friend Honus Wagner was 6'0, 210....those guys certainly weren't athletes. Pagan easily takes the cake to Cobb. Probably better the Mays too. You see, Mays played 40 years after Cobb, that means he played in an era that was better than Cobb, which makes him better. Therefore, Pagan plays 40 years after Mays....so he must be better. I think Cobb played before they invented wood. actually, Cobb INVENTED wood. not becuse he was tired of using arms to bat with, but becuase he couldnt find bones strong enough to stand up to his powerful swing....

No, no, no. Angel Pagan = Ty Cobb. aaaaaww maaaaaannnnn..I dont want that racist jerk on the Cubs!!!

Having Z, Maddux and a bunch of #5s filling out the rotation doesn't qualify as depth, IMO. Why are all the young guys fighting for a spot on the team #5s? It sounds like you're mixing quality and quantity. The Cubs do enter the season with pitching depth, though there is a qualitative drop from the depth we would have with a healthy Prior, Wood, and even Miller. The real value to this youth depth is, if Marshall and/or Guzman show up in spot starts or temporary rotation duty and really dazzle, then the Cubs can re-enter mid-season talks for an impact bat like Tejada, Abreau, etc. with real trade value as opposed to fan perceived trade value. quantity IS a quality

Oh really... Sidney Ponson ERA+ last three years. 2003: 115 2004: 90 2005: 67 Jerome Williams 2003: 130 2004: 105 2005: 100 Comments: Williams best year is better than Ponson and even in his worst year, he was league average. Greg Maddux 2003: 105 2004: 113 2005: 101 Comments: Maddux is declining, but is still league average. Something Ponson has only accomplished once in the past three years. Glendon Rusch 2003: 68 2004: 131 2005: 94 Comments: Rusch sucks, and yet his worst year was still better than Ponson's worse year. "[expletive]'" horrible year came three years ago. Ponson's was in his most recent season. Rusch's best year was better than Ponson's best year, and Rusch's median year also was better than Ponson's median year. The only spot Ponson is likely to be better than the Cubs is against the emergency fifth starter. Even then, I'd rather go with Hill, Marshall, or Guzman over Ponson. His track record is that of a below average pitcher and a few spring performances doesn't change that. What Ponson has a decent chance or better than decent chance is to be a below average pitcher for a number of starts. He's likely to put up an ERA somewhere around 4.67-5.15. He has a "slim" chance of outperforming Rusch and the Cubs' fifth starter. He has almost no chance of outperforming 4/5 of the Cubs rotation. Saying so would be like me saying Jacque Jones has a decent chance of out performing the entire Cardinals hitters except Pujols. It could happen, but the chances of it are as about as likely as your statement about Ponson coming true. ouch. man, I'm glad the Cards have him..........

!!!! are you sure? that seems abit far-fetched, although I dont have the #'s and dont have the time to run the 3's.......

How does that apply to Wainwright or Reyes? Unless you think they'd be more effective than Ponson (which you don't have much evidence of... if any), then nothing is being "wasted". In Reyes' case, he'll be working on a new weapon. In Wainwright's case, he could be helping in the bullpen. I think anyone witha 6.21 ERA is a "waste of time" in MLB...buuuutttt I'm glad he's with the Cards!!!!! :D

I know..I found it right after i posted....sorry BUT I"M STILL LAUGHING!!!!!!!! :thumleft:

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!! http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2379732 :P

yeeeeeeaaaaaaahhhhhh!!!! soriano will save us..he's Neifi-esqe!!!!!!

it is probably because there are a few guys ahead of him like hill & guzman. looking at the guys we have now without wood, prior & maddux , i still think the cubs starting pitching can be a major strength after 2006. with miller doing well in rehab a rotation of z, miller & williams/rusch to go along with 2 others from the hill, marshall, guzman & ryu list looks very good to me talent wise. while i'm glad the cubs are going with cedeno instead of trading for tejada, maybe it wouldnt be a bad thing if prior & wood were both gone. in hindsight, i wonder if the cubs wish they would have taken texeria instead of prior. I get sick to my stomach considering a post-prior cubs team

"for 11 years maaaaaannnn!!!"

did you say something? I was...er..distracted by a photo =P~

!!!!!!!!!!!! do tell........

comon goooz!!!!

:puker: common GUZZZZ!!!!!! give me some more false cubbie hope for the year!!!!!!