fasttrack21
-
Posts
76 -
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 fasttrack21
-
I agree. But to completely dismiss RBI's when comparing a player you traded to the player you traded him to acquire, is silly. I could easily make a strong case that DeRo has been significantly better without using RBI's in the conversation. I don't get the uproar with bringing it up. It isn't silly to dismiss RBI when comparing players. It's an awful stat. If you can prove Derosa was more valuable without RBI, then do it. It would make more sense. I'll simply refer you to check each player's BR page for evidence if you truly need to see it. I'm not doubting it, I just don't understand why you used RBI at all. Well, the original conversation originated with someone asking how long it's been since Milton has driven a run in. I merely answered that question, and the conversation transpired from there.
-
I agree. But to completely dismiss RBI's when comparing a player you traded to the player you traded him to acquire, is silly. I could easily make a strong case that DeRo has been significantly better without using RBI's in the conversation. I don't get the uproar with bringing it up. It isn't silly to dismiss RBI when comparing players. It's an awful stat. If you can prove Derosa was more valuable without RBI, then do it. It would make more sense. I'll simply refer you to check each player's BR page for evidence if you truly need to see it.
-
Okay, that's actually a good point when you explain it that way. Again though, it's not as if he's the one making draft decisions. He's hiring/employing the people who are, though, so ultimately it does fall under him. Although your ire should be directed elsewhere if your biggest issue is the draft. It's the snowball that keeps getting bigger because of the ineptitude that I have a problem with. The drafting has been terrible, which causes him to throw money at bad free agents because of the mistakes under his watch in the draft. I see what you're saying. But ultimately your problem is with the people that fall under Hendry on the org chart, not Hendry himself. Right? True. However, Hendry is the GM and he obviously has substantial say so as to the picks. How SOMEONE hasn't been canned with the state of the farm is beyond reason. Hendry's the boss, which means it falls in his lap. Not anymore he doesn't. That's my point. You can justifiably be upset with the direction the Cubs have gone in recent drafts. But Hendry has been next to hands off in recent years.
-
Not what I said, and you know it. If you refer back to page three you'll see that I said "making yourself look worse." Stop making things up. Again with the childlike retorts. Now you're going the semantics route. The point is that you got an attitude first and were basically insulting me without calling me naems, then you whine when I call you a name that shouldn't be even the slightest bit offensive anyways. You keep referring to me as being childish, but only a child should be upset about somebody calling them a name like "moron" on the internet. Get over yourself. God you're annoying. I'm not going down the semantics route, I'm simply telling you not to quote me (which you did) and make things up. It's pretty simple, really. Now can we please stop this childish conversation and get back to talking about the topic?
-
So you don't think there's been any kind of turnaround in the last 3 drafts?That remains to be seen. I am most impressed with Josh. But seriously, to have ONE PLAYER make any kind of impact in the last4-6 years is laughable. But several players have been traded for others that have made serious impacts... Ramirez, Lee, Harden, Nomar to an extent, etc.
-
Okay, that's actually a good point when you explain it that way. Again though, it's not as if he's the one making draft decisions. He's hiring/employing the people who are, though, so ultimately it does fall under him. Although your ire should be directed elsewhere if your biggest issue is the draft. It's the snowball that keeps getting bigger because of the ineptitude that I have a problem with. The drafting has been terrible, which causes him to throw money at bad free agents because of the mistakes under his watch in the draft. I see what you're saying. But ultimately your problem is with the people that fall under Hendry on the org chart, not Hendry himself. Right?
-
Not what I said, and you know it. If you refer back to page three you'll see that I said "making yourself look worse." Stop making things up. Again with the childlike retorts.
-
Then how come you're the one that everybody is making fun of? "Everybody is making fun of?" God, WTF is this? Recess in 3rd grade? Christ.
-
Again, reported. Seriously, why do you feel the need to be such an a-hole? Are you like this in real life or is this just some internet persona that you've created? Gesh. Edit: LOL at this... Clearly I'm not the only one who feels that you're out of line. You do realize that you started the a-holeish behavior, right? I mean, we can go back and look at the posts and find you saying things like "you shouldn't talk if you don't know what you're talking about", when really it was you that didn't know what you were talking about. Hypocrite. Umm, not once did I resort to childlike namecalling like you did. My comments were 100% related to the discussion at hand, whereas yours were not/continue to be not.
-
Okay, that's actually a good point when you explain it that way. Again though, it's not as if he's the one making draft decisions. He's hiring/employing the people who are, though, so ultimately it does fall under him. Although your ire should be directed elsewhere if your biggest issue is the draft.
-
Again, reported. Seriously, why do you feel the need to be such an a-hole? Are you like this in real life or is this just some internet persona that you've created? Gesh. Edit: LOL at this... Clearly I'm not the only one who feels that you're out of line.
-
I agree. But to completely dismiss RBI's when comparing a player you traded to the player you traded him to acquire, is silly. I could easily make a strong case that DeRo has been significantly better without using RBI's in the conversation. I don't get the uproar with bringing it up.
-
Well put. And agreed.
-
Moron?! There's no need to be an a-hole. It was an honest mistake. That post just got reported. Before your edit. Nice try though. So you repeatedly give me a bunch of attittude and say I shouldn't participate in the discussion because I don't know what I'm talking about, then I call you a moron when we find out that it was, in fact, YOU that was wrong... you report me? Nice dude I even deleted it right after I posted it because I figured you'd get all pissy about it In the future don't cop an attitude with people if you can't handle getting it back, especially when you're in the wrong Hey man, I'm all for a good baseball discussion -- even if it involves some attitude -- which is what this is/was. And I can admit when I was wrong, or when I made a mistake -- like I did. But when I'm talking to someone who resorts to calling me a moron, yeah, that kinda ticks me off. It's uncalled for, and it's just juvenile. And if you were some random guy at a bar that I struck up a conversation with (like I compare internet blogs/message boards to), trust me, you wouldn't say that to my face. Maybe you are a juvenile, I have no idea. But I didn't expect that kind of childish crap at "the place for discussion about the Chicago Cubs."
-
Ugh. No, he didn't. "Sold high" implies that you got max value for the guy. Hendry oculdn't even get a major league reliever for DeRosa. He did not sell high. The Indians just got a better package for him than the Cubs got. Umm, no. Sold high doesn't mean that at all. Sold high means that he traded that player when that player's value was higher than it's ever previously been. YOUR perceived value of DeRosa doesn't mean anything. Especially when we have evidence of what his actual value was -- three marginal prosects, and then a few months later, one fairly decent prospect.
-
Moron?! There's no need to be an a-hole. It was an honest mistake. That post just got reported. Before your edit. Nice try though.
-
Again, I won't dispute that. Yes, it ultimately falls on the group that reports up to him but as we all know Hendry has been pretty hands off recently related to the draft. It seems somewhat unfair to blast him, not blame him, for the draft failures.
-
Ahh, I'm looking at Pythag record... whoops.
-
LOL, WTF? http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl/player_search.cgi?search=2003+cubs http://www.baseball-reference.com/player_search.cgi?sourceid=Mozilla-search&search=2007+cubs You done embarrassing yourself yet?
-
And who built the 67 win team? He turned them into an 85 win team by buying everything, again going back the payroll thing. That 85 win season also came at the cost of giving Soriano 136 million dollars. So let's see. He built a horrible 67 win team, then was given a ton of cash to make it better, spent all that cash, then won an okay 85 wins in a horrible division, and we're supposed to congratulate him for that? Wow. Such low standards. What on earth are you talking about? The 2003 Cubs won 85 games. We're talking about the 2003 team here. Please, if you're going to participate in the discussion... know what the discussion is about. And, of course, you don't know who built the 2002 Cubs. No surprise. It wasn't Hendry, though. I'd tell you to look it up yourself, but for some reason I don't think you'd have success. Hendry took over as GM midway thru the '02 season. The 2003 Cubs won 88 games. Please, if you're going to participate in the discussion... know what the discussion is about. I'm the one who brought up the 85 win team. I was and still am talking about the extremely mediocre 2007 Cubs, for which Hendry should receive very little credit, if any. now he'll just ignore it because of how stupid he's made himself look Again, try and keep up.
-
And tell me about all the great drafts during his tenure, which is really the point of this thread. I won't dispute his draft success, or lack thereof. But if you're focusing on that as a measure of a GM, that's pretty silly.
-
And who built the 67 win team? He turned them into an 85 win team by buying everything, again going back the payroll thing. That 85 win season also came at the cost of giving Soriano 136 million dollars. So let's see. He built a horrible 67 win team, then was given a ton of cash to make it better, spent all that cash, then won an okay 85 wins in a horrible division, and we're supposed to congratulate him for that? Wow. Such low standards. What on earth are you talking about? The 2003 Cubs won 85 games. We're talking about the 2003 team here. Please, if you're going to participate in the discussion... know what the discussion is about. Umm, apparently you're the one who needs to pay attention. The 2003 Cubs won 88 games, not 85. The 85 win team is obviously the 07 team. Maybe you should make sure you know what you're talking about before saying things. Jesus Christ... YOU are the one who first brought up the 85 win team... which was the 2003 team. For the love of God, please try and keep up.
-
LOL! So because he threw money at every free agent under the sun this makes him a good GM? Good one! Yeah, the Cubs sure went on a spending spree during the 02/03 offseason, didn't they? LOL, indeed. How about this: You do realize the trade that put the 2003 team over the top was the Ramirez/Lofton trade, right? Tell me, if the Pirates weren't in salary dump mode, do the Cubs sniff the post season in 2003? I think not. Thank the Pirates. So Hendry gets no credit for acquiring the person who is now the Cubs best player? Got it. It's all because the Pirates wanted to dump him. I've got news for you, there were other clubs in talks with the Pirates that year. Hendry was the one who presented the best offer, which is why the deal was made. You're out of your mind if you think otherwise.
-
He took a 67 win team that was embarrassingly bad and turned them into a division winner the following year -- again, his job. Yes, neat indeed. I wonder who assembled that 67 win team. Hendry's breathing oxygen a good man could be using. He's a waste. Always has been. Christ, does anyone in this thread know what the hell is going on? Hendry didn't assemble that team! Umm, he didn't? Then who did? Hendry has been the GM since 2002. And they won 66 games in 06, not 67. Just stop.
-
It should only be expected from people who don't really know anything about stats. What a dumb statement. I'm not some idiot that thinks RBI's and Runs scored are the important stats. Don't respond to my posts assuming so. What I, very clearly, stated, was that while other stats certainly mean a whole lot more when evaluating a player... when discussing player A, the former Cub was traded to make room for player B, their run producing stats are absolutely fair game for conversation. Ugh. No they're not. They play in completely different lineups. You just don't get it. RBIs are a worthless stat to look at when determing whop has been a better hitter. RBIs are as much about luck and lineup positiomning as they are about actually performance. Nobody is saying the RBIs themselves don't matter. But to use them to compare playuers is dumb, yeah. You should be using rate stats and stuff like that. Thing that a player... you know.... actually controls. I'll say this again. James Loney has 49 RBI's and has a .732 OPS. Do you understand that Loney has more RBIs than many many players who have been much better than him this season? So is run driven in % fair game? Or is it all about OBP/SLG and nothing else in your eyes?