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
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
We can't blame him for the Cubs not performing in the playoffs. That's not what he's saying. He's saying it's silly to congratulate Hendyr for winning the division in 07, when really it was only because the Cubs played in an awful division. Jim built a roster that beat the competition and won the division -- that's his job. No, he built an 85 win team. He got into the playoffs because the other teams sucked. If the Brewers win 87 games that year and win the division, did Hendry still do a good job? He won 85 games in a horrible division with a big payroll. Neat. 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.
-
We can't blame him for the Cubs not performing in the playoffs. That's not what he's saying. He's saying it's silly to congratulate Hendyr for winning the division in 07, when really it was only because the Cubs played in an awful division. Jim built a roster that beat the competition and won the division -- that's his job. Wasn't the next highest payroll in the divison 30-40 mil back? If higher payroll = higher win total, you might have a point. It doesn't, so you don't.
-
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.
-
We can't blame him for the Cubs not performing in the playoffs. That's not what he's saying. He's saying it's silly to congratulate Hendyr for winning the division in 07, when really it was only because the Cubs played in an awful division. Jim built a roster that beat the competition and won the division -- that's his job.
-
Because considering the playoffs are, for the most part, a crapshoot, a GM's goal is to build a roster that can win it's division and get to the postseason.
-
This alone tells me that there's heavy bias in your post, and thus makes it not even worth reading. You're basically saying that the architect behind the Cubs' best period of success in who knows how long should kinda sorta get some credit, but just a little. That's crazy. Yes, he's had money to spend. But high payrolls don't always equal success. Look around the league for numerous examples of that. Jim has his flaws, no GM in professional sports doesn't. But he's heavily responsible for the Cubs' success the last several years. And, of course, for the failures as well.
-
Exactly.
-
I don't see how that's the slight bit obvious. It's not even July yet, hardly any "big name" players get traded this early. The biggest, and pretty much only, player to be traded thus far is DeRosa and that just happened yesterday. Give the man time. I personally think he's waiting for Ramirez to return to see how much of an impact he will make. He'll have at least a couple weeks to evaluate and see if Ramirez is his old self or if the power is completely gone -- which will more or less mandate getting a big bat.
-
I hear ya. I've had those same thoughts before -- the fact that I'm so emotionally invested in a bunch of 20 something year olds doing what they do for a living does seem a bit weird. But, it's baseball. It's as American as fireworks on the 4th of July.
-
Maybe it's just me, but when I see this at the end of your post, I just don't feel compelled to even read the content. Quality contribution on my part there, I know.
-
Matt Holiday?
fasttrack21 replied to Backtobanks's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
I agree with every word of that post. HR's and to a lesser extent RBI's do have value though when evaluating a player. -
So DeRosa has fewer than twice the opportunities but yet more than three times the RBI's? You're making my point... I'm not saying Bradley is hitting as well as DeRosa, but that it's not entirely on him, that's all. Bradley needs to hit better AND his teammates need to give him more opportunities Agreed. But this whole discussion started when someone asked how long it's been since he drove a run in (over two weeks). He's had PLENTY of opportunities to drive in runs over the last two weeks. He's just not getting it done.
-
So DeRosa has fewer than twice the opportunities but yet more than three times the RBI's? You're making my point...
-
RBI's aren't the best way, sure. But when your big run producing offseason acquisition has 16 RBI's at the end of June... that's very telling. For comparison, Mark DeRosa drove in his 16th run on April 27th. yes, and he had a .618 OPS at the time, which only proves that guys were getting on base ahead of DeRosa at a much higher clip than the guys in front of Bradley. You're missing the point. The point is, we traded a run producer to clear payroll to add a supposed bigger run producer. And that supposed run producer has been a complete bust. Meanwhile, the guy we traded has three times as many RBI's. no, you're missing the point. you're using RBI's as your main point of comparison. The fact that DeRosa had 16 RBI on April 27th had less to do with DeRosa being better (his numbers at the time sucked) and more to do with opportunities. Bradley has been bad, but he's also played less frequently and had fewer opportunities to drive guys in. Yes. Absolutely. I realize the importance of OBP and SLG in comparison to counting stats. But, Milton Bradley was unarguably brought here for one primary reason -- to be a run producer. He has failed. Comparing his production to DeRosa in terms of RBI's is not only valid, but should be expected.
-
RBI's aren't the best way, sure. But when your big run producing offseason acquisition has 16 RBI's at the end of June... that's very telling. For comparison, Mark DeRosa drove in his 16th run on April 27th. yes, and he had a .618 OPS at the time, which only proves that guys were getting on base ahead of DeRosa at a much higher clip than the guys in front of Bradley. You're missing the point. The point is, we traded a run producer to clear payroll to add a supposed bigger run producer. And that supposed run producer has been a complete bust. Meanwhile, the guy we traded has three times as many RBI's.
-
RBI's aren't the best way, sure. But when your big run producing offseason acquisition has 16 RBI's at the end of June... that's very telling. For comparison, Mark DeRosa drove in his 16th run on April 27th.
-
June 12th. http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?n1=bradlmi01&t=b&year=2009 So the "big left-handed bat" that JH sorely wanted to acquire this past offseason hasn't driven in a run in two weeks. Yeah because Soriano and Theriot have gotten on base for him so well. Ok, Theriot had an OBP of .370 the last 2 weeks, but Bradley is only hitting singles so far so he's only getting him to 2B. Never mind that Bradley's had a .415 OBP the last 2 weeks because he's trash for not driving in RISP that aren't there, right? Bradley wasn't signed to hit singles, he was signed to be a middle of the order run producer. He has been a complete failure in that regard.
-
Matt Holiday?
fasttrack21 replied to Backtobanks's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
Does it matter? Yes. -
Calculating the Cubs' magic number when we're in 3rd place? Really?
-
The Cubs had the best offense in baseball last year and won the division. We had Mark DeRosa. The Cardinals had Aaron Miles. The Cubs now have Aaron Miles, and one of the worst offenses in baseball. The Cardinals have Mark DeRosa. Thank you, Aaron Miles, for destroying this team. I'm obviously partially kidding. But man does it suck to basically swap Miles for DeRosa with the Cards.
-
Winner Wish I was wrong now.
-
June 12th. http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?n1=bradlmi01&t=b&year=2009 So the "big left-handed bat" that JH sorely wanted to acquire this past offseason hasn't driven in a run in two weeks.