CubfaninCA
-
Posts
3,246 -
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 CubfaninCA
-
In regard to no "full-court press" for Giles, perhaps Furcal and Burnett have genuine interest. The Cubs may be pretty far down the list for Giles. GM's only have so much time in a day to negotiate. Gotta be practical.
-
Cheap yes, valuable no. Number four and five pitchers are a dime a dozen, unless they are left handed. Besides, if the are cheap and valuable why not keep the money and trade the guys anyway? Pitching is not this team's problem? I can think up a number of reasons why this is a bad. It just doesn't make any sense to me. 9th best ERA in the NL isn't a problem? Good joke. It wasn't a joke, asshat. Pitching isn't this team's problem and even if it is Burnett isn't that good and is often injured. Let's not get carried away here. LOL. That time of the month? Are you confusing the White Sox w/ the Cubs?? Cub pitchers get hurt often. The Cubs need another really good arm.
-
Cheap yes, valuable no. Number four and five pitchers are a dime a dozen, unless they are left handed. Besides, if the are cheap and valuable why not keep the money and trade the guys anyway? Pitching is not this team's problem? I can think up a number of reasons why this is a bad. It just doesn't make any sense to me. 9th best ERA in the NL isn't a problem? Good joke.
-
Thank you. Surprising that they'll put on a "full-court press," but I'll take it. This team needs starting pitching depth considering health issues and who will be free agents soon.
-
I'm not buying that they're committed to both Murton & Cedeno. Jmo but Jim's doing some posturing on Cedeno. If there's a deal out there for either Kent or Sori, I think he'll jump on it. In re: to an impact corner OF, if they're going w/ Murton (which I can buy), that leaves Giles, Abreu, Sheff, Ichiro and Drew as the impact corner OF's. Sheff will be difficult to get considering how he'll try to block almost any trade. Getting Abreu will take a 3rd party, since it's doubtful the Cubs have the right type of package of players. Same goes for Drew. They may be able to get Ichiro straight up.
-
Heard on SoCal radio tonight that Anaheim will not do the trade if Ervin Santana has to be involved. Apparently, they'll turn their attention to Paul Konerko.
-
True, it's not absolute like ops. But it can be backed up w/ various observations... Jeter, Bernie and Paul O'Neill were "great clubhouse guys," the Red Sox have a fun clubhouse," etc., etc., etc.... Thus an opinion can be supported to some extent. If you want to give it a value, perhaps 5-10% of winning a title is based on "chemistry." Sometimes talent and luck can override this though. See the 72-74 A's for more.. I think Vance's point is that, in building a team, you can't rely on something as nonquatifiable as "chemistry" to save you. I agree - talent and production are more important. I just don't think chemistry should be completely disregarded as a factor (even if its only 5-10%) just b/c its difficult to quantify by nature. It's a valid point. If you're looking for a template for success, it's the Yankees from 96-2000. Good pitching, hitter, managing and clubhouse. Of course, outspending everyone helped. :)
-
That's a good analogy, and I think most can agree that if you work in a good work environment you're likely to produce more. Of course, your company can crash to the ground if you have poor managers. See Dusty for more. :)
-
True, it's not absolute like ops. But it can be backed up w/ various observations... Jeter, Bernie and Paul O'Neill were "great clubhouse guys," the Red Sox have a fun clubhouse," etc., etc., etc.... Thus an opinion can be supported to some extent. If you want to give it a value, perhaps 5-10% of winning a title is based on "chemistry." Sometimes talent and luck can override this though. See the 72-74 A's for more.. exactly. opinion is a hell of a lot different than empirical evidence. you're certainly entitled to have an opinion that chemistry helps winning. but don't act as though it's fact. opinion & empirical evidence tie together. philosophy & ideology, which is essentially opinion, can be supported w/ empirical evidence. Example of an opinion/ideology ~ social security is good for society. empirical evidence shows that poverty rate went from 30some% in 30's to teens in the 60's. empirical evidence shows people live longer. etc., etc.. Of course, a competing ideology disagrees and shows other evidence such as people don't save as much cause they rely more on govt.. etc. etc..
-
True, it's not absolute like ops. But it can be backed up w/ various observations... Jeter, Bernie and Paul O'Neill were "great clubhouse guys," the Red Sox have a fun clubhouse," etc., etc., etc.... Thus an opinion can be supported to some extent. If you want to give it a value, perhaps 5-10% of winning a title is based on "chemistry." Sometimes talent and luck can override this though. See the 72-74 A's for more.. The problem with saying chemistry is the cause of winning rather than the result is that certain players are at one time, while their team is winning viewed as great guys and then suddenly they aren't when the team struggles. Case in point: Manny Ramirez. He's part of the Red Sox who had such "great chemistry" in 2004, yet is seen as a cancer now. AJ was seen as a cancer in S.F., yet he's such a great guy in the White Sox clubhouse now. What about crazy Carl? Did these guys suddenly become model citezens, or is it just easier to get along when you're winning? I think it's more of the later than the former. imo it's interrelated. basically, a cause & result. good chemistry helps lead to more wins. more wins leads to more chemistry. blah. the white sox key was getting someone crazier than everett and a.j. to manage them. :) the red sox big prob was losing pedro.
-
True, it's not absolute like ops. But it can be backed up w/ various observations... Jeter, Bernie and Paul O'Neill were "great clubhouse guys," the Red Sox have a fun clubhouse," etc., etc., etc.... Thus an opinion can be supported to some extent. If you want to give it a value, perhaps 5-10% of winning a title is based on "chemistry." Sometimes talent and luck can override this though. See the 72-74 A's for more..
-
there you go with your 'me against the world' stuff again... anyway, your argument was that chemistry is important to winning. for some reason, you cited to past ws winners and said that they had good chemistry. thus, chemistry is important in winning. your 'argument' is unbeatable because all anyone can say is 'the white sox didn't have good chemistry' or 'they didn't win because they had good chemistry' and you'll say 'prove it'...which, obviously, is impossible to do. of course, this ignores the fact that you can't prove that they did have good chemistry or that this is why they won. thus, your argument is beyond weak. in fact, i hesitate to call it an argument. Pretty anti-intellectucal argument there. There we're tied up in condescending remarks. :)
-
Yes, it is. And you used it in completely the wrong sense, as its antonym To explain: unless you think you can repeat this exact baseball season thousands of times to observe the "chemistry" in teams, it's absolutely not empirical. I was talking about 10 years of baseball. Observation by various sources backs up that chemistry was existent and mattered somewhat w/ most of the title winners. And yet, there was not a single repetition involved. Completely non-empirical. And there is no objective way of saying anything that could have been observed showed chemistry to be a deciding factor, but that's going back to the start of the thread. they got along, they got hits when they needed them, they won titles.
-
buck, what's ridiculous?? If it's disagreeing w/ people who typically strike a condescending tone, then perhaps you have something. :)
-
Yes, it is. And you used it in completely the wrong sense, as its antonym To explain: unless you think you can repeat this exact baseball season thousands of times to observe the "chemistry" in teams, it's absolutely not empirical. I was talking about 10 years of baseball. Observation by various sources backs up that chemistry was existent and mattered somewhat w/ most of the title winners.
-
Would you trade D. Lee?
CubfaninCA replied to Quakers's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
Lee's adjustments @ the plate and playing in Wrigley instead of Pro Player should help him stay around the 1.000 mark. My fantasy proposal is Lee for Hank Aaron in his prime. :wink: -
Would you trade D. Lee?
CubfaninCA replied to Quakers's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
If(when?) his AVG drops, then his HR and 2B will have to drop, unless by some miracle all his lost hits are singles. You justify trading Lee because what you get in return is greater than what you give. For example, I suggested in a 3 team deal trading Lee and Walker for Bradley, Drew, and Castillo. Castillo is superior to Walker, Drew is likely to equal if not surpass Lee's production next year(this is just putting names to production levels, so disregard Drew's injuries when evaluating this hypothetically), and Bradley is a superb offensive and defensive CF. The team is better offensively because of a trade of Lee in that scenario. You don't trade away one of the best all-around players in the game for an oft-injured player and a borderline nut. Yes, Castillo's superior to Walker, but Lee and Walker should get you more. Again, read the part in parentheses. It was an example to match the production levels we'd want to get in return with a name. Sorry, not grasping these fantasy proposals yet. :o -
careless??? empirical evidence is an often used term.
-
Would you trade D. Lee?
CubfaninCA replied to Quakers's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
If(when?) his AVG drops, then his HR and 2B will have to drop, unless by some miracle all his lost hits are singles. You justify trading Lee because what you get in return is greater than what you give. For example, I suggested in a 3 team deal trading Lee and Walker for Bradley, Drew, and Castillo. Castillo is superior to Walker, Drew is likely to equal if not surpass Lee's production next year(this is just putting names to production levels, so disregard Drew's injuries when evaluating this hypothetically), and Bradley is a superb offensive and defensive CF. The team is better offensively because of a trade of Lee in that scenario. You don't trade away one of the best all-around players in the game for an oft-injured player and a borderline nut. Yes, Castillo's superior to Walker, but Lee and Walker should get you more. -
Would you trade D. Lee?
CubfaninCA replied to Quakers's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
the cubs shouldn't be making pittsburghish trades. -
Apparently, it was some deal Epstein was working on. Guess they're still looking to carry it out. Sounds a little complicated.
-
It also may move some of those good young players that Arizona had. I wonder if this trade is going to be a good thing for the Cubs? Seems like Damon's price tag may come down. Perhaps Pie can be moved to rf in 2007. Do you think that the Cubs could win with 3 OF's that don't hit over 20 HR's each? I would really be uncomfortable with that. I thought Pie has good power?? And Murton looks like a 25 homer type of guy. ARam & Lee make up for lack of power elsewhere, but they would need another middle of the order hitter, so maybe Murton would eventually get dealt for more power. They can always sign Cliff Floyd in 2006 too. I'd like to see them get Kent for this upcoming season. Furcal, Damon, Lee, Kent and ARam would be a formidable 1-5.
-
It also may move some of those good young players that Arizona had. I wonder if this trade is going to be a good thing for the Cubs? Seems like Damon's price tag may come down. Perhaps Pie can be moved to rf in 2007.
-
Heard on ESPN this morning that a deal between Boston, Anaheim and AZ could go down where Manny goes to Anaheim and Erstad and Glaus go to Boston. They didn't say who AZ would get. Am guessing some young players from Anaheim. Probably McPherson. If Anaheim makes such a deal, this probably takes them out of the Damon sweepstakes.
-
Has he learned nothing from last off season? Chemistry is such overrated garbage. Tell the 05 White Sox, 04 Red Sox, 03 Marlins, 02 Angels and the 96-2000 Yankees that. why? do you know for a fact that they had great 'chemistry'? The empirical evidence suggests they got along well, which helped their performance as a team. um...sure. and this year's cub team supposedly got along great (or so empirical evidence suggests), and they sucked big time. They didn't have the talent to compliment the camaraderie. great self-sealing argument. (pst, ask him if he knows what "empirical" actually means) yes. i have an mpa.