TheDude
-
Posts
1,983 -
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 TheDude
-
Whatever. What this organization needs is an overhaul. 03 is long gone and was a fluke in the first place. Hostile much? Whether you think the organization needs an overhaul or not has no relevence to slamming Hendry for his comments regarding the teams past performance. Come on. That's GM rhetoric. You have to do better than that. [edited to fix quoting problem]
-
There are numerous things to consider here, but I'll try and highlight some reasons off the top of my head: -The 2003 Cubs weren't that good. Don't let the playoff success and closeness to the World Series skew your thinking. The 2004 team was probably better. -Today's Cubs have next to nothing in common with the 2003 team, save for the big 3 in pitching and Ramirez, and are in the midst or rebuilding (as much as a big market team rebuilds anyway). The Cardinals have held together far more of the core of their team. -The Cardinals have been successful with their role player acquisitions: Eckstein improved drastically over his 2004 numbers, Grudz was solid, and Reggie Sanders seems to have found a home after years of roaming. -The Cubs were not successful with role player acquisitions. We don't need to detail the painful memories again. -The Cardinals field a balanced team capable of playing the game in whatever way is needed to win at that moment. The Cubs don't.
-
7)Ozzie Guillen
-
I'm not so sure. Sports, pretty much at all levels, shy from requiring verbal calls because of numerous factors, including dialects, crowd noise, equipment, etc. The body gestures are supposed to have far fewer external factors.
-
Same as scenario 2. Note that this is specific to Eddings style of calling in this game. These aren't universal umpiring guidelines. Did a catcher drop a 3rd strike in the game? I understand if a ball is in the dirt but I didn't realize that a catcher dropped a 3rd strike in the game. Sorry if I confused you. My note was actually in reference to the previous post that detailed Eddings call style. My assertion that a droped ball is treated the same as a ball-in-the-dirt comes from MLB rules. They're treated the same.
-
Yeah, but, regarding point 2, wouldn't the Tribune Company also be able to roll those improvements into the sale price as value added (using standard real estate improvement logic)?
-
Same as scenario 2. Note that this is specific to Eddings style of calling in this game. These aren't universal umpiring guidelines.
-
I answered this for you over ten pages ago. Eddings established two precedents for his calls: -Swinging strike three: signal no contact with right arm raise, signal strike three with fist pump. -Ball-in-the-dirt swinging strike three; signal no contact with right arm raise, wait until catcher tags runner or throws to first to issue strike three fist pump. The entire issue with the call lies with the fact Eddings signaled example 1 to resolve the controversial play in question, which should have been signaled with example 2. [edit - it only should have been signaled with example 2 if you believe the ball bounced. Most fans I have read statements from or talked to believe it was a case of example 1 correctly signaled as example 1, until AJP decided to test the scenario by running.]
-
The right hand going up indicates there was no contact between the bat and the ball. In other words, it's not a foul.
-
Exactly. And since the umpire clearly called him out, the same way he called every other swinging strikeout (which was different than the way he called ball-in-the-dirt strikeouts), there is zero reason to believe the runner was never called out. The umpire had clearly established his MO for calls on a standard strikeout vs. a ball-in-the-dirt strikeout throughout the game. He called this one like a standard swinging strikeout, not the other.
-
Exactly. And Diffusion, every GM whose team is not currently playing baseball would say exactly what Hendry has said. I give him no extra credit for being somewhat honest. What I would like to here is: "You know after a long time in this game I've come to the conclusion that I need to re-think some commonly held assumptions by Dusty, Gary, and myself. We need this organization, from instructional league to major league, to focus on the fundamentals,protecting outs, and becoming more patient at the plate. Our scouting department needs to begin to value production over tools. We need to draft better and then to do a better job of devloping players in our system. This includes looking to Latin America and the Pacific Rim. As a first step I've hired Leon Lee to be our director of scouting for the Pacific Rim. Finally, our pitching coaches need to focus on mechanics and throwing strikes. We will begin working on these things today. Next year there will be no excuse for the lack of fundamental play exhibited by our ball club." Your monologue for what Hendry should say is a completely different concept. Hendry was referring to expectations specific to the 2004 and 2005 seasons (or at least recent years). You are referring to an organizational overhaul. It apples and oranges.
-
After reading his quote again, it's pretty clear Hendry isn't using an injury mantra. He is basically saying injuries are not an excuse. So you're slamming him for something he didn't say.
-
Rothschild Stays, ENTIRE coaching staff to return
TheDude replied to Jon's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
I completely agree with you. Even during the brief times when they were healthy, they didn't play very well. Never did they look like a potentially great team, let alone one capable of winning 90 games. I thought the one week in baseball when all the horses started, July 8 - July 15, and the team won 5 games in a row, they looked like a playoff contending team. That was the only time Prior, Zambrano, and Wood all were healthy together. -
We're speaking about different things here. You seem to consider the throwing arm as the defining element of a player's defense. I consider defense to be playing the field with an arm as a bonus. I do consider defense important, especially up the middle, and in fact I have had to defend my importance on defense many times. I'm old school. If I'm an amateur GM, I want defense and pitching. But throwing arm is just a small fraction of defense for me, and in Damon's case, is the only drawback. He doesn't commit many errors in the field, has solid range (top 5 in MLB in RF, middle-of-the-pack in ZR), and has a fearless attitude. It is a poor and inaccurate statement to say Damon is a poor defensive player. He is a better-then-average defensive player with a poor throwing arm.
-
Those two sentences have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Damon isn't even close to having FA bust all over him, and if your justification is a throwing arm, you really need to remember to add the sarcasm smiley. I would argue Damon is a low risk chance to bust. 31 isn't knocking down the crypt, and he is one of the most diligent people I've met in the baseball world at taking care of his body. He's never had a serious injury and the fewest number of game he has played for his career as a starter is 145 (twice back in KC).
-
I can buy every part of your argument here except where you throw in, "Damon is only a leadoff hitter because his manager put him there. He doesn't have to be one, he certainly isn't an ideal one." Damon's numbers prove otherwise. There is no dispute. The entire reason I took issue and defended Damon in this thread is the absolute dismissal people showed for him stating he is worth 5 years and puts butts in seats. Clearly I think he is worth it and his numbers could do all the talking for him if there wasn't a microphone in front of him. Now the "fit" factor with respect to the Cubs came after, and that is something I am torn on personally. If the Cubs fill my personal desire for a bonifide leadoff hitter elsewhere, I'll be happy even if they show no interest in Damon.
-
This is the only legitimate argument I have seen this thread for why the Cubs should not consider Damon's services. Not one person has been able to substantiate claims of poor defense, declining production, poor future projections, etc. I can respect a different psuedo-GM strategy such as what you presented (filling needs elsewhere and gambling on Corey until Pie can step up), but I can't respect claims that Damon doesn't fit a Cubs need and isn't worth a 4+ year contract.
-
Age isn't the reason I don't want Damon. Although it plays a part. Damon's game is based largely on speed, and speed is a young man's game. Giles OBP/SLG game is much more adaptable to an aging body. But the main reason I would want Giles more than Damon is Giles blows him away in the production department. But this isn't a fair comparison. They don't play the same position (meaning there is not a competition for one or other and they are not mutually exclusive) and they don't bring any of the same values to the table. For production, compare Giles to another outfielder that produces. Damon is a leadoff hitter, what type of production are you expecting? As a leadoff hitter, he brings hits, OBP, respectable speed, and runs. He has scored 100+ runs per season for 8 consecutive years. Honestly, I don't see why Giles and Damon are compared for production. They represent two seperate needs for the Cubs (a leadoff hitter and 4/5 hole hitter, CF and RF) and they represent the top FA for their services at each respective position.
-
With all the various topics and happenings in this thread, it is a serious barrier to entry for anybody that wasn't in on the discussion from the beggining. Just thought I'd mention.
-
Giles thread.......
TheDude replied to Larry Horse's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
Ha ha. They lived with Bernie Williams for 15 years, and suddenly the throwing arm becomes a consideration. -
I think we'll just disagree. Age isn't that important in this case, he isn't poor defensively as claimed, relativity to other positions is inconsequential, and using splits to predict future performance is as meaningful as "clutch".
-
I don't think the length of the contract will be a detractor in Damon's case. While it was clearly a red flag to sign somebody like Thome to a 5+ year deal, Damon is different. He has proven to be durable and in peak physical condition. He would end a 5 year contract at age 36, and for his skillset and conditioning, I wouldn't anticipate too much of a drop-off at that age.
-
:shock: Sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong in my eyes. Getting plus-production (over the league average) out of a position or lineup slot is critical to having a successful team. That is one half of the reasons Walker has so much perceived value to the team or as trade. That is what makes Brian Roberts so insanely valuable. He produced .900+ OPS for a leadoff man and 2B. It's a crime Baltimore didn't win 90 games with kind of plus-production out of that position and slot. With the Chicago Cubs, the 3-4 hitters are a known quality. Finding plus-production out of 1-2 slots is the only way to turn this team around. And it's worth paying for, or even overpaying IMO.
-
Fair enough on the splits. Right, and how many leadoff hitters have a mid-.800s OPS again? Oh yeah, about 3 a year in the 21st century.
-
I hate it when these home and away splits are posted because nobody ever includes standard variance in the post, so it is just stats in a vacuum. The majority of ballplayers are better at home. Come up with the league variance, then show me that Damon (or anybody else in the argument) is that much worse than the league variance for these splits to have any meaning.