XZero771679666304

You can never lose that war, especially if you're the target. I would argue we "lost" that bidding war with ourselves over Alfonseca a few years back. Anyway, this is frustrating if true. Giles should have been the one guy we set our sights on this year first, not Furcal. Priority #1 among position acquisitions should have been an impact bat. We won't get that with Furcal, but we'll pay almost just as much. Actually, I think priority #1 should be to get OBP for the top of the order. The main offensive problem last year was that nobody got on ahead of Lee and Ramirez. An impact bat is also sorely needed but secondary, IMO.

Pittsburgh isn't on the West Coast and that's where he signed his first big contract. True, but he was younger. His career is at its tail end, and many players in his position want to: A) Be near their families B) Win ASAP This seems to be a common theme among aging players, and the Cubs can offer him neither thing definitively. Now this puts the Cubs at a big disadvantage. Giles is 35 and it seems he wants a 3-4 year deal. That is a legitimate reason to not want to spend a lot of time on him. Heck, I wouldn't sign him for more than 3 years. If the Cubs are already at a disadvantage and Giles wants more then Hendry wants to give him.... You can see why this probably isn't going to happen. And if Hendry can acquire another, younger OF with a .850+ OPS, I'm not sure it's worth the time either. That's a big if, though. But I'm not even remotely confident the Cubs could get him even if Hendry put the full press on him. If Hendry had preliminary contact and was told Giles didn't have any real interest in coming to Chicago, then I am fine with letting it go.

I don't think they are ignoring him triple B. I think Hendry has given Bick his parameters for signing Giles, I believe those parameters are 2 years and $19M guaranteed with a team option for the 3rd year at $11M or buyout at $1M. And I can argue with that logic. I love Giles, but not a 3+ years. He is not a physically gifted guy as ballplayers go, and he is 35. His OBP is great, but if he loses power, he will cease to be worth 10+ million per year.

My feeling is that Giles is interested in playing close to home and/or with a strong contender. I also feel that Hendry would just as soon trade for a younger (even if lesser) option rather than spend most of his offseason wooing a guy he really doesn't feel that strongly about. If Giles expressed a real interest in playing for the Cubs, Hendry would pursue him. But if Giles and his camp have been cool to the idea, then I just don't think Hendry thinks it is worth the time. This is all conjecture of course, but if Hendry thinks he can get another player who is younger and somewhat comparable via trade, he will not play against the odds and spend his time on Giles. I may not agree, but I feel this is the case.

surely you jest!?! From what I've seen, SAS just states whatever the mainstream media is saying at the time (e.g. OMG PATS R SO GOOD!!!111) and says it with an urban accent. Viewing his ridiculous attire is just a bonus. Quite Frankly, I don't care for him. Stephen A. Smith is the worst thing on television. I like him better than Stuart Scott and most of ESPN.

OK, that's just going too far.

Oh, I'm not the least bit shocked. I just held out some slim hope that Neifi would be snapped up be Bowden, or go to Colorado.

Or his 2001 season where he pitched nearly 200 innings with a 12-6 record that should have been more like 16-4 with any run support. Or his 2002 season where he pitched over 200 innings and should have been a 15 game winner with any run support. Or his 2003 season where he pitched over 200 innings and should have been a 15 game winner with any run support. Or the 2003 NLDS where he owned Atlanta. As for the 2003 NLCS, Dusty riding him the whole year (as he did prior) two of the highest pc/game may have had an effect on the burnout - but he certainly didn't pitch his best there i'll give you that. OR the fact that he has some of the filthiest stuff in the majors. But I guess we can go on saying he worthless other than 20 K's in 1998. It makes more sense. Blah, blah, blah blah blah. Kerry Wood has DONE nothing in the majors but tantalize baseball with his enormious gift. But like Todd Van Poppel, Brien Taylor, Adam Johnson, etc....Kerry is a million dollar arm, .10 cent brain. I don't know how to nicely say this, but what you're saying is completely and unequivically incorrect. Wood has done plenty, his problem has been staying healthy. That problem has nothing to do with some mental deficiency(million dollar arm, 10 cent head is one of my most hated cliches), and there's really no evidence to support Wood being a "stupid" pitcher. And there is no evidence to support Wood being a smart pitcher, either. Besides, I didn't mean to imply that KW was a stupid pitcher, I meant that "legandary" "light goes off" won't ever apply to KW. I love the ability KW has shown, but I am tired of waiting for his consistancy. Add in the fact that Z has find consistancy at a younger age then Kerry, is disturbing for Wood. And if KW doesn't win atleast 15 games or more in 2006, then it's time to say good-bye, to maybe the most overrated Cubs prospect since Jerome Walton. That's alot pressure, I know, but that is how I see it. [begin rant] I can't take it. I just can't take it. How many pitchers have found consistency as quick as Z. How many with injuries have? What were Nolan Ryan's and Randy Johnson's careers like through the age of 27? See your rationale they should have been gone. :roll: :roll: Oh and I really can't take it anymore: Wins are the most baseless stats by which to judge a starting pitcher because they are team influenced. Yes that was written with emphasis so people stop saying, so and so only won 10 games so they suck. It really is the dumbest thing to base a pitcher's stuff/season on.. i.e. look at Clemens this year. I have NO idea why people continue to use wins as THE stat by which to judge if a pitcher had a good/bad year. ERA BAA WHIP K/9 HR/9 BB/9 K/BB and even innings pitched are all MORE indicative factors of how good a pitcher is. NOT WINS. [/end rant] Fact it...W/L records are use to determine a pitcher's worth, right or wrong. The fact is....while Kerry is a tantalizing talent, he has not even come CLOSE to reaching his potential (ugh), and for somebody making close to $11 million dollars, I think the Cubs are in the right to demand more then 14 wins in a season, and not spend half the season in a trainer's room, don't you? I want consistancy from KW. He has been in the league too long now, to not have consistancy, and that is the bottomline. Kerry realized his talent pretty well in 2003. Just because he didn't win 20 games doesn't take away from that. He should have won 20+ that year, and it's not his fault he didn't. Wins are not the best indicator of a pitcher's performance, and more and more people are starting to realize that. If the first thing a person looks at when evaluating a SP is wins, they are a fool.

Born into it.

LINK :evil: :evil:

I was just reading in the Dallas Morning News that the Cubs have contacted the Rangers about Mench. I could see a Walker + prospect for Mench trade.

Neifi has no business on our baseball team ever. You can find someone better, cheaper, younger, or all of the above really easily. He never should've been signed in '04, he never should've been retained, and we shouldn't be talking about bringing him back. Ok, lets hear about those guys (whoever they are) and why they would be better. I'd like to see some stats on those guys too. Look, I don't think that anyone is arguing that Neifi is a good player, or even the best choice as a 24th man. I agree with CubsWin that, the past is the past, I've already vented my frustration with the 04' and 05' seasons, and I am ready to move on. Moreover, no one knows what JH is going to do w/ Neifi or anyone else, yet some people appear to be ready to jump ship b/c of a rumor re Neifi. I think its premature. If it happens and you hate it, bash away. I'll wait. Guys available therough FA that would be better than Neifi: Ramon Martinez Jose Vizcaino Deivi Cruz Tony Graffanino (though he may not take a bench role) Not many, and all would be dangers to start with Dusty around, but all are better than Neifi.

Totally agreed. This team gains minimally if we just sign Furcal no one else significant. We need a serious revamping of the outfield. As for Cedeno, I think it is a gamble offensively to put him at 2B instead of Walker. Walker is a good fit in the 2 hole, and I don't think we need to mess with that. I'd rather see Walker there, but if dumping his salary makes it possible to get a big bat in the OF, then do it. Trading Walker wouldn't be for salary relief, it would likely be in trade for an outfielder. Walker is a huge value at his salary. My impression of the situation is that Hendry will wait until Furcal is signed before trading Walker. If Furcal isn't signed (a longshot, IMO), Hendry will keep Walker and put Cedeno at SS, and look to CF for a leadoff man. But I would be shocked if Furcal isn't a Cub in 2006.

An injury prone pitcher and an overrated SS for 20-25m a year? We're talking about Burnett and Furcal, not Renteria and Morris, or whatever, your messageboard is thataway. I just happen to think those two guys will be the most overpaid players in the offseason. Relax. what other injuries has burnett had besides TJS? i honestly don't know but doubt that him having one injury makes him injury prone. as for an overpaid furcal....of course he's going to be overpaid, christian guzman makes 4 mil a year and he might be the worst hitter in the history of the game. shortstops are ALL overpaid, it's simply a position that people want to squeeze offense out of. i don't think they'll be the most overpaid FAs this offseason, they might, but there will be a lot of overpaying. at least they're talented and warrant any risk involved in signing them. That is true about furcal, I guess if I were the Cubs I go with RC and get some outfield help instead. The ROI for furcal is going to stink. Good point on on Burnett, I thought he missed a lot of time in 05 but he didn't - he made 32 starts. In 04 he was shut down with elbow inflammation but yeah he's been pretty healthly. Hasn't he had major surgery in the past few years? IIRC he has.

As for the actual subject of this thread, the best evidence one could come up with to prove chemistry would be correlational at best. Even then you would have to come up with some criteria to indicate how well players get along, and they would be very loose. Do I believe that how well players get a long contributes to or detracts from a work environment, and therefore has an effect on the whole? Sure. I think most people agree that if you enjoy going to work you are more productive, and less productive if you can't stand it. Do I think that it is in any way a major factor in a teams overall success? No, because I think the effect is moderate-negligible. If you have a great team, bad chemistry will not bring it down. Conversely, if your team is medicore, chemisty will not overcome the lack of talent. Therefore, using chemistry as a determining factor over talent when going after players is completely foolish, IMO.

What about something that is proven to exist recently? We couldn't see atoms and such in the 1800s, and therefore couldn't measure or prove their existence, so what does that mean when we did discover them? That is a good question. I think that is where things get a bit cofusing to some. There is a difference between the technological ability to measure something. For instance, atoms were hypothosized to exist long before the invetion of the the atom smasher. Scientists hypothosized that atoms could be discovered through measurement. But on the other hand, let us look at something like "team chemistry" What is it? In order for it to exist it must be measurable independent of its definition. Now if someone wants to argue that it is an intagible or something that defies measurement go right ahead. However, if something is said to exist that BY DEFINITION CANNOT BE MEASURED, well then it does not exist. Again, it is a logical imposiblilty to demonstrate that something does not exists and by extension disprove that something exists. One can only demonstrate that something does exist. I know of no way to demonstrate that "team chemistry" exists or more importantly, is an important variable to a winning team. If anyone believes that someithing exists in such a state, it is a belief that is beyond the bounds of sicence. Becuse science is my business and a large part of my life, I choose to believe it does not exist Ok, I talked to my physics professor last night and he said that in his opinion you could make a very strong case that if something cannot be measured it doesn't exist. But he qualified that by saying that our understanding of the laws of physics have changed somewhat over the years (ie classical-relativistic-quantum), and in probability may change again, so it would not be a totally conclusive case. He said that statements such as "something cannot be measured" or "something cannot exist" can be made, but should be qualified by saying something like "....cannot be measured by the laws of physics as we understand them today". For the record, my professor got his Ph.D. from Stanford at age 23 in 1968, working under a Nobel Prize winner, so he isn't some hack scientist.

Look three posts down.

Many do. They just suck too much for it to matter.

It's truly amazing how many things said could not be measured at one time that have been proven to exist later. Saying that something that cannot be measured does not exist is the height of ignorance and arrogance. If you cannot measure something how do you know it exists? You don't. There is a difference between not being able to measure someithg because we don't have the technology and the "intagible" that cannot be measured. The height of ignorance and arrogance is a belief in the non-existent. LOL. And if we humans and our rudimentary understanding of the universe can measure it, it is non-existent? What a pathetic notion. Some people want to believe they can quantify everything because it makes them feel secure in their knowledge of their own existence. However nothing is as certain as the fact that most of what we believe to be true today will likely be contradicted by something later. We don't know everything, or even close to it. Most competant scientists will be the first to tell you this. And as I said, history is rife with things that were said not to exist because there was no proof, only to be later proven. And that trend will only continue. And no, believing we can measure all that exists is the height of arrogance and ignorance, not to mention the hallmark of a narrow and frightened mind. Great minds like Einstein, Newton, Socrates and others all professed this to be true. Saying you know something exists that hasn't been proven is wrong. Saying it doesn't exist because we haven't found a way to measure it is equally wrong. Saying you can't say one way or the other is the right place to be, even if that makes you uncomfortable. "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." - Socrates That's really all I have to say on this issue. If you want to be the consummate skeptic, then so be it. Just remember that total skepticism is as extreme a position as a blind believer. So you cannot back up your statement with facts. That's kind of what I thought. You and Socrates are quite the pair of deep thinkers. And Einstein, Newton, Neil Bohr, and on down the line of physiscists and hard scientists. As much as you are knowledgeable. You cannot disprove something just because you cannot measure it. You have no more fact to back up your position than I do. Whatever, I suggest you ask a physics professor what they think about things that by definition CANNOT BE MEASURED. He or she will laugh you out of the room. It is not about disproving anything it is about proving something. I don't need to disprove that chemistry does not exist, that is a logical impossiblity. The burden of proof is on those that say it does exist. Just becuase someone says it is so does not make it so. In my field (science) we have a saying, "In God we trust. All others must have data." Funny, my physics professor often says the same things I have been, and he is a very, very accomplished scientist. I am not arguing chemistry. I don't really care. What I am arguing with is you statement that if something cannot be measured, it doesn't exist. That is patently riduiculous, and the very fact that we are always discovering new ways to measure things that were previously thought immeasurable is a testament to that. If we learn a way to measure something today we couldn't previously, does that mean it did't exist yesterday? That is in essence what you are saying. Saying that you can classify something as "immeasurable" is a notion based on the idea that we have a comprehensive knowledge of how to measure all things, and that is false. I'll tell you what; I'll ask my physics professor tonight in class the very question you proposed I ask. And I'll bet you I don't get laughed out of the room.

It's truly amazing how many things said could not be measured at one time that have been proven to exist later. Saying that something that cannot be measured does not exist is the height of ignorance and arrogance. If you cannot measure something how do you know it exists? You don't. There is a difference between not being able to measure someithg because we don't have the technology and the "intagible" that cannot be measured. The height of ignorance and arrogance is a belief in the non-existent. LOL. And if we humans and our rudimentary understanding of the universe can measure it, it is non-existent? What a pathetic notion. Some people want to believe they can quantify everything because it makes them feel secure in their knowledge of their own existence. However nothing is as certain as the fact that most of what we believe to be true today will likely be contradicted by something later. We don't know everything, or even close to it. Most competant scientists will be the first to tell you this. And as I said, history is rife with things that were said not to exist because there was no proof, only to be later proven. And that trend will only continue. And no, believing we can measure all that exists is the height of arrogance and ignorance, not to mention the hallmark of a narrow and frightened mind. Great minds like Einstein, Newton, Socrates and others all professed this to be true. Saying you know something exists that hasn't been proven is wrong. Saying it doesn't exist because we haven't found a way to measure it is equally wrong. Saying you can't say one way or the other is the right place to be, even if that makes you uncomfortable. "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." - Socrates That's really all I have to say on this issue. If you want to be the consummate skeptic, then so be it. Just remember that total skepticism is as extreme a position as a blind believer. So you cannot back up your statement with facts. That's kind of what I thought. You and Socrates are quite the pair of deep thinkers. And Einstein, Newton, Neils Bohr, and on down the line of physiscists and hard scientists. As much as you are knowledgeable. You cannot disprove something just because you cannot measure it. You have no more fact to back up your position than I do.

It's truly amazing how many things said could not be measured at one time that have been proven to exist later. Saying that something that cannot be measured does not exist is the height of ignorance and arrogance. Could you enlighten me? Name three physical things that "people" said cannot be measured. ----------------- If you cannot measure something how do you know it exists? You don't. There is a difference between not being able to measure someithg because we don't have the technology and the "intagible" that cannot be measured. The height of ignorance and arrogance is a belief in the non-existent. You should read Einstein. Try taking an advanced physics class. Photons, quarks, black holes etc. etc. All things we couldn't or cannot accurately measure that are there. And who says something cannot be measured because we cannot measure it, as if we understand the nature of everything. Ignorant. Again, I am not championing blind faith, but the position that we are not in a position to measure or quantify eveything that exists.

It's truly amazing how many things said could not be measured at one time that have been proven to exist later. Saying that something that cannot be measured does not exist is the height of ignorance and arrogance. If you cannot measure something how do you know it exists? You don't. There is a difference between not being able to measure someithg because we don't have the technology and the "intagible" that cannot be measured. The height of ignorance and arrogance is a belief in the non-existent. LOL. And if we humans and our rudimentary understanding of the universe can measure it, it is non-existent? What a pathetic notion. Some people want to believe they can quantify everything because it makes them feel secure in their knowledge of their own existence. However nothing is as certain as the fact that most of what we believe to be true today will likely be contradicted by something later. We don't know everything, or even close to it. Most competant scientists will be the first to tell you this. And as I said, history is rife with things that were said not to exist because there was no proof, only to be later proven. And that trend will only continue. And no, believing we can measure all that exists is the height of arrogance and ignorance, not to mention the hallmark of a narrow and frightened mind. Great minds like Einstein, Newton, Socrates and others all professed this to be true. Saying you know something exists that hasn't been proven is wrong. Saying it doesn't exist because we haven't found a way to measure it is equally wrong. Saying you can't say one way or the other is the right place to be, even if that makes you uncomfortable. "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." - Socrates That's really all I have to say on this issue. If you want to be the consummate skeptic, then so be it. Just remember that total skepticism is as extreme a position as a blind believer.

I hate the fact that AL awards are always out before NL. Why not both at the same time? The NL has seniority, so to speak. They should have all their award winners named first.

does anyone know what time they are going to announce the NL winners?

It's truly amazing how many things said could not be measured at one time that have been proven to exist later. Saying that something that cannot be measured does not exist is the height of ignorance and arrogance.