badger1679666666

Now can you post all their salaries? I'll take the 6th best NL 3B and the 8th best MLB 3B for 11 million a year.

Ok well I'm going with 142 games because 88% is ok with me since he played 95% of another season. Since Aram became a starter, he has played in 142 games, 4/5 years The manipulation and farce I am talking about is including the 3 years he wasn't a starter in your AVG/OBP/SLG/OPS line. There is no other reason to do that than to mislead, or skew numbers to your argument. Especially when everyone on the face of the planet realizes those seasons shouldn't really be used analytically when evaluting how well a player is doing at the age of 27. Being an old and veteran fan, I would think you would know this. So his numbers after becoming a STARTER: .886 OPS in 2001 34/112 bad year in 2002 .790 OPS in 2003 with 27/106 .951 OPS in 2004 with 36/103 .926 OPS in 2005 with 31/92 (would be much higher if anyone got on base) Pretty darn good for a 3B making 11 million. His OPS over those seasons is considerably higher than the average you'd like everyone to believe - using your stats that include a 21 year old Aramis. Disingenous of an argument at bast. If you want to include his rookie year stats when he barely played. But anyone with an iota of knowledge about baseball would not include those in evaluting the ball player Aramis has become. A rookie at 21/22 is not the same as a player in his prime at 26/27. Quit being a troll. Include Aramis' crappy 2002 - you should. But don't include his non starter years when he was in his early 20's. He was a completely different player. Very FEW players come into the league and put up Pujols numbers right away. It's clear you have it in for Aramis and have blinders on, so Im not sure anyone can convince you otherwise. Edit to add: Why would you look at his lifetime OBP/OPS numbers instead of those numbers when he became an estabilished player. Justify that rationale for me, and I'll change my opinion.

Just to be clear, it's 3 starts at: 23 Innings, 12 Hits Against, 1 Earned Run, 10 walks, 24 Strike Outs Exactly, in your mind, what would a pitcher have to do besides those numbers to "turn the corner"? How many starts does it take? The only disconcerting stat is the walks. And to have a WHIP near or below 1.00 (not sure if he hit any batters the last three games) for Carlos is significant. Imagine is whip if he had any control.

What's this about?? It means watch your language. People have been using clever contractions and characters to represent words that are clearly stated in the NSBB Guidelines as inappropriate. Warnings, suspensions and bannings will follow if the behavior doesn't stop. Can we impose any such penalties on our beloved Cubbies? O:) We can most certainly impose them on you for using "cubbies" unless you are a hot (slutty) sorority girl.

:pulls up a lawn chair, six pack, and waits for Goony's diatribe:

That's just silly. Going to a Cubs game and booing Cubs players is bad enough. But you are going in have already dediced in advance who you are going to boo, that's worse. And then you pick out two guys who are playing poorly and leave off another. If anybody deserves to be booed, it's the players who makes the same stupid mental mistakes over and over. I have a tough time booing performance. But it's not that hard to boo guys who routinely get picked off base, miss cut-off men and roll the ball in from the outfield. Baseball is a game of failure. You win on the margins. Slumps happen, and have to be tolerated, as annoying as they are. Mental mistakes should not be tolerated, and repeated mental mistakes absolutely cannot be tolerated. It's also players that aren't playing anywhere near the level they should be playing at. But not players who repeatedly make mental errors that cost their teams runs in the process, errors than can theoretically be fixed with the snap of the fingers? Are you serious? I said also, i.e. in addition to. Does that make sense to you or do I need to explain the concept of "also" a little bit better for you? What you nee to explain kid, is how you will boo Aramis and Pierre, but don't find Jones's mental retardation while on the basepaths boo worthy. Struggling at the plate happens and is tougher to snap out of. Not getting picked off of 2nd for the 3rd time in two weeks should be EASILY avoidable, but to you, is not boo worthy. I repeat, are you seroius?

That's just silly. Going to a Cubs game and booing Cubs players is bad enough. But you are going in have already dediced in advance who you are going to boo, that's worse. And then you pick out two guys who are playing poorly and leave off another. If anybody deserves to be booed, it's the players who makes the same stupid mental mistakes over and over. I have a tough time booing performance. But it's not that hard to boo guys who routinely get picked off base, miss cut-off men and roll the ball in from the outfield. Baseball is a game of failure. You win on the margins. Slumps happen, and have to be tolerated, as annoying as they are. Mental mistakes should not be tolerated, and repeated mental mistakes absolutely cannot be tolerated. It's also players that aren't playing anywhere near the level they should be playing at. But not players who repeatedly make mental errors that cost their teams runs in the process, errors than can theoretically be fixed with the snap of the fingers? Are you serious?

Yep. His 15 hop throws, and inability to follow the ball into the outfield should be lauded. I never said I have been completely happy with his play, but Jacque surely isn't boo worthy. Being picked off 2nd base 3 freaking times in two weeks by being a mental midget is much more boo-worthy than struggling at the plate.

Yep. His 15 hop throws, and inability to follow the ball into the outfield should be lauded.

My only point is that people should stop overreacting after 3 pretty good, though not ace-like and 3 poor, though not Rusch-like starts. It just looks foolish in retrospect.

You keep asking this question like no one has answered you. He's got 3 years of really good performance as a Cub under his belt. People know this. People know he started slow last season. People are confident he'll be where he needs to be when all is said and done. No one is absolving him from his share of the struggles, but most people have more faith in a proven player than a player or players that have been proven mediocre. Regarding Dempster, they were booing team performance and the fact that the team was going to lose again, not necessarily Dempster. This is not a difficult concept. Over time, good performance will earn you the benefit of the doubt for a while. If he's still struggling into June, I'm sure he'll get booed. Additionally, he's getting NOTHING to hit with the people around him. Even if he struggles until June, he shouldn't get booed, but he probably will.

It actually is kinda humorous. I hear ya but I'm a huge Kerry fan ( from your sig I assume you are too) and I don't think I can handle another DL stint......sooooo I am trying to stay very positive...... Yep, my favorite Cub ever (and I'm 28). I couldn't handle one either, but it was humorous in a sick and twisted sort of way.

It actually is kinda humorous.

That's not even remotely fair. Zambrano was called out when he was doing a terrible job. I told you so's are not needed. He wasn't even doing terrible and people were saying he was crap all year, melted down every game etc. He had 3 really good games, and 3 poor games. And my view on "I told you so's" is, 1) I didn't say "I told you so" 2) If you're going to make a statement, you better be ready to support it, or admit you were wrong. Everyone should be accountable for what they say on here. If I say Prior sucks and is a wuss, and he comes and pitches 20 games and pitches like a stud, I should be accountable for what I say. The whole "not calling a poster on a statement" allows people to say whatever the hell they want. Just my opinion. Regardless, the people calling Zambrano out, were incredibly hyperbolic and reactionary. I'm just noting their silence now. First, there are many ways of saying I told you so without actually saying the words. You said it. If anything, your post is hyperbolic and reactionary. Blueheart, and as I recall a few others, pointed out that Zambrano was pitching poorly and not harnessing his emotions or control, not that he was a crappy pitcher or that he was "crap all year". You are correct that everyone should be held accountable for what they say, but this is not an example of a time where that should be the case. Pointing out that Zambrano was doing poorly was an accurate statement at that time for his overall body of work. His work of late has been much better. By these standards, if Zambrano has a poor start, Blueheart and others are well within their rights to come on here and single you out for calling him good and saying he was good all year. Actually, it was TT, myself and a few others who were arguing that Zambrano had not been pitching up to his standards, and wasn't in control. IT was others who were using completely hyperbolic and exaggerated speech. I distinctly remember saying, that there was nothing wrong with the fact that some posters were pointing out lack luster performances, but that the vocabulary and inflammatory comments full of innacuracy and hyperbole were unneeded. Additonally someone did say that Z was "crap all year" Exact quote. If this site had a search function I'd find it for you.

That's not even remotely fair. Zambrano was called out when he was doing a terrible job. I told you so's are not needed. He wasn't even doing terrible and people were saying he was crap all year, melted down every game etc. He had 3 really good games, and 3 poor games. And my view on "I told you so's" is, 1) I didn't say "I told you so" 2) If you're going to make a statement, you better be ready to support it, or admit you were wrong. Everyone should be accountable for what they say on here. If I say Prior sucks and is a wuss, and he comes and pitches 20 games and pitches like a stud, I should be accountable for what I say. The whole "not calling a poster on a statement" allows people to say whatever the hell they want. Just my opinion. Regardless, the people calling Zambrano out, were incredibly hyperbolic and reactionary. I'm just noting their silence now.

:slits wrists: and jumps of balcony just to make sure. Hendry, you suck.

And I thought it was Kerry we were worried about not pitching this year...

*Crickets* = the sounds i hear from Blueheart and everyone in the threads that were calling Zambrano a crappy pitcher.

Vance is 100% correct. There weren't a lot of suitable replacements, but if you wanted to take a flyer on Jones. Fine. ONE year 4.5 Million, otherwise say take your services elsewhere Jockstrap. Maybe a mutual option for the second. NOT 3 years. It's so dumb, I can't even comprehend what Hendry was thinking. Even if he expected a rebound, what moron would COUNT on it and sign a guy for 3 years?

Alot of people dont like how you twist facts and make arbitrary designations like 145 games in a year instead of 142 or 140. Also they don't like how you include years when he wasn't a starter, when trying to prove your points. It's a farce.

In honor of tomorrow: http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2005/scorecard/12/20/truth.rumors.mlb/t1_wood.jpg http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/mlb/photo/photogallery/2003_2nd_half_moments/chc/01.jpg http://imagesource.allposters.com/images/Ssport/WOODPHU008005.jpg

He hasn't really had much batting practice...

Oh and the Pen blows Woody's win, to start things out like old times - giving him a sense of familiarity.

But they can Catch the Ball (sometimes) But they can throw (never) hmm, what can they do?

I got 6 IP 97 pitches, 7 K's 3BB's, 3 Hits, 2 Runs, 1 ER, 0 HR. 8) I'm excited for tomorrow!!!