Jump to content
Matthew Boyd is back on the bump for the Cubs, join our game thread! ×
North Side Baseball

David

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    32,468

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 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 David

  1. David
    I don't think anyone has been so head and shoulders ahead of the rest of their conference in a while like the Bears are this year. Maybe the Rams in 2001 but that's about it. Even the 2001 Rams were only 2 games up on the Bears.
  2. David
    I don't believe so. Matsuzaka is 26 years old and his contract will reflect prime years. Schmidt's contract will not. Read the fine print. :wink:
  3. David
    Why do so many want Crisp? He's garbage. When he's playing with an injured hand he is, look at '04 and '05. Holy crap. How did I overlook that? I saw his season stats and his career stats and figured it was just a typical season. Should've known better. EDIT - BTW, has anyone noticed what a monster year Lugo was having last year before the trade to LA? His SLG was practically .500.. :shock: Wonder why he dropped off so hard. Could be a lot of things, I guess. Pressure, bad luck, new league, Dodger Stadium...
  4. David
    I haven't heard any report that they've made an offer. I think whoever originally passed that rumor on to that site was either making it up or misheard what was said. The only thing I heard Levine report yesterday was that Schmidt may be their next target and that they're looking to "make inroads" with him on a 3 year deal.
  5. David
    Why do so many want Crisp? He's garbage.
  6. David
    Not as good as Coco Crisp, but Milton Bradley is a pretty cool name too.
  7. David
    Wow... just wow.. Some of those people on Dodger Blues actually think getting rid of Drew and picking up Pierre were good moves. Unreal.
  8. David
    http://www.dodgerblues.com/fanforum/nfphpbb/viewtopic.php?t=7277 (Careful - adult language on that forum) :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: LOL, this guy seems to be the only one who seems to "get" it.
  9. David
    Similar early career stats, breakout seasons at the same age. Similar "tools?" Similar backgrounds..
  10. David
    Let's hope that Gerald Perry has a similar effect on Sori to the one Pentland had on Sammy. Steroids or not, Sammy made a definite change to his stance, swing, and approach in 98.
  11. David
    Because that worked out so well when we did it with Maddux. You know, a lot of experts would agree that Maddux and Schmidt are different pitchers. Schmidt is also on the wrong side of 30 and is nearing his inevitable career decline. He's not nearly as far on that side of the scale as Maddux. Also, I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem like pitchers take as steep a decline heading into their 30's as hitters do.
  12. David
    Not a free agent. Plus, there'd be a million threads by now on how we need to get him (and how we need to stay the hell away from him), I'm sure, if he were. I'd like to see Hendry inquire about what he would cost in a trade, though.
  13. David
    Ok... ...any chance we can get Milton Bradley for CF? (I realize how ridiculous this sounds within the context of this thread, as we're not about to sign Drew because he has had some character issues)... .818 OPS this year, .370 OBP and only 28 years old. Who knows, maybe the Gerald Perry connection could make this happen (or make it not happen)...
  14. David
    Apparently someone's been Dusty-ized!!!!!! in 2004, CI hit .288 with a .330 OBP and 25 steals before getting hurt. i think he's the most logical candidate to start the season in the leadoff spot (if it's not going to be fonzie), but if he falters then you have to consider other options. i'm not at all advocating putting him there and leaving him no matter how he performs (which is what dusty would have done). i only like the idea of him there because of the speed he would provide leading off. Speed isn't really an important factor when considering who should leadoff (or who should bat anywhere, really). Not by a longshot.
  15. David
    In 25AB: .360 .407 .840 1.247 Not bad at all... Look at the numbers he put up in the cemetary which is RFK...With Sorianos bat speed and power, I bet alot of pop ups will land in the bleachers on windy days..Hes teared it up at wrigley in his 2 visits..I could see him hitting over 50 HR's in wrigley.. On the other hand, he was at Arlington for a couple of seasons and didn't put up any eye-popping numbers.
  16. David
    I have to take exception to this. Leadoff is not a position. You can definitely find better than .884 at the corner OF spots. I'm not knocking the Soriano signing, although I think the contract was extremely excessive and would rather have had Drew. At this point, IMHO, we'll need another good bat to be able to call this a good offense.
  17. David
    Because he only hit 13 home runs. Who cares if he gets on base and whatnot? Seriously. And besides, like 9 of those HR came in the second half, when the Cubs were already out of it. That guy is so not clutch.
  18. David
    Total bases doesn't include walks, just hits. Example, 2006 Juan Pierre had 271 Total Bases from 204 hits. 156 Singles (156), 32 Doubles (64), 13 Triples (39), and 3 Homeruns (12). Gotcha. I always thought they were. That said, isn't this analysis flawed for that very reason? I understand the correlation between TB and runs scored, but hasn't the Cubs' issue been that they've hit well enough to be middle of the pack, but have been so terrible in terms of walks/OBP that they simply haven't scored as many runs as would be expected? If this analysis only takes into account, basically, SLG%, it's probably making the Cubs look better than they really are.
  19. David
    They could also just be covering for a Soriano press conference, since that signing hasn't been made official yet. Or they could be doing a joint press conference with both guys. Isn't it a little odd to fly him in for a press conference when we just re-upped him?
  20. David
    Isn't your total base count neglecting to include walks? Am I missing something? Are you counting out 2550 total bases without including walks? And is that number, not including walks, good enough to have been #1 in the NL in 2006 like you said? Am I totally clueless? Are walks not counted in total bases (as I've always been sure they were)?
  21. David
    I don't see the big fuss about Soriano in the leadoff spot anyway. As far as I know, most studies on lineup construction have shown that the order doesn't matter all that much, anyways. Ideally, conventional wisdom aside, you'd want your best hitters at the top and worst at the bottom, mainly because the top of the order gets more at bats, not because of any preconceived notion about what type of hitter goes where in the lineup. Soriano might not be our best hitter, but he's one of the top 3, so him getting all those at bats isn't going to hurt us. Personally, I think the worries about wasting his talents in the leadoff spot are much ado about nothing. In a perfect world, sure, it'd be nice to have him in the middle of the order, but I don't think it'll amount to a very big difference in total runs scored. What we need to worry about is having good hitters in as many lineup spots as possible.
  22. David
    Just a random thought. I'm not suggesting anything by it, believe me, because we've seen his defense at 2B, let alone SS. Anyways, wasn't Soriano going up through the Yankees system as a SS? I remember he was being sold as a future stud SS when the Cubs were going to get him in the 2000 Sosa trade. If not for Jeter, would he have come up as a major league SS? Would he have played it adequately?
  23. David
    Let's imagine a best case scenario for a second on our rotation. Let's say we sign Schmidt and that Prior pitches like even 85% of his former self. Z, Schmidt, Hill, Prior, Miller/Marshall/Guzman/Random FA That rotation would be up there with the good ol' days of 2003. Would probably be better, considering you don't have the black hole of Estes anywhere in there.
  24. David
    Definitely not something new. Don't have a link on it for ya, though.
  25. David
    not much could keep me from watching baseball next season, but that line-up could very possibly do the trick That lineup would keep you from watching baseball?
×
×
  • Create New...