David
-
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
-
You're the one saying that Pierre distracts pitchers. Where's the proof? And again you've completely missed the point about injuries. Hairston when healthy is Pierre's equal, yet no one is looking at his production and sees "leadoff man extraordinaire, if only he could stay healthy". Who cares about "when healthy." He rarely is, which is the bigger point. No, because the point isn't that Hairston would be a better option. The point is that nobody has suggested that Hairston, when healthy, would be a good leadoff option. So why is Pierre, a similar hitter, considered a good one? Let me ask you this directly. If Jerry Hairston could stay healthy and put up numbers in line with what he has done for the past four years, would you consider him the answer to our leadoff problems? If Mookie Wilson was still 28, I'd want him. Sorry, I'm not playing fantasy baseball w/ you guys, and if someone is going to give me a .350 obp leading off they better be pretty fast. Hairston isn't that player. He might get hurt on his way to second. It's a simple yes or no question. Do you consider yourselve "above" answering it? You couldn't tell that my answer's no? Well, then, good. Then you'd agree that Pierre isn't a viable option either. -
Another putdown by you. Nice. Perhaps the dense one is the one who can't grasp the concept that Pierre may help other players not named Castillo. So if you believe that, prove it. Lookup Furcal and Giles from 2002 to 2005. I must have forgotten that Furcal and Giles played on the Marlins with Pierre. If you believe that Pierre distracts the pitcher and helps the hitter, prove it, otherwise you're just spouting off uninformed nonsense. When I get the Marlins job I'll bat Cabrera 2nd and prove my point. so, in other words, you have nothing to back up what you were saying. It's ok, I dont think anyone thought you did. So you want me to look up several years of Marlins boxscores and find where someone else batted 2nd instead of Castillo. I'll stand by 100 years of baseball conventional wisdom. Castillo's just an aberration. Yup.. Conventional wisdom, God knows, is always right. Can't argue with centuries of history.. Hey, I better not go outside now in the rain, I might catch a cold. :roll:
-
You're the one saying that Pierre distracts pitchers. Where's the proof? And again you've completely missed the point about injuries. Hairston when healthy is Pierre's equal, yet no one is looking at his production and sees "leadoff man extraordinaire, if only he could stay healthy". Who cares about "when healthy." He rarely is, which is the bigger point. No, because the point isn't that Hairston would be a better option. The point is that nobody has suggested that Hairston, when healthy, would be a good leadoff option. So why is Pierre, a similar hitter, considered a good one? Let me ask you this directly. If Jerry Hairston could stay healthy and put up numbers in line with what he has done for the past four years, would you consider him the answer to our leadoff problems? If Mookie Wilson was still 28, I'd want him. Sorry, I'm not playing fantasy baseball w/ you guys, and if someone is going to give me a .350 obp leading off they better be pretty fast. Hairston isn't that player. He might get hurt on his way to second. It's a simple yes or no question. Do you consider yourselve "above" answering it?
-
You're the one saying that Pierre distracts pitchers. Where's the proof? And again you've completely missed the point about injuries. Hairston when healthy is Pierre's equal, yet no one is looking at his production and sees "leadoff man extraordinaire, if only he could stay healthy". Who cares about "when healthy." He rarely is, which is the bigger point. No, because the point isn't that Hairston would be a better option. The point is that nobody has suggested that Hairston, when healthy, would be a good leadoff option. So why is Pierre, a similar hitter, considered a good one? Let me ask you this directly. If Jerry Hairston could stay healthy and put up numbers in line with what he has done for the past four years, would you consider him the answer to our leadoff problems?
-
How does a .334 lifetime OBP solve the leadoff problem? Its not like Hairston had a breakout year last year or showed an ability to do better, his numbers were almost equivilent to his career numbers. WHY the lifetime stats??? :x :x :x :x Hairston's numbers last year were right on par with his lifetime stats. It is more likely than not that next years will fall right in line. I just don't see how a .334 OBP solves the leadoff problem. I guess if we're basing it on last year, and not, say, a significant last 3 or 4 years sample, Pierre's .326 OBP won't be of much help either.
-
How does a .334 lifetime OBP solve the leadoff problem? Its not like Hairston had a breakout year last year or showed an ability to do better, his numbers were almost equivilent to his career numbers. WHY the lifetime stats??? :x :x :x :x
-
I can't believe Giles would take that little money without even testing the market. I'll wait and see on this one.
-
No, I actually researched it myself rather than blindly following someone else's thoughts. How about Pierre himself? Hasn't seemed to help Mr. Castillo very much. Reposted from another thread from late July: Pierre hitting #1 2003: .302/.359/.370/.729 (667 PA's) 2004: .336/.382/.422/.804 (632 PA's) 2005: .272/.319/.357/.676 (385 PA's) Luis Castillo hitting #2 2003: .325/.389/.406/.794 (590 PA's) 2004: .285/.372/.332/.704 (488 PA's) 2005: .333/.423/.415/.838 (271 PA's) Their OPS's are almost perfect proportions. When one goes up the other goes down. I'm not saying that at all. People would say that Wood and Hudson are pretty comparable when Wood is healthy, and that's generally true. Why doesn't anyone say the same about Hairston and Pierre? For the nth time I'll ask: Why does no one think Hairston is a good leadoff hitter if he could just stay healthy? It's been said about Nomar, Wood, Prior, etc., but when it comes to someone who's been Pierre's double when healthy, not at all. because he has a .334 lifetime OBP. Why use career stats that go back several years when you can use much more pertinent recent stats... 3 or 4 years is definitely a good enough sample size to be representative of a hitter's current ability.
-
You're totally missing the point of his post... because there is no point, you can't compare a part time player to a guy that has put up good numbers on a consistent basis. Sure you can. You aren't talking about a 25 or 50 AB sample size. There's enough sample out there for Hairston to make an adequate projection of everyday performance. and the corrolary of your argument is that there is enough sample size out there to make an adequate projection that Hairston cannot remain healthy. He is not saying that Hairston can remain healthy. He never once argued that. So I doubt he would counter your argument that he can't remain healthy. What he IS saying, and justifiably so, is that nobody has ever said that Hairston, if healthy, would solve our leadoff problem (which he wouldn't), even though, over the last 4 years, he's been a similar hitter to Pierre.
-
You're totally missing the point of his post...
-
Riggs and Baylor have coaching positions. I'd actually love to have him back. He was stuck with such total crap rosters while he was here (1998 the exception of course). And 98 was pretty much crap too. We just caught lightning in a bottle... Servais, Grace, Morandini, Blauser, Gomez(??was he still here??)/Hernandez/Gaetti, Rodriguez, Johnson, Sosa... I dunno.. Riggs wouldn't be my top choice, but I WOULD take him over Baker.
-
Please, somebody fix the spelling in the thread title, already... It's driving me NUTS... :lol: As for Furcal...If he weren't so aggressive and were less of a threat to regress to a crappy OBP, I'd be more interested. At this point, the risk in signing Nomar is very low and the possible reward very high. If I knew they'd go to Cedeno and not Neifi in the event of a possible Nomar injury, I'd be all for it. However, if it came down to Nomar with Neifi as a backup plan, vs. Furcal, I'd have to go with Rafael. I just cannot take another season of Neifi Perez as our starting SS...
-
ibtl Old news, check Transactions.. :wink:
-
Totally unrelated.. but does everyone realise that Jeff Blauser would've been a better leadoff option than just about anybody we used in 2005? And that includes his two big bust years as a Cub. I remember how happy I was that we signed him and his .400 OBP (1997)...while most just figured that we were just signing an old Cub killer. Anyway, the point was that as bad as he was those two years with us, he still put up OBP's of .340 and .347... Just goes to show just how sad our leadoff situation was this year.
-
If all they wanted was speed at the top, they could've stuck with Patterson in the leadoff role.
-
Hendry's name was mentioned in pursuit Preston last offseason and at the trade deadline. Ah, I knew about those. I was just thinking there might have been something new. I'm not too concerned about them going after him if that's the only basis for the rumors... Anything can happen, though.
-
Just curious, where are the Preston Wilson rumors that people are citing coming from? I haven't heard anything of the sort... If they're coming from the likes of Phil Rogers, that would explain why I haven't heard it..lol
-
Is Kenny Williams a genius or is this a fluke??
David replied to CubfaninCA's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
Labels are fun! Wouldn't this intangible help them score runs? It's not like people are saying that Podsednik doesn't do anything and the White Sox are scoring runs in bunches. They were middle of the road, they weren't a good offense. Milwaukee was the second worse offense in the game last year with Podsednik and his intangibles. I'm not about to say that there aren't parts of the game that are unquantifiable. But if you're going to claim something like that, there has to be an effect seen somewhere. And unless one of Podsednik's intangibles is getting the pitchers on his team to be awesome, then there isn't much evidence supporting that as part of a reason for their success. I love it when arguments are supported with facts rather than unfounded rhetoric! :D -
If you gave the two an SAT or something, I'd put my money on Beane. Good for Beane. :roll: I would too. Beane appears to be the much smarter guy, from what I know. As for who is a better GM, I don't think there's any question. Look at what Beane has done with a much lower payroll (and this year nobody can say the A's success was due to the big 3, and make no mistake, 2005 was a good year for the A's, playoffs or no playoffs)... Besides, even if you do attribute Beane's earlier success to Zito, Mulder, and Hudson, Hendry hasn't been able to achieve the same success with his similar blessing of 3 young stud, relatively cheap pitchers. I'm hoping Hendry proves me wrong, but I would trade Hendry for Beane in a second... and I'd give up any of our prospects along with him. :wink: I'm not sure that the question here was who is the better GM; I think that's fairly obvious. Whether he's smarter or not is only relevant in terms terms of his abilities as a GM, though... So, as a GM, he definitely is smarter.. (and I agree with goony in that I think he probably would score higher on any real test of intelligence, not that it's really pertinent here)
-
Barry Bonds
-
Well played..
-
Nomar's so dreamyyy :lol:
-
: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. I think CPatt's point was that you can stick any mid .800 OPS guy in the leadoff spot and still have that same plus production. Whether or not the guy has been used by his past managers as a leadoff man is irrelevant. And the fact is, there are tons of .800 OPS guys out there. Any scarcity of mid-.800 OPS leadoff men is purely artificial... Plus production matters with defensive position, not lineup position.
-
Another opportunity for A-Rod?
David replied to hawkeyecub's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
Exactly.. what we need is one more starting pitcher..TWO (if not three) new outfielders who can get on base and hit for power.. and an assortment of relievers... There are a variety of ways to resolve the middle infield, including leaving it as is...(be it Ronny or Nomar at SS) Trading for ARod, especially while giving up the names cited here, would be like taking 3 steps forward and then two steps back... -
Another opportunity for A-Rod?
David replied to hawkeyecub's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
The answer to that question is 18, and that was in a season in which he missed over a month of starts. Not that I think wins are any kind of measure, but since you asked, I thought I would share. An 18 win season by measure of wins is pretty damn good. I don't think you trade Prior, even for Rodriguez, and you especially don't trade Prior and other players for Rodriguez. I really wish you hadn't beaten me to this... It's exactly what I was thinking as I read that comment... :D
