soccer10k
-
Posts
26,131 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
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
2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by soccer10k
-
It's not like the current Cubs uniforms are hideous like the old Tampa Bay Buccaneers or the San Diego Padres old uniforms were. There is nothing wrong with what they have so why change? People think that just because a team is losing a lot means they need new uniforms. The Cubs haven't won a World Series since 1908 and how many uniform changes have they had since then? I don't have the exact numbers, but changing uniforms obviously hasn't done anything for the Cubs. What makes you think it will make a difference now?
-
I've long called for a color change, as well as losing the pinstripes on the home unis. yes, I know, it's tradition...but it's a losing tradition. nothing good has come of these uniforms, or the circular "C" since they first came on the scene in the mid 50's. Color change, as in complete overhaul like the White Sox in the 90's when they went black and white? The uniforms aren't the reason why they've lost a lot of games, changing them as some sort of effort to create a winner would be kind of pathetic. color change as in back to the navy like suggested by others. did you seriously interpret that as me saying the reason for losing is the uniforms? I don't like the pinstripes. the usual response to that is "it's tradition." my response to that is "yes, a losing tradition, so why keep them." I don't think I implied in any way that the reason the Cubs lose alot of games is the uniforms. Personally I like the pinstripes. I'm fairly indifferent on either navy blue or royal blue, but I think the Cubs should keep the pinstripes.
-
Check out benmaller.com. Has been mentioned other places as well. It is mentioned on Sports Illustrated's Truth and Rumors page today also. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/scorecard/03/03/truth.rumors.mlb/index.html
-
That's enough negativity for the day. Prior will not get hurt this year....hopefully.
-
It is tiring but he wasn't supposed to be ready for the beginning of the season anyway. So now he's recovering from two injuries at the same time instead of one. And its better that this happen now instead of in August. Although, now that I think about it, he'll probably have another injury then anyway so it really doesn't matter. Oh well.
-
Harold Reynolds (I think) was just talking about key players playing up to their potential this year being the key for their respective teams. The first two were Mark Prior and Kerry Wood. Reynolds said that each need to "win 15-20 games for the Cubs to be successful." The second was A.J. Burnett for the Blue Jays. The problem I have is what potential is Burnett supposed to live up to? The guy who currently has a 49-50 career record, the guy who has a high win total of 12 wins, or the guy who has one winning season (two if you count 19 starts in 2004) when he makes 20 starts in a year? I know Kerry Wood hasn't lived up to his potential. But under the same comparisions Wood has a 70-54 record, 14 wins and 5 winning seasons. Burnett will be expected to be a second ace next to Roy Halliday this year. Wood could win 12 to 14 games as a third starter, if Zambrano and Prior stay healthy, and that would be good for the Cubs. I do agree that Prior needs to win 15-20, but I found it interesting that Reynolds didn't even mention that Zambrano could be the ace of the staff. At least Prior has won 18 games in a season so far. Basically, and yes I have read Moneyball, I'm sick of hearing people talking about a player living up to his potential when he hasn't done anything yet. Burnett hasn't done anything worthy of having a lot of hype surrounding him.
-
How can you not like them as players? You might not like their price tag, but they certainly help the bullpen. They don't certainly do anything. They're journeymen relievers, and journeyman relievers are not consistent, and guarantee you nothing. They should make the bullpen better, but neither is a lockdown reliever, or anything special, or a right fielder with solid production numbers (the Cubs real #1 need this offseason). Seems to me that the bullpen is crap shoot, look at Cardinals the last two seasons. They've had the NL's best bullpen and what wasn't journeymen about King, Taverez, Calero, Flores, et al? Sometimes it just works, let's hope it works for the Cubs this season. Sometimes a couple of your relievers happen to have career year one year and then all of a sudden you have the best bullpen in the league. After the closer (and even that can be unpredictable) I agree that setting up a good bullpen is mostly luck.
-
I second that.
-
Baker Wants Lee and Barrett Back on Off Days
soccer10k replied to vance_the_cubs_fan's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
I don't think the travel will wear on them and I don't think Dusty is asking too much by wanting them back in Spring Training on off days considering how close they will be to Mesa. -
Not necessarily. The Cubs would have a good chance to win the division but the only team that has a chance to 'run away' with the division in 2006 is the Cardinals. Look at their resume -they won the division last year -they have a 1-2 starting punch that is as good as any in the league with Carpenter and Mulder -they have a solid closer with Isringhausen -Scott Rolen only played 56 games last year, and stunk it up when he was playing -they still have Pujols and Edmonds as well I'm not saying the Cardinals will win the division, and I do think the Cubs have a chance. But there is no way that the Cubs run away with the NL Central in 2006
-
I'm just going to end this debate right now. Debating who is the worse baseball player is like debating whether Nazi Germany was worse than Communist USSR. They were both ungodly bad and lets just leave it at that.
-
How do you figure? I've already shown you that Mabry is the better offensive player. You haven't shown me anything. You've just said what you think and haven't backed it up one bit.
-
Bruce Miles Article on Michael Barrett
soccer10k replied to vance_the_cubs_fan's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
I took part in 3 fantasy drafts with 10 teams each and got Barrett in the 15th round or later in all of them despite Michael being the best hitting catcher in the NL. He's very underrated. Thank you for making my point. Catchers are also worthless offensively. Most people jump the gun. I saw someone take Mauer in the 4th round. :shock: Yup every catcher is worthless offensively. None of them can hit a ball off a tee. Downright atrocious. -
Certainly don't see this everyday. Definately an interesting statement.
-
He gets on base more(last year was a minor exception), and he hits for more extra bases. Mabry hasn't had more than 250 at bats in a season since 1999. Neifi lowest in that span is 328 in 2003. If Mabry's so good why isn't he playing every day? Because he sucks. So, how good a player is, is determined by how much they play? Was Patterson any good last year because he got a bunch of at bats? Of course not. Your pal Farnsworth throws bunches of innings every year, more than most relief pitchers. You don't seem to think he's worthwhile. MLB is littered with terrible players getting more playing time than they deserve because of inept management. Playing time doesn't determine value, performance does. And Mabry hasn't played well enough to earn more playing time. Neifi has. He played a majority of a season for 4 different teams. Yes I know two were the Rockies and the Royals but he played for the Giants post Dusty and for the Cubs. Wouldn't you think that somebody would have traded for Mabry already to have him play full time?
-
Oh, you were talking about their cockamamie system. Yeah, I guess Mabry would be worse going by that. EDIT: Remember that playing time was part of their criteria. Twice as many AB's for Neifi means twice the opportunity to suck and get points. Don't you think there's a reason Mabry only got 246 AB's last year while Neifi got 572? And don't say because Nomar got hurt because the Cubs could have traded for somebody else if they thought Neifi was so horrible. Going by their bogus criteria, Mabry should be "drafted" higher in theory. However, since Neifi will have much more opportunity to earn points because of extra playing time, he's worth more in their ridiculous league. Outside of their crazy system, Mabry is the better offensive player. How on earth is Mabry a better hitter? He gets on base more(last year was a minor exception), and he hits for more extra bases. Mabry hasn't had more than 250 at bats in a season since 1999. Neifi lowest in that span is 328 in 2003. If Mabry's so good why isn't he playing every day? Because he sucks.
-
Oh, you were talking about their cockamamie system. Yeah, I guess Mabry would be worse going by that. EDIT: Remember that playing time was part of their criteria. Twice as many AB's for Neifi means twice the opportunity to suck and get points. Don't you think there's a reason Mabry only got 246 AB's last year while Neifi got 572? And don't say because Nomar got hurt because the Cubs could have traded for somebody else if they thought Neifi was so horrible. Going by their bogus criteria, Mabry should be "drafted" higher in theory. However, since Neifi will have much more opportunity to earn points because of extra playing time, he's worth more in their ridiculous league. Outside of their crazy system, Mabry is the better offensive player. How on earth is Mabry a better hitter?
-
Bruce Miles Article on Michael Barrett
soccer10k replied to vance_the_cubs_fan's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
I took part in 3 fantasy drafts with 10 teams each and got Barrett in the 15th round or later in all of them despite Michael being the best hitting catcher in the NL. He's very underrated. Thank you for making my point. -
Oh, you were talking about their cockamamie system. Yeah, I guess Mabry would be worse going by that. EDIT: Remember that playing time was part of their criteria. Twice as many AB's for Neifi means twice the opportunity to suck and get points. Don't you think there's a reason Mabry only got 246 AB's last year while Neifi got 572? And don't say because Nomar got hurt because the Cubs could have traded for somebody else if they thought Neifi was so horrible.
-
Woah, jeez man, we dont even know for sure if this is true. Its second hand questionable information at best. Exactly. It's not like this was reported in Sports Illustrated like Rocker's comments. Ryan didn't say it in an interview. I'm not saying he didn't say it but I'm not saying that he said it. I wouldn't get too worked up over this. Are you saying Sports Illustrated is better than me? How do I say this nicely...YES.
-
Neifi hit .274 last year and only 47 strikeouts in 572 AB's while Mabry hit .240 with 63 strikeouts in 246 AB's. Let's see Neifi has a higher batting average and less strikeouts even though he had twice the number of at bats as Mabry did. Good enough for you?
-
Bruce Miles Article on Michael Barrett
soccer10k replied to vance_the_cubs_fan's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
I would have to say Barrett is one of the more underrated players in the league. -
I think Mabry should have been picked before Neifi i.e. Mabry is worse. Neifi's not great, but he's better than Mabry is.
-
I enjoy it... I just enjoy it more when someone logical is singing it. Exactly. I think they should have Jack Black sing it a couple times a year. That man is downright hilarious. I just shook my head when I heard Ozzy's rendition. But overall, I think it's a good idea.
-
Woah, jeez man, we dont even know for sure if this is true. Its second hand questionable information at best. Exactly. It's not like this was reported in Sports Illustrated like Rocker's comments. Ryan didn't say it in an interview. I'm not saying he didn't say it but I'm not saying that he said it. I wouldn't get too worked up over this.