CyHawk_Cub

Well done Sean, well done... :good: :good:

Yeah, I think Hendry keeps forgetting that he no longer works for MacPhail....

There's a joke in there somewhere. Uh, I'll bite: Felix may have more lasting concerns about something other than his [baseball] bat going impotent... There, I did it...

Is this one being broadcast....at all? Oh, and is gameday audio included if you buy the mlbtv premium package? I had premium last season (Mosaic is cool on OS X at least), but I can't remember...

This thread needs to be divided into chapters or something; so many different topics discussed...

Of course, that kind of proves to me that the lineup analyzer is not good. If you plug in the 8 exact same players and the OBP guy, I find that if you put the OBP guy in the 9 spot, you'll score 6.295 runs per game. If you put him in the 6 spot, that same lineup will only score 5.203 runs per game. If the 8 other players are the exact same, why would putting your best player in the 6 spot result in over a run less per game than putting him in the 9 spot? There's absolutely no way that can be true. This exercise makes me trust the lineup analyzer a lot less if it makes bad decisions like this. the obp man gets way fewer plate appearances if you bat him ninth. since he's your only great hitter, that makes a big difference. Exactly, which is my big problem. The lineup analyzer says that the OBP man would be much better batting 9th than 6th. How does that happen? Perhap b/c typically a team's best hitters are at the top of the order, so if 9th hitter gets on base, more likely to be driven in... but in the scenario we plugged in the other 8 hitters were the exact same. Oh...me is not so smrt

Of course, that kind of proves to me that the lineup analyzer is not good. If you plug in the 8 exact same players and the OBP guy, I find that if you put the OBP guy in the 9 spot, you'll score 6.295 runs per game. If you put him in the 6 spot, that same lineup will only score 5.203 runs per game. If the 8 other players are the exact same, why would putting your best player in the 6 spot result in over a run less per game than putting him in the 9 spot? There's absolutely no way that can be true. This exercise makes me trust the lineup analyzer a lot less if it makes bad decisions like this. the obp man gets way fewer plate appearances if you bat him ninth. since he's your only great hitter, that makes a big difference. Exactly, which is my big problem. The lineup analyzer says that the OBP man would be much better batting 9th than 6th. How does that happen? Perhap b/c typically a team's best hitters are at the top of the order, so if 9th hitter gets on base, more likely to be driven in...

I'd rather have my bases clogged than unclogged, so I voted OBP in this case...

In the baseball world. Using 3-year splits, do you know how many 2B have put an OPS over .800 besides Roberts? Utley, Kent, Cano, and Polanco (Hudson doesn't have the 2005 to qualify, I think from injury, but he should be there). There are other young guys without 3 years that project over .800 in 2008 such as Johnson, Uggla, and Pedroia. Utley and his .900+ OPS is in a tier by himself. Then you have a 6-10 guys who might give you .800+, which should be considered plus production for that position. In the baseball world a guy that gives you plus production at a position and still close enough to age 30 to be relevant has value. Whether your personal baseball beliefs include steals or not, many in the baseball world tack a 50+ steals rider onto an .800+ OPS as additional value. Honestly, I don't get the problem, unless you've been playing too much PS3. 4 players is a lot only if you consider 'proven' MLB numbers in the package. 4 players is not a lot if all would qualify as unproven talent and none qualify as can't miss prospects, and in this case Murton, Cedeno, Gallagher, and one B prospect constitutes a package of unproven every day talent and it does not include a can't miss prospect. Take out Roberts "roid" year of 2005 which his OPS was .902 and he's not in that .800 OPS club either. In fact, if you look at the last 2 years of production and we are focusing on OPS, DeRosa's avg OPS was .802, whereas Roberts' was .783. I'm not going to argue how valuable Roberts is to ANY team, but I will argue just how much of an upgrade he is to THIS team. I realize that he's an incredible leadoff man, and can steal bases, which the Cubs do need, but not in a 2B. If he played SS, do what it takes to get him. First, welcome to the board. Second, the smack-down. Unfortunately for you, you cannot simply choose to remove a year of player's career to suit your argument and get anywhere, especially around here. And it's a clear overstatement to say 'roid year' when Roberts name has been linked to one usage of hgh publicly. So both sides of your argument really have little relevance and don't contradict anything I previously posted. Not that I disagree with your premise, but if you think Roberts only used HGH one time because that's all the Mitchell report could uncover, I've got a bridge to sell you. I'll disagree with you on that (maybe again?). Why would Roberts admit in casual conversation that he used steroids, then lie about how much he used it? He either would lie about it completely, or he would tell the truth. It simply doesn't make sense that in 2004 he was willing to tell his friend, who he knew to be another steroid user, that he used steroids but then lie about the frequency. Because he's been caught w/ his hand in the cookie jar, and pleading minimal (one-time) use would somehow be better than admitting to continual use? It's more plausible to claim "I made a mistake" if only done once (or a few times); much harder to pass scrutiny when admitting continual use... Obviously I have no clue how many times Roberts used, but I disagree w/ the statement that it's all or nothing in terms of his mea culpa... But he wasn't caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Here is the only evidence against Roberts: So we have two friends talking privately. Roberts wasn't suspected of anything at the time. He had no reason to admit to steroids. If he wanted to cover it up, he easily could have. All he had to do was not tell his friend about his steroid use. Instead, he did. So why would he then lie that he only used it once or twice? His public apology means nothing to me. He easily could have been lying. I just don't see why he would tell so much of the truth to Bigbie, but then lie about a small part of the issue. Perhaps not decisively so, but in this environment, anyone named in a PED investigation are going to be presumed guilty...better to admit fault, yet mitigate blame by admitting to as little as possible... As far as his admission to Bigbie (& I'm no psychiatrist), its plausible that users are in clear states of denial--Exhibit #1: The Rocket...

In the baseball world. Using 3-year splits, do you know how many 2B have put an OPS over .800 besides Roberts? Utley, Kent, Cano, and Polanco (Hudson doesn't have the 2005 to qualify, I think from injury, but he should be there). There are other young guys without 3 years that project over .800 in 2008 such as Johnson, Uggla, and Pedroia. Utley and his .900+ OPS is in a tier by himself. Then you have a 6-10 guys who might give you .800+, which should be considered plus production for that position. In the baseball world a guy that gives you plus production at a position and still close enough to age 30 to be relevant has value. Whether your personal baseball beliefs include steals or not, many in the baseball world tack a 50+ steals rider onto an .800+ OPS as additional value. Honestly, I don't get the problem, unless you've been playing too much PS3. 4 players is a lot only if you consider 'proven' MLB numbers in the package. 4 players is not a lot if all would qualify as unproven talent and none qualify as can't miss prospects, and in this case Murton, Cedeno, Gallagher, and one B prospect constitutes a package of unproven every day talent and it does not include a can't miss prospect. Take out Roberts "roid" year of 2005 which his OPS was .902 and he's not in that .800 OPS club either. In fact, if you look at the last 2 years of production and we are focusing on OPS, DeRosa's avg OPS was .802, whereas Roberts' was .783. I'm not going to argue how valuable Roberts is to ANY team, but I will argue just how much of an upgrade he is to THIS team. I realize that he's an incredible leadoff man, and can steal bases, which the Cubs do need, but not in a 2B. If he played SS, do what it takes to get him. First, welcome to the board. Second, the smack-down. Unfortunately for you, you cannot simply choose to remove a year of player's career to suit your argument and get anywhere, especially around here. And it's a clear overstatement to say 'roid year' when Roberts name has been linked to one usage of hgh publicly. So both sides of your argument really have little relevance and don't contradict anything I previously posted. Not that I disagree with your premise, but if you think Roberts only used HGH one time because that's all the Mitchell report could uncover, I've got a bridge to sell you. I'll disagree with you on that (maybe again?). Why would Roberts admit in casual conversation that he used steroids, then lie about how much he used it? He either would lie about it completely, or he would tell the truth. It simply doesn't make sense that in 2004 he was willing to tell his friend, who he knew to be another steroid user, that he used steroids but then lie about the frequency. Because he's been caught w/ his hand in the cookie jar, and pleading minimal (one-time) use would somehow be better than admitting to continual use? It's more plausible to claim "I made a mistake" if only done once (or a few times); much harder to pass scrutiny when admitting continual use... Obviously I have no clue how many times Roberts used, but I disagree w/ the statement that it's all or nothing in terms of his mea culpa...

He clearly needs to change his definition of "high profile" b/c I see no other Transactions thread as lengthy & off-topic as the Roberts thread.

1. Roberts is coming to the Cubs 2. OH Insiders know all 3. OH Insiders suck 4. Roberts is NOT coming to the Cubs 5. Hendry, Steve Stone are all-knowing demi-gods who clearly understand better than anyone else how to construct a World Series winning team 6. Sori will definitely be moved down in the order if Roberts is acquired 7. The above won't happen b/c Sori sucks w/ guys on base 8. Sliding into 1st base is sound technique (proven by scientific study) 9. Continually citing Hendry, et al as true experts beyond reproach trumps all other arguments 10. Roberts MIGHT come to the Cubs 11. Putting posters on "ignore" is a godsend 12. This thread is epic potpourri... I'm sure I missed plenty, but those are the highlights that stick out in my mind.....

Me too. But not because he's hard headed. Because he's not good at playing baseball. ^^ I think the two go hand-in-hand....at least in Marqueef's case; he's got ability, but his stubbornness has prevented him from maintaining any level of consistency...well, other than being consistently crappy for the most part.

I hope Woody can go b2b days and become the closer... The bullpen would look pretty tough at the end, methinks. Marmol--when needed to put out a fire Howry--set-up Woody--close

Fukudome w/ another walk? man, when's he gonna learn that Batting avg is where it's at?

It had to be said. Originality/comedic value: D "One of the guys" factor: A You guys obviously don't understand comedy. Ehhh, I've just never gotten British humor....oh, wait...

^^What he said... I used the ignore function on wrigley23, now Dexter goes & keeps this childish argument going, and worse: he keeps quoting wrigley, thus rendering my ignore useless!! Stop the insanity, please. It is beyond obvious that wrigley will not engage in a fruitful debate, so why bother responding to him? EDIT: ignore my rant...others have already responded in similar fashion...

Did we actually score any runs? Yes, 1. So Cub-like: bases jucied, score 1 run...

Oh that Jimbo is SOOO slick!!

LOL, yeah, this and pro-choice vs. pro-life debates...

I think Gibbons- when he gets back from suspension- will probably play more 1st base. Of course the O's still have markakis which crowds their OF anyway. I don't believe other teams care whether the Cubs think he is good. The fact that he doesn't fit in on the Cubs is good because it's making him available. Whether or not he's good enough to start in LF somewhere I'd say maybe 3-5 teams. True, but it also makes clear to those teams that Murton might be had at a lower asking price simply b/c the Cubs don't value him enough...

It's a pretty useful feature. Thank to Tim, et al for enabling this...

I think opposing teams do more research than that when evaluating players. I don't think their opinion of Matt Murton is going to drastically change because Lou said some nice things about him. Do you really think Angelos would come running into MacPhail's office and say, "Andy! I read in the Tribune that Lou said Murton is a great option to sub and has some pop off the bench! Let's pull the trigger on the Roberts trade!" not to mention that MacPhail is already extremely familiar with these players It was a totally fallacious scenario anyway: I don't see Angelos running anywhere....

Maybe its just Iowans :-" not cool At all. x3 :x

You want some cheese with that whine? There is no news. We've had a smattering of published media reports, a few comments from Mr. Miles and massive amounts of speculation disguised as "rumor" from "sources" or "guys". Of all the posts among the last 200 pages, I can think of hundreds more deserving of a "cheese with that whine" rebuff. Ok, I probably should have whipped it out at the .500 BA in high school post. Fair enough. Anyway, anyone who clicks on this thread should know that this is the thread about nothing. It says so right in the title. The last update was pg. 180somithing. Should it be renamed the Seinfeld thread? I could get behind that... Plus it sends an unequivocal message that this thread is clearly about nothing, whereas anything in this forum is SUPPOSED to be about transactions (potential or otherwise) :grin: ....and no, I'm not trying to (nor want to be) a mod..