17 Seconds

I agree. But to completely dismiss RBI's when comparing a player you traded to the player you traded him to acquire, is silly. I could easily make a strong case that DeRo has been significantly better without using RBI's in the conversation. I don't get the uproar with bringing it up. Because RBI totals prove absolutely nothing. This has been explained multiple times. It'sl ike using wins to judge pitchers it's dumb. I'll say this for the 3rd time. Loney has been very poor at the plate this season and still has 49 RBIs. That is a perfect example of why it's a garbage stat. So if player A hits 29 RBI in a season with 500 PA, and player B hits 120 RBI in 500 PA, it doesn't tell you anything? So if Pitcher A has 18 wins in 33 starts and Pitcher B has 5 wins in 33 starts, it doesn't tell you anything? Of course exaggerated examples like that make it obvious which player was better. The point is that going by RBI totals is extremely unreliable due to all of the different factors. Like I said, Loney has been bad this year but has 49 RBIs. Why use such an unreliable stat when there are much better options?

yeah i kind of agree

i'm interested in how many times you can say the word "childish" in one thread without it actually meaning something. i'm done too though. i see that you're only interested in insults when you think you're right about something.

Not what I said, and you know it. If you refer back to page three you'll see that I said "making yourself look worse." Stop making things up. Again with the childlike retorts. Now you're going the semantics route. The point is that you got an attitude first and were basically insulting me without calling me naems, then you whine when I call you a name that shouldn't be even the slightest bit offensive anyways. You keep referring to me as being childish, but only a child should be upset about somebody calling them a name like "moron" on the internet. Get over yourself.

I agree. But to completely dismiss RBI's when comparing a player you traded to the player you traded him to acquire, is silly. I could easily make a strong case that DeRo has been significantly better without using RBI's in the conversation. I don't get the uproar with bringing it up. Because RBI totals prove absolutely nothing. This has been explained multiple times. It'sl ike using wins to judge pitchers it's dumb. I'll say this for the 3rd time. Loney has been very poor at the plate this season and still has 49 RBIs. That is a perfect example of why it's a garbage stat.

I don't see why you think it's not acceptable for GM's to be held t different standards based on payroll. It is clearly an enormous advantage to have a payroll like the Cubs, as opposed to the Pirates or somebody like that. It's enormous. Yes, I'm not saying that we should be super stoked that we have a better record than the Pirates. I am saying it's unfair to criticize the actual success the team has had under Hendry(over teams with big payrolls, small payrolls, negative payrolls, and payrolls with prime numbers) because he took advantage of what he has. Stuff like "thank the Pirates the Cubs made the playoffs in 2003" or "the only reason they made the '07/'08 playoffs was because of their spending spree" is nonsense. Well it def. gets out of hand, but it is certainly a factor... and a huge one.

Then how come you're the one that everybody is making fun of? "Everybody is making fun of?" God, WTF is this? Recess in 3rd grade? Christ. Christ? That's highly offensive to me REPORTED bet you wouldn't say it to christ's face p.s. you're the one who decided to play the "everyone agrees with me, not you" card. i was just throwing it back in your face.

Again, reported. Seriously, why do you feel the need to be such an a-hole? Are you like this in real life or is this just some internet persona that you've created? Gesh. Edit: LOL at this... Clearly I'm not the only one who feels that you're out of line. You do realize that you started the a-holeish behavior, right? I mean, we can go back and look at the posts and find you saying things like "you shouldn't talk if you don't know what you're talking about", when really it was you that didn't know what you were talking about. Hypocrite. Umm, not once did I resort to childlike namecalling like you did. My comments were 100% related to the discussion at hand, whereas yours were not/continue to be not. "You're making a fool out of yourself, stop talking until you learn the discussion" "You're a moron" So one of those is completely fine and the other is some bad offense? Interesting, especially considering mine was justified and yours wasn't, at all. Not surprising that you're whining aobut it though. You're just trying to take the focus off of how hilarious your posts in this thread have been.

Then how come you're the one that everybody is making fun of?

Again, reported. Seriously, why do you feel the need to be such an a-hole? Are you like this in real life or is this just some internet persona that you've created? Gesh. Edit: LOL at this... Clearly I'm not the only one who feels that you're out of line. You do realize that you started the a-holeish behavior, right? I mean, we can go back and look at the posts and find you saying things like "you shouldn't talk if you don't know what you're talking about", when really it was you that didn't know what you were talking about. But I guess busting out "the M word" was just too much for you to take. I'll admit, it is highly offensive. One time I almost said it in public, but I caught myself. Whew. Hypocrite.

And the bad contracts has also made us surrender draft picks. It's a viscious cycle

I don't see why you think it's not acceptable for GM's to be held t different standards based on payroll. It is clearly an enormous advantage to have a payroll like the Cubs, as opposed to the Pirates or somebody like that. It's enormous.

Moron?! There's no need to be an a-hole. It was an honest mistake. That post just got reported. Before your edit. Nice try though. So you repeatedly give me a bunch of attittude and say I shouldn't participate in the discussion because I don't know what I'm talking about, then I call you a moron when we find out that it was, in fact, YOU that was wrong... you report me? Nice dude I even deleted it right after I posted it because I figured you'd get all pissy about it In the future don't cop an attitude with people if you can't handle getting it back, especially when you're in the wrong Hey man, I'm all for a good baseball discussion -- even if it involves some attitude -- which is what this is/was. And I can admit when I was wrong, or when I made a mistake -- like I did. But when I'm talking to someone who resorts to calling me a moron, yeah, that kinda ticks me off. It's uncalled for, and it's just juvenile. And if you were some random guy at a bar that I struck up a conversation with (like I compare internet blogs/message boards to), trust me, you wouldn't say that to my face. Maybe you are a juvenile, I have no idea. But I didn't expect that kind of childish crap at "the place for discussion about the Chicago Cubs." It really shouldn't bother you when somebody calls you a moron on the internet... especially if you deserve it. It's the internet, and it's the word "moron". Who cares? Oh and I'm sure I'd be terrified to say that to you in person. I'm aware that internet message board posters who act like women when they're called "moron" tend to be huge badasses in real life. I'm staying clear of you, buddy. I don't want any trouble.

What a dumb statement. I'm not some idiot that thinks RBI's and Runs scored are the important stats. Don't respond to my posts assuming so. What I, very clearly, stated, was that while other stats certainly mean a whole lot more when evaluating a player... when discussing player A, the former Cub was traded to make room for player B, their run producing stats are absolutely fair game for conversation. Ugh. No they're not. They play in completely different lineups. You just don't get it. RBIs are a worthless stat to look at when determing whop has been a better hitter. RBIs are as much about luck and lineup positiomning as they are about actually performance. Nobody is saying the RBIs themselves don't matter. But to use them to compare playuers is dumb, yeah. You should be using rate stats and stuff like that. Thing that a player... you know.... actually controls. I'll say this again. James Loney has 49 RBI's and has a .732 OPS. Do you understand that Loney has more RBIs than many many players who have been much better than him this season? So is run driven in % fair game? Or is it all about OBP/SLG and nothing else in your eyes? There is literally a laundry list of stats that are better indicators. exactly

Moron?! There's no need to be an a-hole. It was an honest mistake. That post just got reported. Before your edit. Nice try though. Wow man, don't do anything extreme! The cops just showed up and apparently I'm looking at 5-10. Thanks a lot, fasttrack21.

Moron?! There's no need to be an a-hole. It was an honest mistake. That post just got reported. Before your edit. Nice try though. So you repeatedly give me a bunch of attittude and say I shouldn't participate in the discussion because I don't know what I'm talking about, then I call you a moron when we find out that it was, in fact, YOU that was wrong... you report me? Nice dude I even deleted it right after I posted it because I figured you'd get all pissy about it In the future don't cop an attitude with people if you can't handle getting it back, especially when you're in the wrong

yes but unfortunately the 2009 cubs still suck

LOL, WTF? http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl/player_search.cgi?search=2003+cubs http://www.baseball-reference.com/player_search.cgi?sourceid=Mozilla-search&search=2007+cubs You done embarrassing yourself yet? Dude, what is your deal? Do you not understand how numbers work? Oh now I see what you're doing. You're look at the pyth record. Nice Manager: Dusty Baker (88-74) Manager: Lou Piniella (85-77) It would probably be best if you just left now.

Again, try and keep up. Dear god. You must be joking. I was talking about the 2007 division. THE 2003 CUBS WON 88 GAMES, NOT 85. NOBODY BROUGHT UP THE 2003 CUBS. WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE 2007 CUBS. Just admit you were wrong and move on. You're making yourself look worse now by trying to wiggle out of it.

And who built the 67 win team? He turned them into an 85 win team by buying everything, again going back the payroll thing. That 85 win season also came at the cost of giving Soriano 136 million dollars. So let's see. He built a horrible 67 win team, then was given a ton of cash to make it better, spent all that cash, then won an okay 85 wins in a horrible division, and we're supposed to congratulate him for that? Wow. Such low standards. What on earth are you talking about? The 2003 Cubs won 85 games. We're talking about the 2003 team here. Please, if you're going to participate in the discussion... know what the discussion is about. Umm, apparently you're the one who needs to pay attention. The 2003 Cubs won 88 games, not 85. The 85 win team is obviously the 07 team. Maybe you should make sure you know what you're talking about before saying things. Jesus Christ... YOU are the one who first brought up the 85 win team... which was the 2003 team. For the love of God, please try and keep up. Dude are you joking? THE 2003 CUBS WON 88 GAMES. THE 85 WIN TEAM WAS IN 2007. Jesus.

And who built the 67 win team? He turned them into an 85 win team by buying everything, again going back the payroll thing. That 85 win season also came at the cost of giving Soriano 136 million dollars. So let's see. He built a horrible 67 win team, then was given a ton of cash to make it better, spent all that cash, then won an okay 85 wins in a horrible division, and we're supposed to congratulate him for that? Wow. Such low standards. What on earth are you talking about? The 2003 Cubs won 85 games. We're talking about the 2003 team here. Please, if you're going to participate in the discussion... know what the discussion is about. And, of course, you don't know who built the 2002 Cubs. No surprise. It wasn't Hendry, though. I'd tell you to look it up yourself, but for some reason I don't think you'd have success. Hendry took over as GM midway thru the '02 season. The 2003 Cubs won 88 games. Please, if you're going to participate in the discussion... know what the discussion is about. I'm the one who brought up the 85 win team. I was and still am talking about the extremely mediocre 2007 Cubs, for which Hendry should receive very little credit, if any. now he'll just ignore it because of how stupid he's made himself look

And who built the 67 win team? He turned them into an 85 win team by buying everything, again going back the payroll thing. That 85 win season also came at the cost of giving Soriano 136 million dollars. So let's see. He built a horrible 67 win team, then was given a ton of cash to make it better, spent all that cash, then won an okay 85 wins in a horrible division, and we're supposed to congratulate him for that? Wow. Such low standards. What on earth are you talking about? The 2003 Cubs won 85 games. We're talking about the 2003 team here. Please, if you're going to participate in the discussion... know what the discussion is about. Umm, apparently you're the one who needs to pay attention. The 2003 Cubs won 88 games, not 85. The 85 win team is obviously the 07 team. Maybe you should make sure you know what you're talking about before saying things.

He took a 67 win team that was embarrassingly bad and turned them into a division winner the following year -- again, his job. Yes, neat indeed. I wonder who assembled that 67 win team. Hendry's breathing oxygen a good man could be using. He's a waste. Always has been. Christ, does anyone in this thread know what the hell is going on? Hendry didn't assemble that team! Umm, he didn't? Then who did? Hendry has been the GM since 2002. And they won 66 games in 06, not 67.

It should only be expected from people who don't really know anything about stats. What a dumb statement. I'm not some idiot that thinks RBI's and Runs scored are the important stats. Don't respond to my posts assuming so. What I, very clearly, stated, was that while other stats certainly mean a whole lot more when evaluating a player... when discussing player A, the former Cub was traded to make room for player B, their run producing stats are absolutely fair game for conversation. Ugh. No they're not. They play in completely different lineups. You just don't get it. RBIs are a worthless stat to look at when determing whop has been a better hitter. RBIs are as much about luck and lineup positiomning as they are about actually performance. Nobody is saying the RBIs themselves don't matter. But to use them to compare playuers is dumb, yeah. You should be using rate stats and stuff like that. Thing that a player... you know.... actually controls. I'll say this again. James Loney has 49 RBI's and has a .732 OPS. Do you understand that Loney has more RBIs than many many players who have been much better than him this season?

And who built the 67 win team? He turned them into an 85 win team by buying everything, again going back the payroll thing. That 85 win season also came at the cost of giving Soriano 136 million dollars. So let's see. He built a horrible 67 win team, then was given a ton of cash to make it better, spent all that cash, then won an okay 85 wins in a horrible division, and we're supposed to congratulate him for that? Wow. Such low standards.