17 Seconds

There aren't a lot, and Manny isn't one of them anymore, since last year he didn't break that threshold. He did... easily

Wow you see I really dont get the point to a post like this. First of all where is the reasoning to say you would rather have Pie out there than Anderson. Looking at Anderson's numbers the past few years they're pretty much average numbers. What in the world has Pie done for the Cubs to make you think he would be better than anderson out there. I'm a big Pie fan and still feel he has potential but i'm not dumb enough to say i'd rather have him than anderson. By no means am i saying that the cubs should sign him because i'd prefer them not too but then again I wouldn't be mad if they signed him to a cheap contract. I'm pretty sure the same idiots posting those smartass remarks are the same ones who said "oh good no", "Sign Gaetti" when the cubs ended up signing Edmonds and how did that work out. Just because the guys is old doesn't mean he can't be of some use, its not the cubs would be signing him to a multiyear deal. Pie has potential, Anderson had production. Pie makes the league minimum, Anderson would cost several million. Anderson would be a signing that makes no sense at any level. Pie at least makes sense monetarily and with the hope of the type of production he's actually had in the minors given regular time in the majors. With Anderson at least you know what you'll get and what you get at this point, is more than what you'll get from Pie. With Anderson all you know is that you're going to get pretty crappy production and bad defense. With Pie you're going to get extremely good defense and questionable offense. I'd take Pie. You pretty much know Anderson is going to suck. At least Pie has a chance to be good and at the very least you'll get excellent defense.

Just like the 3-12 Cardinals had nothing to play for a few years back when they beat the Vikings to knock them out of the playoffs? That's completely different though. That team was playing the spoiler role, so they had that to play for. That is motivation. The Giants have no motivaiton whatsoever. They'll be resting guys and basically just going through the motions and trying to avoid injuries. I'd probably rather have them play a crappy team than play a good team that has already clinched everything they can.

The Bears are pretty much screwed. The Giants will have literally nothing to play for in Minnesota next week

Yeah, def sample size. There are bound to be certain parks that guys hit better in. That doesn't mean that trend is going to continue

Just about as necessary as this comment. Pretty poor comparison I'd say. I'm not a Jim Hendry fan but I don't understand why we have to give him crap for signing a bench player. I really don't care if you like Jim, or think its a good signing. Its the fact that your bringing it up in a thread about Garrett Anderson that makes it completely unnecessary. So that, in fact, does make it a solid comparison. You're right. I guess I should have posted it in the "Discuss Westside Rooter's avatar and sig here" thread. My fault. I don't know what I was thinking anyways... ruining a groundbreaking thread arguing whether or not Garrett Anderson sucks really bad or just sucks pretty bad.

Just about as necessary as this comment. Pretty poor comparison I'd say. I'm not a Jim Hendry fan but I don't understand why we have to give him crap for signing a bench player.

Details?

Is it really necessary to have you avatar and sig about Gathright? I mean, seriously, I don't get that. It's not like Hendry signed him to start or even compete. He's a bench player. I'm sure he knows that his offense is trash.

are the bucs seriously going to go from 9-3 to out of the playoffs?

if by "most" you mean like 3

I just wanted to jump in here and point out one thing. One thing Adam Dunn does really really well is hit homeruns. If I were his manager I would never ask him to cut down on his swing so he can bloop single. That is for people like Theriot, who had like 1 homerun all year last year. I mean someone pointed out earlier the situation that maybe Dunn could swing at a few more 3-0. 3-1 pitches that are borderline that he currently now takes for a walk. He said he swings at 12 and puts 10 into play, which would be really nice because maybe 1-4 more runs score, but he makes 2 more outs. He effectively raises his avg, but lowers his OBP and it makes him LOOK better because his RBI's are up and his avg is up, but it makes him a worse hitter. Also what is the trade off or asking him to shorten his swing? How many homeruns would he miss out on? I mean if Dusty had been successful making him do that sac bunt last year, he would have only had 39 homeruns and 3 less RBI's. The point of this entire argument has to be that Dunn isn't the type of hitter you like, contrary to the fact that he is a highly productive hitter, and that you are a Dusty Baker type baseball fan and simply want to see guys do things the "right way" and don't care as much about wins and losses. Because the stats are basically proving you wrong over and over and over again, no matter how you keep spinning it. Oh, and this is what I was talking about earlier with the failed sac bunt/launching a 3 run homer. With the Reds trailing by one run in the ninth inning Saturday, Adam Dunn's initial intention with runners on first and second and one out was to bunt his teammates into scoring position. After two unsuccessful sacrifice attempts, a frustrated Dunn chose to swing away. Dunn's backup plan sailed 449 feet into the right-field Sun Deck for a three-run walk-off home run... Adam Dunn, batting seventh, with (I believe) 2 sac bunts in his career, asked to bunt in the bottom of the ninth with Paul Bako and the pitcher's spot behind him. (courtesy of FJM) Ok, so I can get my point through thick skulls such as this, I'll try to make this as clear as possible. I've made my points over and over again, but let's sum it up by going for a simulated scenario. Adam Dunn signs with the Cubs. A base runner gets to third base with Dunn coming to the plate with two outs. What does Scarey want Dunn to do? HIT A FRIGGIN HOME RUN!!!!! What would Scarey accept as alternatives? 1. Hit a triple (lol) or a double. 2. Hit a single. . . . . . . 3. Draw walk. Dunn gets two strikes against him. What does Scarey want Dunn to do? MAKE CONTACT FIRST!!!!! Now, if you disagree with that than that's just how the world works. People disagree. However, if you want to try to make me out to be some kind of Dusty Baker worshiping lunatic, please throw your slander elsewhere. I hated Baker's approach with his hitters. Piniella's approach is all about getting runs in. I'm not asking for sac bunts in the 1st inning or swinging for a single on the first pitch, but I think striking out with runners in scoring position is as bad as it gets much like Lou. I don't care what nonsense you guys wanna make up about Dunn's swing angle, if a guy is striking out in 25% of his plate appearances with RISP, he can make strides towards trying to put the ball in play with two strikes. So to summarize, you don't want Dunn for these 2 reasons 1) Because he might not be good at getting a guy in from 3rd with less than 2 outs, which is a situational stat that makes a very marginal differencein runs over the course of an entire season and 2) Because he doesn't shorten up with 2 strikes. Instea dhe swings away and stays as the same .900 OPS hitter who hits home runs at a good rate, instead of shortning up, flipping the bat at the ball in hopes of blooping a single, while usually just making weak contact to an infielder Yeah, those are 2 very lofical reasons. I don't want him anymore either. I just find it extremely comical that you entire argument revolves around BA with RISP and that you don't realize how miniscule that really is in the great scheme of producing runs

Quote something that I'm "ignoring" and I'll gladly address it. Please. I;m not going to go through 11 pages and qutoe evrtyhing you've ignored. There are a ton of things that people have brought up that you haven't replied to. There will be like 10 posts in between yours and then you'll make one small post cherry picking a statement you want to reply too. Name one thing. If I'm truly purposely ignoring it because it's not easy or I can't speak against it, then I shouldn't be able to answer it right? Just pick one. You made a very good point, there's 11 pages of stuff here. Do you expect me to answer everybody here? This isn't even the best Cubs board I visit, so why would I spend that much time here? What will naming one thing accomplish? Nothing. then you'll respond to it nd nothing will change. The fact is that the majority of the good points that have pretty much dismissed your case are ignored, then you claim that you can't answer everybody because you don't have time and this isn't the only board you visit. Whatever. If you're going to get involved in a thread and make claims, then you'd better stay involved and respond to people who are showing why those claims are false. Seriously, just take a look through out the thread. It's not hard to see what I'm talking about. You make a claim, he's argued by many (and well), and then you make a new post either talking about something knew or cherry picking one post you feel like you can respond to. It's weak. Whatever though, I don't even really care anymore, it's pointless. It's been proven over and over again that Dunn is a productive player. Nobody is making him out to be great. He's good. The arugments about RISP and stuff like that need to stop though, because it's been psoted enough how weak those arguments are.

we're doomed http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2008/12/21/its_the_offseason_of_hope/?page=4

That difference would presumably be in their SLG. exactly. and dunn slugs well so the average really isn't that big of a deal it doesn't look pretty though, so people will resfuse to believe that he's a productive hitter what this team really needs is a guy who drives in runs with singles, not home runs

ADAM DUNN DRIVES IN RUNS Oh, and stop following me around with your garbage. I don't need your "why are you so annoying trash". I don't care about you.

Quote something that I'm "ignoring" and I'll gladly address it. Please. I;m not going to go through 11 pages and qutoe evrtyhing you've ignored. There are a ton of things that people have brought up that you haven't replied to. There will be like 10 posts in between yours and then you'll make one small post cherry picking a statement you want to reply too.

I actually thought the replies were pretty tame and reasonable, given the topic you created. Plus I don't understand the "some people really need to lighten up" statement when it seems like you're the only one who is upset.

this was my favorite part of the whole post

Boston and LA never said they're out

yeah for some reason defense is suddenly the new hotness on here

cripple fight?

oh and for the record, i like kahlil greene. i'm just making the fun of the fact that he thinks he's always right and he barely ever is

yes you're right. it's gotta be either the cardinals (they got greene!), astros (they still have towles) or padres (peavy!) no but seriously, who in the nl has less flaws than the cubs? the nl is still really weak. i don't see who else is better than them right now. both the mets and phillies rotations look pretty weak Wow, what a clever joke you made with meph and khalil greene. no one has ever made that joke on here before. you are so original. aww look at how cute you are defending him. somebody has a cruuuushhhhhhhh

yes you're right. it's gotta be either the cardinals (they got greene!), astros (they still have towles) or padres (peavy!) no but seriously, who in the nl has less flaws than the cubs? the nl is still really weak. i don't see who else is better than them right now. both the mets and phillies rotations look pretty weak