Jump to content
North Side Baseball

17 Seconds

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    23,855

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

 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 17 Seconds

  1. 17 Seconds
    That was 2006. When has Granderson ever had a .265 obp?
  2. 17 Seconds
    8 balks? That can't possibly be right, can it?
  3. 17 Seconds
    Lou is the new Dusty.
  4. 17 Seconds
    This lineup is going to be a nightmare.
  5. 17 Seconds
    Yep. Although he's yet to ever exceed 575 PA in a season, and has never been an everyday second baseman or starter. Plus, he's 33, not old, but old enough that a step back could be possible. It's possible, but what he said was complately innacurate. He's had 2 straight good years. Those were his only 2 full years also, so it could very well be that he's one of those guys that needs to play every day to hit.
  6. 17 Seconds
    Oh, and for the record, Derosa has had 2 straight good years.
  7. 17 Seconds
    Ugh, you're completely missing the point. I don't think anybody used the term "top pitching prospect" to make it sound like that player has more value. It's relevant because if they are our top 3 pitching prospects, then that means they are our 3 most valuable trading assets and it's not a good idea to just toss them away like it's nothing.
  8. 17 Seconds
    None of those choices look good. How about E) trade for neither and use trading chips for actual needs
  9. 17 Seconds
    If Lou is even considering batting Theriot leadoff during any regular season game, then I don't think he has the right to make fun of anybody else's lineup making abilities. Not even Dusty. Well, maybe Dusty.
  10. 17 Seconds
    Calling them our three "top" pitching prospects is the same as calling Roberts an "all star." It's all contextual and doesnt' really matter. What matters is how they grade out as prospects. They're only "top" prospects because they're in our system. In reality, none of them are A prospects. Huh? That's not even close to the same thing. The fact that they're arguably our 3 best pitching prospects is extremely relevant. That means we're going up our 3 most valuable trading assets (pitching wise) in one trade. How can you possibly compare those 2 things? Each point of view has some merit. Each has an absolute value associated with them as prospects that is independent of organization. That means they will only bring so much value whether it is used now or later. However, being three of our more valuable trading chips means that by giving up those three right now, we are leaving the cupboard a bit bare for later moves. That's what I'm saying. I'm not using the "they're out 3 best pitching prospects" argument to validate their worth (as he was doing by saying Roberts is an all-star). I was saying it because they are our 3 best trading assets (pitching wise), which is extremely relevant. Even if you think those 3 guys suck, they're still our 3 best assets.
  11. 17 Seconds
    Calling them our three "top" pitching prospects is the same as calling Roberts an "all star." It's all contextual and doesnt' really matter. What matters is how they grade out as prospects. They're only "top" prospects because they're in our system. In reality, none of them are A prospects. Huh? That's not even close to the same thing. The fact that they're arguably our 3 best pitching prospects is extremely relevant. That means we're going up our 3 most valuable trading assets (pitching wise) in one trade. How can you possibly compare those 2 things?
  12. 17 Seconds
    i would consider that ok with me for an all-star 2B Mark Loretta is an all-star 2B. Do you want him to? not a good comparison....loretta is almost 40 You're missing the point. I'm not saying Loretta is as good as Roberts. I'm just sick of people using the "all-star" thing to validate the Roberts trade. We get it, he's good. Pointing out that he's an all-star just makes you look desperate. Being an all-star is meaningless when looking at trades. Absolutely meaningless.
  13. 17 Seconds
    i would consider that ok with me for an all-star 2B Mark Loretta is an all-star 2B. Do you want him to?
  14. 17 Seconds
    No kidding on both. If this deal goes through, despite their histronics, the Orioles have a pretty damn impressive offseason in terms of rebuilding their team. Which will piss me off because it will only be due to 3 horrible GM's.
  15. 17 Seconds
    Ugh. The Sun-Times says the Cubs have an offer of Gallagher/Ceda/Veal/Cedeno on the table. IF this is true, then a)Hendry is a complete moron, and b)Why hasn't this been accepted yet? http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/842384,CST-SPT-brian14.article
  16. 17 Seconds
    :thumbsup: Yeah I actually like what you said... That's fine, just don't complain if we trade 4 players for Roberts and then we have nothing good to offer other teams if we need a starting pitcher, shortstop, center fielder, and bullpen help in July.
  17. 17 Seconds
    The knee socks make him look skinnier.
  18. 17 Seconds
    The fact that Pierre is now playing left field is hilarious. I think that might be one of the 5 worst contracts of all time.
  19. 17 Seconds
    You stay classy Ozzie.
  20. 17 Seconds
    What's the advantage to walking away versus leaving his offer on the table. Or, alternatively, suppose Hendry does walk away and 2 weeks or 2 months from now the O's call up and say we'll take it. Assuming nothing significant has changed (Roberts hasn't broken a leg or one of the Cubs pieces is looking like ROY) is Hendry supposed to say sorry, you had your chance, I know it's a good deal for the Cubs but you missed your chance? All indications are that they're still negotiating.
  21. 17 Seconds
    As far as value goes, it doesn't even matter if those prospects end up turning into good players. They all have value right NOW. We only have a certain amount of tradeable assets. Just because they might no turn out to be good doesn't mean it's okay to trade them with reckless abandon. That's irresponsible. Like I said, we have greater needs. Those players should be used to fill those nees, not for an upgrade at a position that doesn't need upgrading. You say that just because the 3 pitchers traded for Pierre haven't turned into anything good that means the Pierre trade wasn't a good one, which is not true at all. That was still a horrible trade because at the time we traded them, those 3 guys still had value, value that should have been used responsibly. Instead we threw them away for nothing. Even if those 3 pitchers retire in 2 years, that still was a bad trade because they had value at the time. The reason I'm against the trade isn't because I want them on our team in the future. It's because I want them to be used for holes that we acually need to fill.
  22. 17 Seconds
    I would. I'm not convinced at all that Cedeno will ever be much of a hitter and Veal has some very serious question marks. Gallagher is a big loss, but Roberts helps this team quite a bit too. I wouldn't be dancing in the street over the trade, but I think it would be a net improvement for the Cubs. I just think out limited valuable trading assets need to be saved or used to fill actual holes. I think we're certainly going to need other upgrades at the deadline.
  23. 17 Seconds
    I wouldn't even do Gallagher, Veal, and Cedeno.
  24. 17 Seconds
    no, it's really not How is it not? After 3 months, name other possible scenarios. Hendry wants him, Macphail is asking for more than hendry currently wants to give. Whether or not somebody else on the O's side (PGA) is holding it up and wanting more doesn't matter. Hendry needs to decide one way or another, because it's just a distraction. So you'd rather Hendry give up more than he needs to in the trade? No, I'd rather him walk away. What if the current trade on the table is Roberts for Gallagher and a minor leaguer with the only holdup being the O's want to decide if said minor leaguer is Ceda, Cedeno or Veal? Perhaps all these "names tossed around" were mostly bogus and for the past month or two it's been Roberts for Gallagher and one of Ceda/Cedeno/Veal. Maybe the current holdup is that MacPhail wants his scouts to evaluate the three minor leaguers in spring training and, towards the end, they'll make their decision between the three. If that's the case and Hendry tabled talks permanently because it's taking too long would you congratulate him for passing on a great trade simply because he was impatient? Haha. Sorry, but I find that EXTREMELY hard to believe. If it turns out that was the case, I'll glady come on here to apologize to Hendry, but come on man. We all know that's not true.
  25. 17 Seconds
    From The Baltimore Sun
×
×
  • Create New...