17 Seconds

Seriously, are you joking? Grasping for straws? How am I grasping for straws? Almost everyone else disagrees with you. Are facts "grasping for straws"? That sounds ridiculous to me. Fighting unfairly? Are you joking? You blatantly lie repeatedly, I call it out, and that means I'm "fighting unfairly"? Where do you come up with this stuff? And the "I have kids and work for a living" stuff is nonsense as well. What does that have to do with anything? Does that make it okay to lie? Does that make it okay to repeatedly say things and then fail to back it up? You guarantee it? Okay, then what sort of compensation are you going to offer me if that doesn't come true? If you can't somehow compensate me, then you're making a prediction and not a guarantee. I seriously think you need to listen to that interview again, because Lou never said that. If he did, why don't you listen again and type word for word what he said, so we can judge it ourselves? Oh, because "you have kids and work for a living", so you don't have time. Right. I'd say there's about a 50/50 chance Soriano would be moved down if they ended up getting Roberts, and I think the odds are only that good because of Soriano's leg problems. If I had to bet, I'd still say that Roberts would bat second and Soriano leadoff. However, I'm reasonable enough to know that I can't make some sort of ridiculous guarantee as if I know for sure, because none of us know that. I also know that I won't lie about what Lou said just to make my point seem more valid. How did I speak for a moderator? All I did was remind you to what HE said. As for disagreeing with that I've said, then fine. The thing is, you never make counter arguments. You act like you can't hear anything and then jump to other statements instead of carrying on a discussion, all the while claiming it's because you "don't have time", which we all know is just an excuse, since you clearly have enough time to post repeatedly. These are a few of the reasons why most of this board doesn't take you seriously and either a)make fun of you, or b)ignore you. As for me, I think it's time for letter B. As others have said in the past week, congratulations for being the first person that has ever made me feel inclinced to use the ignore feature. I'm sure I won't be the last. Have a nice life. I have to admit your responses are a bit hostile. Back it up a notch and just have a healthy discussion. No reason to get upset about it. That's the whole point. It's impossible to have a healthy discussion with him because he doesn't listen to or acknowledge other people's statements.

You're on ignore.

I can't figure out why he doesn't understand that whatever is best for Soriano's performance is also best for the team. Guess what? Soriano is on the team.

Seriously, are you joking? Grasping for straws? How am I grasping for straws? Almost everyone else disagrees with you. Are facts "grasping for straws"? That sounds ridiculous to me. Fighting unfairly? Are you joking? You blatantly lie repeatedly, I call it out, and that means I'm "fighting unfairly"? Where do you come up with this stuff? And the "I have kids and work for a living" stuff is nonsense as well. What does that have to do with anything? Does that make it okay to lie? Does that make it okay to repeatedly say things and then fail to back it up? You guarantee it? Okay, then what sort of compensation are you going to offer me if that doesn't come true? If you can't somehow compensate me, then you're making a prediction and not a guarantee. I seriously think you need to listen to that interview again, because Lou never said that. If he did, why don't you listen again and type word for word what he said, so we can judge it ourselves? Oh, because "you have kids and work for a living", so you don't have time. Right. I'd say there's about a 50/50 chance Soriano would be moved down if they ended up getting Roberts, and I think the odds are only that good because of Soriano's leg problems. If I had to bet, I'd still say that Roberts would bat second and Soriano leadoff. However, I'm reasonable enough to know that I can't make some sort of ridiculous guarantee as if I know for sure, because none of us know that. I also know that I won't lie about what Lou said just to make my point seem more valid. How did I speak for a moderator? All I did was remind you to what HE said. As for disagreeing with that I've said, then fine. The thing is, you never make counter arguments. You act like you can't hear anything and then jump to other statements instead of carrying on a discussion, all the while claiming it's because you "don't have time", which we all know is just an excuse, since you clearly have enough time to post repeatedly. These are a few of the reasons why most of this board doesn't take you seriously and either a)make fun of you, or b)ignore you. As for me, I think it's time for letter B. As others have said in the past week, congratulations for being the first person that has ever made me feel inclinced to use the ignore feature. I'm sure I won't be the last. Have a nice life.

You're using Lou as a crutch to make it seem like your opinions are more valid. "Oh, well if Lou thinks it's a good idea, then it obviously is! He knows more than any of us!" is basically what you're trying to do. Because you continue to flat out lie. You tried ignoring it until I asked you for the third time, when you finally had to acknowledge it. Lou never said that, and other people have heard the same thing that I did. When you lie about something and then refuse to admit it when you're caught, it tends to aggravate people. Not to mention the whole refusing to acknowledge other points thing as well. The moderator already wanred you about this and you coninute to do it. When we respond to you, we make counter arguments about claims you made. When you respond to us, you say the same things over and over and over again, while refusing to acknowledge the points we made. It's like arguing with a little kid: "LALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING. I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALA".

Are you kidding me?

Ok, I didn't read most of this post because I'm sick of your nonsense and refusal to acknowledge facts, but I saw the bolded part because someone else highlighted it and responded to it. Why do you continue to lie even though I've called you out on it multiple times? I've heard the interview you're referring to and Lou never said that, so stop saying he did. What he said was the same thing he's been saying all along: that he's consider moving Soriano down if they made a trade. Please stop making things up. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up Lou anyways.

The Cubs don't need a second baseman.

ALFONSO SORIANO DOES NOT HIT WELL IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LINEUP. ALFONSO SORIANO DOES NOT HIT WELL WITH RUNNERS ON. ALFONSO SORIANO DOES NOT HIT WELL WITH RUNNERS IN SCORING POSITION. Seriously, the mod already warned you a bout thise "I refuse to acknowledge others points" nonsense. It has nothing to do with babying Soriano or making him feel comfortable, it about making him perform best. Like badnews said, an .890 ops hitter is always better than an .810 ops hitter, no matter where in the lineup they're hitting. This overvaluing of the leadoff spot is ridiculous and has to stop. Alfonso Soriano should have never been signed by the Cubs. It was a makeup signing for not making an honest run at Beltran or Vlad years earlier. Might as well make the best of his signing, but the points you made in all caps underline why he is such an overrated POS. $18 million for a guy who can't handle the pressure of batting with runners on base? Great decision, Jim. I agree with everything you said. I think it was a terrible contract. That doesn't mean we have to make it worse by forcing him into being something he's not and watch his performance suffer.

Why? When people were supporting going after Roberts, their main defense to the "we already have a second baseman" arugment was about how Roberts is a leadoff hitter and Derosa isn't. Fine. I don't agree with it, but fine. But now we're discussing other second baseman that don't leadoff, just because the Roberts trade seems unlikely. What the hell is going on? Why don't we focus on upgrading positions that actually need it?

ALFONSO SORIANO DOES NOT HIT WELL IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LINEUP. ALFONSO SORIANO DOES NOT HIT WELL WITH RUNNERS ON. ALFONSO SORIANO DOES NOT HIT WELL WITH RUNNERS IN SCORING POSITION. Seriously, the mod already warned you a bout thise "I refuse to acknowledge others points" nonsense. It has nothing to do with babying Soriano or making him feel comfortable, it about making him perform best. Like badnews said, an .890 ops hitter is always better than an .810 ops hitter, no matter where in the lineup they're hitting. This overvaluing of the leadoff spot is ridiculous and has to stop.

That article certainly sounds derogatory towards people that take a lot of stock in numbers, or as Bruce calls them, "pencil pushers".

He's not a professional poster, remember? He doesn't have time to "look up stats" and "pretty up posts" by using quotes. He does, however, have time to make multiple posts saying the same things over and over again.

It's ridiculous. Number 2 is probably the worst place Soriano could at. I still haven't gotten an explanation as to why Roberts can't utilize all his assets in the number 2 spot also. Oh, because "he's a LEADOFF hitter, that's why! What good is a LEADOFF hitter that doesn't LEADOFF!? If Roberts doesn't LEADOFF, the earth will explode! I won't live in a world full of blasphemers that want to bat Roberts second!"

Shhh. Logic is not tolerated in this thread.

Good god. You used those examples multiple times in the past and I've explained to you every time why they are poor example. Ryan Howard has shown he can produce in the middle of the lineup. Carlos Beltran has shown he can produce in the middle of the lineup. Alfonso Soriano has not shown he can produce in the middle of the lineup. Seriously, part of me almost wants Soriano to be moved down just so you can get a first hand glimpse of what a bad idea it is, before he's finally moved back to leadoff in June. Then you'd THINK we'd finally be able to put this idea to bed.

Yes, it's your position in the batting order. Setting a good lineup is just as important as setting a good defense. Let's take this lineup: Ramirez-3b Pitcher Theriot-ss Pie-cf DeRosa-2b Soriano-lf Soto-c Lee-1b Fukudome-rf I'm sure that'd work just fine. Nice speed at the top, great power in the middle, I love it personally. Lay off the hyperbole pal. Anyways, I think that "setting a good lineup" entails putting players where they perform the best.

No, I wasn't. You said "he gets on base 40 points better than Soriano", which is a blanket statement that leadsp ople to believe that's been the case over his entire career. He got on base 40 points higher than Soriano in 2007. What about 2006? Do those stats not count? Why do you automatically assume players will put up idenitcal numbers as last year? Does Green hit for more power than Ramirez too?

Please stop lying. I've listened to the Piniella interview and he never said that. All hew said is that if they made a trade, he'd CONSIDER moving Soriano down. Also, the part about Gallagher was a lie, since he's obviously pitched past AA, and pitched well. Oh, and Roberts also doesnt get on base 40 points higher than Soriano. Roberts OBP: .377 Soriano: .337 I'm aware of where their numbers were last season. He didn't say "Roberts got on base 40 points higher than Soriano last season", he said "Roberts gets on base 40 points higher than Soriano". Look at the career numbers. OK, come on now . . . I'm enjoying this all as much as anyone - but he's got you here. You called him out, and now it's been proven that he was actually right. Just give him a "touche" and move on . . . Do you really think I wasn't aware of the OBP stats of those 2 guys last season? Please. With how much this has been debated this offseason, the stats of Roberts/Soriano/Derosa are etched into my mind for eternity. What he said was not an accurate statement. He doesn't "get on base 40 points higher than Soriano". He did last season. What about the season before? Kahlil Greene outhomered Aramis last season. So would it be an accurate statement to say that "Greene hits for more power than Ramirez"? I certainly don't think so. I really don't know what you know . . . but I think I'll go with O_O's line that "either interpretation is reasonable." W23'S claim of fact was backed up with, um . . . FACTS! Please don't feed it. It might grow. What might grow? Logic?

Ugh. Did I ever say that Roberts isn't better at getting on base than Roberts? No, I didn't. He made an extremely ambigous claim that was untrue. If he said "ROberts got on base 40 points higher than Soriano last season" I would have had no problem with is whatsoever, because that is a fact. Anyways, I thinks it's kind of silly to compare the OBP of Roberts and Soriano, when Roberts would be replacing Derosa, and not Alfsonso. Yes, I realize it's because of the leadoff argument, but leadoff is not a position. Second base is a position. Let's say for argument's sake that the Cubs get Roberts, have him hit leadoff, and then next season everybody puts up idnetical numbers to what they did last season (since those are the numbers wrigley23 is clearly discussing anyways). If that's the case, we don't add 40 on base percentage points to the overall lineup, we add 6. How much of an impact switching those points over to the leadoff spot has is open for debate, but people need to stop acting as if we'd be adding a ton of on base percentage to the lineup, because that is false.

Please stop lying. I've listened to the Piniella interview and he never said that. All hew said is that if they made a trade, he'd CONSIDER moving Soriano down. Also, the part about Gallagher was a lie, since he's obviously pitched past AA, and pitched well. Oh, and Roberts also doesnt get on base 40 points higher than Soriano. Roberts OBP: .377 Soriano: .337 I'm aware of where their numbers were last season. He didn't say "Roberts got on base 40 points higher than Soriano last season", he said "Roberts gets on base 40 points higher than Soriano". Look at the career numbers. OK, come on now . . . I'm enjoying this all as much as anyone - but he's got you here. You called him out, and now it's been proven that he was actually right. Just give him a "touche" and move on . . . Do you really think I wasn't aware of the OBP stats of those 2 guys last season? Please. With how much this has been debated this offseason, the stats of Roberts/Soriano/Derosa are etched into my mind for eternity. What he said was not an accurate statement. He doesn't "get on base 40 points higher than Soriano". He did last season. What about the season before? Kahlil Greene outhomered Aramis last season. So would it be an accurate statement to say that "Greene hits for more power than Ramirez"? I certainly don't think so. I really don't know what you know . . . but I think I'll go with O_O's line that "either interpretation is reasonable." W23'S claim of fact was backed up with, um . . . FACTS! Career OBP numbers Roberts- .351 Soriano- .327 .351-.327= .24 (not .40) There, now I backed it up with facts too. Happy?

Please stop lying. I've listened to the Piniella interview and he never said that. All hew said is that if they made a trade, he'd CONSIDER moving Soriano down. Also, the part about Gallagher was a lie, since he's obviously pitched past AA, and pitched well. Oh, and Roberts also doesnt get on base 40 points higher than Soriano. Roberts OBP: .377 Soriano: .337 I'm aware of where their numbers were last season. He didn't say "Roberts got on base 40 points higher than Soriano last season", he said "Roberts gets on base 40 points higher than Soriano". Look at the career numbers. OK, come on now . . . I'm enjoying this all as much as anyone - but he's got you here. You called him out, and now it's been proven that he was actually right. Just give him a "touche" and move on . . . Do you really think I wasn't aware of the OBP stats of those 2 guys last season? Please. With how much this has been debated this offseason, the stats of Roberts/Soriano/Derosa are etched into my mind for eternity. What he said was not an accurate statement. He doesn't "get on base 40 points higher than Soriano". He did last season. What about the season before? Kahlil Greene outhomered Aramis last season. So would it be an accurate statement to say that "Greene hits for more power than Ramirez"? I certainly don't think so.

Please stop lying. I've listened to the Piniella interview and he never said that. All hew said is that if they made a trade, he'd CONSIDER moving Soriano down. Also, the part about Gallagher was a lie, since he's obviously pitched past AA, and pitched well. Oh, and Roberts also doesnt get on base 40 points higher than Soriano. Roberts OBP: .377 Soriano: .337 I'm aware of where their numbers were last season. He didn't say "Roberts got on base 40 points higher than Soriano last season", he said "Roberts gets on base 40 points higher than Soriano". Look at the career numbers.

How can you possibly make those statements, and then be in favor of overpaying for Roberts? YOU just said that we have lots of holes. You're right. Guess what? Second base is not one of those holes. So, you think it's cool to overpay for a position that doesn't need upgrading, when we clearly have other holes that need to be upgraded to be a legit contender? So what happens if Hendry gives it all up for ROberts. Then what happens when we need a shortstop, starting pitcher, center fielder, or bullpen help at the deadline? We'll have nothing decent to offer in trades at all. Is this really that hard for you to understand? I have a good idea. How about we use our limited trade pieces to upgrade positions that actually need it? Pretty crazy idea, huh?

Please stop lying. I've listened to the Piniella interview and he never said that. All hew said is that if they made a trade, he'd CONSIDER moving Soriano down. Also, the part about Gallagher was a lie, since he's obviously pitched past AA, and pitched well. Oh, and Roberts also doesnt get on base 40 points higher than Soriano.