Magnetic Curses

translation: the big ten has sucked the last 2 years because illinois has won it. despite putting 2 teams in the final four, the big ten sucked because illinois won it. illinois could win 8 national titles in a row and each of those 8 years would be a "down year for college basketball". what a joke. people are so afraid to give illinois any credit for anything they do.

I don't. I get the feeling he's one of the those pitchers who once he get figured out, isn't that hard to hit. I don't think its fair to say that. He's been fairly consistent the last 5 years, starting 34+ games 5 years in a row with pretty solid numbers, including a Cy Young. Factor in that he has been pitching against some formidable lienups in the AL West his whole career, I think he'd be fine. Actually, I think he would be more dominant than usual when he first comes into the NL because of the unfamiliarity. I agree with this, at least initially. But I'm just not sold he will be good enough over the long haul to warrant the years, dollars, and talent (via trade) his name will command. Admittingly, I can't say I've seen him enough to delve into a long diatribe on why the Cubs shouldn't acquire him. Nor will I throw a bunch of stats around as I'm not a huge stathound (though I do belive his K/9 has dropped in each of the last several years). A lot of what I say is based on a hunch, an on some of his games I've seen the last few seasons. While every pithcer has there off days (Z got hammered 3 or so times last year), Zito's bad days are scary bad (kinda like Maddux is now). If his curveball is working, he seems to be very tough to beat. When it's not he has little else to throw at you. Pithcer's like this scare me, especially when they command the $$$ and years of a superstar. Then again what do I know? I could just as easily (and pry would be) wrong. 5 straight years of 210+ innings of above average pitching. he's had an era over 4 once in his career and even then it was above league average. his g/f ratio leaves something to be desired but he gets outs, that's undeniable. he's an excellent pitcher with an excellent track record.

i love the hawk, and he was a great defensive player, but he doesn't belong in the hall. he's short on the conventional statistics; hits and home runs, and he's short on OPS and OBP. he didn't strike out a ton, but he didn't walk very much at all. he only came close to .900 twice, and even then he was below. he was a very good player, and people will remember him for 87, but he's not a hall of famer, God Bless Him. There are plenty of guys in there with less than 2774 hits, Andre's career total. Sabrematitians would cringe at his career .323 OBP, but it was a different game then and OBP wasn't valued as much then as it is now. Also, 438 career home runs is/was a much more significant number then than it is now, especially seeing as he played most of his prime years in the 80's and early 90's, when 35 home runs would often be in the top 3 in the league. Man, Andre gave me some of my earliest baseball memories. I remember him with something like 4 IBB's in one game. I remember the grand slam he hit to tie the game at 4 against the Pirates, only for the Cubs to lose it in 10. I remember a game he had against the Braves where he hit the game tying and go-ahead homers. I remember many a mistake pitch up around his eyes that ended up on Waveland Avenue. I remember runners stopping dead in their tracks at third base not wanting to force a throw. I remember his meltdown where he got ejected then threw stuff on the field. I remember the game face. Oh, the game face. Top 3 I've ever seen are Dave Stewart, him, and Glenallen Hill. One of the best players in the game when he was in his prime, and he let his play, not his mouth, do all his talking for him. You'd get my vote anyday, Andre. right fielders just don't make it in with his numbers. yes, he played hard, yes, he was my favorite player growing up, yes, he should have his jersey retired at wrigley. no, he doesn't belong in the hall.

Heh, I just had too "Adam Greenberg" Little Adam Greenberg with his helmet caved in Soon will pass through waivers, oh You better put Dusty in the loony bin 'Cause he'll never let Adam be a part of his show Adam is an outfielder And he runs quite a lot He'll give you OBP But a slugger, he's not He says he wants to be a major leaguer But he better first learn to duck quicker Adam! Adam! Adam! Adam! Adam! Adam Greenberg! Adam! Adam! Adam! Adam! Adam! Adam Greenberg! Adam better be playing Those slot machines 'Cause he'll have a token pile Before he starts on our team Will he always be afraid That they'll knock him to the dirt? No, he'll put that behind In AAA, prove his worth So the kid can get traded To some other town For a retread or such While he's All-Star bound Little Adam Greenburg Keep playing the game If we keep you, you'll suck probably Guess the curse is to blame Adam! Adam! Adam! Adam! Adam! Adam Greenberg! Adam! Adam! Adam! Adam! Adam! Adam Greenberg! this must be stickied somewhere. =D> =D> =D> :lol: :lol: :lol:

How can you say that? He's hit 9 in his major league career of 3411 at bats. If he gets 3500 at bats in 2006, surely he has the chance to hit 10 HR's. :D :-k i'm just wondering how he got those 9 in the first place.

i love the hawk, and he was a great defensive player, but he doesn't belong in the hall. he's short on the conventional statistics; hits and home runs, and he's short on OPS and OBP. he didn't strike out a ton, but he didn't walk very much at all. he only came close to .900 twice, and even then he was below. he was a very good player, and people will remember him for 87, but he's not a hall of famer, God Bless Him.

(gasp) YOUR A HIPPIE!!!!! :dwarf: a dirty one, too.

African-American: Barry Bonds Latin American: Albert Pujols I could cite many more examples. Sabermetrics don't care about the race of the player - just raw numbers. There's a stereotype that African-American and Latin American players are too aggressive at the plate (i.e. not talking walks). Can you cite some non-superstar guys? This is not a challenge. I am just trying to see if there is any evidence to back up what I have termed as an very unscientific look. I don't understand the question. How would be citing non-superstar guys help? I guess as follows: I hear the names on non-superstar guys like Wilkerson, Giles, Todd Walker bandied around as valuable under sabermetric theories but not non-superstar player of color. I don't know if that clears it up. Again, I repeat that I am not stating that sabermetrics is racist in any way. According to VORP Giles was the 18th most valuable player in baseball with 65.1 so to me he's pretty elite. I would say Raul Ibanez or Ray Durham would be underrated "Moneyball" guys. That's a tough question to answer because you want players that are good but not too good. I don't think you are calling anyone racist, it's an interesting question. milton bradley as well.

even if we could "shoot the moon", how do you figure Soriano in the mix? pierre couldn't hit 10 hrs on the moon.

every time i hear his name, i think of the phish song, "suzy greenberg", except i replace "suzy" with "adam".

i don't think it has anything to do with race. I didn't say that it did. Thanks for the thoughtful repsonse. no problem. i just wonder what kind of empirical data that you have to support:

paranoia? i'm not the one insulting mods. but if you read my post again, you'll notice that i wasn't saying that the length of time people are here in any way effects their ability to post. i was saying that if you knew hoops, or had seen posts from him in the past, you'd know that he's a valuable asset to this site. who's the one that's paranoid again? but instead, you're here a couple months, don't know much about his posting practices, and then cheapen his contributions to this board by being a total jerk to him in a public forum, however, instead of insulting him directly, you insulted BBB by mistake. o.................kay. this makes no sense. let me get this straight. i'm saying hoops and bruce miles are the same person because i postulated that one does not have to be jim hendry to have inside information? you are completely insane.

I don't want to make this a contentious argument, because I, too value the sabermetric organizational philosophy, but do you really believe this stuff? To be clear, you're saying that Hendry intentionally avoids players based on high OBP? Even if deep down he thought they were better players? Could it not be that he believes that what he is doing is making the team better on its own merit (as misguided as that may be)? I doubt that he is trying to prove a point, rather, just trying to win. I don't understand why his moves are taken as a personal affront to those with different philosophies. If you have examples where he has stated the above (OBP means nothing, etc.), I apologize fully. I'm just not aware of any such quotes. I don't think he's fighting any holy war, I just think he's inept. he's made statements in the past regarding OBP that cause me to believe that he's just not concerned with it. i can't recall any specific quotes, but they are there. granted, i'm being a bit hyperbolic when it comes to his anti-OBP position, but i'm frustrated. he's continually spurned players with superior OBPs (and don't get it wrong, OBP is not a sabermetric, it's a very orthodox stat that is easy to see, understand, and value) for players with inferior OBPs. case in point, he doesn't even look or sniff at giles but signs jones to 3 years and 15 mil. furthermore, he has the anti-stathead, assistant GM gary hughes whispering in his ear--and hughes appears to be a much bigger influence than anyone else in hendry's life. he also makes up phrases like "i like players who can catch the ball". who does he think he is?

if you'd been here longer than a month and a half, you'd probably know that hoops has a source--and is fairly reliable when giving out info. you don't have to be giles, his agent, or hendry to know what's going on in the cubs orgainization. there are quite a few more cubs employees than jim hendry. would you care to ask bruce miles if he is, in fact, jim hendry? but please, continue with your personal crusade against this website and it's posters.

i don't think it has anything to do with race.

i've said this in the other thread, if he plays, i can see another charles martin/hugh douglas incident brewing. speaking of martin, when i was at the game last sunday, a packer fan told me that martin was his favorite packer of all time because of that one particular incident. what a classy fan.

Whether or not Hendry expected the team to contend, resigning Perez and Rusch-especially to 2 year contracts-was a stupid move. If you don't think you can contend, give Cedeno, Hill and Murton starting roles. Let them develop so you can see which direction to go in the 2006 offseason. If you think you can contend, Perez and Rusch are barely replacement level players, so the salary you gave them prohibits you some flexibility for a real impact player, either via trade or FA. The only reason they were brought back was Baker, and Hendry's over-loyalty to average veterans. It's disappointing to see an ex farm director mismanage his farm system the way Hendry has, since now we have to rely on Baker to play Cedeno and Murton everyday and let them develop for good or bad, and we all know how that will turn out. I agree totally. that's one reason I have so little faith in this roster or management team. i'm just afraid that the cubs as an organization, would bite off it's nose to spite it's face on this one, so to speak. in a concerted effort to prove that conventional wisdom has any relevance whatsoever, they're unwilling to admit any kind of mistake in organizational philosophy. what's worse is that if the cubs have any kind of success with this patchwork team born of conventional wisdom, be it lucky, or be it with pitching--hendry will go on to cripple the cubs offensively in the future by pointing to 2006 as a reason why team-OBP means nothing, and continue to acquire players with OBPs in the .310-.320 range. this will have an overall negative effect on the franchise, and likely launch us into the proverbial doldrums of the major leagues to spend another 97 years with players that suck.

Or at the very least, the LA Dodgers. By the way, I have confirmed (just yesterday in fact) that the Cubs had no interest in Giles, and hence, did not even try to talk to him or his agent. i rest my case.

Way to leadoff w/ a home run first post. that says nothing more than giles preferred to stay in san diego, which none of us are denying. that's not what upsets me. what's more telling is that "New York Yankees", "Toronto", and "Cleveland" are not pronounced "Chicago Cubs". THAT fact is what should be considered the home run--against hendry.

Completely different. He didn't have the money, or the glaring hole that Hendry had. STL has the benefit of already being a great team, with recent history of significant success, and a solid lineup. Yes they needed a RFer, but not nearly as bad as the Cubs needed a RFer. And again, Hendry had more money to throw at his problems. honestly, why is it so hard for people to understand what you just said. people are acting like all GMs are on a level playing ground in terms of improving their teams in the offseason and their teams require the exact same help that we do (ex: "Are you saying that John Schuerholz is a bad GM because he didn't go after Giles?!!"). hendry probably had the most money out of any NL team to play with, he had the need, both philosophically (OBP) and position-wise (RF). he did not even "sniff" (since badger appears to be so fixated on the term) Giles. that's why he's done a bad job and appears to be content to wallow in the the mess that he's created.

So you wanted a large overbid to get him? 5\75? i assume that no one was offering 3/39. i could be wrong, but that would appear to be a large overbid.

You would think so according to this site. I think Hendry's had an awful two years though, but I won't go as far as to call him "crappy". I've been very dissappointed with him the last two years. nobody has done less with as much payroll, i'm not judging hendry based on nothing here. he didn't significantly upgrade OBP and refuses to even acknowledge that it was a problem.

Why would that have been illogical if he loves where he plays? because we don't know if he loves where he plays. he's been one of the biggest critics of the new stadium and it's effect on the numbers of left-handed hitters, for one. you just can't ignore the premier free agent on the market because he's from california and likes to surf, and then say: "he wasn't available anyways". the cubs didn't even sniff giles, even though signing him would have gone farther to closing the biggest hole on this team than a million free agent middle relievers would have. that's hendry's fault, he's a crappy GM. We do know that SD announced they were moving the fences in around the time Giles was signed so it won't be the graveyard it's been in the past. How do we know for a fact the Cubs "didn't even sniff Giles"? Just because it wasn't in the newspaper doesn't mean it didn't happen. Giles wanted to stay in San Diego all along, that's readily apparent. My guess is that teams looking for an OF had a pretty good idea of that since NOBODY really "sniffed" him. Or is every single MLB GM "crappy"? why are you obsessed with certain words? and no GM had a bigger problem and enough money to fill it as hendry did. looking at hendry as if the cubs were strapped for cash and had no OBP problem is ridiculous. sniff that.

Source? I don't suppose you actually have one for it. Giles loves SD, everyone and their mother knows that. Hendry has sucked this off season, but Giles wasn't coming here. No I don't have a source for that either, but it's easy to throw out declarative blanket statements when no proof is needed behind them. what, throwing out a blanket statement to counter mine? i think it's a bigger stretch to say giles wasn't going anywhere than to say he could be had for a large overbid.

Thanks, Tim. Took care of that one for me. what? they generally don't give out GG to corner Ofers. there are exceptions, but usually it's 3 CFers. i was saying, if you read my post, that they don't give 1 for LF, 1 for CF, and 1 for RF.