CUBZ99
-
Posts
3,799 -
Joined
-
Last visited
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
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by CUBZ99
-
So was the comment on the first page the only thing that Bradley has said about the Cubs and or Chicago since he has left?
-
ST - 3/5 Diamondbacks (Haren) @ Cubs (Z!) 2:05 CST
CUBZ99 replied to UMFan83's topic in Fred Hornkohl Game Thread Forum
Colvin 2-3, Castro 2-4, and B. Jackson with a nice day (3b, 2BB's). Nice showing from the farm so far today. -
ST - 3/5 Diamondbacks (Haren) @ Cubs (Z!) 2:05 CST
CUBZ99 replied to UMFan83's topic in Fred Hornkohl Game Thread Forum
Wow, Vitters and Jackson getting a start? Love to see that. -
Logical fallacy of false burden of proof. I should mention that I think if there is a negative effect to bad chemistry that it's probably worth a win or less in baseball in even the most extreme conditions. So even an average player would be worth the bad chemistry on the field. Obviously a GM has to consider the PR and stuff too, though. Now we just need to figure how how much of an effect that a city (Chicago) has on a player (Bradley) and to what extent that player (Bradley) who has hurt by the city in turn had on the baseball team, and how many wins it cost that team. :mrgreen:
-
What you do know is very little. That immediately calls into question the conclusion that your theories and assumptions can be characterized as "perfectly reasonable". I prefer "completely speculative", personally. We know plenty. Thinking that there's something horrible that Milton did that has been totally hidden and necessitated his being moved is not realistic given who runs this team, how this team is run and how they've dealt with variations of this issue in the past. Please explain how much you know? All I know is what has been reported through the media and to claim the fans would know everything about the day to day interactions or problems is ridiculous.
-
Just wait until the season starts and the announcers get to rehash it all again. I'm especially looking forward to the ESPN and Fox games. :roll:
-
http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/03/theriot-to-lead-off-cubs-cactus-league-opener.html Apparently, Lou has changed his mind and didn't want to hurt Theriot's feelings.
-
How about we keep Cashner at AA and let him try to become a much more valuable starting pitcher. If he stood a good chance of becoming a quality starter, I'd be in favor of that option. But I don't see it happening, and don't have a problem with letting him relieve now. I second that. If he can become a good starter, then leave him in the minor but he would be a killer reliever if he doesn't pan out as a starter. Really, I'm still hoping Thomas Diamond will be lights out in ST so he can be our 5th starter. Anyway, with Lou saying that... I'm scared for our pitching prospects. I hate seeing them going back to forth from starting to relieving unless you specifically say "he's going to help our bullpen this year, but next year he's going back to starting" I see much talk about Diamond on the board and absolutely zero about him in the press or out of Lou. I would think that if he were an option we would have seen some mention of him by this point. I think it is also telling that they have already named the starters for the first week of Spring Training and Diamond is not even on the list of starters. Is there some reason to think Diamond has regained his velocity and command? or is it mostly the fact that at one time he was a highly ranked prospect?
-
It might not hurt him, but it could help them to just accept what they have. Personally, I think he'll be fine as a starter. I have no idea why you could be so confident that he has no chance at being a legit starter. Putting him in the bullpen this year doesn't prevent him from starting later on.
-
How about we keep Cashner at AA and let him try to become a much more valuable starting pitcher. If he stood a good chance of becoming a quality starter, I'd be in favor of that option. But I don't see it happening, and don't have a problem with letting him relieve now. I agree, from all accounts he could be a lights out late inning reliever this year. There is also no indication as to whether he will cut it as a starter.
-
I guess it is all a matter of perception. Those beat reporters and the other media guys were around him almost every day during the season, and not one of them has much positive to say about Bradley. Now maybe there is/was a mass conspiracy against Bradley, but I doubt it. And in regard to him being gone, DeRosa was gone last season, but that didn't stop most of the media from going over how great he was on the Cubs. Get used to it, unfortunately, they will be talking about Bradley all year this year.
-
[-X talk about poor taste. :-)) :-))
-
http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/3454 a very small jab and not a big deal at all, but still. i thought it was unnecessary and kind of below bruce. that's more like something i'd expect from steve stone. Ahh. Well, I can see how that can be read a few different ways, actually. But, I get your point. I read it as Bruce wishing that Milton let stuff bounce off of him better than it does, and maybe we'd be watching Bradley take batting practice with Jaramillo in good spirits this year instead of Byrd. I think people are being overly sensitive in regard to the Bradley criticism. Bradley treated the media badly by all accounts and now they are getting their revenge. In regard to Bruce's comments, those were from his blog, which is much more informal than his newspaper stories. His blogs tend to be more of his personal thoughts and comments. wait, you're saying that the media is the bigger victim when it comes to the milton bradley saga? that's a pretty interesting spin on that situation. the media has done way more to bradley than he has ever done to them... and it's not really close at all. Not at all, I'm just saying that it is hardly surprising that the media is unloading on Bradley at this point.
-
http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/3454 a very small jab and not a big deal at all, but still. i thought it was unnecessary and kind of below bruce. that's more like something i'd expect from steve stone. Ahh. Well, I can see how that can be read a few different ways, actually. But, I get your point. I read it as Bruce wishing that Milton let stuff bounce off of him better than it does, and maybe we'd be watching Bradley take batting practice with Jaramillo in good spirits this year instead of Byrd. I think people are being overly sensitive in regard to the Bradley criticism. Bradley treated the media badly by all accounts and now they are getting their revenge. In regard to Bruce's comments, those were from his blog, which is much more informal than his newspaper stories. His blogs tend to be more of his personal thoughts and comments.
-
that's a good point How is that a good point? It's racist because they compare Byrd/Bradley because they are both black? But it would have been MORE racist if Bradley's replacement had been white? That is terrible logic and sounds to me like everything is racist by default. I have yet to see any reporter or media, claim any type of connection when comparing Bradley/Byrd due to race. In fact, some reporters have even pointed out the connection to the Rangers (including DeRosa) or that they were coming off career or near career years (including DeRosa) etc. Byrd just happened to be Bradley's replacement and just happened to be black. Could race be a factor in some idiot's comparisions? Sure, but most fans and media care more about the product on the field than the race of the players.
-
Why would you be disappointed by facts? It's no secret that Bradley and the media did not get along, now it appears they are happy that the guy that replaced Bradley on the roster has a better attitude or deals better with the press. The comparison's are going to come in all year.
-
It didn't matter who the Cubs replaced Bradley with, that player was going to get compared to him regardless. It's unfortunate that Lee brings race into the discussion. The Cubs have had enough criticism by the media re: racism, and Lee's comments only add fuel to the fire.
-
Another piece regarding Shark, this time from Muskat: http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100225&content_id=8139354&vkey=news_chc&fext=.jsp&c_id=chc: I'm not holding my breath, but if he was able to have a breakout year, things would be looking a lot better for the season.
-
From Bruce's blog today: http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/3517
-
But with 240 college innings and 436 professional innings he's been horrible at missing bats, indicating batters are seeing his pitches a lot better than scouts. Assuming that professional hitters don't know how to hit a sinking fastball, when they know that it is coming or assuming that they don't just sit on his uninspiring off speed pitches. The statement was made that his fastball was "perfectly straight" Obviously that is not the case or even close.
-
Shark's fastball being fast doesn't make it good. It sure helps. Not when it is perfectly straight and his delivery has zero deception. It might be a problem is it is perfectly straight. Unless you have an amazing eye watching the game on TV, at least some scouts disagree with your assessment. If you go back and look at his scouting reports from BA in 2006 BA 2006 -- BA 2008 -- BA 2009 -- I would say the scouts don't agree with you..
-
Wow, this has to be one of the stupidest posts ever made on this site. I mean each one was more dumb than the preceding word. An agenda? Success that bothers fans? That is seriously stupid. Who has an agenda and against whom? Most fans don't fault Samardzija for signing his big deal for the Cubs and would have done the same thing. Also, beside the one ridiculous post about Samarzija's looks, most of the criticism leveled has been deserved.
-
Shark's fastball being fast doesn't make it good. It sure helps.
-
Considering Shark's fastball, I don't think it is a stretch to believe that if he were to develop his off speed pitches that he could be an effective starter. Granted, that is a big "if", and he hasn't shown the ability to do that in the past. Very encouraging to hear Rothschild's comments that he believes Shark has finally turned the corner.
-
Cubs Top Prospect Lists (NSBB, BA, etc.)
CUBZ99 replied to Outshined_One's topic in Cubs Minor League Talk
BA is out with their top 100 list. 5 Cubs on the list Castro, Vitter, B. Jackson, Cashner, and J. Jackson (in order). I will post a link. Castro was top 25, Vitters 70 and the rest lower.