vance_the_cubs_fan

Nope. That's all I've got. I just wanted you to know that it's not just "my opinion". But it is still just an unsubstantiated opinion. Just because some others agree with your opinion, doesn't substatiate it. I can find many people who believe in the existience of Nessie, but our opinions don't substantiate the fact.

The players have spoken. So if we use that as proof as Cardinal fans as the best fans, we also have to say Dusty Baker is the best manager. You agree with that, K-town? (or don't you take the players word for it?)

Who says I'm "embracing" anything? You're the one who brought the crap up.

That is just an unsubstantiated myth. Well, "best baseball town" might be a myth, but they have the best fans, which to me makes them the best baseball town. Best fans is also a myth. You can't substantiate it. In your opinion, they might have the best fans, but you know what they say about opinions... I can substantiate it, and it's not even that close. Unless the players' opinions don't matter to you. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/news/2003/07/01/survey/ And what is the criteria used to formulate that opinion? Has surveys been conducted in subsequent and previous years to substantiate it? That still does nothing to substantiate it. That is a very non-scientific poll.

I think that's reasonable. I know that other teams have players who are willing to take "home town discounts", just because of the famiarity, but St. Louis is well-known as the best baseball town, and I think that there are more players willing to take a bit of a financial hit to play there. That is just an unsubstantiated myth. Well, "best baseball town" might be a myth, but they have the best fans, which to me makes them the best baseball town. Best fans is also a myth. You can't substantiate it. In your opinion, they might have the best fans, but you know what they say about opinions...

Then why read between the lines of my comment. I never said Pujols took anything, I've just said that steroids and HGH cause hair loss. Isn't that true? What anyone may infer from those statements is up to them.

I just want one person to go to the cell, strip buck naked, take out some soap, and bathe in the showers in the outfield.

I think that's reasonable. I know that other teams have players who are willing to take "home town discounts", just because of the famiarity, but St. Louis is well-known as the best baseball town, and I think that there are more players willing to take a bit of a financial hit to play there. That is just an unsubstantiated myth.

Ryne Sandberg, anyone? This is ridiculous. Except Ryno didn't lose his hair until he was 40. Are you suggesting Pujols is 40? :shrug:

I still wouldn't list Girardi any higher than 4th or 5th on my short list of managerial candidates.

I've also heard steroids and HGH can cause hair loss. :shrug: I'm just kidding here. I'm not trying to say Pujols is on the juice.

At this point, it's not the deal that we would like, but what will it take and will you go that far. I think the poll should be offer four or more and get Giles or offer three and hope for the best and end up with Burnitz. Voting for three years is voting to let the Cardinals or Padres or Dodgers sign him.

The deal I'd offer him is a 4/50 deal with a 5th year option of 10 million with a 2 million buy-out. He would be guaranteed 52 million over four years or 60 if the Cubs pick up the last year. I think that is about 4 million more than anyone else would gurantee him and should be enough to lure him away from other suitors. I also wouldn't [expletive] foot around with it either. I'd make the offer, tell him that it's the best we can do. I'd also tell him that it was dependent on us not spending the money elsewhere. Hopefully, he'd realize it was better than anything else, sign quickly and then the Cubs would have plenty of time to make decisions on SS, 2b, bullpen, whatever.

Why would he accept 5/50 when he's likely to get 4/48 from someone else?

If that's all we do, we won't have Giles in RF for 2006. That will need to be a player option to even come close to getting it done. How about 3/39 with a vesting option based on plate appearances? what does everyone else think bout that?I have asserted for a long time now that without a guaranteed fourth year we don't get him off the west coast. I agree. It will take a guaranteed four years and at least 12 million a year to get him. Anyone who suggests less hasn't paid attention to what the guys signed for last year. There will be as many teams with money this year as there were last year and fewer quality free agents. The floor fr Giles is 4/48. I'd go 4/52 or 5/60.

I feel Hendry will spend his resources and energy pursuing Furcal and will not see Giles as the difference maker that he is. We should and could get him, but my guess is that we won't.

If that's all we do, we won't have Giles in RF for 2006. That will need to be a player option to even come close to getting it done.

So you want: Nomar Cedeno Perez For short then? Go with Cedeno. Spend the extra money for Giles and bullpen. Yeah. I'm for letting Nomar walk. We have to be prepared for the possibility of having to overpay for a RF. I'd rather have Cedeno's defense, low salary, and future upside if we can get Bradley, Castillo, and Giles. I think a lineup of Castillo, Bradley, Lee, Giles, Ramirez, Murton, Barrett, Cedeno is about as much as we could hope for. Definitely Cedeno. I think a lot of people are counting on getting Nomar too cheaply. If you give Nomar an incentive-laden contract that starts at 2M and tops out at 8M the beancounters still have to allocate 8M in the budget for him. That's easily enough to make the difference between getting Giles or being stuck with some crummy Burnitz type. This team can afford Nomar and Giles, even if Nomar reaches all of his incentives. If Nomar reaches all of his incentives, what would you suppose that would mean for the Cubs? Excellent offense from SS, poor defense, and no shot at Millwood or Burnett. I really want to make a run at a premier SP because I don't have any faith that Kerry will finish 2006 in the rotation. If we do the deal for Lowe, there's absolutely no chance we go out and spend money on a SP. We'd have Prior, Wood, Zambrano, Maddux, and Lowe penciled in the rotation with Williams, Hill or Mitre to fill in the case of injury.

Thought so. Somehow I get the idea that the opposite occurs when reading some your posts.

The proof is in the stats and not pipedreams. He is a lousy bunter and a very mediocre base stealer. Whether he was never taught or doesn't want to learn, does it really matter. He's gone and someone else will be in CF. Wins for a starting pitcher is the primary way to judge the effectiveness of a starter. Anyone who tries to say different or use 'quality starts' is denying the recognized standard for starting pitching. But then some yahoos are satisfied with 14 wins at $12 million. :lmao: Must be opposites day, because wins are the worst way to judge the effectiveness of a starting pitcher as he only controls half the equation if that much. It's an archaic and idiotic way to judge a pitcher's performance.

So you want: Nomar Cedeno Perez For short then? I'd take Nomar at SS if we had Castillo and Bradley. If we were able to get Giles for RF, I'd give SS to Cedeno. With a line-up of Castillo, Bradley, Lee, Giles, and Ramirez, could afford to have Castillo and Murton in there every day without a problem. I don't want Neifi anywhere near this team.

Andy got to celebrate his pennant after Game 4, and after Berkman's home run last night. I don't feel sorry for any of them. Did you see the Cardinals' reaction after the game last night? No celebrating. They simply shook hands and headed for the clubhouse. They know that they still have work to do, unlike the Astros after Game 4. That's why the Cards are the best team in baseball. :roll: I don't think the best team has yet been decided. At least not for this year.

Adam Dunn just shed a tear.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Brad Lidge must be a gutless choking dog. I think that's the vernacular. :lmao:

Welcome to the forum, Mr. Kent.