vance_the_cubs_fan

What does that have to do with anything? Or are you just openly trolling now? I think the answer is obvious. Not trolling at all. Just a reminder of opinions expressed. And I've dealt with that in another thread.

What does that have to do with anything? Or are you just openly trolling now? I think the answer is obvious.

where would you prefer the much needed offense to come from? i don't love soriano or anything, but he's the best hope for making this offense respectable. Get a 2B in Free Agency(Durham and Iwamura are my favorites, Loretta would be okay too), and revamp the OF in trade. Kearns, Burrell, A-Rod(which isn't the OF, but still), Sheffield, maybe Cabrera, Hawpe, or Cuddyer if they come available. What and alomst completely strip our farm system of any of the A prospects left of it? I'd rather keep the prospects and sign big free agents when they become available, somewhat simular to the mets. If we would have done it that way a few years ago, just for example. We could have a guy like Beltran and still have guys like Willis, Garland. . ect. . Instead we trade the Willis' and Garland's for mediocre crap and think we're gonna contend. (we=JH). . Your hate for Hendry is blinding. Garland was traded 8 years ago, when Hendry might not have even been in the organization. And Willis was traded before Hendry was GM too. Next time you try and trash Hendry, at least criticize him for things he's actually done. It's very easy to second guess. yeah, it's almost like somebody saying they knew jeff weaver was going to pitch the cardinals to the world series. I don't know about that...but it should be as easy as learning these.

Not if we could get Bonds for a reasonable price. I like Murton as much as anyone. I was one of his fans when he was plying his trade in AA. Djaxxfan can attest to that. However, Bonds had an OBP over 400 last year. His OPS was over 1000. If you can get that for the middle of the order, Murton can be a cheap bench/platoon option for one year. Replace Murton with Carlos Lee? No. Barry Bonds? Hell yeah!

Well, my vote is for other...Captain Morgan, but Captain Crunch was a close second, followed by Captain Condom.

I think Murton minimizes the risk. When Bonds is out, Murton starts. The risk is minimized somewhat. Furthemore, if everyone is low-balling Bonds, I give him this deal to think about. 6 million base. 1 million bonus if he plays 85 games. 1 million bonus if he plays 100 games. 1 million bonus if he plays 125 games. 1 million bonus if he plays 140 games. 2 million if he plays 155 games. Bonds is only guaranteed 6 million, but he plays a full season (he won't) he can make 12 million. I would have shifted Murton over to right and Jones to center unless you have another CF in mind, like Soriano or Drew perhaps? I'd certainly like to add another bad, so I might look to do that in center. Shifting Murton to right is an option with Jones going to center. I might would be willing to sign a Kenny Lofton type for CF as well, or even let Pie play CF and go after Ray Durham for second. Probably I'd look at Cameron for CF since I'd need defense there with Bonds in left. Murton gets any start in left that Bonds doesn't get and gets starts agaisnt lefties for Jones in right. It's not the ideal situation for Murton, but he's young and cheap and only blocked for one year. A middle of the order of Lee, Bonds, and Ramirez would be potent. It would be better than what St. Louis had when they put out Pujols, Edmonds, and Rolen a few years back when all three were more productive than they are now.

I think Murton minimizes the risk. When Bonds is out, Murton starts. The risk is minimized somewhat. Furthemore, if everyone is low-balling Bonds, I give him this deal to think about. 6 million base. 1 million bonus if he plays 85 games. 1 million bonus if he plays 100 games. 1 million bonus if he plays 125 games. 1 million bonus if he plays 140 games. 2 million if he plays 155 games. Bonds is only guaranteed 6 million, but he plays a full season (he won't) he can make 12 million.

A couple that you forgot.... http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/b/bd/CaptainHook.jpg http://battlestarfanclub.com/battlestar/dave/dgcapam.jpg http://www.marvelfamily.com/images/WhosWho/CaptainMarvel/Panels/captain_marvel_standing.gif http://www.engrish.com/image/engrish/captain-condom.jpg http://www.theoldcomputer.com/Libarary http://www.matthewart.com/03_games/05_3d/images/captain-crunch.jpg and my favorite.... http://www.hotjobs.com/images/ext/captain_morgan.jpg

This is getting really old. Please stop attacking my opinions. And you obviously didn't understand what I was saying to begin with. I didn't see my post as a response to you in any way. On the contrary, placing opinions on a message board leaves them open to attack, especially eroneous ones.

How about Frank Stallone for hitting coach?

Gaetti was a clutch hitter. Maybe he could teach that to the team. If we could replace Rotschild with a PC that can teach clutch pitching like Duncan we'd be doing great!

What the heck? He had a pretty long post after that responding to your points. And please don't call other posters "ignorant." Hold the phone. Vance called me ignorant a couple of months ago. Well, I'm sorry I missed it but the same rules go for Vance and I or one of the mods would have called him out on name calling had we seen it. There is no name calling or attacking the posters. IIRC, I think I called a post ignorant. Assumptions could be drawn from that, however.

This thread is filled with those.

would have

Not if you think Jeff Weaver is a good pitcher.

And has that model worked? I really don't see a point in following a model that hasnt worked. You dont need a superstar line-up to win. You also dont need to have a $200 million payroll to win either. Pitching comes first, then you go out and get your hitting. The. Cardinals. Didn't. Have. Great. Pitching. They didnt have great pitching, but their pitching stepped up when it matter the most. Which, in the end, gave them a World Series victory. Are you that dense man? Honestly. HOW ON EARTH DO YOU KNOW WHICH PITCHERS ARE GOING TO STEP UP IN THE POSTSEASON?!?!?! YOU DON'T!!! GET IT? It's not very hard to comprehend. It's a crapshoot. If you can honestly tell me that you thought Jeff Weaver would win 3 games in the 2006 postseason you shouldn't be posting here. You should be in Vegas cashing in on millions because predicting things like that is a talent. I would give you more stats and examples but frankly, I'm hammered right now and it isn't worth my time because if you don't understand at this point, even beating you over the head with a blunt object wouldn't get the job done. The way Weaver was pitching in the playoffs, I could of told you that he would have won game 5. The fact Verlander was pitching so badly in the playoffs made that choice alot easier. I have always been a fan of Weaver. I think he showed what he really is in the playoffs this year. So, what Weaver really is is more proven in two starts in the playoffs instead of his 31 starts over the regular season. And it's "could have" not "could of". I think Weaver had a string of good starts than any pitcher could have. He just happened to have them at a very important time. Hell, if his timing was right, Glendon Rusch could have done the same thing. As could have Shawn Estes, Miguel Batista, John Thompson, or any number of mediocre pitchers. Weaver's career shows what he is and that's a pitcher who is below average as evidenced by his 96 career ERA+. His good run in the postseason in no way makes him a good pitcher as Molina's nice little hot streak makes him a good hitter. My guess is that whoever signs Weaver will get a pitcher who will post an ERA+ next season at a little below 100. If they are lucky they may get a 101-102 ERA+. Molina may not be the 216 hitter he was last season, but he's a lot closer to it than the 350 hitter he was during the postseason. You don't need to make fun of someone's grammar to make a point. Childish response by an ignorant person. Uhm...wouldn't the ignorant person be the one who doesn't know correct grammar? I'm done arguing because I know using incorrect grammar is a sign of ignorance. Don't argue with me here. I'm an educator! I know these things.

No. It's not how he was pitching in the playoffs. It's how he pitched in the regular season. Weaver sucked in the regular season. Verlander didn't. Going into the postseason nobody in their right mind would have picked Weaver over Verlander. It's insane. It's how he pitched in the playoffs that matters. That's my opinion. And my point, along with many other people's, is that going into the postseason and based on Weaver's regular season you couldn't have predicted he would pitch well in the postseason. Hence the reason the postseason is a crapshoot. At most a team will play 19 games. For a pitcher that's 5 or 6 starts. That's called small sample size. 5-6 starts in a post-season should tell how good a pitcher is. It's not really a "sample size" in my opinion. So 5-6 starts tell you more than 31?

And has that model worked? I really don't see a point in following a model that hasnt worked. You dont need a superstar line-up to win. You also dont need to have a $200 million payroll to win either. Pitching comes first, then you go out and get your hitting. The. Cardinals. Didn't. Have. Great. Pitching. They didnt have great pitching, but their pitching stepped up when it matter the most. Which, in the end, gave them a World Series victory. Are you that dense man? Honestly. HOW ON EARTH DO YOU KNOW WHICH PITCHERS ARE GOING TO STEP UP IN THE POSTSEASON?!?!?! YOU DON'T!!! GET IT? It's not very hard to comprehend. It's a crapshoot. If you can honestly tell me that you thought Jeff Weaver would win 3 games in the 2006 postseason you shouldn't be posting here. You should be in Vegas cashing in on millions because predicting things like that is a talent. I would give you more stats and examples but frankly, I'm hammered right now and it isn't worth my time because if you don't understand at this point, even beating you over the head with a blunt object wouldn't get the job done. The way Weaver was pitching in the playoffs, I could of told you that he would have won game 5. The fact Verlander was pitching so badly in the playoffs made that choice alot easier. I have always been a fan of Weaver. I think he showed what he really is in the playoffs this year. So, what Weaver really is is more proven in two starts in the playoffs instead of his 31 starts over the regular season. And it's "could have" not "could of". I think Weaver had a string of good starts than any pitcher could have. He just happened to have them at a very important time. Hell, if his timing was right, Glendon Rusch could have done the same thing. As could have Shawn Estes, Miguel Batista, John Thompson, or any number of mediocre pitchers. Weaver's career shows what he is and that's a pitcher who is below average as evidenced by his 96 career ERA+. His good run in the postseason in no way makes him a good pitcher as Molina's nice little hot streak makes him a good hitter. My guess is that whoever signs Weaver will get a pitcher who will post an ERA+ next season at a little below 100. If they are lucky they may get a 101-102 ERA+. Molina may not be the 216 hitter he was last season, but he's a lot closer to it than the 350 hitter he was during the postseason.

I'd take every [expletive] in baseball if it would get the Cubs closer to a World Series. Give me Bonds. Give me Kenny Rogers with crap all over his hands. Give me Jeff Kent acting like a prick to everyone. Give me Milton Bradley calling reporters an uncle tom. Give me Jim Edmonds with mascara, half-shirts, and turning routine plays into a dive. Give me Delmon Young throwing bats. Give me Bobby Cox beating his wife...hell give me Wolf and Lugo doing the same thing too. Give me Clemens being an all-around pain in the ass. If these were the most productive players, I'd take them all. Just get me to the playoffs with a chance at a World Series! It's been 100 [expletive] years!!!!

After 100 years, just win baby!

My team is sucking, but my opponent left Hasselback in...so that will help.

where would you prefer the much needed offense to come from? i don't love soriano or anything, but he's the best hope for making this offense respectable. abuck makes a wonderful point here. I've been critical of Soriano in the past, but the Cubs need a big bat. Outside of Soriano, there aren't any FA that fit that bill. Getting one through trade is dicey at best. I know we will overpay for Soriano and likely regret the contract four or five years down the road, but that's the price we have to pay for in the situation in which we find ourselves.

The one and the same.

Iwamura has expressed a desire to play pretty much any position on the diamond. He would be worth a look-see, imo. I agree, but Fukudome would be great too.

In an article somewhere, it said Hendry was looking at Soriano for CF. He's never played it, but many believe he has the skills to play it.