Bull
-
Posts
3,917 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
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
2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by Bull
-
Actually, the "speaking his mind" part played a lesser part with the Cubs than it did with other teams as far as Walker is concerned. The Cubs, from the front office on down to some members of the pitching staff, do not like Walker's defense. And the Cubs do seem to be on a "defense" kick these days. None of us is privy to everything that goes on behind closed doors, so who knows what has gone on. Myself? I'd keep Walker and start him. But that's just me. Not that I am disagreeing with the notion that the cubs have been looking to improve defense recently, but then why move Patterson? I love his skills, especially defensively. If I were in charge (glad I'm not :) ), I would have him start the season as the fourth outfielder, getting spot starts in place of Murton. If Patterson finds his swing and becomes the player that he was in the first half of '03. Then we'd have a whole nother, but a good problem. Just my thoughts. Not trying to be argumentative. I for one agree. These are grown men. And Corey *is* under the control of the Cubs. He can't go anywhere but up in performance and trade value.
-
While I don't find any proof (or disproof) for clutch, I do believe in streaks. I do believe that at times players "see the ball better". Barry Bonds or Sammy on June 12, 1998 (in the middle of his 20 homers in one month month). I go with Sammy.
-
BTW Baseball Reference lists him as 23 in 2004.
-
Thebaseballcube, the Orioles, and ESPN list Val's bday as March 1981, and Pie's as Feb 1985, but they say Val was 20 in 2004. I'd need some clarification. On a strictly numbers basis he does compare favorably to Pie, but what were his true ages in those seasons? And, Pie has nearly 1500 pro at bats, while Val has less than 1000, and apparently didn't play at all in 2005 while recovering from a torn labrum. I'm not sure he's a fair comparison to Pie when all is said and done. And no, I wouldn't trade Pie for Patterson. ESPN.com and the O's website both list that '81 birthday for Majewski. Well that would be an entirely different story and likely equal value for C-Pat.
-
Kess, you beat me to it. Majewski for Patterson would make sense. I don't know anything about him except for his numbers in the minors, where he's totaled a line of .300/.358/.504, with small but efficient base stealing numbers, and respectable k/bb numbers (much better than Pie's, for instance). I would consider him greater than nothing for Patterson. I'd go a lot farther than "greater than nothing" From numbers alone, he looks as young, but much more developed (patient) than Pie. In a hypothetical world would you trade Pie for Patterson? Or is it a poor comp. because Pie is a true CFer?
-
Maddux wasn't traded he was a free agent. He know, he just bein' silly (note that he also said Maddux didn't do anything. Silliness)
-
100 reasons the Cubs will be better in 2006
Bull replied to WrigleyField 22's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
22) Kerry Wood will FINALLY have that breakout season we've been predicting here for 3 years, simply because noone has predicted it this year ...OH CRAP, jinxed again. 21) Dempster, Howry and Eyre will anchor the best bullpen in baseball. 20) Baker will go fishing in Lake Michigan and mysteriously dissappear. -
With all the Patterson talk, sounds like Prior and C-Pat for Tejada and Bedard might get it done. I hope not. I might be able to live with that deal. I have to know that Bedard is going to be sure fire 2 though. No Prior, No Prior, No Prior.
-
With all the Patterson talk, sounds like Prior and C-Pat for Tejada and Bedard might get it done. I hope not.
-
The Cubs have Fontenant (sp) at Iowa though and he would be a decent backup. They can have Fontenot back. We'll throw in Ray Fontenot in a package deal for a bucket, sans balls. Hell, I'll settle for a bucket to be named later. Variation on a theme. High comedy. I love this place.
-
I might give up Cedeno, but not Cedeno AND Hill AND oh-by-the-way Pie. I think that's why Pie is the sticking point. Of course I'm reading into it.
-
I think I was the source of the confusion. My Prior reference was to previous rumors. I don't include Prior, and I don't include Pie unless Neifi is in the package. I certainly don't do both. My guess is Kaplan's reference to Pie being the hangup is in a Prior, Pie, Cedeno for Tejada + Bedard still. No Way. Neifi, Pie, Prospects for Tejada I do. Cedeno, Pie, Hill, prospects for Tejada I don't. I guess I just don't wan't Tejada that bad.
-
Southside? SOUTHSIDE?!? Blasphemy!
-
This is so Cub-like. They can have Tejada, but they don't want to give up Pie. Why not? So he can be the next can't-miss-Corey-Patterson? No matter how much we can sit here and say Pie is any different, we all thought Patterson was the next great thing when he was coming up. There is no guarantee that Pie will ever amount to All-Star level talent, so you have to make the deal. Sorry, if this is the case I agree. No Prior, No Pie. Wait a little, Baltimore will get desperate. If not, start Cedeno and Walker. NO pressure on the cubs to make it happen.
-
Wasn't it great when we thought our favorite Cubs were the best. Ignorance was bliss. Stupid numbers are the cause of my misery.
-
Manny: I'm staying in Boston
Bull replied to kroth1342's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
Perhaps Manny should have your login name -
Personally, I believe that clutch exists, but that MLB hitters operate at such a high mental state that there is very little margin for improvement for most of them, and therefore virtually no possibility for clutch hitting. given that, I consider anti-clutch as proof of clutch. (in other words, it has a smaller impact on hitting in the majors than other levels) Very interesting take; I like it. In essence ALL major leaguers are good under pressure or they would have been weeded in the minors or their rookie year. No situation is more pressurized than your debut. Perhap clutch stats would be valuable in evaluating prospects...except you don't know if they're facing quality prospects or carrreer minors guys. Alas, the world may never know. *sigh*
-
No, I'm arguing from the team's point of view. You give yourself the opportunity to avoid his first year of free agency by guaranteeing him more up front. It's give and take. I'd love to offer just 3/15. But he's not going to sign that. He might not even take a 3/27-30, because in that time period he could earn more than 27-30 by going one year at a time. And he might not want to give the team that one year option because in 3 years he might expect to sign a 5 year deal that averages $15m per year. so on some level we almost agree. Its okay, it doesn't hurt to agree. Honest :wink:
-
I'd try and sign him for around 3/27-30 with a 4th year team option around $14-15m (which could easily be a bargain for the team by then) and maybe $1-2m buyout. Too much. He's arb eligible, not a Free Agent. Ozwalt Got 2 years/16.9 last year. 3/25 is top dollar for arb. eligible pitchers and I think Prior would ask for and get 5 in arb. 3/25 is generous at this stage in his carreer. He could get 5 easily this year, 8-10 by next year, and 10+ the third year of arbitration. You give him a little more now so that he'll put off his first year of free agency. Sounds like you're arguing the agent side and I the team side. I think that given his performance the team will persue him for three near what I outlined, and being unimpressed with that, and knowing his potential, Prior will try to sign a one year deal at around 5.
-
As I understand it, James is saying that due to the small sample size of 'clutch' at-bats per year and the high amount of luck involved in every at-bat, it is impossible to compare yearly 'clutch' numbers - there is too much luck involved. Exactly, there's way too much variation for performance in 'clutch' situations to be predictive or more than an afterthought in player evaluation. That's not what he's saying at all. He's saying that all studies to date have failed to prove "clutch" AND have failed to disprove it. James believes the methods used to determine if clutch exists were flawed. He seems open to the idea that someday there may be a study that proves clutch, but the right metric has yet to be discovered. Sorry, I was referring to noisesquared's comment below the quote, I had already read the article previously. Maybe I should have responded to noisesquared and not you. But my point is that James is not saying that study has disproved clutch, or that there's too small a sample size. He's saying it HAS NOT been disproven, and that there is not yet a metric to measure it. In essence -stretch- he's saying its an intangible.
-
I'd try and sign him for around 3/27-30 with a 4th year team option around $14-15m (which could easily be a bargain for the team by then) and maybe $1-2m buyout. Too much. He's arb eligible, not a Free Agent. Ozwalt Got 2 years/16.9 last year. 3/25 is top dollar for arb. eligible pitchers and I think Prior would ask for and get 5 in arb. 3/25 is generous at this stage in his carreer.
-
As I understand it, James is saying that due to the small sample size of 'clutch' at-bats per year and the high amount of luck involved in every at-bat, it is impossible to compare yearly 'clutch' numbers - there is too much luck involved. Exactly, there's way too much variation for performance in 'clutch' situations to be predictive or more than an afterthought in player evaluation. That's not what he's saying at all. He's saying that all studies to date have failed to prove "clutch" AND have failed to disprove it. James believes the methods used to determine if clutch exists were flawed. He seems open to the idea that someday there may be a study that proves clutch, but the right metric has yet to be discovered.
-
link plz. Probably found their info in Hoops' thread.
-
wilson signs with houston
Bull replied to stitchface's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
Agreed. I think we are distingusihing the contract Jones got from the one Wilson has apparently recieved. Regardless of money (and years for that matter) I like Jones over Wilson. Jones has at least some upside. I wouldn't wan't Wilson in my outfield next year if he signed for a nickel. -
wilson signs with houston
Bull replied to stitchface's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
If I recall correctly, Wilson and Encarnacion have been the "worst case" around here. We can't have it both ways.