Bull
-
Posts
4,006 -
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 Tracker: Picks & Bonuses
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by Bull
-
I'm pretty sure it was on every elevator in America within a week.
-
Probably the guy with the "most blocked" view.
-
I'm probably on the low end of income for people on this board, granted, but $2500 is an absolutely stupid amount to spend on a ring. (I spent just under $900, before anyone asks) How long ago? My wife's $1200 ring 15 years ago would cost me $2500 today.
-
me too. I'll go 86.
-
3/31 - Cubs (SHARK!) @ Pirates (Liriano) - 12:05 CT WGN/ESPN
Bull replied to ctcf's topic in Fred Hornkohl Game Thread Forum
-
Miguel Cabrara Extended
Bull replied to LeftCoastCubFan's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
Any chance of getting the thread title edited for spelling? -
I'm looking for real reasons YOU think one approach or the other is/was better, not cynical reflections on possible flawed reasons the respective front offices employed each. Particularly your original thoughts on the final question.
-
Back in the days of the birth of this board, the prevailing thought was that developing pitchers was preferable to developing hitters. I think I recall someone had the signature "grow the pitchers, sign the hitters". The obvious flaw,in retrospect, in this thought process is injury. Although with the 2002-2005 cubs, the devastating injuries came after they reached the major leagues (prior, wood) often times they don't (tinstaapp). My questions are: what was the reasoning behind this thought process (develop pitchers instead of hitters)? Was it flawed theory or just destroyed by the dusty baker factor? What has changed to make developing hitter more preferable? When it is time to trade hitting prospects for pitchers, what makes us think teams are going to give up less injury averse pitchers to us than we could have developed? All leading to the final question: With the Cardinals having 5 pitchers in their top ten prospects, does that make them more balanced than us, or move fragile, or both? Thanks for your input.
-
Yeah, it's more of a waiting facility, so........
-
A nursing home that only showed one sport would most certainly show baseball, so you need not worry. Today, yes. But not in the post-baseball apocalypse.
-
Yeah, I saw that. Pretty f'in narcissistic to congratulate yourself on calling something that could be reasonably assumed by pretty much everyone. I think people on this board overestimate the percentage of fans who share their level of insight. This is still a special place.
-
I'm not saying Olt isn't good defensively but I think this is an overstatement for any highly thought of 3rd baseman. To put it another way, The Rangers were more excited about his bat a couple years ago. It would be great if he was a plus defender still but he has to hit. Third base is no longer a position where you have to get an .800 ops. In 2013 the average nl position player had a .318 wOBA. The average for 3b was .311. Below center fielders. And the fact that the rangers were more excited about his bat says more positive about his hitting potential than negative about his fielding. He has been seen as anywhere from above average to gold glove potential at third. (He was a shortstop in college). I can see where you'd think I was overstating the point (I disagree, but I can see it) the OP was concerned about Olt having a position. That's ludicrous.
-
I guess I just don't understand where Olt is going to play? His defensive/arm/shoulder/whatever issues seem to be a major issue and I don't want a Ryan Zimmerman at 3B. This is... I don't... how what... Seriously? Yes, I do not care to see 21 throwing errors in 140 games. If he really can mash that's different, but call me skeptical on that front as well. From what TT said I guess this shouldn't be a long-term (season lingering) injury, but does it not seem like it's taking him a long time to get it right? He has always been seen as a plus defender and that hasn't changed in a handful of ST chances. The talk has always been anything he adds with the bat is a bonus to his stellar defense. This is silly.
-
Why would you trade him? If he's working you want him. Bryant can go to the outfield and Baez can stay at SS or move to 2B. Yeah, and defensively, that would be ideal too. I guess I just don't understand where Olt is going to play? His defensive/arm/shoulder/whatever issues seem to be a major issue and I don't want a Ryan Zimmerman at 3B. This is... I don't... how what... Seriously?
-
It wasn't the Hendry picks I had a problem with, it was the development of those picks. Under Hendry, Baez would have gone all Vittersery.
-
If only every season was sacred. Then it would matter.
-
That's what I'm getting at. It's really getting annoying.
-
Muskat is really trying to make "core four" a thing. I mean I know they are the future core of the team, but she's acting like that's how they put their names in at restaurants. "Yeah just put it under 'core four'". I dunno, maybe it's just me.
-
2/27 Cactus League Opener
Bull replied to CaliforniaRaisin's topic in Fred Hornkohl Game Thread Forum
Raise that trade value, Shark. -
In a year that matters, Lake. This year? Vitters.
-
You know Steve, Air-You-boo-wane-ya spelled backwards is Annie you're a beret.
-
Farmers market AND ice rink?
-
This is the saddest thread. It really reminds us that prospects are not remotely guarantees. I have more confidence on our current regime and system to come through, but at the end of the day, the great plan is simply a venture. Some top 100 prospects of 2001: Montanez -100, Christensen 49, Juan Cruz - 47, Zambrano - 30, Choi - 28, Corey Patterson - 5. In 2002: Kelton - 74, bobby hill - 79, Zambrano - 72, Choi -68, Cruz - 14, Prior - 2. Out of that whole group we netted a front line starter in Prior, and MOR starter in Zambrano a couple years of Patterson and Cruz, and Choi for Lee. Think about our current top 10. Almost half never see the majors, 1 becomes a role player, 1 goes in nice trade, one becomes above average and two potential stars that fall to injury. Again, I think chances are better this go round, but holy cow, that's depressing. If you think big Z was a middle of the rotation starter me and you are going to have words. eh, I guess I could go for solid number 2. If you look at the numbers, he wasn't quite as good as I remember. A lot of his value was in his bat. So, yeah, if you look at overall value, he was great, but straight pitching numbers, he walked a lot of hitters and gave up a lot of hits. But the point stands.
-
This is the saddest thread. It really reminds us that prospects are not remotely guarantees. I have more confidence on our current regime and system to come through, but at the end of the day, the great plan is simply a venture. Some top 100 prospects of 2001: Montanez -100, Christensen 49, Juan Cruz - 47, Zambrano - 30, Choi - 28, Corey Patterson - 5. In 2002: Kelton - 74, bobby hill - 79, Zambrano - 72, Choi -68, Cruz - 14, Prior - 2. Out of that whole group we netted a front line starter in Prior, and MOR starter in Zambrano a couple years of Patterson and Cruz, and Choi for Lee. Think about our current top 10. Almost half never see the majors, 1 becomes a role player, 1 goes in nice trade, one becomes above average and two potential stars that fall to injury. Again, I think chances are better this go round, but holy cow, that's depressing.
-
Well, mostly Pie.