Posts: 560
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2009
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=57055:date=Aug 11 2009, 04:04 PM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Aug 11 2009, 04:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Thank goodness for Jake Fox.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If we had DeRosa clogging up our bench we'd have never given Jake Fox a chance to blossom.
So add that to the argument. Jim Hendry got rid of DeRosa to make more playing time for Jake Fox, who will eventually be an inexpensive 1B solution. Three Cheers for the wizardry of Jim Hendry.
Posts: 3,735
Threads: 119
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=57060:date=Aug 11 2009, 04:14 PM:name=vitaminB)-->QUOTE (vitaminB @ Aug 11 2009, 04:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=57055:date=Aug 11 2009, 04:04 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Aug 11 2009, 04:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Thank goodness for Jake Fox.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If we had DeRosa clogging up our bench we'd have never given Jake Fox a chance to blossom.
So add that to the argument. Jim Hendry got rid of DeRosa to make more playing time for Jake Fox, who will eventually be an inexpensive 1B solution. Three Cheers for the wizardry of Jim Hendry.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Loved how a few months ago, folks were saying that the Cubs should dump Lee for a handful of beans so Micah Hoffpauir could get some playing time. The same Micah that was hitting less than 180 since June and now is in Iowa.
Let's see Fox hit MLB pitching for a season before were ready to send Lee out of town.
If Aramis has to take some time off, I am hoping to see Fox get multiple starts at third and get to prove himself.
Posts: 3,011
Threads: 81
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=57050:date=Aug 11 2009, 02:59 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Aug 11 2009, 02:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=57014:date=Aug 11 2009, 11:19 AM:name=Coldneck)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coldneck @ Aug 11 2009, 11:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->Most fans should be upset that players aren't performing and / or getting injured which is a very different discussion to the Cubs shouldn't spend money on free agents / have hamstrung their future due to free agent signings.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When you sign aging talent to long term deals the assumption of injury loss should be made, especially when the player has an injury history.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
BINGO!
Also, I cannot believe we're actually still arguing this, but we've been arguing it all year long: Aramis Ramirez is an injury risk. Period. He has been his whole career. That's one of the reasons we got him from the Pirates in the 1st place.
His #1 backup was............Mark Fucking DeRosa.
So, no...it was NOT a good idea to have NO BACKUP PLAN for inevitable injuries.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's a good thing you won't be there Saturday, because I am going to wear out my nut-kicking leg on Butcher, and I won't have any left to give to you.
The only reason we are still arguing this is because YOU ARE COMPLETELY FUCKING WRONG. In the last 6 years, Ramirez has averaged 144 games. That's more than Derrek Lee. That's more than DeRosa. That's more than Bradley. That's more than Soto. That's more than Soriano. That's only slightly less than Theriot.
So unless THE ENTIRE FUCKING TEAM is an injury risk, and you plan on carrying 16 position players, Ramirez was an injury risk only IN YOUR FUCKING HEAD. A guy who has averaged one stint on the 15 day DL a year, is not an injury risk. A guy who played in 149 games last year (tied for 3rd most on the team) is not an injury risk. A guy whose worst injury season was 4 years ago, where he missed less than 40 games is NOT an injury risk.
If you want to argue that we should have had a backup third baseman, fine. But for the love of fuck, STOP saying that Ramirez was an injury risk. He's not Cal Ripken, but he has been as or more dependable than pretty much anyone on the team.
Now I feel better.
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.
Posts: 2,894
Threads: 72
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=57065:date=Aug 11 2009, 04:26 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Aug 11 2009, 04:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=57050:date=Aug 11 2009, 02:59 PM:name=KBwsb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KBwsb @ Aug 11 2009, 02:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=57014:date=Aug 11 2009, 11:19 AM:name=Coldneck)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coldneck @ Aug 11 2009, 11:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->Most fans should be upset that players aren't performing and / or getting injured which is a very different discussion to the Cubs shouldn't spend money on free agents / have hamstrung their future due to free agent signings.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When you sign aging talent to long term deals the assumption of injury loss should be made, especially when the player has an injury history.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->BINGO!
Also, I cannot believe we're actually still arguing this, but we've been arguing it all year long: Aramis Ramirez is an injury risk. Period. He has been his whole career. That's one of the reasons we got him from the Pirates in the 1st place.
His #1 backup was............Mark Fucking DeRosa.
So, no...it was NOT a good idea to have NO BACKUP PLAN for inevitable injuries.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->It's a good thing you won't be there Saturday, because I am going to wear out my nut-kicking leg on Butcher, and I won't have any left to give to you.
The only reason we are still arguing this is because YOU ARE COMPLETELY FUCKING WRONG. In the last 6 years, Ramirez has averaged 144 games. That's more than Derrek Lee. That's more than DeRosa. That's more than Bradley. That's more than Soto. That's more than Soriano. That's only slightly less than Theriot.
So unless THE ENTIRE FUCKING TEAM is an injury risk, and you plan on carrying 16 position players, Ramirez was an injury risk only IN YOUR FUCKING HEAD. A guy who has averaged one stint on the 15 day DL a year, is not an injury risk. A guy who played in 149 games last year (tied for 3rd most on the team) is not an injury risk. A guy whose worst injury season was 4 years ago, where he missed less than 40 games is NOT an injury risk.
If you want to argue that we should have had a backup third baseman, fine. But for the love of fuck, STOP saying that Ramirez was an injury risk. He's not Cal Ripken, but he has been as or more dependable than pretty much anyone on the team.
Now I feel better.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The recent history of Aramis Gehrig Ripkin:
2009-non-stop injuries
2008-missed 15 games, and played hurt at times, but DeRosa filled in ably.
2007-missed 30 games. No need for a good backup. None whatsoever.
2006-missed 40 games (!) No need for a good backup. None whatsoever.
Perhaps in BT-land, a GM can just throw away 30-40 games per season.
I mean, what-the-heck, right?
But it is my opinion that that Mr. Ramirez is not a Man of Steel, nor is ANYONE on the roster, and that is why <!--coloro:#FF0000--> <!--/coloro-->having the best super-utility player in MLB, who could fill-in capably almost anywhere on the diamond<!--colorc-->
<!--/colorc-->, was a kind of valuable thing, correct?
There's nothing better than to realize that the good things about youth don't end with youth itself. It's a matter of realizing that life can be renewed every day you get out of bed without baggage. It's tough to get there, but it's better than the dark thoughts. -Lance
Posts: 11,836
Threads: 390
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UzfY-aXGcBY&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UzfY-aXGcBY&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Posts: 1,318
Threads: 31
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=57071:date=Aug 11 2009, 04:39 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Aug 11 2009, 04:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=57065:date=Aug 11 2009, 04:26 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Aug 11 2009, 04:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->It's a good thing you won't be there Saturday, because I am going to wear out my nut-kicking leg on Butcher, and I won't have any left to give to you.
The only reason we are still arguing this is because YOU ARE COMPLETELY FUCKING WRONG. In the last 6 years, Ramirez has averaged 144 games. That's more than Derrek Lee. That's more than DeRosa. That's more than Bradley. That's more than Soto. That's more than Soriano. That's only slightly less than Theriot.
So unless THE ENTIRE FUCKING TEAM is an injury risk, and you plan on carrying 16 position players, Ramirez was an injury risk only IN YOUR FUCKING HEAD. A guy who has averaged one stint on the 15 day DL a year, is not an injury risk. A guy who played in 149 games last year (tied for 3rd most on the team) is not an injury risk. A guy whose worst injury season was 4 years ago, where he missed less than 40 games is NOT an injury risk.
If you want to argue that we should have had a backup third baseman, fine. But for the love of fuck, STOP saying that Ramirez was an injury risk. He's not Cal Ripken, but he has been as or more dependable than pretty much anyone on the team.
Now I feel better.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The recent history of Aramis Gehrig Ripkin:
2009-non-stop injuries
2008-missed 15 games, and played hurt at times, but DeRosa filled in ably.
2007-missed 30 games. No need for a good backup. None whatsoever.
2006-missed 40 games (!) No need for a good backup. None whatsoever.
Perhaps in BT-land, a GM can just throw away 30-40 games per season.
I mean, what-the-heck, right?
But it is my opinion that that Mr. Ramirez is not a Man of Steel, nor is ANYONE on the roster, and that is why <!--coloro:#FF0000--> <!--/coloro-->having the best super-utility player in MLB, who could fill-in capably almost anywhere on the diamond<!--colorc-->
<!--/colorc-->, was a kind of valuable thing, correct?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you trying to be an asshole, or are you just not reading what BT is saying?
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->The recent history of Aramis Gehrig Ripkin:<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
BT SPECFICALLY SAID he's not Cal Ripken, so stop with this ridiculous over exaggeration (because you've used it before).<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->2007-missed 30 games. No need for a good backup. None whatsoever.
2006-missed 40 games (!) No need for a good backup. None whatsoever.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
BT SPECIFICALLY SAID feel free to argue that a backup is needed, because that isn't what he's fighting.
All he said was Ramirez was not a serious injury risk like you are claiming. So who exactly are you arguing with?
The thing you need to remember is that all Cardinals fans and all White Sox fans are very bad people. It's a fact that has been scientifically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Being a Cubs fan is the only path to rightousness and piousness. Cardinal and White Sox fans exist to be the dark, diabolical forces that oppose us. They are the yin to our yang, the Joker to our Batman, the demon to our angel, the insurgence to our freedom, the oil to our water, the club to our baby seal. Their happiness occurs only in direct conflict with everything that is pure and good in this world.
-Dirk
Posts: 2,894
Threads: 72
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
1. He's an injury risk.
2. Every player on our team misses a lot of games, mainly because we're an old team.
3. In the above situation, having a good utility player is a must. Having the best utility player in MLB is even better; it helps you win 2 straight divisional titles.
What are <i>you</i> arguing?
There's nothing better than to realize that the good things about youth don't end with youth itself. It's a matter of realizing that life can be renewed every day you get out of bed without baggage. It's tough to get there, but it's better than the dark thoughts. -Lance
Posts: 2,100
Threads: 41
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=57071:date=Aug 11 2009, 05:39 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Aug 11 2009, 05:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--coloro:#FF0000--> <!--/coloro-->having the best super-utility player in MLB, who could fill-in capably almost anywhere on the diamond<!--colorc-->
<!--/colorc--><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You mean Ben Zobrist?
Posts: 1,318
Threads: 31
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=57087:date=Aug 11 2009, 06:28 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Aug 11 2009, 06:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->1. He's an injury risk.
2. Every player on our team misses a lot of games, mainly because we're an old team.
3. In the above situation, having a good utility player is a must. Having the best utility player in MLB is even better; it helps you win 2 straight divisional titles.
What are <i>you</i> arguing?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not arguing anything. It's a fact that you made numerous smug, asshole-ish points in your post trying to prove your side of the argument, except BT specifically said he wasn't arguing those things.
The thing you need to remember is that all Cardinals fans and all White Sox fans are very bad people. It's a fact that has been scientifically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Being a Cubs fan is the only path to rightousness and piousness. Cardinal and White Sox fans exist to be the dark, diabolical forces that oppose us. They are the yin to our yang, the Joker to our Batman, the demon to our angel, the insurgence to our freedom, the oil to our water, the club to our baby seal. Their happiness occurs only in direct conflict with everything that is pure and good in this world.
-Dirk
Posts: 8,042
Threads: 100
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=57060:date=Aug 11 2009, 04:14 PM:name=vitaminB)-->QUOTE (vitaminB @ Aug 11 2009, 04:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=57055:date=Aug 11 2009, 04:04 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Aug 11 2009, 04:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Thank goodness for Jake Fox.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If we had DeRosa clogging up our bench we'd have never given Jake Fox a chance to blossom.
So add that to the argument. Jim Hendry got rid of DeRosa to make more playing time for Jake Fox, who will eventually be an inexpensive 1B solution. Three Cheers for the wizardry of Jim Hendry.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How many times were you dropped on your head?
Posts: 3,011
Threads: 81
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=57071:date=Aug 11 2009, 04:39 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Aug 11 2009, 04:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=57065:date=Aug 11 2009, 04:26 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Aug 11 2009, 04:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=57050:date=Aug 11 2009, 02:59 PM:name=KBwsb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KBwsb @ Aug 11 2009, 02:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=57014:date=Aug 11 2009, 11:19 AM:name=Coldneck)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coldneck @ Aug 11 2009, 11:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->Most fans should be upset that players aren't performing and / or getting injured which is a very different discussion to the Cubs shouldn't spend money on free agents / have hamstrung their future due to free agent signings.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When you sign aging talent to long term deals the assumption of injury loss should be made, especially when the player has an injury history.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->BINGO!
Also, I cannot believe we're actually still arguing this, but we've been arguing it all year long: Aramis Ramirez is an injury risk. Period. He has been his whole career. That's one of the reasons we got him from the Pirates in the 1st place.
His #1 backup was............Mark Fucking DeRosa.
So, no...it was NOT a good idea to have NO BACKUP PLAN for inevitable injuries.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->It's a good thing you won't be there Saturday, because I am going to wear out my nut-kicking leg on Butcher, and I won't have any left to give to you.
The only reason we are still arguing this is because YOU ARE COMPLETELY FUCKING WRONG. In the last 6 years, Ramirez has averaged 144 games. That's more than Derrek Lee. That's more than DeRosa. That's more than Bradley. That's more than Soto. That's more than Soriano. That's only slightly less than Theriot.
So unless THE ENTIRE FUCKING TEAM is an injury risk, and you plan on carrying 16 position players, Ramirez was an injury risk only IN YOUR FUCKING HEAD. A guy who has averaged one stint on the 15 day DL a year, is not an injury risk. A guy who played in 149 games last year (tied for 3rd most on the team) is not an injury risk. A guy whose worst injury season was 4 years ago, where he missed less than 40 games is NOT an injury risk.
If you want to argue that we should have had a backup third baseman, fine. But for the love of fuck, STOP saying that Ramirez was an injury risk. He's not Cal Ripken, but he has been as or more dependable than pretty much anyone on the team.
Now I feel better.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The recent history of Aramis Gehrig Ripkin:
2009-non-stop injuries
2008-missed 15 games, and played hurt at times, but DeRosa filled in ably.
2007-missed 30 games. No need for a good backup. None whatsoever.
2006-missed 40 games (!) No need for a good backup. None whatsoever.
Perhaps in BT-land, a GM can just throw away 30-40 games per season.
I mean, what-the-heck, right?
But it is my opinion that that Mr. Ramirez is not a Man of Steel, nor is ANYONE on the roster, and that is why <!--coloro:#FF0000--> <!--/coloro-->having the best super-utility player in MLB, who could fill-in capably almost anywhere on the diamond<!--colorc-->
<!--/colorc-->, was a kind of valuable thing, correct?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
KB, this is so fucking weak, so fucking lame, that I am almost embarrassed to have to reply to it. And Butch should be at least as ashamed to have taken your side on this.
2009- Since this happened AFTER the year started, it's pretty fucking silly/lame/weak (take your pick) to use that as an example of Ramirez being a injury risk COMING INTO THE SEASON. I'm done with 2009.
2008- Missed 15 games. The fact that you use that as an example of what a risk he is, is another example of how silly/lame/weak your argument is (note, from now on I will be abbreviating it as slw). First of all 15 games is not a risk, second of all only 2 players on the whole fucking team playing more games is an argument AGAINST yours. bad example. I'm done with 2008.
2007- At least this one doesn't work actively AGAINST your slw argument. 30 games is borderline, however if we are using that metric, we needed to keep 6 outfielders on the team, since none of our outfielders played in even that many games. Missing 30 games is not ideal, but certainly not an automatic indicator that we were doomed to be hurt. I'll give you partial credit for this one.
2006- Possibly my favorite example. I'm going to reprint your example, just to make sure we all understand where you come down on this.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->2006-missed 40 games (!) No need for a good backup. None whatsoever.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OK, everyone come back in time with me to 2006. It was one of the Cubs worst years. Juan Pierre was stinking up the joint, leading the team in games played and at bats. He played 162 games that year. Sounds impressive, until you realize the Cubs played ONE HUNDRED AND NINETY SEVEN games that year. I can't explain why we ended up playing 35 more games than anyone else, but as KB said, Ramirez missed 40 (!) games that year. So even though he played in the second most games on the team behind Pierre with 157, he still somehow managed to miss 40 (!) games. Orrrrr, KB got it wrong. So again, as an argument FOR pointing out a guy is injury prone, you cite a year in which he missed 5 fucking games. (Note all of this snark is invalid if baseball reference is lying to me, and he didn't play in 157 games). Slw. I'm done with 2005.
Now, I'll do you work for you and note that in 2005 he missed 39 games. But to that I will say
1: that is EXACTLY what I said originally
2: in order for you statement that a GM "throws away" 30-40 games a season, you have to go back to 2005.
Giff has already done a nice enough job showing the dishonesty of the rest of your post, but really KB, this is a pretty awful response.
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.
Posts: 2,894
Threads: 72
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
Yeah, Aramis missed all those games in '05, not '06. My bad. Touche.
The point stands that he's missed a lot of games, and he's not an iron man. Nobody on the team is (as you pointed out), and therefore it's imperative to have a good bench.
There's nothing better than to realize that the good things about youth don't end with youth itself. It's a matter of realizing that life can be renewed every day you get out of bed without baggage. It's tough to get there, but it's better than the dark thoughts. -Lance
Posts: 2,894
Threads: 72
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=57091:date=Aug 11 2009, 06:50 PM:name=Giff)-->QUOTE (Giff @ Aug 11 2009, 06:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=57087:date=Aug 11 2009, 06:28 PM:name=KBwsb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KBwsb @ Aug 11 2009, 06:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->1. He's an injury risk.
2. Every player on our team misses a lot of games, mainly because we're an old team.
3. In the above situation, having a good utility player is a must. Having the best utility player in MLB is even better; it helps you win 2 straight divisional titles.
What are <i>you</i> arguing?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I'm not arguing anything. It's a fact that you made numerous smug, asshole-ish points in your post trying to prove your side of the argument, except BT specifically said he wasn't arguing those things.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif[/img]
Dude, I don't know if you've realized it, but a big part of BT's shtick is to offer up "smug, asshole-ish points." I was responding in kind.
BTW, the internet tends to obscure things like "tongue-in-cheek," "intent," "shades of gray," etc. I've been accused of being particularly tin-earred on things like this, so if I'm being a dick, I apologize.
I consider BT to be an important poster on this site. Part of what makes it fun to argue with him is that he's clever, witty, and makes solid points. I've also met BT, and can honestly say that he's the funniest person on the board, in person. (on SOI, I think tom's funnier. But BT is funnier in person)
Because I consider myself friendly with him, I assume he knows that there is no malice in my disputing his points. None.
In fact, I have zero malice toward anyone here. To me, you're all fellow Cub fans, which is like being in a foxhole together. We may bicker when our leader (Hendry) makes a dumb move, but we're all in this thing together.
There's nothing better than to realize that the good things about youth don't end with youth itself. It's a matter of realizing that life can be renewed every day you get out of bed without baggage. It's tough to get there, but it's better than the dark thoughts. -Lance
Posts: 157
Threads: 19
Joined: May 2009
Reputation:
0
The Cubs need to Magglio Ordonez/Carlos Lee (Sox pre-2005) themselves of one of those OF contracts. Preferably Soriano. However I doubt anyone is going to take on any of that salary.
The MLB is shifting a bit in that it's more important to grow your own talent. Players are breaking down at an earlier age, and because of that it's not wise to invest in monster free agent contracts. I don't mean to say that the era of A-Rod contracts is over, but teams are going to need find those studs in there own system. Not to mention, if players are becoming more an more fragile, teams may be less apt to take a plunge with an older FA. We may see more Bobby Abreu type deals.
Also, I don't want to have another relapse like we had in 2005-2006 where we really faltered for a few years because we didn't have enough depth in the organization. Of course we can't win 90+ games every year, but we need to make sure we have talent coming up through both the pipeline and the hot stove to ensure that we are (1) competitive and/or (2) making continual progress. I.E. Boston Red Sox/LA Dodgers.
Just my 2ยข for now.
"Last year, I was sort of a kid and I was a little scared, I ain't scared any more."
Quote:- Hank Aaron
Posts: 1,318
Threads: 31
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=57182:date=Aug 11 2009, 09:21 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Aug 11 2009, 09:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=57091:date=Aug 11 2009, 06:50 PM:name=Giff)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Giff @ Aug 11 2009, 06:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=57087:date=Aug 11 2009, 06:28 PM:name=KBwsb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KBwsb @ Aug 11 2009, 06:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->1. He's an injury risk.
2. Every player on our team misses a lot of games, mainly because we're an old team.
3. In the above situation, having a good utility player is a must. Having the best utility player in MLB is even better; it helps you win 2 straight divisional titles.
What are <i>you</i> arguing?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I'm not arguing anything. It's a fact that you made numerous smug, asshole-ish points in your post trying to prove your side of the argument, except BT specifically said he wasn't arguing those things.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif[/img]
Dude, I don't know if you've realized it, but a big part of BT's shtick is to offer up "smug, asshole-ish points." I was responding in kind.
BTW, the internet tends to obscure things like "tongue-in-cheek," "intent," "shades of gray," etc. I've been accused of being particularly tin-earred on things like this, so if I'm being a dick, I apologize.
I consider BT to be an important poster on this site. Part of what makes it fun to argue with him is that he's clever, witty, and makes solid points. I've also met BT, and can honestly say that he's the funniest person on the board, in person. (on SOI, I think tom's funnier. But BT is funnier in person)
Because I consider myself friendly with him, I assume he knows that there is no malice in my disputing his points. None.
In fact, I have zero malice toward anyone here. To me, you're all fellow Cub fans, which is like being in a foxhole together. We may bicker when our leader (Hendry) makes a dumb move, but we're all in this thing together.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wasn't trying to show any malice (asshole-ish was a poor choice of words I realized later, sarcastic would have been better), I was just pointing out that you were making points and acting like you proved BT wrong, when in fact he admitted those points before you even made them. Thus, you were arguing with nobody.
The thing you need to remember is that all Cardinals fans and all White Sox fans are very bad people. It's a fact that has been scientifically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Being a Cubs fan is the only path to rightousness and piousness. Cardinal and White Sox fans exist to be the dark, diabolical forces that oppose us. They are the yin to our yang, the Joker to our Batman, the demon to our angel, the insurgence to our freedom, the oil to our water, the club to our baby seal. Their happiness occurs only in direct conflict with everything that is pure and good in this world.
-Dirk
|
