08-11-2009, 05:39 PM
<!--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?
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