Cubs Commitments - A look ahead

[BT]

<!--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.