Yankees interested in Zambrano?

[Coldneck]

Fuck me running. I totally forgot that Peavy was a douchesox.

[cherp]

<!--quoteo(post=73447:date=Dec 30 2009, 07:39 PM:name=Coldneck)-->QUOTE (Coldneck @ Dec 30 2009, 07:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Fuck me running. I totally forgot that Peavy was a douchesox.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I'm holding my position on him that I want to see him deliver for a full season in the AL, in USCF before I buy into it. I'm not buying a #44 jersey until he gives me reason to.

That said, Peavy, Buehrle, Danks, Floyd, Garcia makes me smile a bit. I wish I was as happy with the pen and the lineup.

[dk123]

I am interested in Zambrano, because I believe him to have a big cock.

[Coach]

<!--quoteo(post=73330:date=Dec 29 2009, 11:37 PM:name=cherp)-->QUOTE (cherp @ Dec 29 2009, 11:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73320:date=Dec 29 2009, 07:06 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 29 2009, 07:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->If Zambrano is just an average number 2, there are at least 30 better starting pitchers in MLB. I'd like to know who they are.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

"average #2" is a very subjective term. In 8 years, CZ has 1 year with more than 16 wins. He has 4 straight years trending worse in nearly every statistical category. Are there 30 guys better than him? I doubt it. But for a team who's goal is not to just be an average team, having a dominant #1 is very important. His inconsistency definitely prohibits him from being that. So is he a "weak #1", a "good #2", an "average #2" or whatever? Who knows? None of those title mean anything. His last 2 years averages about 180 IP, a 3.85 ERA, a 1.35 WHIP, a .245 opp avg, 140K and about a dozen wins. Put whatever label you want on him...

Let me add that his upside, if he ever puts it all together for an extended period of time, is CLEARLY #1 stuff. The question is will he ever do so...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

That is correct

[veryzer]

<!--quoteo(post=73443:date=Dec 30 2009, 06:32 PM:name=cherp)-->QUOTE (cherp @ Dec 30 2009, 06:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73431:date=Dec 30 2009, 04:37 PM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Dec 30 2009, 04:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The Cubs staff is suspect in my opinion.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Still likely to be top 3 in the NL, right?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Likely? Hardly likely. Possible? Sure.

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=73722:date=Jan 1 2010, 12:04 PM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Jan 1 2010, 12:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73443:date=Dec 30 2009, 06:32 PM:name=cherp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cherp @ Dec 30 2009, 06:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73431:date=Dec 30 2009, 04:37 PM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Dec 30 2009, 04:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The Cubs staff is suspect in my opinion.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Still likely to be top 3 in the NL, right?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Likely? Hardly likely. Possible? Sure.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Phillies, Dodgers, Cardinals, Giants, Cubs.

I'd say the Cubs are in the top 5. Just barely, though.

[rok]

<!--quoteo(post=73724:date=Jan 1 2010, 12:10 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jan 1 2010, 12:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73722:date=Jan 1 2010, 12:04 PM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Jan 1 2010, 12:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73443:date=Dec 30 2009, 06:32 PM:name=cherp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cherp @ Dec 30 2009, 06:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73431:date=Dec 30 2009, 04:37 PM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Dec 30 2009, 04:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The Cubs staff is suspect in my opinion.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Still likely to be top 3 in the NL, right?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Likely? Hardly likely. Possible? Sure.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Phillies, Dodgers, Cardinals, Giants, Cubs.

I'd say the Cubs are in the top 5. Just barely, though.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Atlanta should be near the top as well.

[veryzer]

The cubs being a top 3 staff is predicated on

1. Zambrano PROgressing and not REgressing.
2. Lilly coming back from surgery 100%.
3. Dempster staying healthy and consistent
4. Randy Wells not being a fluke (big if)
5. who is our 5? Gordzzelaney?

[Ace]

<!--quoteo(post=73725:date=Jan 1 2010, 01:14 PM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Jan 1 2010, 01:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73724:date=Jan 1 2010, 12:10 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jan 1 2010, 12:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73722:date=Jan 1 2010, 12:04 PM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Jan 1 2010, 12:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73443:date=Dec 30 2009, 06:32 PM:name=cherp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cherp @ Dec 30 2009, 06:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73431:date=Dec 30 2009, 04:37 PM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Dec 30 2009, 04:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The Cubs staff is suspect in my opinion.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Still likely to be top 3 in the NL, right?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Likely? Hardly likely. Possible? Sure.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Phillies, Dodgers, Cardinals, Giants, Cubs.

I'd say the Cubs are in the top 5. Just barely, though.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Atlanta should be near the top as well.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Will the Cardinals be as good next year with Pineiro or Smoltz?

[rok]

<!--quoteo(post=73728:date=Jan 1 2010, 12:23 PM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Jan 1 2010, 12:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The cubs being a top 3 staff is predicated on

1. Zambrano PROgressing and not REgressing.
2. Lilly coming back from surgery 100%.
3. Dempster staying healthy and consistent
4. Randy Wells not being a fluke (big if)
5. who is our 5? Gordzzelaney?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And add to that list Marmol reversing his trend of walking the world and settling in to being a decent closer. I'm still not convinced that our bullpen as a whole has enough (quality) depth. Who closes if Marmol fails badly and then goes back to being an inconsistent setup man? I'd like more insurance in that area, but I know people don't like paying up for relievers.

[rok]

http://www.bleachernation.com/2010/01/05/c...-the-white-sox/

Thanks, Ace, for making me think the unthinkable.