TheHammer

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 05:56 PM) A-rod got traded, does that mean he is bad? Nope, no one good has ever been traded. The act of getting traded completely proves that you have little ability. This nitetrain logic is a wonderful thing!

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 05:47 PM) If he's such a stud player, then why is he one of the guys they are always willing to give up in trades? How many times has he been traded? Yeah they are just always willing to just give him up for nothing, good call on that one. Maybe they are willing to give him up because they lose every year even with all those big bats.

Nitetrain let me guess, you probably defended the Podsednik for CLee trade citing, for one, that Podsednik hit much better two seasons ago than last season. But now that your favorite player is being discussed you only want to look at those 2005 numbers. Can't go back a year or two for Blalock, have to just cite the worst season of his career. Blalock is a stud, all-star caliber player. Crede is just a solid average starter at third.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 11:42 AM) Wade didn't return a punt his first two seasons becuase we had Rdub back there who was a stud PR. We let McQuarters go and Wade was to step in, this is why we drafted him. Wade was supposed to be the PR of the future for the Bears but it turned out that he can't hold onto the damn ball. He was drafted to play WR. No one has or ever will be drafted to be exlusively a punt returner except only in a few years down the line. Wade returned punts this year because he returned a kick for a TD against Indy in preseason (that didnt even win him the job). He wasn't even activated for week 1 against Wash then week 2 he returned another for a TD which bought him about 9 fumbles before he lost the return job. If he was meant to just step in after RW left there wouldn't have been a big and close battle for the job in preseason and he wouldn't have lost it even with a return for TD. Ultimately he was cut because his play as a WR didn't warrant a spot on the team if he wasn't going to contribute on special teams RW didn't return every punt the last two years and we didn't put Wade out there when RW wasn't nor would he be considered the #2 punt returner The few times he didn't return Berrian was back there. Teams will always take a prospects possible return abilities into consideration, but Wade was drafted to be an NFL reciever first and return if he happened to ever win that job.

The best teams consistently trade prospects for players. I'd rather be like the Yankees than the Twins.

Wade didn't return a punt his first two seasons, he was drafted to be a WR and it turned out he just couldn't hack it. It happens to dozens of guys every year. I'm sure they thought he might be able to return, but its not like he excelled No one thought he could outrun everybody coming out of college but he was considered a guy with great quickness and good hands. While he is quick his hands are average and he is weak with the ball. I'm not sure whats up with the comment that if he was drafted to be a possession reciever he would be drafted 7th round or undrafted. Possession recievers aren't like kickers, they can be vitally important, even pro bowl players. We drafted a pretty good possession WR in the 2nd round out of Penn State a few years back.

I wonder what it would take to get a player of his caliber. I would consider him the best SS in the majors. Juan Uribe, El Duque, two top prospects and maybe a slightly lesser one?

I like how at the end he is hyping up LSU and how they are going to beat Georgia in Georgia. Good call

QUOTE(IlliniKrush @ Nov 30, 2005 -> 06:38 PM) How many runs did we score in this manner: Pods on, bunt/steal over, sacrifice/hit right side over, sac fly/hit How many would we score with Iguchi up first? Whatever the difference is it would be made up and then some by Iguchi's power.

Hmm, I see people are buying into the myth that Podsednik isn't a weak hitter. The guy had like 550 plate appearances and scored 80 runs. Thats what happens when your leadoff man has a .700 OPS. He is a bad hitter and a decent offensive player because of his speed. Hitting him 2nd in our style of play would mask some of his deficiencies and have him on base for more of the meat of the order. The leadoff spot is a good place for power. Not like a Cecil Fielder type player, but a guy who can get extra base-hits where Pods lacks. They had the same amount of walks last year in the same amount of plate appearances for the most part.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Nov 30, 2005 -> 06:07 PM) Um, simply no. Batting leadoff would hinder Iguchi from using his full abilities even more. That's all I'll say before the flaming comes. Batting 2nd is hindering Iguchi from using his full abilities, that is obvious. Atleast have a strong argument if you are going to say the idea is only worthy of some flaming. Anyone should be able to move a runner over once in awhile. It is silly to stiffle one of your better bats because he can do some small things. Pods was the worst hitter on our team last year in terms of his overall production. He can hit singles and cause damage when he gets on base. If he can handle the bat a little he seems like perfect #2 hitter. I know it is unlikely to happen, but I can't imagine it wouldn't help the team.

I like the idea of batting Iguchi leadoff and Podsednik second. Iguchi no longer has to give up at bats (His .342 OBP wasn't really worse than Pods at .351 anyway). We would end up getting a lot more power from the leadoff spot which I would argue is better than having that power in the two hole. He gets more extra-base hits than Pods which means he would score more runs. Also, Pods used to disrupt pitchers to get Iguchi better pitches. That did some damage. How much more damage would it do it more of his disruption came with Thome and Paulie up. Yeah, this is a genius idea. Someone call Ozzie.

None on and None out for Iguchi means leading off the inning for almost all at-bats. Because we know Pods didn't hit any HRs this year. Basically you proved that Iguchi shouldnt hit first. Agreed!

if we did somehow get Abreu for Rowand I would say the best defensive option for us would be to put him in left, Anderson in center, and DH Pods.

QUOTE(J-MAN @ Nov 7, 2005 -> 03:57 PM) My main problem with Cub fans is they are not baseball fans. To prove my point I asked a supposed Cub fan to name five players on the Cubs this year - she got to four - nuff said! Eh, you can't ask a girl its not fair. Girls that know anything about any team they supposedly are fans of are few and far between.

That article was kind of creepy. It is the kind of article that you just know is going to make you mad the moment you begin to read it. Its odd, feel the same way about Notre Dame football. But the thing is, the only reason Sox fans act like dicks to this guy is because he, like most Cub fans, always try to rub the "Sox can't draw fans, no one likes them" thing in Sox fans noses. So what do you expect? You think any fans would be nice a courteous to you when you act so arrogantly about being a Cub fan, and take shots at the percieved lack of interest in the Sox whenever possible. Sox fans don't hate the Cubs, in my opinion, we hate arrogant Cubs fans and it translates into many Sox fans wishing bad fortune on the Cubs. I find this statement something that he tried to slip by everyone. Oh, they are traveling so far to see the Cubs, must be diehard Cubs fans who love going to Wrigley for the baseball. Well having lived in Central Illinois in the past I would argue that the people on these buses are mostly casual fans. Group discounts are offered for trips to Chicago to see a baseball game. Some people set it up and then try to get a bunch of people to go. "Hey going to Chicago for a day and seeing a game at Wrigley would be a fun trip this weekend." It would be the guy who drives up or drives down himself 15-20 times a year to see Cubs that isn't a casual fan. Or better yet, the guy who goes to ZERO GAMES, but watches them all on TV and follows the team like we all know a diehard team would. The thing is going to a baseball game doesn't make you somehow a diehard fan, going to a baseball game is fun and something that draws casual fans who may not really care if the team wins or loses. I prefer watching games on TV, and to be honest I purposely try to not go to games often because I don't want going to a professional sporting event to become old hat for me. I like it to be a big deal to go to a Sox game or a Bulls game or a Bears game so I don't go a lot. But I guarentee I am more die hard then the people who come off buses at Wrigley. And I know for a fact that there are thousands of fans like me in every sport. It is easily apparent? Ever sit in the bleachers at Wrigley? I would argue that it is impossible to tell who at a game is there to be drunk in the sun yelling with a bunch of other people and who is there to just watch the Cubs because they might be drunk too. Looks like the writer is trying to make a point by saying something that is obviously impossible to prove either way is one way, and that it is obvious. This is very weak writing and a very weak point. I will, however, thank the author for sharing these two nuggets with the rest of Chicago. I might have to use these myself.

Such mastery over words could make Shakespeare himself envious.

Illinois had no sanctions against them, they are only on probation. They are not suspended from any bowl games. OSU will be ruled on later and they could be in big big trouble

haha Schaumburg sucks

here we go

This finesse thing would be funny if he had any talent.

IM SORRY I DOUBTED YOU BLUM

damn he walked him, i never would have guessed

anyone else kind of wish we had BMac instead of Blum right now?

that green screen made it seem like green smoke was shooting from Ausmus' glove