Vizcaino shut down!

[Boobaby1]

It is a residual effect from the initial surgery, much like scar tissue! It isn't an additional injury on top of the original injury. Same thing with Baker. It pushes back their timetables and nothing else.

Love how Cashner was no big loss because he was 'injury prone'.

But now a player who looks like he will not throw one competitive pitch for the Cubs at any level a full year after he was traded for is 'no big deal'

Unbelievable the double standard some push.

I love how someone chastises the Cubs for trading an injury prone Andrew Cashner for a productive major league 1B; while completely writing off Arodys Vizcaino as an injury prone prospect. But hey, at least you are consistent in your blind hatred of every move the Cubs make. But if you really want to break down this trade circle:

Cubs traded Marshall for LH mid to back of rotation SP (Wood).
Cubs promote James Russell to LH setup man.
Cubs traded RP with electric arm and possible top end rotation SP (Andrew Cashner) for Anthony Rizzo.
Cubs traded LH mid to back of rotation SP (Maholm) for RP with electric arm and possible top end rotation SP (Vizcaino).

Basically, the Cubs received 1B of the future along with zero sum in the rotation and bullpen while getting younger.

Will, who would you rather have pitching in the Cubs organization, Maholm in Chicago or Viscaino maybe someday making it to Chicago?

 

[Willrust]

The ceiling for Vizcaino is a great deal higher than Paul Maholm going forward.

 

[mountsalami]

The ceiling for Vizcaino is a great deal higher than Paul Maholm going forward.

That must be why the Yankees and Braves held him so dearly to their chests.

Maybe Boy Blunder forgot to read Hemmoroidys medicals first ?

Maybe someday, the guy can actually throw a pitch in a Cubs uniform.

Would love to see the phantom "ceiling" that you are claiming exists.:fap::fap::fap::fap::fap::fap::fap::fap::fap::fap::fap::fap::fap::fap::fap::fap::fap::fap:

 

[KBisBack!]

The ceiling for Vizcaino is a great deal higher than Paul Maholm going forward.

And that is why many people think your baseball knowledge is completely dumb.

You constantly want to play the long shots because you thinking getting 1 right out of 10 is better than going with the proven players who probably produce to their level 7 times out of 10.

The ceiling for you posting knowledgeable baseball content is higher than cena's going forward.

Yet you both end up posting equally dumb stuff that the rest of us are worse off for having to read.

 

[Willrust]

And that is why many people think your baseball knowledge is completely dumb.

You constantly want to play the long shots because you thinking getting 1 right out of 10 is better than going with the proven players who probably produce to their level 7 times out of 10.

The ceiling for you posting knowledgeable baseball content is higher than cena's going forward.

Yet you both end up posting equally dumb stuff that the rest of us are worse off for having to read.

You just keep up your good work of shitting over every thread.

 

[KBisBack!]

You just keep up your good work of shitting over every thread.

Of course if you didn't post such absolute garbage on every thread there wouldn't be anything to shit on.

 

[mountsalami]

The ceiling for you posting knowledgeable baseball content is higher than cena's going forward.

Yet you both end up posting equally dumb stuff that the rest of us are worse off for having to read.

Classic.

 

[kchicub08]

Will,

The real problem is KB is correct. Get past your disdain for him for just a minute.

You do seem to want to gamble on all prospects/long shots because they MIGHT pan out.

Why don't the Cubs take the Brazil soccer method and sign some thirteen year olds to future contracts?

If we were Royals fans or a team with that metric, I could totally get behind just rebuilding. But when YOU HAVE THE CUBS REVENUE, you can certainly have players of a higher quality then they do AND REBUILD.

I truly don't understand why this logic is beyond most on here.

 

[Willrust]

Will,

The real problem is KB is correct. Get past your disdain for him for just a minute.

You do seem to want to gamble on all prospects/long shots because they MIGHT pan out.

Why don't the Cubs take the Brazil soccer method and sign some thirteen year olds to future contracts?

If we were Royals fans or a team with that metric, I could totally get behind just rebuilding. But when YOU HAVE THE CUBS REVENUE, you can certainly have players of a higher quality then they do AND REBUILD.

I truly don't understand why this logic is beyond most on here.

I have no problem with signing proven major league players. I have mentioned several proven ML players that I would like for the Cubs to focus on over this upcoming offseason. Just because I disagree with giving Albert Pujols a 10 year deal or Prince Fielder a 9 year deal doesn't mean I am against signing any veteran player as someone has incorrectly portended on this site.

I see teams like the Saux, Cardinals, Giants & Braves winning over long periods of time utilizing a steady stream of youth coming up through their system and I don't understand why so many people are against the Cubs doing the same.

It sure iis a lot easier to have a revisionist history and say, "I was right about _____ being a better option than ____," despite these same people throwing dozens of players against the wall and only selecting the ones that stick. I was wrong about Brandon Wood. It seems I have to openly admit that every couple months. However, others never own up to being wrong about other players and select only the players that actually worked out. I remember several people wanting Brad Hawpe a few years ago, and he turned into crap. I also remember people clamoring for the Cubs to sign Dice-K, John Lackey, Milton Bradley & Josh Hamilton; to name a few. Where are those people today? On this site complaining that the Cubs didn't sign someone else.

 

[KBisBack!]

I have no problem with signing proven major league players. I have mentioned several proven ML players that I would like for the Cubs to focus on over this upcoming offseason. Just because I disagree with giving Albert Pujols a 10 year deal or Prince Fielder a 9 year deal doesn't mean I am against signing any veteran player as someone has incorrectly portended on this site.

Incorrect or a flat out lie. Take your choice.

You have also argued against signing Nick Swisher, Eric Chavez, and several others. So don't act like it was just the two players.

I don't understand why so many people are against the Cubs doing the same.

Absolutely no one is against doing the same as many people have incorrectly tried to claim on this site.

Some of us would like to see quality major league baseball while the Cubs are doing the same like the other teams have been able to do.

Not sure why this is so hard to understand for so many.

 

[mountsalami]

I wonder if the current injury to the injured Hemmoroidys will now artificially deflate the Cubs' farm system rankings the same as it inflated them prior with the injury.

I guess we will find out after the next time Law gets in the shower with Epstein.

 

[Willrust]

Incorrect or a flat out lie. Take your choice.

You have also argued against signing Nick Swisher, Eric Chavez, and several others. So don't act like it was just the two players.

I was all for the Cubs signing David DeJesus. I was for the Cubs signing Hamilton to a short term deal. I am for the Cubs signing Cano to a 5-6 year deal. I am for the Cubs signing Jhonny Peralta this offseason for 3B. I was for the Cubs trading for Justin Upton. I was for the Cubs trading for Dan Haren, until the issues with his medicals was publicized. I was for the Cubs going after Anibal Sanchez, until it was apparent that he was just using the Cubs to drive up his price on the Tigers. I was for the Cubs signing Prince Fielder to a 6 year deal (with club options at the end), but he got a guaranteed 9 years from the Tigers.

As to Nick Swisher, I just never saw the Cubs an actual landing spot for him and didn't see how the Cubs could manage an OF with both him and Soriano.

Eric Chavez? You want to hand 3B over to the guy in this article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304765304577480803911265114.html

& this article:

http://www.sfgate.com/athletics/article/Chavez-nearing-end-of-the-road-3297968.php

Some of us would like to see quality major league baseball while the Cubs are doing the same like the other teams have been able to do.

I actually enjoy watching this team, because I am a Cub fan. Does the record suck? Yes. But I am not a fair-weather fan.

Looking back, the Saux, Cardinals, Braves and Giants actually had to endure some down years while rebuilding. The Sox went through some rough times in the mid to late 90's (after getting rid of Clemens). The Cardinals went through some tough years with Joe Torre in the 90's as well. The Braves had some awful teams in the 80's and the Giants went from a W.S. contender to some rough years in 2005-2008. However, each of those teams actually put some emphasis on drafting and acquiring young talent, unlike the Cubs from 2004-2010. As we can all see, 6-7 years of pretty shitty drafting, bad player development and a string of bad FA moves got the Cubs where they were, going into last season. Don't see why that is so hard to understand.

 

[KBisBack!]

I was for the Cubs signing Hamilton to a short term deal. I am for the Cubs signing Cano to a 5-6 year deal.

Thanks for clearing that up.

You are all for signing superstar players to completely unrealistic contracts.

I am for the Cubs signing Jhonny Peralta this offseason for 3B.

Until it becomes obvious that he will get too many years and too much money.

I was for the Cubs trading for Justin Upton.

You would have been until the number of prospects it would have taken had been discussed.

Justin Upton would have likely cost Starlin Castro and several prospects. You would have cried like a baby over that cost.

I was for the Cubs trading for Dan Haren, until the issues with his medicals was publicized.

The same 'issues' that didn't stop Washington from giving him a one year $13M deal. More money than would have cost the Cubs??

I was for the Cubs going after Anibal Sanchez, until it was apparent that he was just using the Cubs to drive up his price on the Tigers.

You mean playing Theo and Co. like chumps?

The Cubs LET themselves get used on that one. They could have easily made an offer that Detroit couldn't match. They didn't and knew they didn't have to because idiots would be satisfied that they at least tried to sign an actual good player.

I was for the Cubs signing Prince Fielder to a 6 year deal (with club options at the end), but he got a guaranteed 9 years from the Tigers.

I am all for World Peace and an end to World Hunger. Those are more realistic options than signing Prince Fielder to a six year deal.

As to Nick Swisher, I just never saw the Cubs an actual landing spot for him and didn't see how the Cubs could manage an OF with both him and Soriano.

Easily. Play Swisher in RF and Soriano in LF.

No one is worried about awful defense at SS, why would it matter in RF?

Eric Chavez? You want to hand 3B over to the guy in this article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304765304577480803911265114.html

& this article:

http://www.sfgate.com/athletics/article/Chavez-nearing-end-of-the-road-3297968.php

You mean hand it over to hitting .325??

Sure.

For a couple years, no problem.

It isn't like people were saying sign him to a long term deal, just a quality short term solution.

I actually enjoy watching this team, because I am a Cub fan. Does the record suck? Yes. But I am not a fair-weather fan.

So because someone complains about watching a 100 loss team that makes them fair weather?

Dumb.

Looking back, the Saux, Cardinals, Braves and Giants actually had to endure some down years while rebuilding. The Sox went through some rough times in the mid to late 90's (after getting rid of Clemens). The Cardinals went through some tough years with Joe Torre in the 90's as well. The Braves had some awful teams in the 80's and the Giants went from a W.S. contender to some rough years in 2005-2008. However, each of those teams actually put some emphasis on drafting and acquiring young talent, unlike the Cubs from 2004-2010. As we can all see, 6-7 years of pretty shitty drafting, bad player development and a string of bad FA moves got the Cubs where they were, going into last season. Don't see why that is so hard to understand.

Playing revisionist history those teams had some bad years.

But funny when I point out how long it takes to build a winning team through the farm system you argue that it doesn't take that long.

Now you want to use those as an example of long bad stretches?

And even then those teams never threw away seasons like the Cubs have the last two years. They still tried to field competitive teams because they knew their fans were not dumb enough to just roll over and accept it like Cub fans will.

 

[Willrust]

Blah, blah blah.

Was I against the Cubs attaining proven major leaguers. Nope.

You would have been until the number of prospects it would have taken had been discussed. Justin Upton would have likely cost Starlin Castro and several prospects. You would have cried like a baby over that cost.

Wow, pulling bullshit straight from your poop-shoot there. Funny you mentioned Starlin Castro for Justin Upton, as that is kinda what I suggested over at CBS.

The same 'issues' that didn't stop Washington from giving him a one year $13M deal. More money than would have cost the Cubs??

How is the #5 SP for the Nationals doing with his 13M contract?

The Cubs LET themselves get used on that one. They could have easily made an offer that Detroit couldn't match. They didn't and knew they didn't have to because idiots would be satisfied that they at least tried to sign an actual good player.

The Cubs could have signed Pujols, Fielder & traded for Rizzo. Just because a team could do something doesn't mean they should.

I am all for World Peace and an end to World Hunger. Those are more realistic options than signing Prince Fielder to a six year deal.

Until Victor Martinez got injured, a 6 year deal (possibly with club options) likely could have netted Fielder. I am all for these boards staying on topic, but with you around it appears to be an act of futility.

Easily. Play Swisher in RF and Soriano in LF. No one is worried about awful defense at SS, why would it matter in RF?

That's a sound decision making process: we already suck defensively at SS so lets add a terrible defensive player in RF! Let's go ahead and give him a lengthy contract while we are at it, you know, cause the Cubs could simply outbid anyone.

You mean hand it over to hitting .325?? Sure.

For a couple years, no problem.

It isn't like people were saying sign him to a long term deal, just a quality short term so

I mean the same Eric Chavez that could see his career go bye bye if he has a violent sneeze.

So because someone complains about watching a 100 loss team that makes them fair weather?

The Cubs are not a 100 loss team. They are a 30 loss team and just swept the White Sox, quite convincingly.

Playing revisionist history those teams had some bad years. And even then those teams never threw away seasons like the Cubs have the last two years. They still tried to field competitive teams because they knew their fans were not dumb enough to just roll over and accept it like Cub fans will.

Not revisionist history at all. The Sox threw away the season in 1997. The Braves had one 80 win season from 1984 to 1990 and lost more than 95 games in 4 of those seasons. The Cardinals had several throw away seasons between 1994 to 1999. I already touched on the Giants. Many baseball people expect the Cubs to be serious contenders by 2015. Right now, the Cubs are in their 2nd year of rebuilding.

BTW, I would agree with you regarding dumb fans, as many Cardinal fans were ready to toss HOF manager Tony LaRussa to the curb before their WS win in 2006, much like the fans screaming for the Cardinals to toss HOF manager Joe Torre to the curb just prior to LaRussa's arrival.

 

[KBisBack!]

Wow, pulling bullshit straight from your poop-shoot there. Funny you mentioned Starlin Castro for Justin Upton, as that is kinda what I suggested over at CBS.

I said Castro PLUS a couple prospects. Not just Castro for Upton like you proposed. We have all seen your track record on trade suggestions.

How is the #5 SP for the Nationals doing with his 13M contract?

Well the Nats are 1 game over and Cubs are 8 games under and Haren is pitching a hell of a lot better than the Cubs $13M pitcher Jackson.

The Cubs could have signed Pujols, Fielder & traded for Rizzo. Just because a team could do something doesn't mean they should.

Yeah, cause that is what people have suggested.

Typical clown ignorance.

Until Victor Martinez got injured, a 6 year deal (possibly with club options) likely could have netted Fielder.

Not on the Planet Earth.

I am all for these boards staying on topic, but with you around it appears to be an act of futility.

The thread was staying on topic until you started with your usual prospect masturbation, got called out for it and started your usual temper tantrum when several people pointed out how dumb you are being.

So that is when you started grasping and clutching for every straw you can desperately trying to gain some credibility by bringing up so many different points you would have to be right about one of them. Well you arent.

That's a sound decision making process: we already suck defensively at SS so lets add a terrible defensive player in RF! Let's go ahead and give him a lengthy contract while we are at it, you know, cause the Cubs could simply outbid anyone.

Yeah, really was a terrible decision the Tigers made moving Cabrera to 3B and place Fielder at 1B.

I mean the same Eric Chavez that could see his career go bye bye if he has a violent sneeze.

If this and but than and excuses, excuses, excuses.

The Cubs are not a 100 loss team. They are a 30 loss team and just swept the White Sox, quite convincingly.

The Cubs were a 100 loss team last year and somehow because they haven't lost 100 in their first 52 games means they are a good team suddenly??

Seriously how are you smart enough to outwit your bed sheets and get out of bed in the mornings?

Not revisionist history at all. The Sox threw away the season in 1997. The Braves had one 80 win season from 1984 to 1990 and lost more than 95 games in 4 of those seasons. The Cardinals had several throw away seasons between 1994 to 1999. I already touched on the Giants. Many baseball people expect the Cubs to be serious contenders by 2015. Right now, the Cubs are in their 2nd year of rebuilding.

Yeah you already touched on the Giants and were corrected on how wrong you were as usual.

The Red Sox actually increased payroll from 1996 to 1997. They didn't get rid of Roger Clemens because they didn't want to pay him, they got rid of him cause they thought he was done and they may have been right if it wasn't for the juice. They had a bad season, but they didn't throw it away like the Cubs are.

The Braves I have pointed out that it took over 30 years of mostly losing baseball before they started their run.

But now it will be reasonable for the Cubs to do it in just 4 years??

 

[Willrust]

It is pointless trying to have a conversation with you...So,

:enough:

 

[patg006]

Few things here Will;

1) None of us want to see this team lose. We also dont want to see what's clearly broken get ignored and not fixed.

2) You're wrong about Eric Chavez. Played in 38 of 53 games, hot hitter right now splitting time with Martin Prado, moved to second; and defensively only 1 error on the season. For the low price of 4 million. How much is Fuji getting again?

3) Stop misconstruing what we say, we think we should do both draft and acquire free agents. You want a model of consistency to base it off of? Fine, the Giants. But that means the cubs gotta get pitching talent, and then spend on FA.

 

[KBisBack!]

3) Stop misconstruing what we say, we think we should do both draft and acquire free agents.

As many times as this silly little thing called both has been explained, he is either incapable of grasping the concept or deliberately lying about what has been said.

 

[patg006]

As many times as this silly little thing called both has been explained, he is either incapable of grasping the concept or deliberately lying about what has been said.

I think Will gets it perfectly, he just wants/likes to argue and sneak in an example to be right. Problem is, his examples are.......to put it nicely--porous in solidity (I wont list examples, he knows them--I just hope he doesnt go "what's David Price doing right now?) Ideas that are partially correct, some make valid points. However the other part usually points out the flaw in the argument. He's got spunk, he just needs to pick battles better.

His draft talk is nice though...

 

[Willrust]

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/9...activate-willie-bloomquist-put-eric-chavez-dl

:kick: