The Chicago Cubs better than the NY Yankees?

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They are most certainly one of the top 5 teams in baseball right now

[/ QUOTE ]

What does that even mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's an idiot.

[Reup Gang]

[ QUOTE ]
Yea it would really suck to have solid above average regulars on your team when they are only 24 years old and not even arbitration eligible.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, because i'm sayinig it SUCKS, right? reading comprehension is tonz of funz.

again, stars win championships. dbacks have a lot of great prospects in terms of long-term mlb viability, but very few in terms of long-term greatness. therefore the risk is that they turn into a 88-90 win team with less margin of erorr rather than the future ~95 win team people expected since their prospects are proving they are not stars. that doesn't necessarily mean the team isn't in good shape, and i guess i gave too much credit for posters like you to discern that without me having to say it so bluntly.

[Thremp]

Reup,

You do realize that when you have a whole slew of league average players that are signed for several years at the min. it enables you to sign free agents that will have more marginal win value but at a much higher cost.

That might be over your head. Lets try this.

Cheap + Average = Great + Expensive

[slothinator]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yea it would really suck to have solid above average regulars on your team when they are only 24 years old and not even arbitration eligible.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, because i'm sayinig it SUCKS, right? reading comprehension is tonz of funz.

again, stars win championships. dbacks have a lot of great prospects in terms of long-term mlb viability, but very few in terms of long-term greatness. therefore the risk is that they turn into a 88-90 win team with less margin of erorr rather than the future ~95 win team people expected since their prospects are proving they are not stars. that doesn't necessarily mean the team isn't in good shape, and i guess i gave too much credit for posters like you to discern that without me having to say it so bluntly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stars win championships? Not teams? Let me check:

Ted Williams-zero world series
Stockton and Malone-never won a ring
Dan Marino-one super bowl appearance and lost

But those dudes were stars! What gives?

And you seriously think the difference between a team full of average players and a team full of stars is 5-7 wins over a 162 game season? Of course, I see why you think Drew, Young, Quentin, and the rest of the baby D-Backs are just going to be above average players and not stars. Because no player has ever played below expectations in their first full season in the big leagues and then gone on to great things. Not A-Rod, not Maddux, and not Randy Johnson. Nope, doesn't happen.

[Reup Gang]

[ QUOTE ]
Reup,

You do realize that when you have a whole slew of league average players that are signed for several years at the min. it enables you to sign free agents that will have more marginal win value but at a much higher cost.

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry i won't take part in your condescension-filled argument, especially when you've still yet to understand the underlying points of my posts.

[ QUOTE ]
Stars win championships? Not teams? Let me check:

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, because i said it is every star's destiny to win a championship, right?

oh, i'm sorry, let me edit my statement: stars put you in a yearly position to potentially win a championship. mlb playoffs are a crapshoot so you can get rid of your laughable irrelevant subjective argument.

[ QUOTE ]
And you seriously think the difference between a team full of average players and a team full of stars is 5-7 wins over a 162 game season? Of course, I see why you think Drew, Young, Quentin, and the rest of the baby D-Backs are just going to be above average players and not stars. Because no player has ever played below expectations in their first full season in the big leagues and then gone on to great things. Not A-Rod, not Maddux, and not Randy Johnson. Nope, doesn't happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow, i love how everyone in the sporting events forum always takes one thing you say, makes a strawman out of it, and tries to present as if, "no, here's what you REALLY meant." work on your reading comprehension sir.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yea it would really suck to have solid above average regulars on your team when they are only 24 years old and not even arbitration eligible.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, because i'm sayinig it SUCKS, right? reading comprehension is tonz of funz.

again, stars win championships. dbacks have a lot of great prospects in terms of long-term mlb viability, but very few in terms of long-term greatness. therefore the risk is that they turn into a 88-90 win team with less margin of erorr rather than the future ~95 win team people expected since their prospects are proving they are not stars. that doesn't necessarily mean the team isn't in good shape, and i guess i gave too much credit for posters like you to discern that without me having to say it so bluntly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stars win championships? Not teams? Let me check:

Ted Williams-zero world series
Stockton and Malone-never won a ring
Dan Marino-one super bowl appearance and lost

But those dudes were stars! What gives?

And you seriously think the difference between a team full of average players and a team full of stars is 5-7 wins over a 162 game season? Of course, I see why you think Drew, Young, Quentin, and the rest of the baby D-Backs are just going to be above average players and not stars. Because no player has ever played below expectations in their first full season in the big leagues and then gone on to great things. Not A-Rod, not Maddux, and not Randy Johnson. Nope, doesn't happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. too bad i specifically excluded young.

2. too bad i didn't say EVERY young player the d-backs have in their system has no chance at becoming a star. idiot.

3. you should stop assuming i'm blindly making my decision solely based on what has occurred in this season. quentin doesn't have the minor league track record of a STAR player. he wasn't particularly young for any of the levels he hit well at, and though he hit WELL, he did not DOMINATE any league, ESPECIALLY when you factor in translations for hitting in massive hitters' parks. toss in the fact that becoming a star player is so rare in and of itself, AND the current long-term struggles he's having this season, and it would be foolish to argue he's anywhere close on a pathway to a star player. the same can be applied to drew (802 OPS as a 23-year-old in Triple-A playing in the PCL), jackson (inflated batting averages in the minors that he obviously can't reproduce in the majors, lack of major power for a 1b), chad tracy (solid above average regular), miguel montero (self-explanatory -- hopefully), and now carlos gonzalez' star has dimmed too (.744 OPS in double-a in, again, a hitter's environment).

that doesn't mean the diamondbacks are NOT currently an up-and-coming organization, or don't have a great open-minded front office, and aren't goign to be competitive for the next 5-6 seasons. it simply means there heretofore incredible farm system has still yet to produce the star player[s] that it was EXPECTED to, and now thay many of the previously elite prospects are in the majors and are struggling, it is therefore that much more unlikely they will become as such and may have been a little overrated in the process.

the sabermetric elitism in this forum is really laughable; anyone who doesn't openly state they read baseball prospectus, the hardball times, etc. etc. can't ever voice an opinion even SLIGHTLY different from the sabermetric consensus. sorry that i read the same sabermetric-inclined material as you do yet come to different conclusions here and there, and the prospective dangers of groupthink are quite evident through many of this forum and its posters. and if you're unable to even intelligently debate said points up for debate without resorting to condescension and derision, you're no better than the idiots like tom verducci and jonh kruk that are responsible for most of the current simple-minded miasma we call baseball coverage.

[THAY3R]

Dude, you said that the players you mentioned not being stars is a problem.

It may be a problem, but it's a problem every single organization in MLB would kill to have.


So congrats, you win.

1337

[Reup Gang]

wow, i didn't ever imagine it'd be so wrong to assume that a presumably group of intelligent baseball fans would not need it reminded that the d-backs are purported to have a very bright future. if that needed to be stated in order to root my words, then fine, i shall do that in the future.

the point is not that the diamondbacks are going to be good or bad. everyone with a brain knows they're going to be good for a long time. the question at hand is how good, and i was merely stating that now may be the time to question just how awesome their future may be as most of their prospects have regressed, and therefore we much account for how our potential projections of both them and just how good the future of the team should be reduced. it wasn't nearly as complicated or as controversial as numerous posters made it to be.

[slothinator]

Let's follow your trail of contradiction and weaseling out, shall we?

1. You say stars win championships, then fall back on "I meant stars give you a better chance" when called on it.

2. You dodged several arguments against your statements, replying with things like "I'm not going to respond to that" or "you don't understand my post".

3. You mention all of the D-Backs players that have underperformed, then say "I didn't say all of them". No, just the ones that are actually playing in AZ right now.

4. You criticize these players for not performing up to expectations and say they aren't going to be stars, yet say later that they could still be stars; we have to wait and see. Which is it? They aren't going to be or they might be?

5. You criticize the "sabermetric elitist", and then use sabermetric stats to backup your "these guys aren't going to be stars" arguments. Which you have already contradicted elsewhere.

6. I love how you also respond to being criticized with name calling. I guess when you can't defend your argument rationally, "idiot" will just have to do.

I'm sure I missed some stuff, but frankly your post was so all over the place it was difficult to unpack all of the nonsense. I'm sure someone else will come along and pick up the pieces I may have missed.

FWIW, I think you are being way too critical of your team (I assume you are a D-Backs fan). These guys are going to be something in a couple of years, and I suspect it will be more than just a bunch slightly better than league average talent.

[kyleb]

now that they have jason KENDALL they are elite

[Reup Gang]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's follow your trail of contradiction and weaseling out, shall we?

[/ QUOTE ]

i literally laughed out loud while reading this post. i almost got a headache as the litany of responses came to my mind with all the laughable things you actually wrote and apparently BELIEVE. if you really want to make this a pissing contest, okay, let's go.

[ QUOTE ]
1. You say stars win championships, then fall back on "I meant stars give you a better chance" when called on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

are you really this dense? no, i seriously feel like your whole post, starting with this, is a big level.

what do you think "stars win championships" actually means? that everyone that is a star wins a championship? uh, yeah, keep believing that. that's exactly what i meant when i said it. you win.

[ QUOTE ]
2. You dodged several arguments against your statements, replying with things like "I'm not going to respond to that" or "you don't understand my post".

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm not going to bother wasting my time seriously responding to a bunch of posts where the op can't make a point without tiring levels of condescension. i think i'll be able to get to sleep at night when op declares himself winner as a result.

[ QUOTE ]
3. You mention all of the D-Backs players that have underperformed, then say "I didn't say all of them". No, just the ones that are actually playing in AZ right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

in chronological order:

"the prob is guys like quentin and jackson seem to basically be solid, above average regs, but no star quality to speak of outside of upton and young. "

"again, stars win championships. dbacks have a lot of great prospects in terms of long-term mlb viability, but very few in terms of long-term greatness. therefore the risk is that they turn into a 88-90 win team with less margin of erorr rather than the future ~95 win team people expected since their prospects are proving they are not stars. that doesn't necessarily mean the team isn't in good shape, and i guess i gave too much credit for posters like you to discern that without me having to say it so bluntly. "

you can stop imagining things now.

[ QUOTE ]
4. You criticize these players for not performing up to expectations and say they aren't going to be stars, yet say later that they could still be stars; we have to wait and see. Which is it? They aren't going to be or they might be?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, because i believe the majority of their prospects aren't going to be stars means there is 0% chance in the entire world they are going to be stars. just like because i believe the yankees are not going to make the playoffs means they have a 0% chance of making the playoffs.

[ QUOTE ]
5. You criticize the "sabermetric elitist", and then use sabermetric stats to backup your "these guys aren't going to be stars" arguments. Which you have already contradicted elsewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow, i didn't know you had to be a sabermetric elitist to use sabermetrically-inclined stats!

[ QUOTE ]
6. I love how you also respond to being criticized with name calling. I guess when you can't defend your argument rationally, "idiot" will just have to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

no, i don't care about my point of view being criticized. again, your reading comprehension fails. criticize does not mean insult; it is "to find fault with." finding fault with my opinions was not my point. finding fault with my opinions while snidely and arrogantly adding superfluous disparagement was what i was pointing out. the lone insult (yeah, idiot's gonna make em cry home to mommy) you found in my various posts does not = the condescension found in yours and the other posters. it's especially humorous when said condescension is found in posts like yours that can't even comprehend what they're replying to, or make up imaginary points to respond to.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure I missed some stuff, but frankly your post was so all over the place it was difficult to unpack all of the nonsense. I'm sure someone else will come along and pick up the pieces I may have missed.

[/ QUOTE ]

you may have to make up some more things that you think i said that i never said if you want to continue this.

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, I think you are being way too critical of your team (I assume you are a D-Backs fan).

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm not.

[ QUOTE ]
These guys are going to be something in a couple of years, and I suspect it will be more than just a bunch slightly better than league average talent.

[/ QUOTE ]

ah, the strawman really is your friend, isn't it?

so you turned:

"88-90 win team"

into

"slightly above average"

good job. now it's no mystery where your severe confusion comes from.