Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
I'd say the Cubs are now at 98 losses for next year instead of 112.
Marmol nixed the deal?
Which might be why the Angels were willing to take on Marmol's contract to get rid of him.
In 2012, BABIP goes up to 306, the HR rate is back up to 1.4/9 and the IP drops below 6 IP/start but the K/BB is still great.
Well, first because that's how it was reported. Second, why would you trade for a guy with Haren's contract and pay full price when you could probably wait a day and get him for less, while still having Marmol available for trade? Haren's clearly not worth his whole number or the Angels would be exercising his option.
I was going to make a snarky comment in my original post about how my statement doesn't mean I think Haren all by his lonesome equals 14 wins but I decided against it to see who would bring it up.
Great trade for the Cubs.
I'm trolling even though I've been pretty much right about what would happen to the Cubs this whole year?
We have a limited amount of reliable data on the effects of velocity...
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (9 members)
Page rendered in 0.6647 seconds, 74 querie(s) executed