CubinNY

I don't really understand how all of this works, but is this a reason why depth in a system is less important than star power?

This, I understand Sosa is a polarizing figure, but if there's a Cubs HoF, he is a no-brainer. Seriously, the Rickets are such douchebags. A lot of the backlash against Sammy is from the same cast of characters known to be racists. Sammy was a prima donna, so was Joe DiMaggio, Wade Boggs, Ted Williams, and a bunch of other superstar baseball players over the decades. Sammy did steroids, so did everyone else at the time, hate the game, not the player. Sammy doesn't deserve a plaque, he deserves a statue.

In a ten game series the Orioles would win six or seven.

Cubs are moribund.

1-0 KC after two unforced errors. None out runners on 2nd and 3rd.

Booting the ball in the infield and not covering 1st base is the new market inefficiency for tanking teams.

My goodness I can’t stand him. 0-0 top of 2.

Why?

One hit wonders

My alerts tell me Wisdom went deep

It's like Naked Gun

Why would teams who always have to be at the minimum overpay for bad players on short deals over and over instead of just spending the same amount to get better players or extend their current good/popular players? Not sure I understand that complaint. As an ownership proposal that's a first salvo in negotiations I am sure it's very bad when you add up what the net spending would be, but I am curious about what would happen to parity and team building with a minimum salary and/or a smaller deviation in team payrolls. It's possible something very bad for players in that sense could be very good for the competitive environment and therefore the health of the game, which might make for some trickiness in negotiating. To be clear, the health of the game and good outcomes for players are not mutually exclusive ideas by any stretch, but given the structural disadvantages it may end up with that being the way the choice is framed without a lengthy work stoppage. I'm not so sure I understand how artificially suppressing wages is good for baseball. What it means is shorter contracts for less money for good/great players and still underpaying good/great players under team control. Cost certainty for the owners is bad for baseball. I suppose if there is some form of profit-sharing that gets divided evenly by the MLBPA and owners and is distributed to the players that might make the proposal more palatable to players.

https://www.si.com/mlb/2021/08/18/mlb-proposes-salary-floor-lower-luxury-tax-mlbpa This is only a proposal, and it almost certainly won't make it through as initially described, but anything along these lines seems really bad for the Cubs. It would give the Ricketts' another excuse not to go over $180 million. Lower the LT to $180M? I know it’s the first round of negotiations but horsefeathers that. That’s laughable You can bet the Ricketts's hands were all over that. The floor is about 4 million per player.

Adbert needs to develop a pitch to induce lefties into soft contact or he's a middle reliever/swingman vs. a righthand dominant team.

I like the thought of that tweet, but that was a meatball, middle-middle.

Johneshwy was really bad and had no business on a major league roster, even for a day.

It’s a win!

Can they hold on?

Hendricks is on the bump for the bums.

Not only that, but they got the designation for the tax breaks and for no other reason. what? they only get tax exemption if they are a non-profit historical preservation corporation, I dont think they are that. maybe the City gave them some tax breaks, but the City gives lots of orgs tax breaks on their buildings They get all kinds of tax breaks on Wrigley due to its designaiton.

Hopes and dreams!

And the first thing everybody wants to do is sign a $30 million per year superstar SS instead of spending it to fill the obvious holes on this team. Next year (and probably the year after) this is a 3rd place team (at best) waiting for our next "core" of possible star players in 2024. I can't see PTR spending a ton of money until the team is ready to really be competitive. Spend big money on at least 1 SP (Stroman, Rodon, etc.), sign a RH LF (Pham), make a couple of trades (Mancini would be my 1st choice, but Voit would be cheaper at 1B and Merrill Kelly), keep Ortega and Schwindel for DH/bench, and keep Chirinos around for another year. By the 2022 offseason, reassess the ML team and the progress of the prospects in the minors to determine the plan of 2023 and 2024. This is mostly bad. "Superstar" and "SS" are pretty obvious holes, right? How long do you want to wait to see if our prospect list turns out a superstar? Davis next year, and then....Ed Howard, all of 21 years old in 2023, currently getting owned in single A? The even younger Preciado/Hernandez/Caissie/Made group? And if those don't hit just press the reset button again? We have $38m in guaranteed salary next year, another $15m in arbitration for Willy, Ian, Ortega, Wieck, and then the league minimum for Mills, Wick, Heuer, Madrigal, Adbert, Hoerner, Steele, Wisdom, and whoever else. Call it, what, $60m? How does signing 34 year old Tommy Pham do anything in your plan as your top offensive move? Go get someone you know is good, gives you a shot of being good soon, and will still be good when those cheap prospects finally make it up. Then figure out how much money you have left and go from there. Or use the good prospect to get gooder

How tone deaf are these bozos? Cry poor, sell off all their talent, push to build a sportsbook, and now hold a party to celebrate their self-perceived awesomeness including a plaque while their team is 2-18 in their last 20 games. Not only that, but they got the designation for the tax breaks and for no other reason.

IMB got lit up on twitter by Tebow fans a few days ago for posting how terrible he is.

Being on a winning team does feel right. I love Chicago, but San Fransisco is pretty awesome and the surroundings are pretty great too.