Sammy Sofa
-
Posts
98,208 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
208
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by Sammy Sofa
-
The whole "it's the third year and they're going to have their worst year yet" part that really bothers me. I doubt even the most deluded "we gotta suck before can get better"-types thought that would have happened. -
Citation needed. Basically stole my post from me. Come on, just vent about this, for once. I'm pretty sure it's unhealthy holding it in. You're like the one person here who hasn't.
-
Yeah, but you offset that by how many games they SHOULD have won. LOL Going forward, barring trades and injuries, the Cubs are much more likely to play to their .471 pythag than that .373 actual. That's a fact. But whatever, have fun doing that stuff I guess. 2/3 or more of this team is pretty much here to be traded on the off chance they're any good for a couple of months. Why even post 'barring trades' knowing that? Because the point is that the ridicule of pythag by mockingly referencing "games they SHOULD have won" is [expletive] stupid and makes you look like a meatball. Using the pythag as a crutch is equally pointless with a Frankenstein team like this; it's not like we're talking about a bunch of fulltime players likely to be around for a while. In this context it's just to make people feel better. It's not unusual at all when a team largely cobbled together with busts and platoon players and the like plays worse than "expected."
-
So now we're back to looking at it based on how they were rated before the trade as opposed to how it worked out. Whichever way works, right? It's mainly what they were at the time. You were the first to really go into what they later became and I argued that that package ended up being much better than what you made it out to be. Garcia and Gallagher were both top 100 prospects. Yeah, Donaldson obviously wasn't anywhere near the prospect Guillen was, but he's annihilating things now and has already had a season better than Guillen ever did and is still kicking ass, so I feel pretty confident looking at it being relatively comparable. The Astros were really good at the time of both trades, so it's not like they torpedoed themselves by going for it and not holding on to who they traded for or based on who they lost.
-
The Marlins aren't waiting until the end of Stanton's final year to trade him, and the Astros' trades for players they ultimately only had for playoff runs weren't really that bad given how good the Astros were.
-
It was the right move to make, as were the pickups for the Astros given the position they were in. In this day and age nobody is trading for Stanton at the end of his contract and running the risk they only have him for a playoff run.
-
So now we're back to looking at it based on how they were rated before the trade as opposed to how it worked out. Whichever way works, right?
-
Yeah, but you offset that by how many games they SHOULD have won.
-
Astros actually gave up quite a bit for Randy Johnson, IIRC. That was a different era, though. Meh. Guillen certainly hurt, but Freddy Garcia was Freddy Garcia. For a team in contention it certainly wasn't that bad at all. Freddy Garcia was pretty damn good (and actually did more for the mariners than guillen ever did) two prospects that became credible major leaguers for 2 months of randy johnson is pretty bad. johnson did make the best of it for them though. Well, yeah, if you're going by what they became vs. what they were rated at the the time. If we're going by what happened after the fact then the Cubs got absolutely raped in the Harden deal and they were looking for a similar need AND they got a whole extra year our of their target.
-
Good luck with all that, you cheap fartknockers.
-
Astros actually gave up quite a bit for Randy Johnson, IIRC. That was a different era, though. Meh. Guillen certainly hurt, but Freddy Garcia was Freddy Garcia. For a team in contention it certainly wasn't that bad at all.
-
Just for context in the Beltran deal: the Astros gave up John Buck and Octavio Dotel. The A's gave up Mike Wood and Mark Teahen.
-
They also gave up a lot less because they traded for someone at the end of their deal. The Marlins would come out with a lot more if they trade him in the offseason or this year if they fall off.
-
That's two whole years before 2019! When the hell did Kyle get so optimistic?
-
What team would give up the insane haul it would take to land Stanton without it being all but a sure thing that they could lock him up?
-
For future use: http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--AhRtvCGW--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_320/cvqa5o0lnqinkbqqwszn.gif
-
Hahahahaah! It's the cooler way to spell it.
-
Bill Russell, Bobby Orr and Tom Brady are all Boston/NE sports legends who have played great and won championships. Each also represents a different sport. If you're complaining about Byrd not being there, then take issue with him picking Russell, not Ortiz. Auerbach was a coach, and again, involved in a different sport; he didn't pick any other coaches, and Ortiz plays baseball. Clemens didn't win a WS with the Red Sox. Williams didn't win a WS with the Red Sox. How do you not see the stupid formulas he's using with this insipid little piece?
-
Gnnnngngngngngngngngngngngngggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg. You are like a walking aneurysm. In this hypothetical trade, it is unlikely the Cubs would part with what it would take to get him unless he came with an extension or, at the very least, that they were sure they had the money needed to throw at him. How do you not see this.
-
Random Cubs Musings: Minor League Edition
Sammy Sofa replied to Little Slide Rooter's topic in Cubs Minor League Talk
Still creepy. -
Was there....contact?
-
Ricketts = http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Ep-Z85YdmMg/TMWzVL6L9VI/AAAAAAAAJjk/AKYjkYqf328/s400/01a.jpg
-
Look at it this way: they want to sign Tanaka, they fail to sign to Tanaka. It really sucks, but at the end of it they're still in the same position when they started. Trading for someone like Stanton and then not re-signing him clearly puts them in a much worse spot than where they started, so why in God's name do you think they would do that unless they essentially had a guarantee from the Ricketts that they'd be able to throw all of the money at him to keep him?
-
Pretty sure that if they're doing a huge trade like that it's with the idea that they can extend him and would spend whatever it takes to do so. Just a hunch. Missing out on FA is one thing; not paying a guy that you shipped out a bunch of good parts for AND then not signing him two years later is just stupid. That you think they'd make a move like that without being confident that they'd have the resources to keep him is absurd.
-
http://media.giphy.com/media/fj4sw0BLfdOGA/giphy.gif
