Sammy Sofa

That doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it. At some point, at a certain length and size of contract, even the richest teams are hurting themselves more than helping themselves (yes, in terms of winning games, not just payroll efficiency)...so it's not like, "well someone else is willing to do it so if we want to get that guy we have to do it" is a always going to be good justification for doing it. That's what I don't get about this argument. I get that "You have to do it to get great free agents..." but is getting great free agents, particularly these older ones that are now the norm, a good thing at literally any cost? Where is the line drawn? What/where that point is, I'm not really smart or informed enough to say...but it seems silly to justify it by saying well if you want this guy you have to do it. Then you're probably better off having smart front office people find wins elsewhere. It's not like you need elite superstars to win in baseball. It's not basketball. I'm just saying it's wishful thinking to think they're going away, not that the Cubs have to pay them.

Christ, I have to argue with both sides of you lunatics. What exactly was so horrific about the Soriano contract? Ask the people who bitched and moaned about it every day since it was signed The meatballs?

Well, for one, the idea that 10 year contracts are going away seems a faulty premise since one was just signed. And yeah, in the context of the team we're all here for 7 year monster deals might as well be 10 year monster deals. Those monsters shrinking a couple years isn't drastically changing the FA landscape, nevermind that there seems to be little indication that the giant deals won't continue besides "well, the Yankees aren't doing them right now so...profit?" It just seems like wishful thinking to think that 8-10 year deals are going away; there's always going to be a team willing to to pay that or that needs to barring some kind of crazy industry collapse.

Somehow the Yankees simply trying to manage their huge spending to a slightly less huge level has become "BIG CONTRACTS ARE DYING!!!"

All it really takes is one team willing to gave 8-10 years for a guy; that type of situation likely isn't going away. You say you think teams are shying away from it, but we just had a team do it 2 days ago. It was never something that was happening left and right.

It does now, sure. Cano is an elite hitter, but he's not an offensive monster (like say, Pujols or A-Rod were in their primes, or even Fielder). If, as some have predicted and seems likely, he'll need to be moved off of second, his offensive value diminishes. As he declines, it's only going to be more the case. I don't see it as a case of "we can just move him to DH as he nears 40 and his bat will still play". Why not? It's not like Someone has to be Pujols or ARod to work as a DH; why can't Cano be like a less power-mad Ortiz as he shifts into that role? People have been saying that for years and years; with all of the money out there these aren't going to vanish. There are always going to be teams with money willing to gamble on getting more out of a big contract than they lose. That's...an odd way of looking at it. "Decline and mediocrity" are not the same thing; an elite player declining can still be very valuable for years away from their peak, so lumping everything together as 7-8 years of burning money seems like a pretty huge generalization.

Literal laugh out loud. He's acting about as clumsy as people in infomercials trying to figure out how to work a blanket or pour a soda. Although he is right when he says "what a piece of [expletive]." I guess Oswald couldn't afford an .03 Springfield or 1917 Enfield. In the same magazine where that Carcano sold for 19 dollars, an 03 Springfield was just being sold for 30 bucks. A 98k Mauser would have been great and not too expensive. Basically any military bolt action rifle at the time was better than a Carcano. Hey, the guy was bouncing from job to job and moving a lot; even just $11 probably seemed like too steep a difference that day (basically would be about $85 more today). And as relatively crappy as it was, hey, it got the job done. And him harping on the scope is so typical; Oswald was trained to fire using iron sights anyway and could have easily just used those instead. Plus the scope was still usable; someone aware of how it was off could easily compensate, and he almost certainly did know since he had practiced with it plenty of times before that day.

Well, it's not much of a precedent if it's basically business as usual.

Big name players getting ridiculous deals isn't anything new.

Plus Cano is a good [expletive] hitter.

You're really concerned for the Mariners over this. If they can swing the money they're probably not too worried about those last 2-3 years.

Yes, pity the poor AL team that will be forced to continually start him at 2B for the entire length of his contract. Lordy, if only there was an option through which they might be able to maximize his offensive value even as his defensive ability declines...BUT HOW?!? HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWW?!?! HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWW?!?!?!?

This cracks me up: It's like OJ trying on the glove in the court.

You realize about a million other people had some variation of that opinion, right? Cano to the Cubs was little more than a hope.

Overkill: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WovyEqfR8Hg precisely. the whole "6 seconds!?!" part of conspiracy nutters is so stupid. Oswald hardly needed to be some Chris Kyle "Devil of Ramadi" type sniper to pull off the murder. Plus, like it's been mentioned, the 6 seconds window is likely off and it's more like he had 9 seconds. The whole thing is hinged on making the shooting sound a lot more impressive than it really was; it's weird how conspiracy theorists talk about the "Magic Bullet" like it was some amazing feat of shooting when it was just something a bullet does in a split second when two bodies get in its way.

Went and downgraded my costs by more than half and didn't end up with obstructed seats, so I consider it a success.

Overkill: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WovyEqfR8Hg

I think the last Cubs/Astros game I watched was one I went to in 2008.

I probably have an active memory of maybe 10% of the opposing relievers I've seen against the Cubs. If that. And those are the guys that used to be on the Cubs. Pretty much. My brain would collapse if I tried to retain such things.

I probably have an active memory of maybe 10% of the opposing relievers I've seen against the Cubs. If that.

OK, I was assuming a LH reliever named "Wesley" was some kind of gangly cracker, so this is a pleasant surprise. His real name is Dequam LaWesley Wright. HOLY [expletive]. This is some slave name bull [expletive] right here. I DEMAND WE ALL WEAR "DEQUAM" JERSEYS.

OK, I was assuming a LH reliever named "Wesley" was some kind of gangly cracker, so this is a pleasant surprise.

Yeah, I have no idea who this guy is and I am suspicious and am antsy to shake my pitchfork and light my torch.

Sounds about right; I always think back to how he said he was "blown away" by Ricketts' pitch to get him to come here, and I have to think that a huge part of that was emphasizing how they'd be able to modernize and upgrade the ballpark like Boston did and how much money that would bring in. While it makes sense that Theo would be relatively broadsided by the way things have played out, it's very disconcerting how stymied the Ricketts are, and it just again makes me worried that Theo and co. could be out of here sooner rather than later if the logjam doesn't clear up soon and the team doesn't turn around pretty damn fast. how big of a concern would it really be if theo and the rest left? i like the people we have, but it's not like they have a bunch of secrets that no one else does and are using them to exploit all the other teams' idiocy. what is their value over replacement right now? i love that we have smart people rather than hendrys, but i'm not seeing a ton of amazing moves that couldn't be replicated by another group of people who have been given instructions to try to get good prospects and don't worry about whether you finish in last place over and over again. if everyone left, i assume ricketts would just go hire more smart people who want to build slowly and they would do basically the same thing as we've seen to this point. True, though I'd like to see what this group could do here with some big spending power.

Cano would sign for Seattle because they would pay him a ton of money, which is the type of "splash" agents like most. Seattle is also not a small market team. Mark Trumbo is likely unavailable, since they no longer have a logjam in the OF with Bourjos gone. Trading Shark and Jackson for Trumbo would probably set the Cubs back multiple years. Set us back? Not hardly. Shark and Jackson are not long term answers. Seattle is small market-bottom third in MLB. Ask Griffey, Jr. or Randy Johnson. Ask them what? Both spent a decade there; Junior wanted to go home and the Mariners didn't want to extend a 35-year-old pitcher (who turned out to be a freak).