Sammy Sofa

http://cdn.fd.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Hot-Fuzz-head-slide-gif.gif

Because he's been good this year, but hasn't been good enough long enough that it's likely they'd get a return that outweighs the Cubs' need for starting pitching given how barren their system is in that regard and how bad the starting pitcher FA market is looking.

This guy gets jokes.

And no, I'm not saying he's as valuable as those other three players. He's more valuable to the Cubs as a Cub than as a trading chip.

Horrible logic. By this way of thinking then anyone and everyone the Cubs have of any kind of value is a "sell high candidate." Wood's different. Here's a guy who's 26 years old and under team control through 2016. ... That doesn't make him "different;" that means that between his age, his team control and ideally his improving performance makes him an ideal candidate for the team he's on to hold on to him, especially since the have practically no pitching prospects and the starting pitcher FA market looks terrible for a while. Again, horrible logic: you could simply replace his name with Samardzija's or Castro's or Rizzo's with that thinking.

He has one tool, and that tool has been below average for well over 800 PA now. This is what happened to Theriot. Put up a great K/BB and a BABIP driven OPS that's decent for your position(Theriot actually had a much better BB rate, 11% in 2008). Then pitchers realize that that you can't punish mistakes, so you start getting nothing but strikes, the BABIP dips, and the offensive value plummets. In Torreyes' case it's more like "pitchers at higher levels are good enough to pump strikes" rather than just figuring out that you have great contact ability but no power, but the end result is the same. Nice post.

He was a hyped player with a really promising debut season; you're getting really hung up on semantics.

Horrible logic. By this way of thinking then anyone and everyone the Cubs have of any kind of value is a "sell high candidate."

That's a good comparison. Hahahahaha. No, I'm serious. In both cases, media members with really good contacts and track records have indicated these signings will eventually happen and we have logical reasons why they haven't happened yet. OK, that's what I figured, but I wasn't quite sure and it was driving me a little crazy.

That I agree with. Though it went to [expletive] pretty quick, so when talking in terms of looking back over a 20-30 year timespan that can only mean so much.

That's a good comparison.

It feels like this should be something like 6 or 7 wins in a row if it weren't for some bullpen chicanery.

He will inevitably respond to that with something like "thanks for contributing to the discussion" without a hint of irony.

well, everyone said when he signed that he had huge raw power but everything else was an enormous question mark because he was out of shape and hadn't played much in the past couple of years. that's not really the kind of signing they were adamant about. it's easier for a cashed-up team like the dodgers to chuck 40 or 50 million at a high ceiling guy but also a high bust potential than it is for the cubs to do something like that. especially when they'd just dumped $30m on soler. i mean, if you beat the dodgers offer and end up with soler and puig, you're looking at a decent chance that you've spent $75m and will end up with nothing out of it at the major league level. i can't really fault ownership or the front office for not being comfortable with that. They wanted both. They were potentially willing to pay $50 million for Puig. And again, "everyone" doesn't actually mean the teams that had a better understanding of what type of player he was and wanted to sign him. Nay-saying by certain people really doesn't mean jack [expletive] when they were out of the loop and were going off of what limited info they had in a short period of time while the teams actually pursuing the guy apparently had a much better idea of what he was/is.

That's certainly one way of putting it. Another would be is that these kind of IFA signings was exactly the kind of thing the FO themselves emphasized as being critical to improving the Cubs in both the short and long term. Another would be to yet again point out that this was a player the FO was very interested in and was apparently willing to spend a lot of years and money on (along the lines of what the Dodgers ultimately signed him for) and yet he ended up with another team. No, it's not some screw up, but it's definitely a very noticeable failure in that this is exactly the kind of signing they were adamant about wanting and needing and they didn't get him. If Puig comes back to earth (and he certainly will, to one degree or another) and Soler explodes over the next year or two, are we still having this conversation? Do the Cubs have to sign every player they have interest in not to be "failing"? A 100% hit rate is something that doesn't happen for any team. Again, I'm not trying to argue for Puig over Soler or vice-versa. That's a pointless strawman that I have little interest in debating. And along those lines; there's hopefully nobody here who thinks his performance so far is indicative of the level he'll stay at, so that shouldn't even have to be clarified. And I'm not asking for a 100% success rate; that's another strawman that's been tossed repeatedly as a rebuttal when people bemoan missing out on these signings. Things would be VERY different if the Cubs had only pulled off getting ONE more of Puig, Cespedes or Darvish (and yes, everyone knows the difference between the Cubans being signed and the bidding for Darvish). That they only came away with Soler when this is an area they were crystal clear about NEEDING to be aggressive in and NEEDING to succeed in. Getting 1 in 4 sin't going to cut it, especially given the plan they've laid out for themselves. They were clearly hoping to get more than Soler, too. It's not early at all; the FO wanted all three Cubans for big money and big years and only got one of them. You have to make these signings in the first place to know whether or not they work out, so settling back and saying "well, we have to wait for them to be good for years before we know this was a bad miss" is essentially just spinning the failure to sign them in the first place. It's a completely self-fulfilling prophecy that can be used to justify any and every missed signing.

Excellent breakdown. It's definitely a positive that our FO was in the group that saw something valuable in this guy and were willing, to a point, to offer something close to what was needed to sign him when so many other teams weren't. It's worrisome, however, that they were yet again unable or unwilling to seal the deal.

Out of random and meaningless curiosity: is there anyone that prefers ending up with Soler as opposed to, say, Cespedes on his A's deal and Puig for something like 6 years/$50 million and no Soler?

I've never tried to say he had the same level of interest as Soler and Cespedes. That's certainly one way of putting it. Another would be is that these kind of IFA signings was exactly the kind of thing the FO themselves emphasized as being critical to improving the Cubs in both the short and long term. Another would be to yet again point out that this was a player the FO was very interested in and was apparently willing to spend a lot of years and money on (along the lines of what the Dodgers ultimately signed him for) and yet he ended up with another team. No, it's not some screw up, but it's definitely a very noticeable failure in that this is exactly the kind of signing they were adamant about wanting and needing and they didn't get him.

Again, it was mostly analysts/reporters/bloggers/message boards/etc. that were laughing at them. When actually look IN "the industry" you had other teams very interested and willing to spend a lot of money, including the Cubs. Who gives a [expletive] if the people on the outside were laughing? They were laughing because they were out of the loop and wrong.

http://cdn.videogum.com/files/2011/02/cape_fear.jpg

Well, I didn't expect anyone to actually break it down by specific seasonal records. And like I said, the Cubs had a less terrible run over the timeframe. Hardly anything to lord over another fanbase when the scattered bright spots have been surrounded by dreck.

That seems pretty flimsy. The Brewers has a great regular season and were two victories away from the WS. To act like the Cubs had a way better year because they were one win away instead is really splitting hairs.

Because the Bulls are dead by the time the first round starts? That's been repeatedly demonstrated to be a load of crap; the only player that arguably has injuries due to overuse by the time the playoffs rolled around was Hinrich, and he's been a breaking down mess for years now.

Wait, how are they "terrible at managing players with injuries?" Because they didn't force Deng to get surgery? Because Rose and co. are idiots?

What the [expletive]? Only the assholes in the bleachers get those?!?! RRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE.