Sammy Sofa
-
Posts
98,036 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
206
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
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by Sammy Sofa
-
I loled Yeah, all of those international players sure turned out to totes suck and the FO had zero interest in them. Close call! -
He's been worth at least $17 million the last 3 years and he's 28. yeah, he'll most likely be worth 15 every year of the deal That's now these things usually work.
-
Jesus that's depressing. Very.
-
The 2012 Offseason Thread
Sammy Sofa replied to ctcf's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
Yeah, really hope WGN has absolutely nothing to do with the Cubs on TV as soon as their current deal is up. -
Yeah, but that's a not always a good thing; this is a pretty middling FA class. Next year looks to be even worse. You gotta pick your punches based on what's actually available. I think when the first haymakers get thrown, they're going to be thrown via trade (like Price next year). Guys like Sanchez and/or Jackson would be building to that point. Just my opinion. Well, yeah; I'm not calling for one or the other. I don't want dual fronts; I want the Triforce.
-
Yeah, but that's a not always a good thing; this is a pretty middling FA class. Next year looks to be even worse. You gotta pick your punches based on what's actually available. Which is why they need to get one of Sanchez/Jackson or extend Garza. Or trade for somebody about to get expensive. If they don't do something, I'll be out front with you waving my pitchfork. But let's wait to see how it plays out before getting all worked up, okay? I'm not going to have a meltdown over the Cubs being bad because that's what I've known most of my life. This is just me being resigned to disappointment thus far because so far my impression of the post-sale, post-hiring of good FO is pretty far from what I had hoped/expected. They haven't done anything I wasn't expecting them to do while also doing a whole lot more.
-
Yeah, but that's a not always a good thing; this is a pretty middling FA class. Next year looks to be even worse. You gotta pick your punches based on what's actually available.
-
He's 28, doesn't walk very many people, strikes out more than average and gets a decent amount of ground balls. is 7.7/9 really better than average? i like that he won't cost anything other than money, and considering we don't owe anyone any money, it won't really hurt when his arm falls off and we're paying him 15 mil a year to rehab or pitch a 6th inning sometimes. he's just a boring dude to me. He is pretty boring, but the Cubs are at a point where "good boring" can help a LOT.
-
Anibal Sanchez is the "right kind of free agent" when you're a big market team that needs to get better and needs starting pitcher and he's available and it won't cause you any prospects or young players. Which is why the front office has offered Sanchez the best deal on the market. They've already agreed to a big concession that no other team has been so far willing to do. I would love nothing more than for the FO to pull this off and make me look like an even bigger jackass than usual.
-
He's been worth at least $17 million the last 3 years and he's 28.
-
Anibal Sanchez is the "right kind of free agent" when you're a big market team that needs to get better and needs starting pitching and he's available and it won't cost you any prospects or young players.
-
That's because I don't act like a petulant child every single time the Cubs are outbid. The Adam Dunn thread was a classic example. No, it's because I don't care. Your ideas of what is a good deal or not means absolutely nothing. 1.) It's not a near miss. Not yet anyways. 2.) If you camped outside the front office and whined like you do around here, the Cubs would be floating a $300 mil payroll just to shut you up. That would be terrible, wouldn't it? Because big spending is bad for some reason. I don't want the Cubs to spend just to spend and get themselves into a hole; I want them to spend because they CAN spend because they SHOULD be able to spend. How is this possibly something you don't want as well? Like I said, if the Cubs are choosing not to spend significantly more but can, that's unfortunate. If they can't spend significantly more, that's even worse. Neither is something that anyone would want.
-
If they had done that it would have meant they weren't playing (relatively poor). People didn't want them to just sign sign Pujols in a vaccuum; the hope was that such a move meant that the Cubs were flexing their muscles relative to the big money behind them. Clearly they chose another direction. So, people just wanted them to be the Dodgers of this season? Sign Pujols and a few other big guns and let's go for it? That's fine, but that just wasn't going to happen unless they were the Dodgers of this season. And, nobody has really ever been the Dodgers of this season. Except the Yankees or the Red Sox, and now the Angels. The Cubs are a big money team. I think the Ricketts are choosing to go (relatively) cheap until the stadium and other constructions and the TV deal are ironed out even though they don't have to. I think the FO are content to wait that out. Yes, I want the Cubs to spend big and build smart from within; the two are not mutually exclusive. I gain no extra pleasure out of seeing a winning team made for less money than another. I just want a good team.
-
That's too bad. He's one of the smarter/better posters on here. I have no idea what anyone here has ever proposed for any deal unless it's in front of me. I have absolutely no desire or need to retain something so useless. Remembering what Rob thinks Prince Fielder should have gone for has absolutely zero bearing on the quality of my knowledge of baseball.
-
Exactly. They're approaching this like they can present a "fair offer" as if they have something else besides money/years to entice FA's here right now. They don't. Odds are you have to pay extra to bring people to a bad team.
-
If they had done that it would have meant they weren't playing (relatively poor). People didn't want them to just sign sign Pujols in a vaccuum; the hope was that such a move meant that the Cubs were flexing their muscles relative to the big money behind them. Clearly they chose another direction.
-
What a ridiculous post. Has there EVER been a contract for a player you like that you thought was too high? I've never seen you express that sentiment. Great call; I want the Cubs to be willing to go six years or add a few million on to the rumored contract offer to Anibal Sanchez and that suddenly means I'm cool beans with with any size contract possible. I've never seen anything from you to suggest otherwise. So what? I have absolutely no clue what you've ever said about any deal ever. It's just yet another in an ever growing list of near-misses. Good intentions aren't enough.
-
What a ridiculous post. Has there EVER been a contract for a player you like that you thought was too high? I've never seen you express that sentiment. Great call; I want the Cubs to be willing to go six years or add a few million on to the rumored contract offer to Anibal Sanchez and that suddenly means I'm cool beans with with any size contract possible.
-
Would you continue this line if the Cubs aren't allowed to counter Detroit's latest offer? Hey, they already used that excuse for Cespedes, so why not again? It it an excuse if it's actually true? Should they just go around preemptively blowing other offers out of the water just in case? This was a very good offer, more than Detroit had been willing to offer. If the FO gets a chance to counter and doesn't raise, I can see cause for annoyance with them. But if all of this was a ploy to get a fifth year from the Tigers because five years was his threshold and that's where he wants to be (and boy, does this sure reek of that), I can't see how you could rationally get mad at the FO. The whole "agent who inexplicably doesn't try to get the most for their client" meme is a load of [expletive]. How does it make sense to anyone the Cespedes' or Sanchez' agents would just decide to not let an interested team a chance to pay more money? They'll have a chance to counter-offer.
-
What a ridiculous post.
-
Would you continue this line if the Cubs aren't allowed to counter Detroit's latest offer? Hey, they already used that excuse for Cespedes, so why not again?
-
Bully for them!
-
That seems like a slippery slope. Maybe they were OK with 4 this whole time and went 5 to close the deal. "Slippery slope?" They've got a [expletive] team and they're trying to sign these deals with too fine a point. You can't pull the "this is my final deal; take it or leave it" approach with a player like this (and especially not the REALLY good ones) when you're a crappy team if you're not willing to spend more. The Cubs won't swing 6/90? That's bad. The Cubs CAN'T swing 6/90? [expletive], I don't know which is worse. Really, you're questioning whether it's a slippery slope? It's the definition of one. What if the Tigers match 6, then? Do you want them to go 7? Nope. 6 is my cutoff. This is a really nice plateau. Or just offer more money if the years are too terrifying. GET IT DONE.
-
I'm happy that they're trying to sign a significant FA this offseason because of what it means. Can I still be upset if they don't get him? Yes. But I can still realize what this means. One of the major discussions on NSBB this offseason has been, "Why aren't we adding at least some of the future pieces via free agency?" And it is a good question. At least now we know they're willing to do so. It's significant. Great, so we can chalk it up with the missed IFA signings on the "man, it's a good plan, but it's not actually happening" board.
-
That seems like a slippery slope. Maybe they were OK with 4 this whole time and went 5 to close the deal. "Slippery slope?" They've got a [expletive]-ass team and they're trying to sign these deals with too fine a point. You can't pull the "this is my final deal; take it or leave it" approach with a player like this (and especially not the REALLY good ones) when you're a crappy team if you're not willing to spend more. The Cubs won't swing 6/90? That's bad. The Cubs CAN'T swing 6/90? [expletive], I don't know which is worse.
