Jump to content
North Side Baseball

Sammy Sofa

Old-Timey Member
  • Posts

    98,032
  • 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

  1. Is whether it's inexplicable or just bad really worth arguing about or busting out the expletives? And if you think it's bad shouldn't you care somewhat if it were Theo's idea? All I'm saying is that he went from basically having one strike in my book to having none. Theo is awesome. It's not just a good or bad situation; he's overpaid with that deal on any team, but given that it's the Red Sox and given what he had done in the prior two years (and really his whole career besides 2007 and 2008) I understand why they went all out. Yes, I recognize that his skillset makes it a longshot for him to have monster years until the end of the deal, but I also recognize what went down leading up to it and that it was the Red Sox making the deal, hence why I never thought of it as a mark against or warning sign with Theo. I don't think anyone here with a functioning brain cell is already writing off Crawford, and nobody is immune to signing a player who inexplicably has a horrendous year like that.
  2. Nope. I think he's overpaid, but, like I said, I really don't care if Theo dove into that one guns blazing. The Red Sox don't live in the same awful, awful world that the Cubs are apparently mired in.
  3. Yeah, saying I don't think it was inexplicable means I thought it was a good deal. Way to davearm the [expletive] out of that one, David.
  4. The deal was hardly "inexplicable," so I really don't give a [expletive] if it was Theo's idea or not.
  5. I still don't understand why people talk like they "need" to address what to do with Soriano ASAP. It's nigh impossible to trade him, so what's the rush? He's not keeping them from signing someone else or trading for someone else. Just kick him to the curb when you need the room.
  6. Now if we could only just get most people to acknowledge how likely it truly is that Prince is likely to "suck" at some point in the contract, we might be able to come to a consensus on how dumb offering 8 years would be. I think most people are aware of that, they're just willing to assume that risk to get the production he'd provide in the first 4-5 years of the contract. I think they're unfortunately forgetting how bad Soriano is right now in a similar situation. Because it's not a similar situation.
  7. Willfully fielding a team that's a stretch to crack 75 wins is effectively tanking the season. I'm still optimistic we're going to see some big, smart moves that allay such fears.
  8. Yes, he has. There's a reason that's the quoted "demand;" it's the ridiculous high-end expectation that nobody will actually give. Boras knows he was never going to get that; he throws that out there to make something like 8/160 seem more "reasonable."
  9. For devil's advocate's sake, Garza's value might not get any higher than right now, especially given the fact that he just came off his best year. But I generally agree with the point you're making. I'm not opposed to moving Garza whenever the right deal is there. That said, I'm also pretty confident that last year wasn't a fluke and that he'll still be a highly coveted asset come the deadline.
  10. They can do both. They have very, very few guys that they "need" to trade now before the 2012 to maximize their value; Marshall is pretty much the only one since he's signed for just the one year. Byrd's arguably the other. The rest have enough time that the FO can play the field and construct a competitive team for 2012. If the team falters and it looks to be a better move to trade, hey, great, you've got the trade deadline, or before next season. A fire sale is just an act of desperation that small market teams find themselves having to do when backed into the corner. The Cubs don't have to do that. Yes, if they're being bowled over with great offers, sure, pounce on it...but that's likely not the case. Moving most of these guys is going to take work and time to maximize the return, so the idea of intentionally tanking the season just seems even more ridiculous (trading Marshall and Byrd is not tanking the season).
  11. Prince getting 10/200 had almost zero chance of happening in the first place.
  12. :good: Eyes on the prize people. If promoting the long-term dominance we all want means trading guys like Marshall and taking a step back in 2012, so be it. Scraping together 84 wins and hoping it's enough in a weak division is not what Theo and co. were brought here to do. They can and should do both.
  13. If the needle was in his forehead then we'll all know why this happened.
  14. Yeah, none of those guys have any value whatsoever.
  15. The scuttlebutt is that Hendry didn't have the money available to him to land Beltran; he wanted to add him and made an offer, but the Tribune limited the dollars.
  16. Who wouldn't? I'm just amused by the "THEY NEED TO GO NOW" false urgency from some people. Move them when the deal is there.
  17. Wait, what? The Cubs weren't typically "taken advantage" of under Hendry; their main problems stemmed from the choices they made when it came to signings and FA.
  18. Nobody "needs to go" before they can start building for the next good team immediately.
  19. Still doesn't explain why it's apparently an either/or proposition.
  20. Lists aren't out yet, but I'd just about guarantee a top 10 this year. Good chance they have 5 guys in BA's top 100 in Miller, Martinez, Wong, Taveras and Cox. That's a huge leap. You really think they jumped 15+ spots in the rankings in a single season?
×
×
  • Create New...