Sammy Sofa

Oh, for [expletive]'s sake. WANTING GUYS LIKE WILSON OR FIELDER OR PUJOLS OR DARVISH OR THE CUBANS ISN'T WANTING A "HENDRY-LIKE MANNER."

Man, no wonder he was banned.

Zowee!

He's got some malware again.

Because that is what they are asking for. It's called a negotiation. You your sarcastic self just said that they have set the bar. No one thinks he will actually get that Blogo. The discussion is about what Fielder wants, not what he will get. They're setting the bar unreasonably high to make anything less seem reasonable. Remember how Pujols wanted $300 million to go with his 10 years? Big name FA's do this all the time, so inexplicably saying that Fielder has somehow eliminated himself from being signed as a DH because he and Boras want 10 years is nonsensical. It's hilarious that you think Scott Boras sells elite FAs to MLB GMs the same way used car salesmen sell 10 year old Civics to HS dropouts. It's hilarious how you apparently think there's absolutely no history of Boras doing this.

Because that is what they are asking for. It's called a negotiation. You your sarcastic self just said that they have set the bar. No one thinks he will actually get that Blogo. The discussion is about what Fielder wants, not what he will get. They're setting the bar unreasonably high to make anything less seem reasonable. Remember how Pujols wanted $300 million to go with his 10 years? Big name FA's do this all the time, so inexplicably saying that Fielder has somehow eliminated himself from being signed as a DH because he and Boras want 10 years is nonsensical. You are arguing semantics. Here's the thing. Positional players are generally worth more to baseball teams than designated hitters because they can do more stuff (play the field). Fielder and Boras are not, at this juncture, looking to settle for DH type money if they can get a team to pay for Fielder as an every day 1B. No one is saying inexplicably that he will not or can not be signed as a DH. You infer that. I do not imply it. My point is that this is not how he is being currently marketed and not how they want him to be seen or signed. He will potentially make more money for more years if signed now as a positional player. Boras is working to get his client the most money and the best deal he can. That is his job. Fielder is on record as saying that he would "consider a move to DH" (the unwritten part being only if he is forced to do so). The reason he does not want to do this is because of the drop in price of a top tier 1B to that of a DH. Fielder may very well end up signing somewhere as a DH. If that is the case, it will be because no one offered him the type of money they thought Fielder could command going into the off-season. Simply stated, we're not there yet and it would mean he then is getting paid far less than what he is asking for today. Wow.

Because that is what they are asking for. It's called a negotiation. You your sarcastic self just said that they have set the bar. No one thinks he will actually get that Blogo. The discussion is about what Fielder wants, not what he will get. They're setting the bar unreasonably high to make anything less seem reasonable. Remember how Pujols wanted $300 million to go with his 10 years? Big name FA's do this all the time, so inexplicably saying that Fielder has somehow eliminated himself from being signed as a DH because he and Boras want 10 years is nonsensical.

No, it was in response to KingKonky.

Why do you keep talking about 8-10 years like that's a thing he was actually going to get? Boras/Fielder intentionally set the bar that high because they know whatever they end up signing will be less (or maybe 8 years at the most).

My only concern is that he'll continue to get worse, to the point where teams won't even want to waste a guaranteed roster spot on him. If you can trade him now with a few million in salary relief for the next three years, I say do it. I highly doubt his value is going to rise much. But if your only upside to trading now is a few million bucks, then it makes more sense to keep him since he could have a good year, making it possible to unload even more money, if needed, or possibly get a prospect. As a big market team with room in the payroll you can afford to gamble a few million dollars on the chance you'll get more in the future. Yeah, no kidding. His value is pretty much rock bottom right now, so the Cubs would probably save, what, $5-6 million from the rest of his contract if they're just looking to unload him? I know that's not nothing, but come on; if they're still scraping for (relative) dollars then it's just ridiculous.

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.

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.

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.

The deal was hardly "inexplicable," so I really don't give a [expletive] if it was Theo's idea or not.

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.

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.

He rebooted.

Does not compute, eh, dave?

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.

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."

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.

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).

Prince getting 10/200 had almost zero chance of happening in the first place.

: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.

If the needle was in his forehead then we'll all know why this happened.