Jump to content
North Side Baseball

Sammy Sofa

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    98,224

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    208

 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

2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by Sammy Sofa

  1. Sammy Sofa
    I'm pretty sure the "all players should know be good at bunting bc it sends a good message to the team" was worse than this. Followed closely by "don't dismiss this book that claims that birds getting hit by balls disproves sabermetrics" Look how far he's come since then.
  2. Sammy Sofa
    Yeah, this is getting to be [expletive] stupid. Swing the dick, idiots.
  3. Sammy Sofa
    2nd time in 18 months that Bill Simmons has written a "[fill in superstar] should go to Chicago if he wants to win" column about a guy who's clearly not coming to Chicago. I feel like there's some dark secret about the Bulls that explains why no one wants to play here that we'll learn later or something. I'm starting to think there really is something to the "playing in Jordan's shadow" thing.
  4. Sammy Sofa
    Yup. "Hey, we're going to turn the Cubs into the Brewers" doesn't really have all that much zaz to it. Yes, I see the irony.
  5. Sammy Sofa
    Is that similar to the HCCF malfunctioning robot? Because that always makes me smile. Oh, he wasn't malfunctioning.
  6. Sammy Sofa
    And, again, I highly doubt they would have gotten Theo if that was the intention.
  7. Sammy Sofa
    He really is kicking multiple kinds of ass. The guy is clearly serious when they talk about the big picture stuff. I can't wait until we're down the line with the renovations and the additions and the TV network.
  8. Sammy Sofa
    http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/12/14/obsessive-prince-fielder-watch-another-national-pundit-knows-the-cubs-are-in-on-fielder/ Unless we put some enormous bid on the Darvish posting (so enormous that they're basically sure they're going to get it), I don't understand how we wouldn't have the money. This kind of reporting makes no sense. Why would Theo and co. have been "blown away" by Ricketts' attempts to hire them if it part of that included "hey, we're going to drastically slash payroll?"
  9. Sammy Sofa
    Excellent. The wheels are in motion.
  10. Sammy Sofa
    Hey, you go play with your reasonable contracts in the corner and the rest of MLB will get going with reality. We may have different definitions of reasonable as mine might be slightly less conservative, but overall, I'm with davearm here. The corner awaits.
  11. Sammy Sofa
    He's probably also looking to make $500 million dollars and have a flying car, too.
  12. Sammy Sofa
    Hey, you go play with your reasonable contracts in the corner and the rest of MLB will get going with reality.
  13. Sammy Sofa
    All this is true, but there were three negatives to take into account. He was coming off a bad elbow injury, he was over 30, and his production came in a league that doesn't translate all that great in the states. He was a worthwhile target, but he had bigger red flags than somebody like Fielder. Oh, he definitely had question marks, but he's still indicative of how rarely the Cubs even looked at the right types of players during the Hendry era.
  14. Sammy Sofa
    We only know the first part in hindsight. And Zambrano was freshly turned 26 and coming off 4 straight seasons of 4 WAR, two of which were 5. Yes, he was having a bit of a down year in 07, but to say that at age 26 it was clear that he was on the decline is wrong. Fukudome got more money than people expected and wasn't as good as expected. Didn't Fukudome reportedly take LESS money than what was being offered to him elsewhere to sign with the Cubs? I don't remember if it was verified or not, but IIRC, there were reports that he turned down a bigger offer somewhere else to play in Chicago. For some reason I want to say it was the Mets or Dodgers, but I could very well be mistaken. Hell, I remember hearing that the White Sox offered him more than what he took with the Cubs. The Fukudome experience is one of those things that gets lumped in as symptomatic of the failures of the Hendry era, but it's really not. Fukudome was a highly touted, highly coveted player who was touted and coveted for the right reasons...it just ended up not working out. It's a much different situation from signing someone like Soriano or Bradley.
  15. Sammy Sofa
    He's like a really old, clunky 50's robot that has to be fed precise commands on punch cards.
  16. Sammy Sofa
    We only know the first part in hindsight. And Zambrano was freshly turned 26 and coming off 4 straight seasons of 4 WAR, two of which were 5. Yes, he was having a bit of a down year in 07, but to say that at age 26 it was clear that he was on the decline is wrong. Fukudome got more money than people expected and wasn't as good as expected. Didn't Fukudome reportedly take LESS money than what was being offered to him elsewhere to sign with the Cubs?
  17. Sammy Sofa
    No we don't. So it's not a problem that we gave superstar money to Soriano and Zambrano, and gave $12 million a year to solid players like Fududome? Aren't these years supposed to be the "budget hell" years of the Soriano and Zambrano contracts? And aren't we serious contenders for a one of the two superstar free agents during this time of supposed "budget hell"? No, the two years prior were the time when our budget was in serious trouble. Hendry admitted it. Remember when we had to defer $5 million dollars for Carlos Pena? And didn't Dempster defer money so we could sign Marlon Byrd? Because of the sale.
  18. Sammy Sofa
    No we don't. So it's not a problem that we gave superstar money to Soriano and Zambrano, and gave $12 million a year to solid players like Fududome? We're just going to blame this mess all on John Stocksill and Jim Hendry signing guys on the margin like John Grabow? It's not great, but it's not the reason why they suck. They suck because the GM sucked at putting together a baseball team. And they won't suck just because they pay a really good player too much money. You suck when you don't have enough good players, and the Cubs haven't had enough good players in their system in a decade. They drafted like crap and focused on nonsense. I agree, but these big contracts are some of the most glaring examples of sucking at putting together a baseball team and not having enough good players. When your entire philosophy is flawed, that's when you give players like Soriano 8 year mega deals. Yes and no. Soriano got the deal he did in part to the Tribune telling Hendry to get him by any means necessary. There seems to be credence to the idea that Hendry was pursuing him for less money and fewer years.
  19. Sammy Sofa
    But isn't a large part of that due to the proximity to the sale? Do you think the Ricketts likely would be similarly conservative, say, 5 years from now? 10 years from now?
  20. Sammy Sofa
    I thought Ricketts said that he gave Theo the total $ amount and that it was up to him how to allocate it. He said he has the final say on how the money is spent, strongly implying that any big contracts (ie-like the one doled out to Soriano or the theoretical one Prince Fielder would get and so on) would have to be approved by him.
  21. Sammy Sofa
    You're not listening; it's not our decision what is an albatross contract and what isn't. That's essentially up to Ricketts, barring some kind of personal financial disaster for him and his family. My point is that *I* don't care what they pay him so long as Ricketts and the FO are OK with it. These aren't stupid men; they know who Fielder he is and they know the risks that come with him. If they decide they want to and can take those risks, great. If Ricketts decides it isn't going to severely financially hinder the team, great. I'm not going to sit here and bemoan a big contract for Fielder if the people actually in charge of the money don't have a problem with it.
  22. Sammy Sofa
    Of course not. But not because of how much he'd cost; because was insanely bad this past season and it's probably due to his bat speed. That said, half of what I just said still applies; if at the time Ricketts decided that he was willing to pay up and that it likely wouldn't hinder the Cubs financially over the course of the contract then that's his call and I'd be fine with it. I'm now even more confident in that type of decision being made based on the FO the team has. It's Tom Ricketts' as to what the Cubs can spend, and I'm a sure a FO as smart as ours is going to consider how Fielder's contract would potentially limit this team over the course of it and going to want to know if the Ricketts are going to be willing to put the money where and when it's needed. If the FO wants Fielder and Ricketts is saying "OK, I'll give you the money now, but if he goes bust we're [expletive] out of luck" then it's a bad decision. If Ricketts says "OK, I'll give you the money now and worst comes to worst there will still be money for other big signings during his contract" I'm fine with it.
  23. Sammy Sofa
    My problem is with the tone of Mrs. Pujols' comments. She made it abundantly clear that they really wanted to stay, had no intentions to leave, and that moving is very difficult for a number of reasons. That obviously begs the question, well then why didn't you stay, if that's what you wanted? Her implication is, the reason they didn't stay is because Cardinals somehow took that option away from them. That I find laughable. If she had said something like "Albert felt in the end that he wanted the Angels' offer more than the Cardinals'", then I wouldn't have an issue, since that's what really happened. WHOOSH. They wanted to stay, but Pujols also wanted to get paid. The Cardinals apparently weren't willing to pay up while another team was, so they couldn't stay. The only way your argument makes any sense is if you honestly think she's talking like money didn't matter to them. She isn't, and she makes it very clear in the interview that money was the main factor. From the money standpoint, no, St. Louis took that option away from them. The decision to stay or leave St. Louis didn't occur in a vacuum where the decision was only based on the desire to stay or leave. It really is astounding how black and white things have to be with you.
  24. Sammy Sofa
    Ultimately I don't give a damn how much they pay the guy. This isn't a Soriano situation, where you have the backing motivation of the previous owners trying to jack up the value of the team; now you have a team with a set owner in the Ricketts and a set FO. Tom Ricketts has made it very clear that he is the final say with the money, so if Theo and co. decide to go all out and sign Prince for 8 years and whatever money and they make the case for Ricketts and he's sold and he's confident they'll have the financial wherewithal to deal with it and any speed bumps that occur down the line then great, get it done. That's the the real thing that matters.
  25. Sammy Sofa
    So your problem is actually over the semantics of what was said. If she had said something like "Albert felt in the end that he wanted the Angels' offer more than the Cardinals'" instead of "we had no choice" you wouldn't have an issue? Because Mrs. Pujols didn't make it explicitly clear that they weren't literally without a choice you find what she said "laughable" and a "sob story?"
×
×
  • Create New...