Jump to content
North Side Baseball

Sammy Sofa

Old-Timey Member
  • 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. I believe the WGN portion of the deal is what really sucks. And it wasn't clear at the time how successful things like YES Network would be. Yeah, the Comcast deal isn't the horrible part right now; it's the remaining WGN games that aren't making anywhere near what they should. I can't remember the exact dates, but I want to say their current TV deals are done by or after 2016.
  2. Is there anything other than speculation in regard to this? I haven't heard anything about the Comcast SportsNet contract going away any time soon. There's no concrete plan in place, at least in public, but it's widely assumed the Cubs have a boatload of money coming toward them in the next deal. Right. The general thinking is that when the Cubs' current TV deals are up they're gonna get seriously paid, be it via a new deal or setting up their own network a la YES. That's one of the reasons I'm all for the Cubs dishing out for someone like Pujols (blargh) or Fielder now because we've seen how these deals are benefiting teams like the Rangers and the Angels. If THEY'RE making bank off of new TV deals then the Cubs are going to be rolling.
  3. So lock him up in protective custody. Can we stop talking about prison like it's [expletive] Oz? It's not like it's impossible to keep someone from being murdered behind bars.
  4. This is the kind of [expletive] why this gets so much more attention than the creepers at Syracuse or with the Red Sox.
  5. Most of the money is not spent for 2013. They have a lot of money to spend this year. Building for a WS team can be a multi-tiered process that doesn't have to be accomplished in a single offseason. You get better for next year; then you get even better for the year after that. If you keep trading away your best players and avoiding big FA signings because a shot at the WS seems a good 2-3 years away, well, it always going to remain at least 2-3 years away unless you somehow stumble across a miracle class of multiple in-house success stories that all hit the team at the same time.
  6. Whut. I just meant I was expecting more things getting done. By all teams, but as was just said, this ain't the trade deadline either. I was thinking since teams had had a little longer to evaluate and meet FA this offseason, I thought we'd be a lot further down the road than we are. It's December 6th.
  7. Unless the Bulls win. Uh, the Bulls pairing Rose and Howard would be totally fair because there's only two of them, DURRRR.
  8. Well, THAT would [expletive] suck.
  9. Oh, so this is the thing that Kyle is doing now.
  10. Yup. Right in line with someone who'd be an Eagles/Mets fan. Or a Red Sox/Giants fan. Hey, I'm a Redskins/Phillies fan, I'm totally normal!
  11. If the Cubs sign Fielder and then trade Garza, that would seem to be a conflict of interest unless they are getting a guaranteed young stud pitcher, which is basically not going to happen. Why? The persistent message of Hoystein is that the Cubs want to make moves that help them both now and in the future, but if they conflict, then the long-term means more. Fielder on a six-year deal fits that description. He's a short-term and long-term asset. Garza, at the moment, is merely a short-term asset. If you have a chance to flip a short-term asset for a long-term asset, you do it. Fielder is a short-term asset and a long-term liability. If you sign Fielder or Pujols, it signals you're trying to win now. Yup, that's the only possible outcome of such a signing. Absolutely no regard for the future signing bums like those.
  12. Anyone would because the Braves competed in many WS and actually won one. If they hadn't won that one, would you still pick the Braves? yes because at least you get to see the cubs playing good baseball and in october year in and year out as opposed to watching crap year in and year out Exactly. I'd prefer a consistently competitive team than one that somehow manages to sneak a WS and then vanishes for 5-10 years.
  13. I wouldn't. I'd rather have a Braves in the 90's-type situation.
  14. D'oh, I wasn't thinking that through. His defense there is just as bad, though. Eh, looking at his dWAR on BR I'm actually surprised at how NOT horrible defensively he's been more often than not. I was expecting a lot worse. Yeah, he's had some brutal years in there, but I was expecting wall-to-wall awfulness.
  15. Wait, I thought the Dunn hypothetical was based on the idea that the Cubs miss out on both Pujols and Fielder, which seemingly would mean Dunn would be, almost out of necessity on several levels, playing 1B and not LF.
  16. 9.2
×
×
  • Create New...