Sammy Sofa

Yeah, I can't decide between him or whatever Reyes ends up getting.

Tony Campana was killed during the feats of strength.

Yeah, if it seems like guys who were mediocre or worse players tend to make good coaches then a guy who had a legendarily bad stretch of baseball might just be a [expletive] genius. Hell, Neifi might be some kind of coaching mastermind.

Spell it again.

Why do you hate the Angels? I keep forgetting they exist.

No, he did that.

MORE.

The a-hole also cracked wise at a presser following the first game after the scandal. How can someone in his situation react so poorly when the PSU news still has to be fresh in their memory? Dumb jocks are dumb.

I hated college sports to begin with, so all of this feels simultaneously horrifying and vindicating.

Plus nobody is stopping you from starting a "Syracuse Loves Kid Touchers" thread or whatever, so have at it.

Seems like a pretty hollow complaint when this thread has had barely any posts in it for over a week until your tirade.

Fitting avatar.

*Wink-wink* *Nudge-nudge*

YEAH.

What DIDN'T he do?

I was less than 4K over. The point stands however -- a slightly larger ballpark could generate more revenue. A different location could allow the Cubs to increase advertising revenue etc. I realize that this is an unpopular position around here and that any differing opinions are usually met with insults and arguments over minutia. Nope. Nice cross, though.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooo!

It makes negative sense for the White Sox to do that unless they're convinced that Dunn is done. Then it makes negative sense for the Cubs to do it.

Deals for players like that rarely are.

It's a rationale for taking risks with very good chances for high reward other teams can't afford to when you'll still have a ton of money to construct/improve your team outside of that investment. Do you want the Cubs to be a featherweight, constantly bouncing around the ring and able to skillfully dodge being hit, but can only land glancing, largely ineffective blows every once in a while, or do you want them to be the heavyweight, who can take those hits and then land knockout punches with much more regularity? Ugh, I hate analogies. I want the Cubs to be your proverbial heavyweight, but I want them to be smart about when and where they throw their big punches. This isn't the right spot for the haymaker. Signing players like Fielder or Pujols can easily be smart for the Cubs even with bad years at the end of their deals. A player doesn't have to be a sound investment for the duration of their contract for it to be a smart signing.

I'm not arguing the Teixeira deal is a bargain. You aren't getting bargains at this price point. I'm arguing Teixeira is the type of player that is worth gambling on. I think at the time he signed, he was a much better bet to sustain both his health and his production, and therefore he was less risky than Pujols or Fielder. Same deal with Gonzalez. If a guy like that isn't available right away, then I'd rather wait than jump into a deal that I think is a loser. You can't wait for those type of deals, especially if you're likely on a year away from being a regular contender. dave, seriously, I'm really curious as to who you think fulfills your standards out of the projected FA between now and the 2014 season.

It's a rationale for taking risks with very good chances for high reward other teams can't afford to when you'll still have a ton of money to construct/improve your team outside of that investment. Do you want the Cubs to be a featherweight, constantly bouncing around the ring and able to skillfully dodge being hit, but can only land glancing, largely ineffective blows every once in a while, or do you want them to be the heavyweight, who can take those hits and then land knockout punches with much more regularity? Ugh, I hate analogies.

We've been over this. Can take a gamble /= should take a gamble. And the Cubs should fall under the latter, not the former. Chicken Little strikes again.

Terrible analogy. 20% of someone's budget/income is a totally different game if you're talking about $150+ million. Let's say you've got Pujols making the bonkers $30 million a year. Even at $150 million you're still left with $120 million to make up the rest of your team. This is the crux that you seem to refuse to get; that the Cubs have a flexibility that most teams don't have. Well, I take that back; you get it, but you inexplicably want them to act like they don't have that flexibility and instead wait until the signs align and they can sign the mythical elite FA that freakishly/stupidly signs a super affordable deal a la A-Gon. Do you not trust this FO to be able to run this team and plan ahead to deal with situations like this? Do you not think the Cubs will have major money to spend 7-8 years from now? And yes, it would take a total catastrophe for me to ultimately view signing Pujols or Fielder as a mistake, something like them being all but worthless for more than half of their next contract. Soriano hasn't prevented the Cubs from being able to pursue other big-ticket free agents. So what's the problem? Oh right, it's because that contract was viewed as a mistake from day one. Well I view these players as mistakes from day one, at the years and dollars they're reportedly asking. Whether or not the Cubs FO can operate around these mistakes misses the point. Sure they can. But they shouldn't choose to do so when they can avoid it. Just like I demonstrated with my analogy. Then you're operating from an extreme, inflexible position that, thankfully, isn't realistically and, even more thankfully, there's almost zero chance the FO follows. You seem to be operating under the unrealistic idea that big ticket FA signings have to be perfect or not. There's no in-between. If you sign a guy for, say, an expensive 9 years, and get 6 years of elite production out of him and then the last 3 you're way overpaying then that's a mistake for you that needs to be avoided at all costs. That's absurd for a team with the resources the Cubs have. I'm not saying the Cubs should jump on every long-term, big name FA they come across, but you seem to be saying they need to avoid any unless they can all but guarantee themselves they're going to be getting elite production for the duration of the contract barring unforeseen, catastrophic injury. That's just not realistic, and it unnecessarily hampers the Cubs' ability to maximize the FA advantage they have over most other teams. Plus, not shockingly at all, this all comes back to Soriano. This is wrong, and proves once again that you're hearing what you want to hear, and not what it is I'm saying. I'm all for signing an elite free agent. Several, in fact. But like anything else, there are good risks and there are bad risks. IMO these two guys fall in the bad risk category. It's really not any more complicated than that. I'm hearing you loud and clear; you're all for signing elite FA that aren't typically available. A-Gon surprisingly/stupidly signing the affordable deal he did after being traded to the Red Sox is not typical. The Teixieira deal is not the bargain you seem to inexplicably think it is. Based on the unreasonable standards you've set the vast majority of elite or arguably elite FA signings that will come the Cubs' way would likely fall on the "bad risk" side of things. That's essentially the inherent nature of such big ticket FA signings. Plus, again, you're trying to break things down into an either/or; in this case whether something is a good risk or a bad risk, seemingly with no in-between. "Risk" is a on a very broad scale, and the Cubs fortunately have the resources to gamble on more "bad risk" investments that also give a good chance of a big return than most other teams, and yes, they SHOULD take advantage of that.