Sammy Sofa
-
Posts
98,030 -
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
-
Marmol
Sammy Sofa replied to Cubs Fan Dan's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
Because there's no rush to move him, because the Cubs have major offensive questions about next season, and because he could easily bounce back yet again and have a much better season, which would be both more productive for the Cubs and give you a better trade market for him. -
Marmol
Sammy Sofa replied to Cubs Fan Dan's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
Yeah, definitely not. -
Marmol
Sammy Sofa replied to Cubs Fan Dan's topic in MLB Draft, International Signings, Amateur Baseball
Marmol should definitely not be untouchable. -
Oh yeah; that was great. I wish he had done that more often.
-
And Ramirez and his agent haven't said anything about it his whole time here. Now that he's ended his time in Chicago his agent is, rather diplomatically, countering those criticisms.
-
How is that "giving it more traction?"
-
Maybe. I'd rather some of the teams just go away instead of catering to them when they shouldn't exist in the first place.
-
This reply does not fit with what I just wrote. Keep the 30 teams, spread the money around. The 12 team thing was in jest, it was never remotely a possibility. A hard cap doesn't have to happen. Floor or not. They just need to amend the soft cap enough so that it resembles certain aspects from a hard cap. I believe I read that revenue sharing might increase by triple. That's the type of thing that needs to happen. A total spending limit, so a team like the Heat can't can't go too far into the MLE tax. That needs to happen. I'd rather increase the tax instead of a hard limit. And I brought up the 12-team thing because you've brought it up multiple times, so it was seeming like you were serious. And sure, spread the revenue around; it's just not going to significantly change the makeup of which teams are typically competitive. A hard limit would cause a blip along those lines, but not as much as you seem to be hoping. Most of those teams are just too poorly run and big-name players will simply want to get away from them because they're podunk. There's always going to be a bigger market with money.
-
I just don't understand why you keep insisting that a 12-team league is the best solution. I'm all for stripping the NBA of some obvious deadweight teams, but I don't see why eliminating 18 teams is necessary. And my issue with hard caps is that they typically don't come with some type of hard spending "floor." I don't agree that better run teams or ones with more resources available should be punished because there are smaller teams that are often horribly run and shouldn't have even been bought in the first place, because that's how it is more often than not. That's why I'm not confident at all that a hard cap would do much "fixing." I'd rather let a few teams collapse/fold them and move forward with a more streamlined league.
-
What you're proposing isn't going to drastically change that. At best you're talking about one of them maybe sneaking in to the finals (and probably losing) and then vanishing for years to come. Caps aren't going to protect those teams from being badly run and bungling the one advantage they have (draft strength) are put them in a big market that is actually appealing to big-name players. I don't get it? If they sneak into the Finals why would they vanish? The teams that aren't attractive free-agent destinations have to be competitive to attract players. A team that sniffs the Finals can build upon that, not immediately regress. And yeah what I'm proposing is probably off in numerous areas, but I'm no expert. I just see a problem. Because most of those teams are still going to be crappily run and, most importantly, they're still small-market teams that a majority of big-market players want to flee from. A more strict cap doesn't necessarily change that.
-
What you're proposing isn't going to drastically change that. At best you're talking about one of them maybe sneaking in to the finals (and probably losing) and then vanishing for years to come. Caps aren't going to protect those teams from being badly run and bungling the one advantage they have (draft strength) are put them in a big market that is actually appealing to big-name players.
-
Who will be the manager? no Ryno talk version
Sammy Sofa replied to Magnetic Curses's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
Yeah, sometimes people post REALLY dumb things. -
And 6 different champs in the last decade.
-
But that's not (realistically) true for the other major sports, so that seems to be an unrealistic goal and unnecessarily drastic. There's always going to be bad teams that get beat up on.
-
I HOPE THEY DO THAT.
-
But now we're back to the idea that it was never really fair after it had been around a decade (even accounting for fewer teams).
-
Dumping deadwood teams and wanting some kind of limitations on spending to maintain a broken system are two very different things. There's simply not an answer to make things "fair" for small market teams that wouldn't suck for the game. Most of them simply should not exist, something you seem to agree with.
-
Who will be the manager? no Ryno talk version
Sammy Sofa replied to Magnetic Curses's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
Plus he drives like a Chinese! -
But, again, until the Celtics a few years ago where are these teams buying rings with money? And it's not like those teams have a clear advantage when it comes to being able to spend money; this isn't a Yankees-type situation. I'm not saying everything is on the same level, but come on, we're not looking at a huge baseball-like disparity. Hell, the Heat can't even fill of their seats. Plus a lot of those decisions simply stem from the desire of players to play for a big market team. How are they supposed to regulate that?
-
Plus Stern presided over the late 80's to the late 90's era of the NBA, when you arguably had the best, most competitive era in the league's history. Again, even if we argue that things went south after that it's still basically just an argument against the Lakers.
-
But the Knicks have been really bad for a good chunk of Stern's tenure. They had that 15 years stretch and have been rather unimpressive otherwise. Similar situation with the Bulls, too. Hell, this whole thing could be boiled down to an argument against the Lakers and the Celtics (and even then mostly the former).
-
It seems like a decent point when it kind of debunks the idea you're presenting that 30 years ago/Stern ushered in some kind of imbalanced era that's unfair to almost everyone except a small group of teams. The NBA has been dominated by a small group of teams since it started. I'm not arguing that the financial landscape hasn't changed, but it seems like you're going about the wrong way of pointing that out by pointing out that only 9 teams have won the title in the last 20 years when only 15 have won it in the last 60.
-
It wasn't really until the Boston Big 3 and the Heat last season that you saw money truly putting together teams, and even then those teams still hinged on on drafted/homegrown talent.
-
Pop quiz: Who has made the most worthless comment in the past 1 page? You're not witty. Why did you only go back 30 years? Because a trend started. One that Stern had a lot to with. Wait, what? The trend of a relatively small group of teams winning the title didn't start then. It was arguably there from the very beginning. Again, we've only had 15 different teams win the title since 1950.
-
See also: Knicks, The New York.
