Sammy Sofa

What the [expletive] was that?

how can you bring back carimi at right tackle when louis is playing like a [expletive] tank? gotta move him to the left side. Yeah, I have no idea how the [expletive] Louis is doing what he's doing, but he's doing it.

That's a weird-ass list. I can only assume all of the Wang results were screwed up porn searches.

It feels almost wrong to see the OL actually functioning.

ALL HAIL POJULS.

It's not that anyone is opposed to Greg as the PC so much as the understanding that it's very unlikely he'd ever take an everyday role like that.

Again with the pro-rape posts.

Fixed. whichever. Yup.

Even paying Pujols $30 million a year doesn't automatically kill their flexibility to change and improve the team down the line. Again, this is a big market team that can handle having a $130-$150 million payroll and ideally could handle an even higher one down the road. It's not an either/or proposition. Never said it was. But putting 20-25% of your payroll into one player will certainly limit your flexibility to an extent. Sure, to a relative extent. So will paying one $27 million a year, or $25 million, or even $20 million. That said, however, none of us know what the Cubs' financial situation will be 5+ years from now. Personally, I don't see them decreasing the payroll or even maintaining the current one. Like I said, if they're at a point 5-10 years from now where they cannot maintain a payroll at or above $130 million then they've failed. Or something catastrophic has happened to the Ricketts and/or their money. And yes, putting 20% of your payroll sounds crippling when you have a payroll of, say, $60 million, but if you're a big market team like the Cubs that can and should maintain a payroll around $150 million then that still leaves you a ton of room to work with. We're not talking about the situation of the last 5 years where you had the impending sale throwing limiting everything money-wise after the big Soriano spending spree and a bad FO behind it.

Maybe the other teams didn't report it yet. Why would he pull his name just from the Red Sox? Or maybe Boston is a bad fit for him and he decided not to waste his time or theirs. It is well known that his daughters go to college in the DFW area and that he just built a house. He has a good thing going so I am sure there will be, as there always is, some family consideration. But if he decided he didn't want to manage, he would have pulled the plug entirely, which he hasn't done. How would he know it's a bad fit without a interview? Why would Chicago be better for his family? Because Chicago is great and Boston sucks balls, obviously.

Even paying Pujols $30 million a year doesn't automatically kill their flexibility to change and improve the team down the line. Again, this is a big market team that can handle having a $130-$150 million payroll and ideally could handle an even higher one down the road. It's not an either/or proposition.

He has learned to like winning? Sure, he might have a taste for blood and that's now all he craves, but I think him having already won a couple WS actually makes him more likely to go to a non-immediate contender than someone like Fielder. This isn't a LeBron/ARod-type situation, so sky's probably pretty much the limit so long as the money is right.

WHAT?!?! But you can't construct a team with over $100 million left over for the payroll! Impossible!!!

Yes I read the entire thing. The Cubs, Bears, and Sox are not equitable because the public has an ownership stake in the Bears and Sox venues. 1) You missed the finer points of those comparisons 2) that was far from the only thing he discussed I did not miss anything, I chose not address the finer points because the larger point renders them moot and I don't really have the time. The finer points are misleading and that's an understatement. Cub fans pay more taxes because there are more of them staying in hotels? Why are you opposed to this?

Why is going to a WS-ready team going to be a dealbreaker priority for Pujols? He's already won two.

Did you read any of Scotti's posts?

Great job reading the rest of this page.

$30 million is always going to be a "thang". That's likely to be ~20% of the payroll. Maybe. Maybe the payroll will be higher. Or maybe they'll be developing enough players internally that they can swing investing that much in a player to get impact years from him previously in the deal. I'm thinking optimistically here; if the Cubs are still constrained by similar financial and player development restrictions 8 years from now that they face now then they've failed, period. Oh well. For most of that contract that's $30 million that likely wouldn't have been better spent.

Look, you're likely looking at between $26 million and $30 million a year, so let's not act like $30 million is some huge leap from a more reasonable annual salary. And you're always paying for past performance when you sign a big FA you haven't developed internally.

Personally I'd be fine with the Cubs offering 6-7 years at $30 million per.

Yeah, good call; I was mixing that up with Boras representing Prince.

I think $26 million is essentially the floor. Boras isn't going to settle for Pujols making the same per year or less than Howard's ridiculous contract.

The Cub plan doesn't/didn't ask for the City to give the Cubs any currently generated Chicago money. Cub FANS pay apx $16 million per season as an "entertainment tax" (way more than any other Chicago team) when they purchase their tickets. Generally, these types of taxes exist to offset the cost that a municipality pays in supporting the entertainment (this usually includes the municipality having a financial stake in the stadium but Wrigley is 100% owned by the Cubs). In addition to the $16 M that Cub fans pay, the Cubs pay millions more for extra security (police) and cleanup before, during and after games and events (again, a part of what the "entertainment tax" is SUPPOSED to be for). What the original Cub plan proposed was, in part, for the "entertainment tax" to be capped at 2009's level (the $16M) for a given period (IIRC, 15 years) and any further generated revenue (generated ONLY because of further investments in Wrigley) be used as security for a bond (the expected means of paying off said bond would actually be the 2% sales tax on hotels that also pays off the Bears and Sox bonds). Again, that is WAY fair because: A) Cub FANS pay way more in the "entertainment tax" than Bear fans, Bull fans or Sox fans (nearly double the Bears and quadruple the Sox). B) The Cubs receive BY FAR the smallest benefit from the City. C) The City claims that future Cub "entertainment tax" growth belongs to the City YET the City proposes to do NOTHING to grow it. D) Cub FANS are taxed more than the other teams by the 2% sales tax on hotels because a much higher percentage and number of Cub fans come from outside the area (and, thus, use area hotels--roughly 1/3 of the 3M Wrigley attendees are from outside of the area). E) The Cubs are hamstrung when it comes to improving income sources at Wrigley because of it's monument status (i.e can't generate 20-30 million per year via a JumboTron). The only way to get sufficient revenue increases from crumbling Wrigley is to get substantial structural improvements that allow for greater amenities. All of the above shows that the City/County/State has NO SKIN IN THE GAME! They get taxes ("entertainment tax," 2% hotel tax, 10% sales taxes on Cub fans spending $, income taxes on Cub and area employees), the team pays millions for services, etc. all to the tune of millions and millions of dollars and the City does what in return? They limit when the Cubs can play and what they can do to their own freaking stadium--the Cubs have more restrictions placed on them than any other major sports team in the U.S. Look, it isn't just the Cubs but, ultimately, Cub fans that are getting screwed. The "entertainment" and hotel taxes are paid directly by Cub fans. The millions extra for security and clean up comes from monies generated by Cub fans. To your point of a financial crisis... Neither the Cubs nor Cub fans caused the City's (or county's or state's) crisis and they shouldn't be expected to pay more than they are now to bail them out of their self-made sinking ships. The Cubs are, and will continue to be, a cash cow for the City, etc. (easily over $300 M per year in local revenues NOT including the Cubs take). If the City wants to see that increase then the City needs some skin in the game. Well said. The general idea that "the city would be paying to fix/expand Wrigley" is woefully misunderstood.

Oh THAT'S it? The proclamations I make on how rebellious and edgy my posts are? Why didn't you say so my main man bro?!!??! Don't mind them. This is just some initial hazing. Keep up the awesome jokes and you'll be part of the crew in no time. GREAT CALL, SULLEY.

The Cubs 8 years from now will ideally be able to swallow a $30 million contract like it ain't no thang.