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
-
HOLD THE [expletive] PHONE. Yeah, the odds of the Vikings winning this are practically nil, but still.
-
Do you have information regarding a secret rubber nose obsession?
-
I was pretty focused on winning the WS that year, at least early on. Then [expletive] started to go really wrong and dimmed the my long term view quite a bit. Yeah, same here. By the end you had the health issues with Wood and Prior seriously rearing their heads and they were my main reasons for the confidence before the season started. I was still pretty confident that they'd be in the mix in 2005. Hell, even after that mess of a season I still had hope because of Lee's monster season and thinking that at least one of Prior or Wood would bounceback and anchor the rotation. 2006 smashed a lot of hopes, but then they bounced back so dramatically for 2007 and 2008. I guess it really wasn't until after 2009 that I was finally like "OK, they're toast for the time being".
-
I took it as Tim asking in terms of going forward between seasons.
-
Before the season?
-
I was super bonkers crazy optimistic going in to 2004, both for that season and the future.
-
There's more reason for optimism than we've had for a long time. I'm 40 and I can't remember this much optimism, not just for a particular year but as an organization going forward. Maybe 1989? 2004 was pretty damn huge. Yes, then there was 2005. Alas. Even then as enthusiastic as I was, I was worried about Dusty overuse of the starters and had little faith in Hendry. If Theo brings in a solid manager, we as fans have to feel good about the next several seasons. Theo's choice of manager is probably the last thing I'm concerned about. It's so far down on list of [expletive] that needs to be fixed.
-
Because that's the "in" thing to do here I guess. Kinda sad really. I guess people aren't allowed to express their opinion when it doesn't agree with what the larger majority of what the board thinks. I guess there aren't as many 'baseball purist" around these days which means in 20 years the game wont even resemble what it is today. We'll just be televising batting practice/homerun derby. Nobody is preventing you from doing anything. Are you opposed to the use of replay? -
Completely horrible and inaccurate analogy.
-
Compared to the Red Sox/ Yankees? Of course not. To the teams themselves? Of course it is. If one can keep the other out of the playoffs they're going to pounce all over it.
-
What? You had multiple people here suggesting her as a viable and appealing option before the whole Theo thing blew up.
-
Yes, but that rivalry isn't the same as the Phillies Braves. I think that looking at the histories ofmthe two teams and how they are playing is important. The Braves find ways to lose in the playoffs, the Cardinals generally do not. Wait, what? The Cardinals have been to the playoffs 8 times prior to this year in the last 15 seasons. They made it to the WS 2 times. They won the WS once (and the one they lost was getting swept by the Red Sox for THEIR first WS win in forever, yet people still think those dastardly Cards are soooooooo lucky). How the [expletive] does that translate to "the Cardinals generally do not find ways to lose in the playoffs?" That means that actually 88% of the time the Cardinals do indeed "find a way to lose." And the Yankees and the Red Sox this year is very relevant. The Red Sox were stinking it up, while the Rays were scorching hot, yet you think the Yankees rolled over for the Rays to let them into the playoffs, but that makes sense because of the Yankees/Red Sox rivalry. Guh? You think the Phillies and Braves wouldn't be playing their asses off against each other in the playoffs? Just because it's not an ESPN-endorsed Official Greatest Rivalry of All Time doesn't mean they're not still rivals.
-
Now that's a real argument (though remember which team you're talking about; the one that arguably had the best pitching in all of baseball. Like it or not, most teams are going to bet on pitching over offense in the short series). Still think it's silly to fault a team for trying to take out a division rival, though. That's what's going to happen 9 times out of 10. A pretty incredible confluence of events had to occur for the season to end the way it did, so most people aren't going to sit back and choose to let a divisional rival win and make the playoffs. Do you think the Yankees rolled over for the Rays to keep the Red Sox out?
-
Well its not like the fans of those teams have a choice now is there? Most grew up watching that type of baseball so they don't really know anything different. The popularity of AL teams really has nothing to do with the DH. So the same thing would happen with people raised with an NL that has the DH.
-
CLOWN KENNEY, AMIRITE?!?!?!
-
It only makes sense to let the team in that has sucked for a month and is missing key components to injuries as opposed to the one that has been hot. If the decision was based on their "rivalry," then Manuel really is an idiot. Oh, come on. If a team can keep a division rival out that's what they're going to play for. "Hot" teams stumble all the time in the playoffs, just like everyone else, so it's ridiculous to expect teams to act like the people here who just assume the Cardinals always win. The Braves made the playoffs 15 years in a row and won 1 title. For that reason alone I would have rather had them in than the Cardinals were I the Phillies. The Braves find ways to choke every year. So the logic behind this is you think the Phillies should have gone, "hey, division rivals, we're going to let you in because you've been bad the last month and the Cardinals have been good, nevermind in the short series "hot" teams get the boot all the damn time. Plus they're the Cardinals and EVERYTHING goes their way because of magic or unholy luck or whatever and, because, y'know"?
-
Part of me is still kinda bummed they didn't hire Kim Ng.
-
Hell, just the fact he already won a WS with them convinced me he wouldn't be back after the Cardinals failed to get it done before ST this year.
-
Wow, that was it? And declaring Dunn done is jumping the gun just a tad.
-
It only makes sense to let the team in that has sucked for a month and is missing key components to injuries as opposed to the one that has been hot. If the decision was based on their "rivalry," then Manuel really is an idiot. Oh, come on. If a team can keep a division rival out that's what they're going to play for. "Hot" teams stumble all the time in the playoffs, just like everyone else, so it's ridiculous to expect teams to act like the people here who just assume the Cardinals always win.
-
Do we have the best front office in the NL? MLB?
Sammy Sofa replied to David's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
you essentially said firing hendry and hiring someone good would never happen. [expletive], that must have been a dark time. -
Do we have the best front office in the NL? MLB?
Sammy Sofa replied to David's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
What did I say? -
OK, now I'm dying to know what point you think you just made.
-
I don't agree with a frontloaded contract with Pujols at all. You need the payroll flexibility with him early in the deal to maximize what he's bringing to the team, not vice-versa. Frontloading it limits the team's ability to build a team around him when he's going to be best under this contract.
-
Definitely things to consider. The bottom line is that it's likely impossible to have a concrete answer along those lines when it comes time to decide whether or not they want to sign him. There's always going to be an inherent risk. Okay, we've come to a point of agreement. Thus, my point in a post above - I'm always wary of long term deals, I guess, but if you could somehow frontload the deal and take advantage of say, Z and Soriano's contracts expiring by spiking a FA contract up in those years, I'd feel much better about any long term ramifications. It isn't just the decline the worries me ... it's the potential of a decline PLUS a backloaded deal. And with some of the numbers floating out there on Pujols potential AAV (weren't they suggesting 25-30 million at some point, a backloaded deal could see the back end in the 30+ range) ... it's definitely something to be concerned about, IMO. Why would you rather frontload the deal? Backloading is almost always a better option for a team financially.
