Jump to content
North Side Baseball

Sammy Sofa

Old-Timey Member
  • 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

  1. I'm not furious about this book, Ditka is. And how do you know it's decent? Have you read it? Because the reviews from the people who have read it make it sound very good and well-researched/written. Ditka hasn't read it. It's amazing how many quotes there are like this: I understand the personal connection, but come on, they have to be playing dumb. Do they seriously not understand that comprehensive biographies are almost always written after someone has died? It's not an issue of "oh boy, NOW I can get that damn Walter Payton." The better biographies take a long time to write because of the research is involved. If you're writing a bio about someone who is still alive that information is going to be continually changing. That's why biographies about living people tend to suck (that and because they tend to run to the extremes of either trying to tear someone down or suck up to them). Yes, there are exceptions, but the vast majority are written after the subject has died. It's not like Pearlman is pulling some dirty trick here.
  2. No, I'm pointing out the tone they're going for. Tawdry tell-alls usually are hyped as such. Think Kitty Kelley.
  3. Listen to the publishers', greedy, scummy description of their greedy scummy book: DO THESE MONSTERS KNOW NO SHAME?!?
  4. http://www.gq.com/images/entertainment/2010/09/samsung-inspired-by-you/book-washington-a-life.jpg WRITTEN 212 YEARS AFTER HE DIED. CHERNOW, YOU GREEDY HACK.
  5. Actually, it accomplishes having a decent biography about Walter Payton being written. Do you get furious when you walk past the biography section in a book store or library? Because I hate to tell you this, but most of those are written about people after they've died, too. And they're filled with plenty of unflattering things as well.
  6. Yeah, I wouldn't be pretending my friend was someone he wasn't.
  7. If my friend actually did those things, yeah. I am baffled by this mindset where people seemingly expect this guy to ignore anything he found in his research that didn't reflect well on Payton. So many seem to be looking like this is some kind of effort to smear Payton. It doesn't sound like a cheap, trashy hackjob looking just to smear Payton. It sounds like it's an examination of the man's life; both the good and the bad. That's what happens when someone researches and writes a thorough biography.
  8. Well that's just wonderful.
  9. What the what. Someone please link to that thread.
  10. WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN.
  11. Yes, when one writes a biography they should just try to be nice and ignore certain things.
  12. The Dave Clark Five...home runs was all he could manage. God, that team was [expletive] brutal.
  13. It's like you're actually trying to be a cranky old woman.
  14. OK, the first problem, as it was made very clear to you earlier (yet you completely ignore) is the fallacy of you assuming that variation in a minor league team's record can be chalked up to Sandberg. You also seem to be assuming that Martinez doesn't have the respect of the players he coaches and isn't coaching for a team that "wins games." Apparently you think a major league bench coach literally just manages the bench and sits next to the manager and does nothing. He's been the bench coach for a very, very good team working with one of the very best managers in an organization that develops young players like it's going out of style. THAT'S the kind of experience I want, not someone who "deserves a shot" because most of his managing career has been running a team in the Cubs' crappy farm system. Neither of us has presented a case as to why either SHOULD be the manager of the Cubs. There's nobody I think "should" get the job. In the end I want someone who matches as much as possible with a sound organizational and developmental philosophy established by the GM. If that's Sandberg, so be it. Given the names being tossed around for who the Cubs want as GM I really doubt he'd be the choice.
  15. Dave Martinez also played for the Cubs, so I'm not sure how he wouldn't know their "history and what to expect" (though I'm not sure why anyone wouldn't be able to know that). You declare that he "controls the clubhouse," yet you have no idea if that's true since he's never managed or coached a major league team. You declare him to be a good teacher, yet almost all of his managing experience is with an organization with a reputation for NOT instilling solid fundamentals and he has absolutely zero reputation along those lines from his days as a player. Why does Sandberg's experience managing in the minors make him more fit to manage a major league team than Martinez, who has been the bench coach for a competitive major league team (and one of the best managers) known for how well it develops young players? If you place so much stock in managing in the minors as being a true test of managing a major league team then why wasn't Quade a better manager?
  16. I don't even know what this means. Unlike Martinez, Sandberg doesn't have significant experience working with someone like Maddon. Sandberg hasn't really worked under anyone (as a player or as a minor league manager) worth a damn when it comes to coaching/managing like Martinez has with Maddon. Sandberg also never had a reputation as any kind of coach or leader when he was a player, so unless you're looking at his scanty time managing in the minors without anyone to really learn from I'm not sure what he's "done" that means he deserves or needs to manage.
  17. I think it's too soon to write off the Crawford deal as being a disaster. Yeah, $20 million a year is certainly more than I would have wanted if I was a Red Sox fan (especially for 7 years), but he's still 29 and when signed was coming two very, very good years where he was seemingly coming into his prime. Fangraphs has him as a 5.9 and 7.6 WAR player in 2009 and 2010 respectively, and worth $26.5 million and $30.4 in those seasons. Yeah, this year is absolutely brutal and a bust, but it's not like this is necessarily Epstein's Soriano-signing.
  18. So, basically, you have no clue on who should manage. Nobody "should" manage the team. Personally, I'd like Martinez, Bobby V. or Francona. I like Martinez because he was a relatively marginal player who was very sound defensively and has been the bench coach for one of the very best managed/coached teams in the majors for four seasons now. He's worked under an excellent manager in Joe Maddon and would ideally bring a similar approach to managing himself. Sandberg's rhetoric about managing reeks of over-managing/smallball/meatballisms and I don't think players as good as him tend to be good managers. Too much ego is going to be getting in the way, they tend to not be very good teachers since their skills came (relatively speaking) so much easier to them than to players without their level of natural ability, plus Sandberg himself has a reputation of being disliked and never really seemed to be any kind of a leader when he was a player. I'd prefer to have him remain Sandberg the great player as opposed to Sandberg the crappy manager.
  19. But you keep tossing in "decent pitching" like that really has a place in this hypothetical. As far as we know they went into the season with the pitchers they wanted to go with. If you want to play the "what if" game in regards to pitching health, fine, but that's a different type of hypothetical of what I'm presenting with the idea that they signed Furcal. Signing Furcal wouldn't have made a difference with how the pitching played out. And yes, I agree that having another big bat would have made a difference, but again, let's be realistic; that 2006 team ended up being even worse than this year's team. Even having Lee resembling his 2005 form and Furcal performing as he did with the Dodgers they'd have to have made up a LOT of ground. Even with the division as bad as it was you're talking about having to have won 18 more games to take the division. That was a bad, bad team.
  20. The 2006 Cubs nearly lost 100 games. Like I said, I don't even think that the addition of Super Lee and Furcal could have saved them. I mean, it would be pretty optimistic to think they'd win, what, 10 more games? A dozen? They'd still have been under .500.
  21. If the Cubs can dump that contract I will kiss Ozzie on the mouth like he was my dad. (And I'm actually not a fan of trading Zambrano just to trade him. But if they can free up all or nearly all of that money and it means they can get guys like Wilson and Fielder and maybe even bring back Aramis, then yes please).
  22. ever hear ryno in the booth? he's like a dumber ron santo without the craziness or personality. Hey, I'm not saying I WANT the guy in the booth. That just seems like a PR move that makes more sense than going out of their way to make him manager and forcing him on the new GM.
  23. And "reconciliation" can me a lot of things. I have no doubt the Cubs want to do it at some point, but probably more so that they can build him a statue and have him show up for events and maybe even end up in the radio or TV booth. Making him manager is probably pretty far down their list of reasons to make nice with him.
×
×
  • Create New...