Sammy Sofa

Is it? Bouncing a player around in the lineup usually isn't a good idea. Few players can thrive/are comfortable in such a situation. Just look at Castro, Soto and Byrd this year. All three players have had similar splits between different lineup spots like Soriano. If anything it just speaks to Quade and co.'s inability to construct a lineup that plays to both his players' abilities and comfort. Soriano saying he doesn't like such an approach to lineup construction isn't a stupid opinion; it's the exact opposite, actually.

I believe his velocity is down this year. I could be wrong though. It has been (though it was back up today).

He didn't go complaining to the media. $100 says he was asked something along the lines of "so what do you think of batting so low in the lineup this year?" Soriano then responds with his limited grasp of english and essentially says "I'll hit where they want me to hit, but I don't like being bounced around the lineup as often as I have been this year." What's wrong with that? It's not like we haven't been griping about Quade's crappy lineup management all season long.

What? Is it not? Is there a position in the batting order in which one does NOT want to get on base, unless you're intentionally sacrificing to move runners? But it's not his "job." It's one aspect of his "job." If there's any singular thing he's being counted on as a hitter at this point it's hitting for power, not getting on base. You're talking about him like he's Campana.

Him saying "The way they treat me this year I don't like it" is ridiculous. He continually said "thats Mikes call" or whatever, but he clearly thinks he should be hitting higher in the order, when he should be happy he's even in the lineup at all at this point. Sounds more like he didn't like bouncing between different spots in the lineup so often. The guy has repeatedly said he'll hit wherever they want to hit him, but this was the first year that he's been shifted so (relatively dramatically) between three different spots. The guy didn't complain getting a ton of PA hitting 6th in 2010 and 2009, so I doubt you would have heard this if he had faced similar stability hitting most of the season 7th (and arguably he should have been just left hitting 6th again).

What?

http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/4/0/1/63401_v1.jpg

Closer contracts will always be a pet peeve of mine. Imagine if they had the $7 million(!) they'll be paying him next season freed up. Or the $9.8 million (!!!) he's getting in 2013.

You're kidding, right? He's basically going out of his way as much as possible in the article to say it's their call and he'll do as he's told. Them's the breaks when someone doesn't speak english all that well.

Man, I wish that $20 million was still available.

That was amazingly stupid.

Just horrendous game management.

Jesus Christ, just pound him with [expletive] fastballs. Did you not learn this before, Marmol?

OF COURSE this comes down to [expletive] Theriot.

Cubs crushing dreams today and nobody cares.

When he's manning RF for the Cubs in 2013 all will be well and good.

Because Ricketts' words seem to indicate that, at best, the payroll will be staying about the same and any extra money goes into the farm system for the immediate future. I think it all comes down to how much the bump is. The question isn't whether or not they can afford it; it's whether or not the Ricketts are willing to spend.

Isn't urine (mostly) sterile? And why would they be less sanitary than a [expletive]-ton of urinals?

Fonzie-cool.

Nicely done, Starlin.

Probably more of a backup plan than leverage. Yeah, somehow they had room for both of them on the team this year. http://curezone.com/upload/Blogs/Zoebess/bush_frustrated.jpg

http://shop.customscooters.com/images/razorparts/on_off_button.jpg For the love of Jah please...There's only so much going nowhere conversation can entertain in a night....There's two paragraphs there that answers your question that doesn't mention a word of CJ Wilson. If it doesn't satisfy you say so so I can file it with my Department of Care. At the very least pretend you're doing something more than just being annoying. Those two paragraphs were swell (though don't necessarily back up the idea that he doesn't have "untapped potential"), but then you capped it off as if someone was suggesting pursuing Price as opposed to Wilson. The closest to that is WSR's nonsensical monster trade spitballing. Those two paragraphs also make the eyes part more glaring, too.

Nobody suggested going after Shields over Wilson. You rely too much on your eyes.

It really is, yet here we are. If you'd just spend less time trying to call everything stupid and actually make a point... Already replied to it. You didn't even make this point to me. Even further, this point is based solely on a perception that today's 123 pitch complete game W from Garza is the perfect example and perpetuation of this vaguely described (I assume everyone knows perfectly well what that means, of course) assumed philosophy. Like the rest of this, it's a little asinine with even less evidence than your first point. You mean like this game of how many times it's OK? Or the complete turn this "debate" has taken since you entered? Example of a strawman argument: How many times is OK huh? 20? 40? 68? 72? Herp? PEOPLE LIKE YOU just don't care until something happens!! Everything else you've said. Well, no, those aren't strawmen because I wasn't making anything up to distract from the main point. I was actually asking you if you had a "breaking point" as to how many 120+ pitch games would be too many. And "people like you..." was talking about...people like you. And points are being made if they aren't expressly made "to" you? Come the [expletive] on. Just admit you were making up a stance nobody was taking (that tonight's game was some kind of breaking point for Garza's pitching health/ability) and that most of your rampage hinged on it.

The [expletive]? The [expletive] what? What about his numbers this season are saying there's no "untapped potential" in a 29-year-old pitcher? (No, I'm not saying the Cubs should trade for Shields)