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
-
Wow. Well spun indeed. What exactly are you people declaring then? Or is this just whining to whine and I'm getting in the way? I fail to see how you've offered nothing but strawmen, if your..."arguments" are even worthy of that lofty title. How many times did you tell me I would be OK with this again? This is just asinine. Stop making up what's being said or discussed; stop acting like you have no clue what people are saying, because if you really don't then you're not really reading anything that's being posted. Hell, I don't think you even know what "strawman" actually means when you made that last post based on your "I'm rubber and you're glue"-style response. Hopefully you've actually read the posts on this page. -
Unless Matt Garza and Ryan Dempster are unique cases among the 150 or so starters in baseball that somehow need more work at the end of the season than they had the rest of it, then the Cubs are simply doing something with their starters that no other team not in contention is doing. Of course it's not a guarantee that their arms fall off, and nobody's even implying that. It's just totally needless at a time in the year where every team has 3-4 extra pitchers on the roster, and there's basically no reward except a complete game. How many of those 150 starts were at 100 pitches or less through 8 innings? I'm not going to tell you Dempster should have been extended, but I don't see a whole lot of risk with letting Garza finish two very strong performances where he hasn't been laboring. It's commentary on repetition of a frustrating organizational philosophy as opposed to a specific condemnation of today's game as some kind of breaking point.
-
I can tell you with full confidence that the number is not 2. Maybe if you saw diminished mechanics or stuff...but we didn't and won't. You know why we won't? Because he has 5 months to recover from these potential career destroyers. Nobody here is saying that two is the breaking point, so quit being so pathetically obtuse and melodramatic. The complaint is that it's indicative of a larger problematic philosophies that have plagued this organization for too long now. If two is fine with them when it doesn't matter, hey, why not three? Why not five? Why not eight? How many times do I have to repeat this? Then why in the [expletive] are we having this discussion? Obtuse and melodramatic are two perfect words to describe the basis of your argument. I'll throw them in with limp. Repeat what you want all day...It's not going to change the actual number from 2 to whatever it is you want to believe I'm fine with. Because you decided that people were declaring that Garza was going to be injured based on today's pitching load, or the two times he's gone over 120 pitches this year. It's an invention from inside of your own brain that twisted what was actually being said. A fine strawman, really. Well spun.
-
Well, that's the problem.
-
And guess what...There is literally no significance to that that you have showed me. None of you have. I garaun-[expletive]-tee that those two will take the mound just fine next season. Hell, Dempster probably has another start this year, maybe. If he does, I predict that he'll not only make it but his arm will survive too. So you're somehow guaranteeing that neither Dempster or Garze will be on the DL at all next season? Why would you say something so stupid?
-
I can tell you with full confidence that the number is not 2. Maybe if you saw diminished mechanics or stuff...but we didn't and won't. You know why we won't? Because he has 5 months to recover from these potential career destroyers. Nobody here is saying that two is the breaking point, so quit being so pathetically obtuse and melodramatic. The complaint is that it's indicative of a larger problematic philosophies that have plagued this organization for too long now. If two is fine with them when it doesn't matter, hey, why not three? Why not five? Why not eight? How many times do I have to repeat this?
-
You're not. WeGotWood98. How am I not grasping the point? Who's the one bitching about a perfectly healthy pitcher throwing 123 pitches twice here? This can't be serious....but it is. So what if it was five times? Six? Ten? How many is too many for you?
-
Who the hell were you before the name change? I feel like I'm missing some classic gold. And holy [expletive] [expletive]; of course nobody knows what the breaking point is with each pitcher. THAT'S THE [expletive] POINT YOU BIZARRELY CANNOT GRASP.
-
Nice dodge. Just admit that you won't answer what Truffle pointed out, nor do you have any clue what the breaking point is with any pitcher. We're fans of a team that has had serious issues with this over the last decade, so why should we just shrug it off when we see it rearing its head yet again in meaningless games with a pitcher who needs to play a key role going forward? Like I said, it's always "just" whatever number of games with someone like you. If it wasn't two it would "just" be five, or eight, or ten and on and on and on. You try to be a smartass with the hyperbole, but it's the the only real outcome for this corner you've backed yourself into. If you truly believe this garbage, then no, I don't think you'd have a problem with him being overused every game because you'd always come up with an excuse to justify it.
-
The [expletive]?
-
Yeah, it's always "well, THIS one isn't one time too many" to people like you, isn't it? They do it twice, well hell, three couldn't be that bad, right? Four times? Man, five is only once more. Eight times? Jeez, ten is only two more than that!
-
No, I'm all alone. *Sigh* *Fart*
-
The guy's already given the Cubs a hometown discount (when he could have gotten the biggest contract of his career), so I think he does honestly want to stay here, so this likely means the ball is in the Ricketts' court. This is all going to come down to them being willing to make the necessary money available. If they go hard after guys like Wilson and Pujols/Fielder then I think they'll be able to get Aramis back at a reasonable price. Sounds like a win-win to me. I would love for him to sign a two year extension, but reality favors a three year deal. Netting Pujols, Wilson, and Aramis would be a real nice off season. I think the bookends are very possible, but Wilson is going to be tough. Lots and lots of teams are going to be going after him very hard. Backload-backload-backload. I really think the Cubs can get this done without dramatically jacking up their payroll.
-
I love it. I'm watching it on three TV's to offset you.
-
Personally, I think this is the key quote from Ramirez so far: The guy's already given the Cubs a hometown discount (when he could have gotten the biggest contract of his career), so I think he does honestly want to stay here, so this likely means the ball is in the Ricketts' court. This is all going to come down to them being willing to make the necessary money available. If they go hard after guys like Wilson and Pujols/Fielder then I think they'll be able to get Aramis back at a reasonable price.
-
Do not take Ramirex if you have an erection lasting more than 4 hours.
-
I will return to a joyous Wrigley next year.
-
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Wrigley_Field_sign_Cubs_Win_2003-10-03.jpg
-
Well, that's pretty fitting.
-
I'll bet they did that on purpose, too.
-
Never heard of a rival not wanting to give up a milestone? It's not a big deal and I only point it out because I know there are Brewer fans reading this right now. YOU SHOW 'EM.
-
Shhhhh, that Beer guy is REALLY worked up over it. Both things. All things.
-
Bah. Nice patience, though.
-
IT IS TIME.
-
It's the last week in a meaningless season. Baker's only the #4 hitter because of all the call-ups playing today, so why not bring in DeWitt for an AB or two? I am apparently the only person that sees humor in that switch. I'll leave it alone. No, please don't.
