Sammy Sofa

You guys should put together a comedy duo.

Hey you asked the question ("how many HOF players at Pujols' level have you seen fall off of a cliff?"), clearly implying that the number is tiny, when in reality it's not tiny at all. Now it appears we agree -- as you said, there are plenty of great players that crashed and burned after 35-36. There's great players...then there's Pujols. There are too many guys who are in that upper echelon who manged to have damn near two decades-long productive careers to pass on him if he's available simply out of the fear that once he gets past 35 or 36 he suffers a sudden and dramatic downturn. No, I don't think there's enough players who are truly comparable to Pujols who suffered such a fate to justify that approach. Too many "beyond great" players lasted around 17 or 18 seasons at an AS or better level to be so wary of Pujols after just 11. There's great players that crashed and burned shortly after turning 34, or 33, or 32 or 31 or even 30. That's an inherent risk when you're dealing with a professional athlete. Is that saying that Pujols' risk of sudden decline or injury is the same as someone who is 30? No. But I am saying that I think that a player of his elite caliber is too special to pass on because of that relatively increased risk. The chance of him still producing at an elite or near elite level until he's, say, 38 is just too great to pass on. I mean, at some point you have to just sit back and realize you're talking signing someone who is very likely the greatest hitter to ever play the game.

I argued the point for exactly the reasoning I spelled out. Again, I said it was my opinion and that it's a gamble as to how long he'd be productive into his contract (because there are plenty of great players that crashed and burned after 35-36), but it's a gamble I think is well worth taking (also plenty of great who had productive or better 18-19-year careers). You can think whatever you want about when Pujols is going to fall off; it's all subjective at this point. The only thing I think is flat out wrong is when people talk like the Cubs should always avoid guys like Pujols because you can't know how long he'll last or guys like Fielder because you can't know if he'll fall off of a cliff because of his weight. ALL big contracts like those guys will command are a huge gamble. It's a chance that has to be taken if you want someone on their levels because you can always talk yourself out of it when you get down to it.

I disagree with your guess at the odds. That's just my opinion vs yours though. I'm sure there's a lot of people that would agree with you. Maybe your right but I think it would be something we'd live to regret. Players break down toward the end of their careers and can become pretty much a faint shadow of the player they were when they signed, I've watched it happen to many times. People are always excited when they signed then 3 years later are asking why did we do that? But how many HOF players at Pujols' level have you seen fall off of a cliff? I'm not saying it's impossible, but it feels more like you're talking about someone like Soriano. That's a self-fulfilling prophecy, because the players that had HOF careers did so expressly because they were able to avoid falling off a cliff. It's also self-fulfilling because very few have played at Pujols' level, so you leave yourself an easy out there, too. And in case that isn't enough, you gave yourself room to debate the definition of "falling off a cliff". Ask the question, "how many players were on a HOF track before falling off a cliff", and you get a heckuva list. With just a 30 second brainstorm of the last, oh, 20 years, I came up with: McGwire Rolen Manny Belle Canseco Sosa Gonzalez Griffey These were all superstars in their 20s, but virtually useless after 35. I'd argue that Pujols is either clearly significantly better than nearly everyone on the list (really, I'm stunned you're listing some of those players with a straight face), a number of those guys didn't suffer a significant decline or "fell off of a cliff" until their late 30's or were wracked by injuries that Pujols has been fortunate to mostly avoid (or they came crashing down off of PED regimens) that either caused them to decline or to retire abruptly. I mean, really, that's a hugely arbitrary list because you're using the umbrella term "superstar" instead of actually focusing on players with anything resembling Pujols' level of production. You call it an easy out; I simply say it's reality. No Pujols, isn't a lock to have to have a long productive career when he's pushing 40...but there's a decent chance he will be. But ultimately that's all it is; a chance. A gamble. I'm not arguing that it's otherwise. Personally, I'd like them to take the gamble (if they don't get Fielder).

I disagree with your guess at the odds. That's just my opinion vs yours though. I'm sure there's a lot of people that would agree with you. Maybe your right but I think it would be something we'd live to regret. Players break down toward the end of their careers and can become pretty much a faint shadow of the player they were when they signed, I've watched it happen to many times. People are always excited when they signed then 3 years later are asking why did we do that? But how many HOF players at Pujols' level have you seen fall off of a cliff? I'm not saying it's impossible, but it feels more like you're talking about someone like Soriano.

Still, in reference to Pujols, 5-6 years should be something anyone would be fine with. Hell, forget fine; people should be cartwheeling if it was possible for the Cubs to pull that off. Odds are that Albert Pujols at 37 and 38 is still going to be one of the better hitters in baseball.

$50 says he literally meant they fall asleep on the field.

I think that's a needed dose of reality for a lot of Cubs fans. I feel that way as well, I'm very leery of giving anyone a 5-6 year deal and I think Pujols will begin to decline rapidly in the next few years. Wait, wait, wait...you're "leery of giving ANYONE 5-6-year deals?" ANYONE? You ideally want them to stick to guys they can sign for less than 5 years when it comes to FA? Then you better hope the internal player development turns into a [expletive] miracle factory.

CURSES. Make that 35 instead of 32. And make my next one a double.

Wouldn't a team be able to get out of a contract if it was revealed a player was, say, 3 years older than they claimed to be when they signed the deal? I think with Soriano the teams involved claimed they knew what was up, but how would that work if Pujols turned out to be 35 instead of 32 and the Cubs claimed they were duped?

Yeah, that's not the main difference between the two.

I can't believe MLB has that as one of their posted highlights. I'm not really that surprised. I mean, I've never seen that happen or even heard of that happening on the big league level. ONLY THE. COBS.

That would have been pretty damn impressive. Amazing relationship between those two teams.

Yes, that is it exactly. You have your opinion about how they're handling it and I have mine and we've both made it clear where we stand. You're not going to convince me and I have zero interest in convincing you.

It's too bad Castro had that lazy hack Alan Trammell as a coach during his rookie season. That guy probably poisoned his mind with evil.

The information being out there in the Wittemeyer article is the evidence. It clearly came from people within the organization. Right, and the organization's official word should be "no comment." Zambrano's done enough to bury himself. This is just a repeat of a trending pattern seen when the organization seemingly does little or nothing to clamp down on internal trashing of a player who the organization has apparently soured on due to personality or behavorial issues (or vice-versa). OK, I thought you were kidding with this glib summation before, but apparently you're serious. It should be painfully obvious that the point of the coffee and Red Bull story isn't that he drinks coffee and Red Bull. You're talking about that like they're trying to somehow drag him down by pointing what he drinks. No, the point is that he apparently drinks those to excess to the point that it helps lead to the cramping that's been a consistent problem throughout his career. The story is framed to portray Zambrano as not caring what the trainers and medical staff told him would help him be a better pitcher. Now, it very well could be true and probably is true, but it's a stupid thing to be letting out there. I have no idea how can say that based on the Wittemeyer article, which is full of tidbits slamming Zambrano that could have only come from within the organization. It's not nearly as nefarious as you're trying to make it sound like I'm saying. The Cubs simply have a track record of happily slamming players once they've decided to run them out of town by not giving a damn what people within the organization say when the press comes a-callin'. It's not some Machiavellian orchestration behind the scenes; it's just petty and predictable and stupid. I'd simply prefer it if for once they attempted to take the high road in this type of situation. The stuff in that article you're so hopping mad about is just Wittenmeyer dredging up a bunch of old stuff. None of the "tidbits slamming Zambrano" are new, or even remotely recent. Specifically, the coffee and Red Bull stuff, and the cramping issue with the training staff is from a couple years ago. Where are the damning anti-Z quotes from the last couple weeks? There are none. And you darn well know every writer has been digging for them furiously. The only logical conclusion is they are on lock-down, they are issuing "no comments", and they are trying to take the high road. They've given the media nothing since this latest episode went down. Just like you want them to do. I'm not "hopping mad." The coffee and Red Bull details aren't new, but the accused refusal to cut back is. And a bunch of the stuff in the Wittemeyer article is referring to to responses made during the fallout from this latest incident. To me it's just a repeat of something we've seen too many times before, and I really don't care if you agree or not.

Chimichangas and siestas and not running out a pop fly.

The information being out there in the Wittemeyer article is the evidence. It clearly came from people within the organization. Right, and the organization's official word should be "no comment." Zambrano's done enough to bury himself. This is just a repeat of a trending pattern seen when the organization seemingly does little or nothing to clamp down on internal trashing of a player who the organization has apparently soured on due to personality or behavorial issues (or vice-versa). OK, I thought you were kidding with this glib summation before, but apparently you're serious. It should be painfully obvious that the point of the coffee and Red Bull story isn't that he drinks coffee and Red Bull. You're talking about that like they're trying to somehow drag him down by pointing what he drinks. No, the point is that he apparently drinks those to excess to the point that it helps lead to the cramping that's been a consistent problem throughout his career. The story is framed to portray Zambrano as not caring what the trainers and medical staff told him would help him be a better pitcher. Now, it very well could be true and probably is true, but it's a stupid thing to be letting out there. I have no idea how can say that based on the Wittemeyer article, which is full of tidbits slamming Zambrano that could have only come from within the organization. It's not nearly as nefarious as you're trying to make it sound like I'm saying. The Cubs simply have a track record of happily slamming players once they've decided to run them out of town by not giving a damn what people within the organization say when the press comes a-callin'. It's not some Machiavellian orchestration behind the scenes; it's just petty and predictable and stupid. I'd simply prefer it if for once they attempted to take the high road in this type of situation.

That's a pretty big one thing. And you're talking about him like he's a defensive monster.

My concern is that if there is this much negative publicity, it could impact who we hire as the next GM. I have no reason not to believe the media members that Kenney could be issue in the hiring process. They are around the Cubs and have their sources....I obviously don't. I understand there are no specifics other than what they are writing. Why would there be this many people lying? Again, where there is smoke, there's fire. Because part of their job is to create that smoke and start the fire. But, why is there that much smoke to begin with, both locally and nationally? Because if it bleeds it leads. Nobody's going to write a story that says "things look great for the Cubs!"

So you agree with them that Aramis Ramirez is a selfish, lazy player? I do think Ram has been lazy at times, but I don't think he's selfish. I could hav e cared less that he wanted to be w/ his family instead of a 4th replacement in the All Star game You're missing the point; you're placing so much stake into media speculation as being accurate when these are the same guys who have spent Aramis' career in Chicago railing against him for being a subpar player/teammate.

How much of a sports journalists' job ISN'T rumors and speculation? 10%?

So you agree with them that Aramis Ramirez is a selfish, lazy player?

This tract is [expletive] goofy as hell.

I feel like this is some kind of elaborate satire. Even if his PH numbers aren't great he's still shown relative tremendous value in his ability to hit LH pitching. How many of those 151 PA as a PH were actually against LH pitchers? Why are you looking at his value only as a PH? A bench guy like can still have significant value since he can multiple positions and he has excellent numbers as a starter against LH pitchers. You seem to have this idea of finding a bench player who is OK at everything, which isn't terribly practical.