Sammy Sofa

The fact is, if this team is going to compete next year, wholesale upgrades are necessary. 1B is one of the best places to do so with the best available options, unless we want to spend similar money on a perenially injured Jose Reyes or a bit less on a 35 year old Carlos Beltran. Sabathia would also be an intriguing option, but a very expensive one, but The Tigers have shown us how valuable it is to have one shutdown ace no matter how meh the rest of your pitching staff is, of course we don't have the Tigers offense. I know, Penas a great clubhouse guy, but 10 mil is a steep price for a youth mentor. You said he has "zero business on the Cubs" next season, which seemingly implies there's no scenario where he should be on the team. I'm not saying they should sign him, but missing out on Fielder and Pujols would be a pretty good reason to do so since they have nobody to man 1B otherwise.

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/7128572-417/carlos-zambrano-and-the-cubs-what-went-wrong.html Sheds a bit more light on some of the private problems the team was alluding to. Oh, shocker that the Cubs are leaking this.

Whut.

Given how athletic and relatively young he is as a pitcher....hell no. It's just not happening for at least another couple seasons IMO. So how long would it take him to get stretched out again and ready to go? Let's say hypothetically Wells goes down for a long period of time early next year again; how long until Shark could start in place of Wells?

Sure, he's made some great strides. Has the ship sailed on him being a starter? I'm wondering if bringing him back could work twofold, both strengthening the bullpen and having him as an option if the injury bug bites again.

I'm aware of that and I'm aware that he is an uber-asset run creator for any baseball team. He's definitely someone I'd want on my team. However, a very good career OBP doesn't get you in the HOF, but a sexy HR total will. That's his only solid stat that causes him to be in the conversation. Yes, but then what was the point of the 40+ a season breakdown? How many of those 35 other hitters have been as good as or better than Thome? How does that detract from the main point in his favor, which is the cumulative total?

You're missing the point; bringing up Killebrew as you have been is pointless (yes, I know he's on BR's similar hitter list). Killebrew isn't any kind of standard as to who gets into the Hall. There's nothing that says anyone has to be as good as or better than Killebrew to be in the Hall if they're a power hitter. You started off potentially making a decent argument against Thome (though personally I don't think so; looking at 40+ seasons is similarly arbitrary and meaningless unless you can argue that a good portion of those 35 other hitters were as good as or better than Thome), but then spiraled off into what was seemingly an excuse to inexplicably fawn over Killebrew, as if he's some kind of metric that any prospective Hall of Famer is to be judged against.

Sure there is.

So what?

A great DH is a great DH. It's part of the game. It automatically lets you know that player might have been a great player, but they weren't the "very best" due to their inability to play the field or the choice for them to not play the field. A DH has a built in caveat when being admitted to the Hall. How is that not enough?

But that's kind of inconsistent with your earlier views about comparing modern players to guys already in the Hall. If you are all about comparing players, then if an extra 3-4 years helps a modern player get a milestone stat, that's not fair to many guys who played earlier and achieved certain stats without the ability to go DH. No, the point was we don't really know with certainty how things would have played out if the DH wasn't an option. That's why I don't like it being an issue. Right. A guy like Thome should be judged based on the era(s) he played in, not hypothetical musings as to how players who died before he was even bored would have done with a DH. It's impossible to have any kind of flat base to judge all players in terms of the "ideal" player. Exactly. In contrast, we could speculate on what kind of diminished numbers the great players in the past would have put up had the talent pool not been an inch deep. Or how they might have benefited from modern nutrition and training. But that would be an endless waste of time. The game is constantly evolving, and the numbers are what they are. Trying to balance them out in relation to their context is a fool's errand. Yet you've got OMC doing precisely that above. There's no set standard. In varies from era to era and position to position.

But that's kind of inconsistent with your earlier views about comparing modern players to guys already in the Hall. If you are all about comparing players, then if an extra 3-4 years helps a modern player get a milestone stat, that's not fair to many guys who played earlier and achieved certain stats without the ability to go DH. No, the point was we don't really know with certainty how things would have played out if the DH wasn't an option. That's why I don't like it being an issue. Right. A guy like Thome should be judged based on the era(s) he played in, not hypothetical musings as to how players who died before he was even bored would have done with a DH. It's impossible to have any kind of flat base to judge all players in terms of the "ideal" player.

So what? The game isn't static. It changes over time, and so should the standards of the HoF.

He'll be 35 next season and has had issues staying healthy the last couple of years. I know, but I doubt he's signing for only one year.

How the hell is Beltran a "band-aid?"

Ugh, no.

I don't know.

It is a different time and place from when WGN helped them draw in a nationwide audience. Exposure in a starved market is how they capitalized on that issue. But that era is over. Keeping them on WGN isn't just a hit to the short-term bottom line, it's bad for long-term business. The nationwide presence is there. And it's not going anywhere, unless they just lose every season. Would anybody actually watch WGN if it weren't for the Cubs? Bulls. And for the godforsaken of the world, Blackhawks.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

The ratings are down since the last time the team was good? GETOUTTAHERE. Networknetworknetwork. [expletive] WGN and Comcast.

WGN 720. The current TV deals expire in 2019, but could theoretically be bought out. Good. Get the team on track and get a [expletive] channel so it can get even better. Signing Pujols or Fielder would be a huge step in that direction.

You can't "catch 'em all on WGN" now, so I think the world will continue spinning.

I can't wait for that become a reality, but this is probably the absolute worst possible time to announce that. Besides, aren't we still at least a couple of years away from the WGN and Comcast deals expiring?

I'd think around $4-6 million a year for 2-3 years. Probably lots of incentives.

Guys who are still FA in the middle of the season don't get offered big contracts, so that question kind of answers itself.