Sammy Sofa

Hence why I said "shred of leverage." On top of that it just makes the organization look crappy. Zambrano has done more than enough on his own to make himself look like a mess. The organization piling on serves to accomplish...what? Meatballism, rolling merrily along, yet again. Oh, and teams DO want him. To say otherwise is absurd. Teams are always convinced they have the staff or the change of scenery to make a talented but troubled player click. They just don't want him where they have to give up anything of significant value because they know the Cubs are effectively over a barrel right now if they want to trade him. Multiple teams have taken chances on Milton Bradley, and he's an even worse headcase than Zambrano. Teams took chances on seemingly washed up junkie Josh Hamilton. There will be teams that want to take a chance with Zambrano.

Works for me.

I'm sorry, but how do you guys think that this information is finally getting out? People inside the organization are talking, obviously. And how it would be worse if the official word from the top was to not discuss the matter with the press? That should be the standard with these type of issues.

SERIOUS LIST IS SO SERIOUS.

Yes, how dare THE CUBS let anyone know that Zambrano drinks coffee. AND RED BULL TOO! Please, please, please do not confuse "players" talking about Zambrano with "the Cubs." You're grasping at straws you desperately want there but don't know for sure. Makes you look bad. That's never stopped him before. LOL I was using sarcasm to highlight the absurdity of YOUR post. You are the one grasping at straws and looking bad doing so. What, exactly, did THE CUBS leak??? Where could that information have come from except from players or (more likely) other people working throughout the organization? The word to everyone working for the organization, players or otherwise, after all of this went should have been DON'T TALK TO THE PRESS. Is that going to completely keep people from leaking information? Of course not, but otherwise this is fitting right into their too predictable pattern of further tearing down a player on the outs when people have such an obvious abundance of info to work with. And I have no idea how your sarcasm was supposed to "work." It's not like they were leaking basic info about his dietary habits. The coffee and Red Bull came up specifically in regards to how it effects his cramping and his supposed refusal or unwillingness to cut back despite the advice of the trainers/medical staff. Seems like a pretty stupid thing to be letting get out there. Just helps smash any shred of leverage they hope to have in trading him to dust.

Hot damn. What a day.

While I'm all for Fielder or Pujols at any cost, I understand the concern. Looking at some of the massive contracts handed out in recent years, they just don't seem to end well. Soriano gave the Cubs 2 great years before a dreadful 2009 before becoming more productive, but nowhere worth the money in '10 and '11. Big Z was never the ace we paid for. As for other teams, the ink was barely dry on Alex Rios and Vernon Wells contracts before the Blue Jays wanted out. Barry Zito and Aaron Rowand were huge mistakes for the Giants, Jason Schmidt, Juan Pierre, Andruw Jones, and Rafeal FurcalX2 were all awful for the Dodgers. Jason Werth and Adam Dunn have both been beyong awful for their teams in the early goings of their contracts. Matt Holliday has been very good for the Cards so far, but he's only in year 2 in what I believe is a 7 year deal. Looking at all of these contracts, it's easy to see why any team would be hesitant to hand out a 5-7 year contract to any player, unlessit's like the Braun, Tulo, or Longoria ones in which the team is essentially buying out the players primes at a team friendlly price. OR LIKE FIELDER AND PUJOLS? Christ.

The manager is relatively incidental in this kind of discussion.

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. Yes, how dare THE CUBS let anyone know that Zambrano drinks coffee. AND RED BULL TOO! Please, please, please do not confuse "players" talking about Zambrano with "the Cubs." You're grasping at straws you desperately want there but don't know for sure. Makes you look bad. That's never stopped him before.

The bold part isn't certain at all. He obviously will be declining at some point in the contract, but your wording makes it sound like he's all but a lock to have career-low WARs each year of his contract.

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?"