Sammy Sofa

Garza fucked out of amazing wins two starts in a row.

Really would not be surprised at all to see a shortened season. This is very different than what's going on with football. With the NFL everything is amazingly successful and you have people griping about not having what they think is their share of that mountain of money everyone is making. In the NBA you have teams that are in a bad, bad way and things aren't rosy financially across the board.

What "outrage" is Warren talking about?

Are you gonna sit there with a look like you [expletive] your pants on your face the entire time? Will you boo and hiss people who look like they're having a good time? If the Cubs win will you actually take that huge dump right on the field?

would that contract include the option to turn down the contract and go take a not-ridiculous offer from another major league team? I know, considering the fact that he's having an amazing season and the next best 3B options are Casey Blake and Wilson Betemit, Rammy should be looking at a large payday, one bigger than an injury prone 34 year would normally get. I just don't get why he wouldn't gladly move to a contender at this point. Yeah, his family is here, but he'd only be in Chicago half the time and I'm sure he has enough money to temporarily relocate them. You don't "get" why the guy doesn't want to go to a different team?

that'd be fine with me. you'd be getting better production at a cheaper price. but willingham should be more than $5m a year (though he'll potentially be undervalued because he's not a big name and is having a down year in oakland's cavernous confines). He'll also be 33, so it's questionable what he would get, so I was being conservative. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the Cubs had to pay anywhere between $9 million and $13 million a year to ship off Soriano. $9 million was just a shot in the dark. There's a very, very good chance the Cubs would end up still spending approx $18 million in LF. If they can upgrade, great, but I'm not so sure Willingham is that upgrade. Yes, he's in Oakland, but that's a pretty steep drop in production. He's coming on very strong in the last month so hopefully it was just a slow start in a new ballpark, but his age needs to be considered in all of this. I mean, how long would you be signing him for? Ideally it would just be for a year, but who is available as an OF FA in 2012? I know Kemp hopefully would be, but I'd figure that if the Cubs went for him they'd try and and figure out CF and RF between him and Jackson. I don't know if I want to pay Ethier the big contract he's likely to get. Who else is out there? Since you talk about Kemp so often, what do you think he could reasonably command in the 2012 offseason? Not that it really matters; the guy is my favorite position player since Griffey and I'd be ok giving him whatever he requires. Monetarily speaking. Kemp is a tough call, just because his defense in CF isn't exactly stellar and one his main strengths (speed) will deteriorate during his next longterm contract. Of course, if he has another year like this, I'd play him anywhere and not worry about stolen bases. Yeah, I really don't care about stolen bases at all and would have zero problem if he never stole another one again. I just want that [expletive] bat. Given what he can do offensively and that he'd only be 28 starting the 2013 he's not going to come cheap, but I'd be fine with the Cubs giving him whatever it takes. I can't imagine they'd be able to get him for fewer than at least 6 years, and probably starting at about $17 million per. God only knows what it'll be if he has another monster year next year like this one. Just pay the man. Him and Fielder anchoring the middle of the Cubs' lineup (with Castro hitting #2) makes me unspeakably turgid.

that'd be fine with me. you'd be getting better production at a cheaper price. but willingham should be more than $5m a year (though he'll potentially be undervalued because he's not a big name and is having a down year in oakland's cavernous confines). He'll also be 33, so it's questionable what he would get, so I was being conservative. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the Cubs had to pay anywhere between $9 million and $13 million a year to ship off Soriano. $9 million was just a shot in the dark. There's a very, very good chance the Cubs would end up still spending approx $18 million in LF. If they can upgrade, great, but I'm not so sure Willingham is that upgrade. Yes, he's in Oakland, but that's a pretty steep drop in production. He's coming on very strong in the last month so hopefully it was just a slow start in a new ballpark, but his age needs to be considered in all of this. I mean, how long would you be signing him for? Ideally it would just be for a year, but who is available as an OF FA in 2012? I know Kemp hopefully would be, but I'd figure that if the Cubs went for him they'd try and and figure out CF and RF between him and Jackson. I don't know if I want to pay Ethier the big contract he's likely to get. Who else is out there?

at league average Zambrano has value but its really minimized by that contract. Like I said he has been overpaid roughly 20 million over the last year and this year if he keeps it up. That said I dont disagree with their interest to move him and replace him with another league average pitcher that would be much cheaper. Nope, it still would be dumb on their part. You just said it yourself: his value as a trade commodity is almost completely minimized by how much he's owed. So the Cubs either trade him for complete garbage and then wade into a FA market where the pitching options are also garbage or, as with Soriano, you trade Zambrano for a slightly less awful package but end up paying a big chunk of his salary while also signing another crappy pitcher who could easily be much worse than him. The Cubs are not in a position where they need to move guys just to free up every little bit of money they can. Unless there's a demand for Zambrano it's likely not worth the effort to move him since you'd ultimately be trading him just for the sake of trading him.

I left out the obvious part that I figured I didn't have to go over it yet again because it's such common sense and it's been covered a zillion times: yes, if we lived in a fantasy world where a team was willing to take Soriano and his paycheck the Cubs should do it...but we live in the real world where any trade for Soriano would involve the Cubs almost certainly paying for at least half of his salary. So you either have Soriano (again, not blocking anyone in the system and not depriving the Cubs of a spot for an impact FA signing) for $18 million or, say, Willingham for all intents and purposes at least for $14 million (and Christ, he's awful this year, and he'd be 33 himself if the Cubs picked him up for next year), because there's almost no way the Cubs are pawning off Soriano without paying something like $9-12 million dollars a year for the rest of his contract. It's just not realistic. With or without Soriano, the Cubs are almost certainly paying WAY too much for their LF production for the next 3 seasons.

Again, who cares if they can't trade Fukudome? The most important thing is that his money is freed up after this season. If they get anything for him it's cake. And if the Cubs want to trade Zambrano they're idiots. Zambrano is still a valuable starting pitcher and they're unlikely to be able to replace him in the rotation, so trading him would just leave another huge hole to fill when they already have big questions about Cashner and Wells as starters going in to next year. Same thing with moving Soriano. Sure, it would be nice if they can unload him, but ultimately it's not essential at this point and he still provides value to the team so it's not like they need to get rid of him because he's blocking anyone in the farm or there's a FA they need to make room for. They don't NEED to trade any of these guys, and moving Zambrano and Soriano just to move them would do more harm than good.

Because they have $60 million dollars coming off the books. I'm not saying Aramis saves the season, but man, it's not like they'll be hurting for money, especially if they miss out on Prince and Pujols.

if this is the case then he should have gotten rid of Hendry last year. that would really make no sense to let him be the gm this year and then tie his hands when effectively screwing yourself for next year. While I'm not a big fan of Ricketts and I dont think he is a very savy team owner, I doubt that he would be so short sighted. I really think that it comes down to the fact that the guys we want to trade no one really wants because they havent been playing well, carry enormous contracts, and perceived baggage. What "enormous contracts?" Why do some people talk about this team like it's riddled with Soriano-esque contracts, yet only Soriano has a Soriano-esque contract? no one is paying fukudome even half of his salary to pick him up. Soriano is virtually unmovable and zambrano has been bad this year and is getting 18 million this year and next year. These are some mighty overpaid individuals. I would love to see some one take these guys but really who wants to pay this much for mediocre play? Trading Zambrano creates a hole in the lineup that they likely can't fill next year and he hasn't been that overpaid in the grand scheme of things. Fukudome is gone after this year regardless so who gives a [expletive] if nobody wants to trade for him (and he wasn't all that overpaid for most of his contract)? So that leaves us, again, with Soriano as having the only "enormous contract" and even that isn't that big a deal anymore with all the money coming off the books after this year and the next (coupled with it not being likely that they could match or exceed his production via significantly cheaper FA next season).

Go join PrimeTime.

Bedard?

Yeah, I already knew the 3B choices after this year were horrible.

Eat many balls.

i can't imagine that would work. he's guaranteed $2m if the cubs buy him out, so that would be the equivalent of signing a 2 year, $18 million free agent deal after a buyout. that would be a terrible deal for him coming off what seems to be a strong year where he's outproducing the average 3B pretty badly. Then up it if necessary. I'm just spitballing. If he's the obvious best option for the next 2 seasons then pay him for another 2-3 years.

What FA options at 3B will be out there after the 2012 season? If it looks pretty desolate I'd rather try and sign him for something like 2 years /$20 million total.

I'm really not set on the Cubs trading Aramis if it means they can sign him back for, say, an affordable 2-year-contract. If him staying makes that more likely, eh, so be it, because they'll [expletive] need him next year.

if this is the case then he should have gotten rid of Hendry last year. that would really make no sense to let him be the gm this year and then tie his hands when effectively screwing yourself for next year. While I'm not a big fan of Ricketts and I dont think he is a very savy team owner, I doubt that he would be so short sighted. I really think that it comes down to the fact that the guys we want to trade no one really wants because they havent been playing well, carry enormous contracts, and perceived baggage. What "enormous contracts?" Why do some people talk about this team like it's riddled with Soriano-esque contracts, yet only Soriano has a Soriano-esque contract?

The list that kicked this off is really, really horrible. I'm going to pick on the Soriano point because nobody else has and because he had another point where he specified that the mistake was overpaying, yet with Soriano he said the mistake was simply signing him. I think that's wrong. Soriano is a very, very flawed player and not worth what he got, but if the Cubs had signed him for something like 5 years/$75 million I wouldn't have had a problem with it. He wasn't the 40/40 guy the Cubs stupidly thought they were paying for, but Soriano was a huge part of 2007 and 2008 (yes, even with the injuries). Overpaying and giving him 8 years were the bad moves. Just signing him isn't so easily dismissed.

no, and i don't think the Garza trade was a bad move, just not one i'd go out of my way to champion We don't have to "champion" it; we're only recognizing good moves, and short of Garza becoming useless and one or more of the prospects becoming good it's already a good move because the Cubs were dealing from positions of strength.

I could see them going with Gillick with the idea that his assistant would be someone young who could be "mentored" by him and take over when he retires. I could see Gillick being the one in charge of overhauling thought and whatnot, retiring after 2-3 years and then his successor taking over to lead the Cubs long term. That's true, though I don't think that would be their first choice.

Everyone wants a pitcher like Garza, too. The Cubs were fortunate enough to have a prospect that valuable at a position of strength. Those are the kind of moves/gambles that teams should take when they can. Does it always work out? No, but neither do prospects, even the top 50-kind (wherefore art thou, Bobby Hill?). Do you think the Red Sox trading Hanley Ramirez for Josh Beckett was a bad move (yes, I know more players were involved)?

No, it would be like trading $100 bucks for $1000 bucks and then through smart investments the $100 became $1000 for someone else.