Jump to content
Can the Cubs build on the momentum of last night's win? Join our game thread! ×
North Side Baseball

Sammy Sofa

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • 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

  1. Sammy Sofa
    I actually agree with AceCubbie on this. I really think the Ricketts are going to want to go with someone younger than Gillick to run the Cubs' FO.
  2. Sammy Sofa
    can you really make that determination before knowing what Hak-Ju Lee becomes? Sure. If Garza has an excellent career with the Cubs that isn't negated if Lee pans out to be a very good (or better) everyday player.
  3. Sammy Sofa
    As a good one, obviously. Yes, there's the chance that Garza tanks and one or two of the prospects goes on to be very useful...but I doubt it (that both things happen). Trading for a young pitcher with Garza's ability that you have under control beyond the immediate season is a good, smart move for the future.
  4. Sammy Sofa
    Are you including Garza with the DeRosa trade? Because the Garza trade definitely deserves its own mention.
  5. Sammy Sofa
    quade's performance? he was given a mediocre roster that suffered a lot of injuries, so they turned into a downright bad team. granted, quade has managed those bad players poorly, but i really hope they weren't pinning this poor year on mike quade. the guy just doesn't matter that much. Yeah, I really don't care if Quade came back for his final year, but if him getting the boot means that Hendry would be gone, well, then it's bye-bye Mike.
  6. Sammy Sofa
    Yeah, I know he's still 5 years away, but I really like that pick. That long? What's his age? He turned 20 earlier this year.
  7. Sammy Sofa
    To be useful next year, Baker wouldn't have to be an everyday starter. He'd just have to be the right handed side of a platoon at either 2nd or 3rd (isn't Flaherty a lefty?). That's his best role and one he could thrive in. Also, I'm not sold that Baker would garner that much interest in trade. A team with a pressing need for right handed power might overpay, but it was just a couple of years ago that we got Baker for Al Albuqerque, a nice reliever now but a lightly regarded prospect at the time. Baker's done more since the Cubs acquired him, but he's still the same basic player he was then - a power bat against lefties, bad against righties and a couple years older. Right, WSR is again vastly overrating a Cubs player when it comes to what they're likely get in return for a trade. Obviously, if there's a good offer out there, go for it, but Baker has relatively limited use that arguably is more valuable for the Cubs next year than shipping him off. Re-signing Aramis is a big if, and just assuming that it'll get done is foolish.
  8. Sammy Sofa
    Yeah, I know he's still 5 years away, but I really like that pick.
  9. Sammy Sofa
    I think there's a happy medium. Guys like Brennamen and Harrelson have a tendency to excessively whine and complain, almost even bash other teams. There could be a little bit of rose colored glasses here, but Len doesn't really go there. When I think "homer" I think of someone who calls the game based more on a rooting interested than what is actually going on. Of course there should be a slight bias, but not to the extent that some guys call a game. Why not? Their intended audience are fans of the team they work for. Because I want to hear a legitimate broadcast, not a cheer-leading squad. Guys like Harrelson and Brennaman, Harrelson being the absolute extreme can ruin an entire broadcast, even if you are on their side. Hawk and Brennaman are hacks and have plenty of examples of being "cheerleaders," but I'm still baffled as to why you're complaining when that happens when their team wins in walk-off fashion. It would be one thing if you were showing a clip of him calling a Reds home run like that yet they were still down by God knows how many runs and had no chance to win, but come on...complaining that they're being too excited or "homers" over a walk-off win is [expletive] ridiculous.
  10. Sammy Sofa
    Is it? It's still up in the air as to how 2B and 3B will play out for the Cubs next year, and Baker could play a big part in either.
  11. Sammy Sofa
    I think there's a happy medium. Guys like Brennamen and Harrelson have a tendency to excessively whine and complain, almost even bash other teams. There could be a little bit of rose colored glasses here, but Len doesn't really go there. When I think "homer" I think of someone who calls the game based more on a rooting interested than what is actually going on. Of course there should be a slight bias, but not to the extent that some guys call a game. Why not? Their intended audience are fans of the team they work for.
  12. Sammy Sofa
    This. I can't stand Brennaman but I loved the way he called that home run. Right. It just strikes me as bizarre to be mad when a hometown announcer gets excited over his team having a walk-off win. Sure, it was pretty a pretty hacky call, but Aramis Fan seems pissed that he's excited over it, period.
  13. Sammy Sofa
    Why would you want hometown announcers to be neutral? They SHOULD be homers.
  14. Sammy Sofa
    Aramis Fan is easily disgusted.
  15. Sammy Sofa
    I'm really pulling for you, Soul. You seem trapped in a really weird, depressing perception of how the Cubs should be run, and one day you'll be free of that.
  16. Sammy Sofa
    What's the problem?
  17. Sammy Sofa
    Pretty much everything I've been saying, but well said.
  18. Sammy Sofa
    Well that's completely and totally wrong.
  19. Sammy Sofa
    Then you want the impossible. It's all but inevitable that you're going to be overpaying at some point if you're trying to lock up a superstar. If you refuse to that then you have a team full of Darwin Barneys and Marlon Byrds with a few blips above or below them for the forseable future, and that's a recipe for mediocrity or worse for the next decade. I have no idea why you would prefer this route, but that's what you're getting and the Cubs go chicken-[expletive] and refuse to pay for superstar FA because they inexplicably decide they live in a world where nobody overpays for those kind of players (even though everyone does and has to). I mean, you DO realize that not every player that gets a huge contract isn't Soriano, right? You do realize the Cubs are owned by very, very rich people and make a lot of money, yes? I'm not saying they spend just to spend, but it would be flat out stupid to not take advantage of the huge resources at your disposal, especially when players like Pujols or Fielder roll around right at the moment you have money to spend, you need an offensive superstar (well, at least a couple, actually), and you need someone to play 1B.
  20. Sammy Sofa
    How? Superstar players cost are always going to cost money. Again, the Cubs have absolutely zero prospects right now that project to that level and thereabouts for the foreseeable future. They do have, however, a number of intriguing prospects who should produce a few everyday players. They're a big market team with money to spend. Wouldn't you rather see a happy medium where the Cubs develop useful players internally, continue to work towards developing similar and better players down the line, but also take advantage of the resources at their disposal and make smart FA signings to make the team better? It's not an either/or proposition. I don't understand why you would want the team to be bad when they don't have to be. The Cubs can easily spend big for outside players and develop and re-sign their own players. The key is a good FO that can balance the team's options, not going miserly or going nuts with the spending.
  21. Sammy Sofa
    Holy crap, please stop. WE'RE NOT GOING DOWN ANY ROAD "AGAIN." Pujols and Fielder are not Soriano, no many times you attempt to compare signing them to signing him. And you never know what any FA will be 6 years after you sign them. You're going to be signing big name FA who are pushing 30 (or past it) unless you develop them internally. Well, the Cubs have absolutely nobody even close to that on the horizon, thus they need to go out and spend. When you sign big names you've got to pay. The key, again, is overpaying for the right guys, and yes, you WILL be overpaying for players like that. Always. And the Cubs are a big market with lots of money to spend, so I don't know why you want them to just automatically not spend money on big contracts unless it's on a player they developed themselves. They have the money to make these kind of signings and SHOULD make them. Yes, I wish the Cubs would develop players like Fielder and Pujols...but they haven't and they won't any time soon. In the meantime they need to sign good FA to go along with more and more players they hopefully develop from within who can be useful everyday players.
  22. Sammy Sofa
    Depends on who is getting the contract. Soriano? No, of course not. Pujols? [expletive] yeah. Prince? Damn right (I'd prefer to land him for 6 years, but I don't think that's going to happen). No dollar amount/years (within reason) should be verboten, and both of those factors are well within reason for the right players, especially for a big market team like the Cubs. The key is having a FO smart enough to overpay for the right guys (and build a team around them) instead of the Sorianos of the world.
  23. Sammy Sofa
    STEP OFF, BRA.
  24. Sammy Sofa
    Very true. No need to be more specific than that, because then you're implying correlation between that and something more specific than an unfortunate reality of human nature. Saying that Wrigley or sports in general cause any sort of increased correlation to such behavior is just as thick-headed as the behavior itself. IBL/split. I never said Wrigley was some kind of unique factor. I do indeed think sports fandom elevates too many people's innate prejudices to the surface in the heat of the moment. How someone could be adamant that an environment involving such irrational, spur of the moment emotional peaks and valleys WOULDN'T have an effect on personal prejudices is beyond me.
  25. Sammy Sofa
    Not me. Seriously, I think most of the people that go to Wrigley (and most sports fans) are shallow scum. They just go with the flow and are easily swayed. Most of them may not be actively "racist," but they're pretty damn prejudiced and love to believe all kinds of absurd stereotypes as to why players don't perform as they want/expect them to, and there's a very clear difference across baseball, football and basketball as to what those expectations are for non-white players vs. white ones. No, it's not a hard and fast rule, but anyone who thinks the racial divide in America isn't explicitly on display in those sports on a near daily basis is just fooling themselves. Our racial prejudices are so deeply ingrained that of course it should be no surprise to see how naturally they flow forth when people get all worked up over sports.
×
×
  • Create New...