Sammy Sofa

I didn't take that as defense of Hendry. He hasn't gotten it done and it's time for him to go. IMO it was a dig at the "wannabe GMs" and their notion that if the Cubs were only smart enough to sign A and B, and trade X and Y for Z, bam they'd be awesome. Well Adam Dunn was last year's 'step A' signing. Point being, if you think you could/would do better, think again. Any of us would make lots of mistakes in that job (albeit probably different ones). Not signing Dunn wasn't a "smart move." It turned out to be a lucky move.

Hendry's best move this year. So much for all of the wannabe GMs here who were begging for Adam Dunn. You're kidding, right? You're going to sit there and pretend that ANYONE predicted that Dunn would fall off a cliff this season?

Of course there's zero chance Quade was gonna use Soto.

You say this like it's a bad thing.

Awesome news. I love watching a Cubs TV broadcast and actually having a good play by play guy handling things. Here's hoping he's here for a long time after this deal.

Except you didn't come across as agreeing with anything with how you responded. Yeah, it's semantics, but you obviously posed your response as a rebuttal instead of any kind of agreement or added concern. If you can't tell the difference, fine, I understand. Even if you thought I was only disagreeing there was no reason to be an [expletive] in your response. Sure there is. You're the king of the "OH MY GOD, SOMEONE MIGHT BE DEFENDING HENDRY!!!" brigade.

There isn't. Any player/front office amenities need to go in a different building/underground. At that point aren't you spending a bazillion dollars and still not getting something that's properly functional? It's not like a guy warming up to pinch hit can quick run across the street to use the batting cage. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought one of the main points of the triangle building would be moving the FO space and as much as the non-baseball/fan space over there as possible. I guess it's not clear to me how building the triangle building is going to open up the space needed to expand and add modern player facilities underneath the 3rd base grandstands. If somehow it does, then great. Well, on it's own it's not going to do much outside of expanding the commercial areas. For it to truly work they need to do the grandstand renovation that needs to be done and the Ricketts obviously want to do.

Except you didn't come across as agreeing with anything with how you responded. Yeah, it's semantics, but you obviously posed your response as a rebuttal instead of any kind of agreement or added concern. If you can't tell the difference, fine, I understand.

It's like the days are creeping by. I need to dump Dunn like a tumor.

Probably, but man, I always think that would be an amazing spot for a new stadium.

There isn't. Any player/front office amenities need to go in a different building/underground. At that point aren't you spending a bazillion dollars and still not getting something that's properly functional? It's not like a guy warming up to pinch hit can quick run across the street to use the batting cage. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought one of the main points of the triangle building would be moving the FO space and as much as the non-baseball/fan space over there as possible.

Yes, but the problem with the article and the meatball-thinking it's parroting is that firing the FO would have saved this season or might even turn it around. Firing Hendry and Co. IS the right thing to do...but no way in hell would it shut up the meatballs this year (NO, THIS ISN'T AN ARGUMENT TO KEEP HENDRY). But firing him now would start the rehab project sooner and more importantly eliminate the very real possibility that Hendry won't be fired at all. Jesus [expletive] Christ; are you [expletive] blind? Did I need to blow the final part up into gigantic neon letters? Are you illiterate? I never accused you of arguing to keep Hendry. But there is a very real chance that Hendry won't be fired at all after this season, so one of the reasons for wanting it done ASAP is making sure it gets done at all. No, I'm not illiterate, since only an illiterate wouldn't realize that writing the response you did was obviously written as if it was countering something I said. You did your usual "gloss a post over even it is only three sentences long and then just assume that it said something I can argue against." How about you start actually [expletive] reading posts instead of just guessing as to what's being said?

Yes, but the problem with the article and the meatball-thinking it's parroting is that firing the FO would have saved this season or might even turn it around. Firing Hendry and Co. IS the right thing to do...but no way in hell would it shut up the meatballs this year (NO, THIS ISN'T AN ARGUMENT TO KEEP HENDRY). I'm going to read it again, I didn't get the impression that Woj meant that firings would save or would have saved this season. Maybe he implied that it would have gotten Tom more good will and helped ticket sales early which, if so, I agree with him on Edit: The Cubs are such a unique situation. In one hand, it's perfectly reasonable for him to be taking this year to really assess the entire organization from the ground up. Multiple new owners across all sports have done the exact same thing. Unfortunately, there's are a lot of different factors with this team from the pesky century plus thing, Wrigley, bad contracts etc that make this year of toiling very frustrating I completely understood taking the first year to kind of get settled in, but I really can't justify Hendry being kept on after that. I understand that a new GM wouldn't have made much a difference on this year (and personally I don't think it would have done much of anything with the tickets since it likely would be the same team), but I would have preferred to see the FO turnover taken care of before the upcoming FA bonanza. Dealing with a changing FO right as that is opening up makes me nervous and I want Hendry and Co. out sooner rather than later, regardless of the meatballs.

Yes, but the problem with the article and the meatball-thinking it's parroting is that firing the FO would have saved this season or might even turn it around. Firing Hendry and Co. IS the right thing to do...but no way in hell would it shut up the meatballs this year (NO, THIS ISN'T AN ARGUMENT TO KEEP HENDRY). But firing him now would start the rehab project sooner and more importantly eliminate the very real possibility that Hendry won't be fired at all. Jesus [expletive] Christ; are you [expletive] blind? Did I need to blow the final part up into gigantic neon letters?

Yes, but the problem with the article and the meatball-thinking it's parroting is that firing the FO would have saved this season or might even turn it around. Firing Hendry and Co. IS the right thing to do...but no way in hell would it shut up the meatballs this year (NO, THIS ISN'T AN ARGUMENT TO KEEP HENDRY).

Eh, he COULD very easily fire Hendry now, and should have fired him after last season. That said, I agree, the article as a whole is very meatball-ish in how it seemingly expects the Ricketts to have created a better team for this season out of thin air.

Looking at the career line seems pretty unhelpful with a guy like Soto. Like you said, he's been either tolerable or terrific (or hurt). He's never had a season that's simply good. It's always been well above or well below that. One would have to imagine that such extreme volatility would lower his value to other teams. man, you are never right. What am I wrong about? Do you disagree that Soto's production has been volatile over his 3+ years (as compared to other players)? Do you disagree that volatile production is inherently a bad thing (as compared to consistent production)? To me it's very simple. Teams will more highly value a guy that OPS's ~.800 consistently versus a guy that OPS's .900 some years and .700 other years. Now I know those aren't Soto's exact numbers, and I also realize nobody hits the same OPS number every year, but Soto is much more the latter guy than the former guy. So to point to a career OPS of ~.800 and say that's who this guy is, isn't really very accurate. In fact it's misleading. It's only misleading in that he's bounced between being tolerable and really, really good while being cheap. "Misleading" implies that it's hiding something bad.

Well, it's obviously more specific along those lines, but it's not like hip-hop isn't riddled with those kind of threats.

Really not in the same universe as something like "Earl."

I love country, and I think going to a Garth Brooks concert would kill me.

I'd like to think that video is the moment where Garth Brooks went insane and decided he wasn't just a shlumpy guy playing bad pop country that everyone love...no, he was an AC-TOR and he would play characters and CHRIS GAINES WOULD CHANGE THE WORRRRRRRRRRRRRLLLLLLLLLLD!!!

"Great song?" Even just by diss track standards it's lame.

Dude was bragging about [expletive] Faith Evans, not killing her.

Yeah, not much of a hit, but still. Country is filled with songs, hits or otherwise, about people killing their spouses.

http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-hits-keep-coming-30-songs-inspired-by-domestic,57741/