Sammy Sofa

And where did those WAR #'s come from? BR has Byrd at: 2008: 3.6 2009: 3.6 2010: 2.2 Bourn: 2008: -2.1 2009: 2.6 2010: 4.5

I was referring to position players since that was the obvious tract of the discussion. My mistake for not being more clear. And again, nobody is saying the farm is ideal or doesn't still need a lot of work.

Thanks, SP. Yeah, mine is pretty brutal, too. No transactions until the ASB, as well. Adam Dunn Prince Fielder Adrian Gonzalez Carlos Pena Carlos Quentin Aramis Ramirez Victor Martinez Adam Jones Carl Crawford Alexei Ramirez Jason Heyward Jimmy Rollins Those bolded ones are just killing me right now.

Michael Bourn: 2009: 4.9 WAR 2010: 4.8 WAR Marlon Byrd: 2009: 1.6 WAR 2010: 4.3 WAR Not sure what the point is, since I don't think you'll find any Byrd super-fans here.

It's a pretty good bet that Castro is going to be manning one of the top 2 spots for a while (hopefully #2). 3-4 can be filled via FA. Not being able to fill those slots internally doesn't mean the farm system is a failure. Nobody's saying the Cubs' farm system is ideal or set right now, but the repeated efforts to make it sound like it's barren just makes people sound ignorant.

No way is this system better than it has been in decades. That's ridiculous. One decade ago it was better. There may be multiple guys who project as useful, but the majority of those will still fail to live up to their limited projections. In regards to position players? What the [expletive] are you talking about? The Patterson-Choi-Hill era?

That's a terrible reason. Realizing where the player is likely going to be in conjunction with the team's progression isn't a terrible reason. When your a big market team with a group of good young players like Castro, Soto, Barney, Garza, Cashner, and Marmol, Marshall and a decent farm system, theres no reason not to be able to build a perenial contender around the best player in the world. If they cant manage that, there are a lot of people that need to be fired. If Pujols leaves the Cards, their likely done. When Fielder leaves the Brewers, they might be competitve for another year or 2 until Greinke and Marcum leave, and then their empty farm system leaves them in trouble. After that, I could really see the NL Central coming down to the Cubs, Reds, and Pirates for the next several years. That "group of good young players" is actually quite depressing. You know things aren't good when Barney starts to show up in that category. Again, it's all about expectations. Yes, no superstars on the near future horizon now that Castro is up. But there are also several that project to be very useful everyday players. And you know some of them project to be better than Barney, so don't act like all of a sudden he's the relative diamond in a pile of turds. In all, the farm system is much better than it's been in decades. There's still plenty of work to be done in that regard, but at least they do have guys who have a very good chance to come up and contribute a la a player like Byrd instead of having to go out and waste money on them. That gives you a lot more options (and a lot more money to work with) when players like Pujols and Fielder and Reyes and Kemp and so on show up as FA.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/That-8217-s-wild-Cubs-8217-Berg-throws-only-;_ylt=Ak7PV2lcAsrtxsdWCjfI28URvLYF?urn=mlb-wp7742 ALMOST ONLY THE COBS

The baseball draft doesn't work that way 99% of the time.

That's a terrible reason. Realizing where the player is likely going to be in conjunction with the team's progression isn't a terrible reason. If you're convinced that Pujols is on a serious decline, fine, but to pass on a player of his ideal impact simply because the team isn't better is usually a terrible idea given how many wins he ideally brings if he's signed. The Cubs would have to be REALLY bad to justify that. I do think he will decline quickly to where that contract is hurting the team more than will provide. Given the roster, there's no doubt they need a strength anywhere on the team. They do nothing well. I question Pujols' health for the long-term, he's got a bad elbow, heel problems, and hamstring issues. Just wonder with him, if it right to pay for his past without getting that in the present. The fact the Cubs are a bad team right now doesn't help that window. Like I said, if you think he will decline too quickly, fine. If you think they should pass on him just because the team is bad, that's nonsensical. It's fortunately not an all or nothing situation for the Cubs.

No rush. Thanks. I'm pretty sure I know who the main culprits are.

Actually, I don't even know what makes up all of my horrible team right now. Southpaw, when you get a chance, can you wrangle that up?

Holy Christ; Dunn still only has 5 HR?!?!? You're breaking my heart, Big Donkey.

Dempster's going to have to be really good the rest of the way to get teams to bite with that player's option looming.

And dumbass Cubs fans everywhere will think he's a future starter.

So that's the threshold for "psyche-damaging?" Not sure what you're getting at, but Rose has immense pressure in his hometown and this will be a long offseason for the young guy. What I'm getting at is your ridiculous idea that having three bad games against the Heat in the ECF is going to "damage his psyche." What good or great players DON'T have humbling losses like this? It's part of developing into a better player when you're as young as him.

That's a terrible reason. Realizing where the player is likely going to be in conjunction with the team's progression isn't a terrible reason. If you're convinced that Pujols is on a serious decline, fine, but to pass on a player of his ideal impact simply because the team isn't better is usually a terrible idea given how many wins he ideally brings if he's signed. The Cubs would have to be REALLY bad to justify that.

That's a terrible reason.

And most of those Web Gems? Those are mostly due to balls that are driven, not dinky little rollers to an infielder for the bajillionth time. Every so often you'll get someone doing something awesome with a ball off of a bunt or swinging bunt, but not usually.

Like who? Bulls fans have bitched nonstop about all 3 teams the Bulls faced in the playoffs. Would it have been better if they lose to the Celtics or Magic instead?

I don't have the numbers to support this, but wasn't baseball far more popular during the steroid era, when home run records were falling left and right? I understand that some people, like yourself and maybe some others on the board, would like that type of game, but that doesn't mean it's good for the game if it doesn't appeal to the casual fans. By what measure? Attendance or relevance? I think attendance numbers were high during the 90's and 2000's for baseball (as with a lot of sports) but I would definitely say that baseball is less relevant than 20 years ago. And a large part of the complaint is that games simply take too long without enough action to support it. And the most dynamic action in the game is due to power hitters. That only happens about once every hour and a half though in a normal game. Not nearly enough for the attention span of most people. It's still the biggest draw.

I don't have the numbers to support this, but wasn't baseball far more popular during the steroid era, when home run records were falling left and right? I understand that some people, like yourself and maybe some others on the board, would like that type of game, but that doesn't mean it's good for the game if it doesn't appeal to the casual fans. By what measure? Attendance or relevance? I think attendance numbers were high during the 90's and 2000's for baseball (as with a lot of sports) but I would definitely say that baseball is less relevant than 20 years ago. And a large part of the complaint is that games simply take too long without enough action to support it. And the most dynamic action in the game is due to power hitters.

I don't have the numbers to support this, but wasn't baseball far more popular during the steroid era, when home run records were falling left and right? I understand that some people, like yourself and maybe some others on the board, would like that type of game, but that doesn't mean it's good for the game if it doesn't appeal to the casual fans. Yeah, I would have real doubts about baseball being able to come out OK from another "pitcher's era."

Bourn's career in Houston thus far: .263 .332 .347 .679 84 Ye gads.

I already do.