Sammy Sofa

Just go sit down, Rose.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahaahahhahahahahaaaaah!!!

Eat [expletive] [expletive], Boozer.

Zero chance the Bulls win this. Rose is just on a rampage of uselessness.

Rose is [expletive] sucking so unbelievably hard these last 3 games.

Don't. It won't last.

Meh. I'm happy with how far they got. The whole season was a good learning experience. Shore up that #2 guard spot and come back stronger and wiser next year. And pray that Dwight Howard doesn't end up on the Lakers.

Could?

Bulls could have been up by at least a dozen at the end of the 1st thanks to all the open 3's they bricked.

Bulls are basically [expletive] messily all over the court.

Bulls looking like they're gonna lose this one hard.

Great; now you've done it.

That Ryan Howard contract was yikes from day #1.

The Helton deal wasn't horrible, but the Rockies definitely didn't get what they must have thought they were buying into in 2003.

http://i852.photobucket.com/albums/ab86/SivaMi/Action/Applause.gif Magnificent. You never let us down.

You would look to "gut the roster?" And playing in the Eastern Conference finals against the Heat in a year when just making the second round would have been an accomplishment is "one of the must frustrating playoff series you've ever watched?" U mad?

I think the debate over how much profit Pujols has to bring in has ended, if that's what you're referring to (and I'm pretty sure it is). I know I'm done with it. Same here.

I actually posted that before I realized the contract was front loaded. That changes my opinion some, though ARod's very good numbers this year appear boosted by quite a bit of luck (.304 BABIP vs a 12.9 LD%). Right now he looks like a mid-.800s OPS guy being paid $25-29 mil over the next few years if he doesn't decline at all. Knowing it's frontloaded, I'd lean toward taking it but it gets a lot less attractive when you know you're missing out on the awesome numbers at the front end of the deal. Oh, definitely. I wouldn't be nearly as thrilled about this as when there were the rumors that he might look elsewhere a few years ago.

Meh, I'd still be willing to it if they're just inexplicably saying "here you go."

Of course, especially since his contract is front-loaded.

Personally I don't find it depressing at all. Even without the lack of projected star players right now the farm is still in better shape than it's been a long while and even just generating a few good everyday players would be a huge improvement. This is also a team with a lot of money at their disposal, so they can afford to sign the all-stars they need. Mix that with some smart, lower tier FA signings and some solid players developed internally and they can have a really good team that competes each year. What's going to be key is who ends up being the the next GM and when. Agreed for the most part, but, like you said, are we confident that we have a GM to benefit from those positive things? Also, as we've learned the hard way in the playoffs, without a few dominant starters and a few hitters people are afraid of, it's hard to win. It's nice to win 97 games, but when you don't have a no-doubt #1 pitcher or anyone who is almost guaranteed to hit in a series, it doesn't mean much. Then again, losing in the playoffs is much preferred to the purgatory we're in now. If we could figure out a way to sign Pujols AND build around him, we'd be talking! No, I'm not confident in Hendry doing all of those things. I'm also not confident in the Ricketts firing him before this Pujols thing plays out, too. Actually, I have little doubt he could handle signing the superstar FA's. My concern with him is mostly the mid-tier signings.

Personally I don't find it depressing at all. Even without the lack of projected star players right now the farm is still in better shape than it's been a long while and even just generating a few good everyday players would be a huge improvement. This is also a team with a lot of money at their disposal, so they can afford to sign the all-stars they need. Mix that with some smart, lower tier FA signings and some solid players developed internally and they can have a really good team that competes each year. What's going to be key is who ends up being the the next GM and when.

It not just those guys. It's if the Cubs keep talking themselves out of guys like Dunn and Fielder and Pujols and whoever shows up. There's always going to be a good argument against sinking a ton of money into a FA superstar. If the Cubs keep listening to that side of things they're not going to be very good unless they pull of some miracle trades and/or some miracles happen in the farm system. Isn't that pretty much any team, though? You have to have a solid combination of all of those things. Look at the Red Sox: yeah, they've traded for and resigned Gonzalez, signed Crawford, traded for Beckett, signed Lackey and Drew, etc... but they also have a ton of homegrown talent, including Pedroia, Youkilis, Lowrie, Ellsbury, Papelbon, Bucholz, Bard, Lester, etc... in addition to some good buy low candidates such as Salty and Ortiz. Basically, they've done everything right and the Cubs haven't and that's why they've won. Well, that and Manny and Ortiz were on the juice. Oh, there definitely has to be a balance. The problem is that the Cubs really don't have anyone in their farm system that project beyond beyond solid everyday players as their ceiling now that Castro is up. Those kind of prospects can still be plenty valuable, but the Cubs also need superstar "tent-pole" players they can build around.

It not just those guys. It's if the Cubs keep talking themselves out of guys like Dunn and Fielder and Pujols and whoever shows up. There's always going to be a good argument against sinking a ton of money into a FA superstar. If the Cubs keep listening to that side of things they're not going to be very good unless they pull of some miracle trades and/or some miracles happen in the farm system.

Very few, which is precisely why I jumped all over the "walking moneymaker" comment in the first place. It's a fantasy. But you do realize you've created your expectations for what that phrase means, right? I wasn't arguing that he would pay for himself. What it means to make money? I don't think I'm out in left field on that one. No; what "walking moneymaker" means. To you that apparently means somehow being able to completely offset the cost with some kind of identifiable, singular increase directly attributable to Pujols. To me, and seemingly everyone else, it means "make more money then they're making now."