Sammy Sofa

So you've got Fukudome gone after next year, which means that RF needs to be taken care of. Yeah, I know Colvin is a lot of people's favorite of the moment, but if the Cubs are trying to offset a declining Soriano in terms of OF production they'll have to aim higher, unless Colvin shows some significant growth in his time as a 4th OF in 2011. I have no idea what to expect out of Byrd his last two years here. His first half was a lot of fun to watch, but his second half has been pretty pedestrian at best with long stretches of crappiness. Does Austin Jackson still project as a CF in the bigs? How likely is it we could/should see him up with the Cubs? Could he be ready by 2012?

Barf.

So they suck it up one more year and look to replace him in in LF in 2012 if he stinks again in 2011. Or they look to shore up RF and/or CF to offset his decline. It's not like the money he's getting paid is going to be a surprise to the organization; they don't have to wait him out. An organization that makes as much money as the Cubs shouldn't have a problem absorbing Soriano's contract in its final years, though so long as Ricketts holds onto Hendry then it's likely to be a problem. What's the OF FA class looking like after 2011?

So when it's clear he's no longer any good just bench him. Seems simple enough.

TAKE A DEEP BREATH.

Use the bridge next time, jersey.

The boners.

That last part is true, which is why they should do the smart thing and go with guy like Quade instead of a rampaging ego-monster like Sandberg. Though I'm still not sure why you don't think it's impressive when a team can beat up on playoff teams when they don't care.

That means only 46% of his home runs over his career have been clutch. LESS THAN 50%?!?!?! He's history's greatest monster.

This is a wonderful, wonderful quote. Apparently it doesn't matter if the Cubs beat playoff teams; it only matters if it actually matters to the Cubs. So does that mean the trick is for the Cubs to actually play like the games don't matter to them? Because the wins count only if the game matters to the Cubs, and the Cubs can't win when the game actually matters to them, so they somehow need to play the entire season like it doesn't matter. WE'VE CRACKED THE CODE.

Heads. Balls are sulley's territory.

They've played a number of games against teams still fighting for the playoffs. Are you impressed though? I'm flabbergasted.

I'd like to think that Hendry says stuff like that just to appease the meatheads...but we all know that's not the case.

They've played a number of games against teams still fighting for the playoffs.

So, are you saying: a) If the Yankees showed interest in acquiring Carlos Zambrano outright, or even for 90% of his contract - you would be against the Cubs pulling the trigger on this? Perhaps. They don't need to trade him. If a team was offering a decent return in terms of who was being traded to the Cubs I'd be much inclined to like the deal than if it was simply a money dump. That said, I think that scenario, or one similar to it, is all but a lock not to happen. Yes. Fukudome has the edge due to his defense and his OBP since Colvin's comparable OPS is based on a likely unsustainable slugging percentage. Like I said, Colvin will still get plenty of playing time as the 4th OF next year, so he'll have a ton of chances to show what he can do. Again, I don't think such a scenario is likely until closer to the trade deadline next season. Like with Zambrano, the Cubs have done too much themselves to lower Fukudome's stock and I don't trust them to be able to move him in the off-season and getting a decent return or not having to pay too much money. These idealistic hypotheticals simply aren't very realistic right now. Of course not. That doesn't mean you prematurely replace him with a shaky group of prospects.

None of those players necessitate trading or benching Fukudome with only 1 year left on his deal. Obviously, if a team is inquiring about him and the Cubs are out of it then definitely go for it, but there's no need to be looking to be replacing him with any of those minor leaguers or Colvin next season. Most of them are old and not terribly good, which indicates their chances of out performing Fukudome are pretty poor. Campana is "only" 24, but his numbers look REALLY bad. He's had a relatively nice jump this season, but none of them are doing anything that should encourage a team to play them instead of a player like Fukudome. And really, Colvin has not shown that he needs to be starting full time over Fukudome. He'll get plenty of PA's as the 4th OFer. If he can do well in that role and hopefully build on the success he had this year then he'll have an OF spot he can make his case for with Fukudome gone by the end of next season at the latest.

It's ultimately meaningless to throw out wins totals as if they're proof that a pitcher is good or bad. When it comes to evaluating his value to the Cubs as a starter there are much better stats to both argue for or against him. The wins and losses are the result of too many factors outside of how well or how poorly the pitcher does. If he's that much of a problem then trading him is going to be a problem, and it's tremendously unlikely that the Cubs would save much money while simultaneously significantly and unnecessarily weakening the starting rotation. He doesn't have to be one of the best pitchers in the game to be of significant value as a starter for the Cubs. Again, if he's as much of a problem as you're making him out to be then it's going to be a nightmare trying to trade him. It's very unlikely that the Cubs would get much of value back or really save enough money to justify losing him. It's easily arguable that selling low on him does much more to hinder the Cubs than having him next season. The Cubs have too many questions regarding their starting rotation next season to start divesting themselves of useful starters. Fukudome has an "incredibly bad" contract? It's up after next season, he's been very useful, and who are the "several players" who can outplay him? The Cubs can afford to have Soriano's bad contract. Fukudome is gone after 1 more season and Zambrano's current contract only last 2 more seasons, and both players have significant value for the team during that time. They don't need to be scrambling to dump either of them.

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here, and since pitching wins and losses are arguably the most worthless stats in baseball it doesn't really work whether you're arguing for or against him being on the team. He doesn't have to be an ace to be very, very useful as a starter for this team. Yeah, it's unfortunate if he's not consistently an "ace," but just because he's overpaid doesn't mean that they need to get rid of him. I simply do not understand this recurring train of thought that seems to act like he's either an ace or a bust. There's a gigantic middle ground. That's not obvious at all, and if it is then there's no point in even hypothesizing on a team coming along with an offer that makes trading him worth it. If he's "obviously destructive" and a liability then a team isn't going to take him unless it costs them next to nothing. I assume Soriano's contract is one of the contracts you're talking about, but which is the third one? And trading him just to trade him isn't automatically a good thing. And why is his contract "incredibly bad?" He's only signed through two more seasons, and he's not hindering the Cubs from being involved in a decent FA class.

Man, some impressive defense by both sides. That running/diving catch Fukudome just made was ballin'.

[expletive] this park.

Cheesah beecha wonky Chewbacca.

Ugh, no. They don't need to be spending that type of money on a manager.

That's just how I roll, baby. I'm like sandpaper dipped in battery acid.

You're treating an awful lot of assumptions as fact in that argument. None of it is "fact." Do you need me to hold your hand and specifically state "I think..." or "my opinion is..." whenever something is posted that is obviously someone's opinion? Well, for starters, you could stop posting so abrasively. That would be a welcome change. Aside from that, when you state your opinion in such a way that nothing else is really even possible, expect to be called out on it. It's not my problem if people are too dense to think that something that obviously isn't fact being spouted by some anonymous jerk on the internet is actually fact. Hyperbole is something that exists, and it's pretty easy to spot.

That's just common sense. It shouldn't even have to be stated. It's nigh impossible that that happens.