Sammy Sofa

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.

That was my point the whole time. I have no idea how you turned "his upside far outweighs his downside" for the Cubs into "he doesn't have a significant downside." Every pitcher who gets paid has that downside and it's obvious that nobody with a functioning brain would pretend otherwise. The point of this was clearly in the context of "do the Cubs have to trade Zambrano because they've made him out to be a monster," because if you're talking only about ridiculously broad ideas like "well, any pitcher COULD turn bad or get hurt, etc., etc.," then why would ever NOT consider trading them?

Oh, OK. Guys, let's bring it in. It was a bit much when I said he could fly and that flames shot from his hands when he threw the ball.

His upside is a mid 3 ERA pitcher with plus batting and baserunning. How that not all that high?? His downside is season lost to injury, like every other pitcher. He's already there, so it's not an upside. It's what he's been. And that downside is huge. He's not a stock where you say he's at his upside now, get rid of him. His actual value to the Cubs is very likely not equal to the return value you'd get in a trade. In which case you don't trade him, but that's not a fact and doesn't change the fact that he's got a big downside. You can argue against the nonsense of just getting rid of him for the sake of it without making up stuff. What the [expletive] are you talking about?

His upside is a mid 3 ERA pitcher with plus batting and baserunning. How that not all that high?? His downside is season lost to injury, like every other pitcher. Yeah, I don't get what Jersey is saying at all. Unless people think he's going to snap and actually murder someone on the field, I don't know what crazy bad downsides he has that other pitchers don't. He's had multiple run-ins and discipline issues, strange injuries and is a guy who works dangerously with a very high walk rate without a very high strikeout rate. He walks a tightrope with his persona and performance. The downside is very real and I don't see the point in pretending otherwise. And I still think his talents as a pitcher outweigh the negatives (in terms of value to the Cubs), especially if you're trying to sell him off with a huge contract and he's been painted as some kind of crazy monster by his own team.

His upside is a mid 3 ERA pitcher with plus batting and baserunning. How that not all that high?? His downside is season lost to injury, like every other pitcher. He's already there, so it's not an upside. It's what he's been. And that downside is huge. Wait, what? [expletive], it's another Jersey semantics trap. "Upside" means he can easily be a useful pitcher, and there's no reason that the Cubs "need" to trade him. We're not talking a Carlos Silva-type mess or disaster here. People tend to talk about him like just because he can't live up to making ace money that he's a bust and the Cubs have to cut ties, and that's obviously not the case. Unless the Cubs are able to shake a very clear pattern of underselling players that they smear, I think he holds much more value to them next year actually starting for them than being traded to another team.

His upside is a mid 3 ERA pitcher with plus batting and baserunning. How that not all that high?? His downside is season lost to injury, like every other pitcher. Yeah, I don't get what Jersey is saying at all. Unless people think he's going to snap and actually murder someone on the field, I don't know what crazy bad downsides he has that other pitchers don't.

That's weird.

Well, if you are able to get more like 95 cents on the dollar, it's not a bad idea at all. The cost savings and avoiding the downside risk that he obviously carries justify at least exploring options. Trading him Milton Bradley style is all kinds of wrong though. Right, and I have zero faith in the Cubs not doing that. Once they openly trash a player, if they end up moving them they almost always get nothing (relatively speaking) in return. Obviously, if a team is willing to trade someone of value for Zambrano and the Cubs are off the hook for most or all of his salary it's definitely something to look into, but even then I'd still be inclined to hold onto him (mainly because I think that's very unlikely). It seems like trading him now would more likely do more harm than good, similar to the idea of wanting Aramis to opt out. It's not like there's a good FA class for the Cubs to go after, and there's a damn good chance that the Cubs without Zambrano will be a much worse team next season, and it's sounding more and more like they need to be competitive to draw the money they need to keep the payroll up. I'd rather take the chance and see if he can look good next season. You get enough distance between the crappy way the Cubs treated him this season and couple that with his rebound this year and ideally a bounce back season in 2011 and he's a MUCH more valuable and in demand player in terms of of a trade. Right now I think the Cubs M.O. is way too obvious and teams would simply be expecting to give up next to nothing for him or for the Cubs to pay most of his salary if they want anything of value in return.

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?

I thought that sig was basically anti-Packers and was making fun of his silly, dainty twirl.