Sammy Sofa

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.

I didn't know anything about those small leagues here made up of guys from Latin America who couldn't make it in the bigs or the minors. That would make an amazing 30 for 30 film.

I liked it. Can't say it was really "Yankee heavy" since the Braves and Giants each got comparable time as well.

Trading Zambrano is [expletive]. His rebound is meaningless if they want to trade him; with the way the Cubs dealt with him and talked about him during the season they'd still be getting pennies on the dollar for him. All he's done is show, yet again, is that his upside still far outweighs any perceived downside. This idea that if he's not an ace then he's useless is beyond stupid.

erik telling people to calm down over a game? What cruel new hell is this?

Oh my. Those are really your examples?

50-INCH-GUN SHOW.

Maybe he really likes the word "meatballs."

But the irony couldn't be more perfect and delicious.

Yeah, who the [expletive] was that monstrosity? If the Packers have had him for a while, how the hell have I never seen him before?

So all it will take to turn erik from an insufferable loser fan to an insufferably arrogant fan is one championship in his lifetime? We might have to possibly re-evaluate our desires for the Cubs to win another WS in the near future. Which erik is more tolerable?

Huzzah.

I'm perfectly calm. I'm not the one trying to make it personal, like a certain mod I happen to be responding to right now. That's twice tonight. Continue to set a great example, o dear leader. Leader?

Some people are fat with victory and others, well...

Girardi would cost too much to convince to come here. Sandberg is a slam dunk. It's great for marketing and the majority of clueless Cubs fans want this. Sandberg's not a slam dunk. He's only a slam dunk if the team is a slam dunk to be good.

That's his heart.