Sammy Sofa

Meh, semantics. It's not like "ass-y" or "crappy" are quantifiable terms. It means different things to different people. To me, his numbers are more crappy than not to make me think he's worth a trade. It would be a different issue if it was a question of signing him, but such is life. If you think a career 1.28 WHIP and 3.78 ERA are crappy for a reliever, your expectations are extremely unrealistic. Granted I wouldn't give up the farm for the guy, but he his stats show him to be a respectable if not above average bullpen arm. He'd be great to sign and terrible to trade for. I'm just not a fan of trading for any reliever unless they're the rare sure thing because it's going to cost way too much regardless. I'm also not a fan of using career numbers as the end-all-be-all of judging a player. Even just using the 5-year block like dexter did is propping up 3 straight unimpressive years (unimpressive meaning certainly not worth what the Cubs would likely have to give up to get him) with 2 good years on either end. He's the typical reliever gamble.

Meh, semantics. It's not like "ass-y" or "crappy" are quantifiable terms. It means different things to different people. To me, his numbers are more crappy than not to make me think he's worth a trade. It would be a different issue if it was a question of signing him, but such is life.

Whoops, completely forgot to check the game totals with the Brewers.

Seems pretty telling with Adams that he was terrible until he got to SD. Granted, his numbers were phenomenal last year, even for Petco, and he's not that old, but he was pretty horrendous the three years he was pitching in the NL Central.

Last 5 years 1.24 WHIP 3.70 ERA 286.2 IP 240 H 116 BB 270 K ...while pitching in the AL East. How is that crappy? I don't know why you only went for his "last 5 years" when all he's got is a 6 year career. In all outside of last year he seems to alternate being maybe average and just not very good. If he was out there to be signed, hey, great. Since it's a trade, eh, that's pretty underwhelming. Yeah, he was great last year, and was pretty decent his second year, but those seasons are sandwiching three seasons with an ERA+ of 101, a WHIP just above 1.3 and an ERA of 4.37. I mean, he had his worst and his best season back to back the last two seasons. Therein lies the essence of the reliever. Is that really worth overpaying for at this point?

Huh, I didn't know Weathers was out there. That's actually a guy I wouldn't mind seeing them take a chance on if he could be had for cheap.

Ugh, I just don't think I'm ever comfortable trading for relievers. Frasor's numbers are great last year...but he was pretty ass-y most of the other years he's been with Toronto. Seems like he be more likely to go back to his crappy, high-WHIP/ERA ways. http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/f/frasoja01.shtml

Hey, 400k might as well be 400 billion in Cleveland.

Or his [expletive] ACL. I love how HCCF lives in this world where someone like Longoria would be instantly forgotten if he was catastrophically injured and never able to play again.

Or they'll say, "that kickass 3rd baseman for the Rays who blew out his [expletive] knee."

Everything about it was perfect.

What kind of monster chooses NBA Live '98 over '95? Madness.

It would take like two minutes to figure out why the Bulls fell off of a cliff. It's not like Noah's injury is some well-hidden secret. If they completely suck from here on out it's because of injuries. Besides, you're basically defeating your own argument by trying to present players as largely being oblivious. If that's the case, then why will they even notice or care if the Bulls stink the rest of the season? They only pay attention all of a sudden if a team is bad?

And with Rose. His influence on who the end up drawing in cannot be understated. Look, it would be one thing if the Bulls just flat out sucked and had nothing going for them. Yes, then their record is going to be much more of a factor. Am I saying that the Bulls are a good team? Of course not, but they clearly have some good young players and their record this year is clearly going to be hinged on injuries and, more obviously, how they're setting up to improve their team in free agency. Again, FA's aren't blind, deaf and stupid. It's a simple matter for them to realize the main factors as to why the Bulls will potentially end up with a crappy record this season. But hey, Rose is still there. The money is still there. If they really stink it up, boom, nice draft pick. Noah is still there. To a lesser degree, Deng and Gibson are still there. And it's still Chicago. That's all what matters most.

I've never once said they had a money advantage. I've just said that they have money, and that's far more important than how the team does after they're hobbled by injuries and clearly setting up to be able to spend all of that delicious, sexy money. Your idea of FA's focusing on a team's record requires them to completely ignore or be unaware of the bolded. It's having the money plus being able to play with Rose that is by far the biggest selling points to bringing FA's here. How they do with key guys injured in a season that's clearly just a setup to being able to sign FA's is waaaaaaaaaaaay down that list.

Oh, I'm definitely not saying the Cubs should ignore anyone that becomes available that is typically a decent reliever. I just don't think there's anyone like that out there really available now given what a commodity they are.

I'll answer your question with a question. Just because there are bigger issues, why would you refuse to address a smaller problem if it can be done effectively and efficiently? Well, therein lies the catch: I simply do not see how the bullpen can be "fixed" effectively or efficiently at this point in time. I look at it this way; the means for the Cubs to improve their bullpen are likely still going to be there a month or 2 months from now. He'll they'll probably be there until the deadline. Any true improvement to the bullpen is almost certainly going to have to involve a trade. Such a trade is always an uphill battle, regardless of whether they do it now or a couple months from now. I would prefer if they waited to see if the bullpen truly is in a bad way and whether or not the bullpen is even the main problem facing this team. If the offense is looking to be a crapfest again or the starting pitching is horrible after, say, the first month of the season, I'd really prefer if they didn't waste trade bait on the bullpen. If the rest of the team looks to be doing decently and the Cubs will be in the mix except for the bullpen, well, you gotta do what you gotta do. I just don't see the benefit of making such a trade now as opposed to at least a couple months from now. It's going to cost too damn much either way. Might as well wait to see if it's something the Cubs actually need to overpay for, and when there will probably more relievers available.

I have to ask all the people worried over the bullpen...how many of you view it as the Cubs' most pressing need or area of improvement?

or, if they get really lucky, Money and Rose and Top 3 draft pick Oh man, don't get my hopes up. That would be incredible.

Money and Rose. Unless they somehow lose one or both of those factors, game on.

Shows how ridiculous it is to think that their final record is going to wildly sway the opinions of FA's of the team back and forth.

http://petersonstory.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/confused-full.jpg

How far would he go with that? Like if someone just asked him a question in the dugout or during practice, would he just ignore them?

Hahahahaah! You have to actually kind of appreciate that honesty. "Get the [expletive] away from me, kid...ya bother me."

I am offering something; my opinion about the reliever issue. If the Cubs were in a much better position in regards to their offense and starters I'd definitely agree with looking in to what relievers are available for trade or signing (though I still wouldn't be optimistic about getting much more than warmed over crap or having to trade way too much for a solid reliever, which is something almost no teams are looking to give up at this point anyway). It seems completely backwards to act like the bullpen is, for one, the main problem/question the team faces right now, and for two, like it's something that the Cubs can realistically "fix" this time of the year. The guys out there available to be signed are essentially just as much as a gamble as working through the pitchers the Cubs already have throughout their organization. Trading for a good reliever would be ridiculously expensive, and what team is looking to shed good relievers in the spring when they're such a limited and valuable commodity? It makes much more sense to me to wait until guys are closer to regular season form and we've gotten more of a look at who the Cubs have available already and what they can do. It also makes much more sense to me to see how the starters and the offense is panning out before wasting resources on the bullpen. Those two areas are far more critical and it would be even more of a waste if the Cubs focus on "fixing" the bullpen when it's still up in the air whether their offense will look better or if the starting rotation is any good.