Sammy Sofa

[tweet] [/tweet]

We are all broken inside.

Which is why it makes the most sense that rookie deals are cut down. Rookie contracts should be down to 3-4 years (though I think they'll likely only be able to cut it down to 5), and you should have to first bring up a player within 3 years (at the very most) instead of 5.

Both guys are only 26, and have been each worth approx. $236 million in about 7-ish seasons of play apiece. Yes, but they are up against a mountain of dumb contracts that owners have signed off on in recent years that is now making everyone nervous about laying out 10 years. It's not fair, but every contract from Pujols to Hosmer is stacking up against Harper and Machado's demands. Smart people realize that Harper =/= Hosmer, but owners are using those bad decisions as an excuse to not back the Brinks truck up for the guys who actually deserve it They're making horsefeathers up because they realized they can game the system based off of the shitty player negotiations from the last collective bargaining agreement; stop with your tortured caveats that basically amount to, "look, this is BS, but I can actually kinda see where they're coming from with this BS, so they're not all wrong." The vast majority of teams could easily afford either guy and are simply either choosing not to try (and a bunch of those are simply choosing not to try at anything besides being awful, period), or trying to lowball a couple of generational talents like THAT'S inexplicably the way to course correct shelling out for much older and much worse players (when most of the time those "bad contracts" either paid off or broken even or came pretty damn close; the truly bad ones are still the obvious exceptions and not the rule). Plus it's ridiculous to continually say things like, "nervous about laying out 10 years;" nobody is ACTUALLY paying for either for a decade unless something goes really wrong and they don't opt out well before then. They're horsefeathering disingenuous scum acting like they're locking themselves into a 8 or 10-year deal with a couple of guys this good and this young (nevermind how ridiculous it is to be hemming and hawing even if they WERE actually locking in with guys, again, this good and this young).

Both guys are only 26, and have been each worth approx. $236 million in about 7-ish seasons of play apiece.

Vaunted market inefficiency.

Just planning to sideswipe the league next season when they only have 3 starters and 38 relievers on constant rotation on and off the DL.

It's an imaginary, arbitrary pool. Not if the owners have collectively decided that profit margins >>>>> winning

case in point No, I've never said that spending money on these players is bad, and I'm not (never) siding with ownership. I'm just pointing out that Harper's particular demands limit his pool of interested teams, and he has to decide if that's worth the record contract. I wish it wasn't that way It's an imaginary, arbitrary pool.

Pretty smooth way to replace Old Dirk with the New Dirk.

Oh, horsefeathers. Him and Luka? Damn.

I mean, that's on him, though, right? He can sign anywhere he likes so long as he drops his demands from "richest contract in history" to "unbelievable, generational wealth" You make more money than literally billions of people.

Man, teams losing to the lowly Bulls drives their fans a little nuts: https://www.instagram.com/p/BtSF8dBFGHh/?utm_source=ig_embed

Not getting Harper sucks, but it did result in tree coming back and on horsefeathering fire, so it kinda evens out.

Most definitely, though it's probably more reliable than the Cubs' medical staff.

https://deadspin.com/humorless-pittsburgh-news-station-fires-employee-for-gr-1832196594

All it would take is for Tom Ricketts to say, "Yes." Though, to be accurate, it would be more, like, "eeehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhyyyyyyyyeeeeessssssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhLLLLURRRRRP"

They're just dying a very slow motion death; eventually it'll be the same deal with their football or basektball-specific shows, too. Why is somebody going to wait for ESPN's shows specific to the sport they like when they can just turn on the 24/7 networks instead? I don’t think they’re going to do the same with football or basketball anytime soon, they’re doubling down on them. They’re pretty much all Lebron/NBA/NFL year round now for their shows, which is fine. I’m glad there’s an MLBN to watch, but they still have some trash shows. Would be nice if ESPN still had theirs to watch when MLBN had a trash program or segment on. That's why I said eventually; it's going to happen. ESPN isn't going to last much longer as a gimme in cable packages; what made it so successful in the beginning is now making it too expensive for the carriers. It's only advantage it has is the scope of its availability, and even that is being chipped away by the other newer sports networks, or the regional ones making it less unique. Yeah, people love to rant about how politics are sinking ESPN, but it's this horsefeathers. They can't stop it.

They're just dying a very slow motion death; eventually it'll be the same deal with their football or basektball-specific shows, too. Why is somebody going to wait for ESPN's shows specific to the sport they like when they can just turn on the 24/7 networks instead?

Yeah. This thread could use good news or distractions but I don’t think he’s ready to shoulder that load

OK, now that's pretty brutal.

Cubs in the same boat and only got the one. AH-BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

And on a 4 fWAR season for Baez.

You are the absolute worst. Gimme the under on a 6 fWAR season.