Sammy Sofa

Im not going to lose any sleep over not being able to sign Pedro, but if we cant afford a prorated 5 mil, which at this point is around 3 millish, than were kind of screwed. Those monster contracts have really caught up to us. No, the sale has caught up to the Cubs. Nobody is going to argue that Soriano's contract is a good one, but the financial hangups are due to the sale being in limbo, not the payroll flexibility provided by the owners, whoever that ends up being. While dishing out monster contracts isn't something I'd personally prefer, I certainly can't expect any GM to know years in advance when his team is going to be sold and how that is going to play out.

Hasn't Bradley had the reputation of typically being popular with his teammates regardless of his conflicts elsewhere over the years?

Thank the Lord. Does that mean the stupid Monsters whatever show is also off Comcast?

It bugs me when I hear on sports shows people saying the 2003 list needs to be releeased so it can "end speculation," not just in terms of who is on the list but also to definitively close the door on the "Steroid Era." It's a frustratingly absurd idea to think that four decades of PED use can be dropped on the back of 103 players (and the handful of others caughter after the fact) as if it was relegated to them and not the at least hundreds of other players that also used them.

Further. You're preaching to the choir. I personally think they showed up in baseball in the 60's.

and I think you're wrong. Except for all the Juicers on Tony La Russa's A's teams from the late 80's to early 90s? Steroid era most definitely extends to at least the early 90's, sorry OleMiss, you can be as obstinate as you want to be Yeah, it hits it peak later in the decade, but PED's very likely stretch back into the 70's.

I'm with you. The guy was a freakin' giant the second he came into the league. I'd be surprised if it came out that he roided. Thomas had a very consistent and typical career arc for a traditional power hitter. He never hit over 43 HR's in a season and during the "height" of the steroid era from 1998-2003 he only averaged 26 HR. He did however have a brief power resurgence in 2006 when he hit 39 HR. Nevertheless, he never had an out of character spike in power like most of the known juicers did. Not to mention he was a tight end at Auburn in the mid 80s. He was 6'4" 250 back then. Dude was always a beast. (Disclosure: I have always been a big Frank Thomas fan). Big Frank was practically running around screaming and demanding that people test him. I'd be stunned if it came out he was usuing.

Sammy Sosa was an excellent ball player who is hated on by buffoons who don't appreciate what he did for the Cubs organization. Sammy Sosa was a ball player who's stats were aided by performance enhancing drugs. There are "buffoons" who will still ignore that fact. The fact that he plays for "your team" does not make it acceptable. He is a cheater, plain and simple. Alll the scorn and hateful comments directed toward McGuire and Palmiero and Giambi can now be applied to everyone's favorite RF. I forgot about the corked bat, also. But that was just a batting practice bat that happened to make it into the game supply. Oh that's right, it doesn't apply here because he played for the Cubs. This has never been a "protect a Cub" issue. I'm an "apologist" because I'm a realist: the 90's and early 2000's are called the "steroid era" for a reason. With or without Sammy, going back and trying to figure who used what after the fact is a fool's errand because you cannot possibly catch the vast majority of players who used PED's during that time and before. It unfairly demonizes a select few players and makes them take all the scorn while the hundreds of others that used, and baseball itself, get off relatively or even totally clean. It's the equivalent of trying to go back and find all the players that threw games after the White Sox got caught throwing the series. It's a pointless witch hunt that serves no actual purpose in a game that has had cheating as part of its very identity basically since the day it was created. Baseball's typical M.O. has been tolerate things until it cannot be ignored, they set down rules and move forward. Steroids has been the exception. Instead of saying what's past is past and moving on to crackdown on anyone breaking the rules AFTER they're actually created, people are acting like they can "catch" anything even remotely resembling a significant number of PED users from the last 40 years when that's essentially impossible.

Gee, what a shocker. I'm as ambivalent to this as I have been about every other "revelation" about steroids that has come out after the fact.

My positivity is tempered by this news coming from the gaping source of despair of awfulness that is WC.

You want a good laugh? Check out North's recent book. Holy God, is it/he bad.

Never listened, by the horrible commercials and the presence of North makes me wish for the company's demise.

He's only had 59 AB's in the last month. For comparison's sake, Theriot has had 91 in the same time period.

I'll take it.

Nice job, Milton!

And this is new how? It's compounded by him not being able to do anything with pitches he can usually get a hit off of. It's not like he's only been getting pitches he can't usually hit. He's a streaky hitter, as we all know, but this latest slump has been going on for almost a month. Given the knee issues that have been bugging him, it's pretty obvious he needs to be sat a few games or put on the DL.

As was mentioned elsewhere, Lilly would probably have a number of takers out there.

Amazing. You're the one that brought up Hendry having only two good FA signing years. You're the one that said those years were 2003 and 2008 (the latter supposedly because of DeRosa and Edmonds) despite DeRosa having been signed in 2007. That's not "semantics": that's an error that completely dismisses your idea that 2008 was a good FA year if you're saying it was because of signing Edmonds and DeRosa.

So what's your point? DeRosa was in the lineup nearly as often in 2007 as he was in 2008: 2007: 574 PA 2008: 593 PA It's not like the Cubs didn't play him much in 2007 and then all of a sudden decided to play him in 2008. Go back and read the thread. The point was having DeRosa and Edmonds in the lineup at the same time added more offensive talent in 2008 than the team currently on the field. Both of those guys could smack the ball around. That wasn't the point at all. DeRosa and Edmonds were brought up out of a discussion of the pros and cons of Hendry as GM in regards to his FA signings and you stated that Hendry only had 2 good years as a GM based on his FA signings. You singled out 2008 as one of those years due specifically to Edmonds and DeRosa despite DeRosa having been signed the year before. Unless you're saying the signing of DeRosa didn't become a good one until Edmonds was signed during the 2008 season (which would be a rather silly and backwards argument), that information throws a spanner into your reasoning as to why 2008 was one of Hendry's only good FA years. The discussion was in no way about how Edmonds and DeRosa helped make the lineup better last year compared to this year. It was about Hendry himself and his FA signings.

DeRosa was signed in 2007.

No, I'm saying that 0-3 in back to back NLDS's is not flukey, but rather an indicator of a weak team. Also, these are not robots out there. It's perfectly reasonable to accept that the playoff chokiness has saturated their psyche. So the answer is, what? Until the Cubs win another WS, any team that loses in the playoffs regardless of their regular season succees needs to be blown up or at least significantly reconstructed because they have "saturated psyches?" Come on, that's not realistic at all. I don't have the answers. All I know is that this team isn't worth the price paid. There's very little talent on the offensive side of the ball. The team was much more talented last year with DeRosa and Edmonds in the lineup. I find it interesting that you're so determined to get rid of Hendry yet bring up DeRosa and Edmonds, two signings that he was raked over the coals for at the time when they first happened.

No, I'm saying that 0-3 in back to back NLDS's is not flukey, but rather an indicator of a weak team. Also, these are not robots out there. It's perfectly reasonable to accept that the playoff chokiness has saturated their psyche. So the answer is, what? Until the Cubs win another WS, any team that loses in the playoffs regardless of their regular season succees needs to be blown up or at least significantly reconstructed because they have "saturated psyches?" Come on, that's not realistic at all.

What injuries are depleting the team of talent besides Ramirez? And shouldn't a $140 mil payroll cover for that? Aramis' is the big one, but Soto has had nagging injuries as had Soriano. Anyone would know Bradley was going to miss time but for him to be this ineffectual when able to play indicates hes likely playing hurt. Right there are 4 critical bats (and the 3 best hitters on the team) that this team needs, and no, that's not something that a team even with a payroll that large can just overcome. Stuff happens I guess. Except it always happens to the Cubs, every time. What is "it?" The nature of this season is not something that "always happens to the Cubs." You can't look at it that broadly. And yes, sometimes stuff just happens. You really think that's not possible in this game? It can't just be bad luck that that many good hitters with recent prior success end up hurt and/or underperforming? It HAS to be the fault of someone?

That's up for debate. So debate it. Explain how the 2008 Cubs were lucky when they actually finished the season just under their projected numbers. Aaron Miles had a good reputation as a "grinder" too among his peers. The state of the Cubs is bleak IMHO. The team is loaded with two huge unreleasable contracts (Soriano and Lee) while having a very weak farm system. Our outfield is incredibly questionable and has been since the demise of Sosa and Alou. Then by whose standards do you want a "smarter" GM? Any reputation of being baseball "smart" is going to largely come from within the world of MLB. Sound outside baseball savant isn't going to come in and get that job. If you slam the standards by which someone is considered baseball smart, don't then flip around and expect those same standards to result in someone you'd consider even smarter. Soriano's contract is a beast, nobody is going to deny that, but it was more of a statement move than anything else to show that the Cubs weren't screwing around in terms of the FA market now that payroll had been increased. Hendry couldn't know at the time how the sale of the team would play out: nobody could have. You bank on what you have available to you at the time. At the time, Lee's contract wasn't that bad at all. Nobody expected him to repeat his 2005, but the results and reasons as to his success made him look to be a guy you want to have anchoring 1B for several years. Nobody could have forseen that he's break his wrist and accelerate his natural decline. That's not the kind of thing that bringing in a new GM would avoid. Again you insist on the analogies and similes to cover up that you have nothing but vitriol and simply want to see someone fired because you want change for the sake of change. Hendry has obviously made his share of mistakes, especially going into this season, but much of the failure so far this year is due to things that no GM could have predicted coupleed with the nebulous nature of the team's payroll due to the sale. That latter point is a HUGE spanner in the works of any GM. The success this team has had while he's been GM as well as the numerous excellent trades he's pulled off. I'm not totally opposed to firing Hendry at some point: I just think it would be stupid to do in the middle of the season.

Sweet Christmas, that picture of Lou is horrifying.