Sammy Sofa

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.

I agree with this basic idea, but at the same time I just don't realistically see anyone available that can truly turn this offense around. I'm hesitant to start doling out prospects for guys that ultimately aren't enough to turn around an offense that will potantially have this many holes for most of the season. So what is the plan? You seem to shoot down everything but offer nothing specific of your own. Right now I don't know. There might not be a plan available at any point. The team might be in one of those spots this season where there's nothing that can be done to right the ship because of the sheer number of guys underperforming or who are injured. Sometimes enough seems right on paper and then it falls apart for a number of reasons a la the Tigers of last year. I'm leaning more towards it being a situation along those lines as opposed to something fixable that Hendry or any other GM would be able to work with or around.

You're a moron. I'm not interested in talk radio anger. Thanks for the reply though. You keep spouting the "radio talk" line at other people but yourself only offer suggestions along the lines of firing Hendry as if that will automatically fix the team. My response to your analogy was because I was surpsised at how simplistic and incorrect it was. Does Hendry have his faults? Of course. Has he made a lot of mistakes? Hell yes. But to compare him with something that does NO good whatsoever is just completely faulty and kneejerk pessimism. In any evaluation of Hendry you have to take the good with the bad: you cannot simply focus on the bad and act like everything else does not exist because that's of course going to make the "anyone else would probably better" line of thinking you seem to be supporting seem like the right move. It's the same perspective you have to take towards this season so far: yes, there are parts of it where Hendry clearly dropped the ball. There are also key aspects of it that are out of the control of any GM. It's not as simple as "Hendry [expletiv e] this up and needs to go." Removing Hendry is just a small step towards creating an intelligent baseball operation. It won't solve anything instantly and it's a knee-jerk reaction on your part to assume that is the meaning. When looking at the Chicago Cubs, you can come to a few conclusions: This isn't a smart team. The GM isn't exactly a bright guy either. Firing Hendry will not in itself fix the Cubs. But it is like moving the couch out into the garage before you start painting the walls and finishing the floors. Firing Hendry right now might as well be the textbook definition of a kneejerk reaction. It's also kneejerk to just declare that neither he nor the team are "smart," especially when so much of this team is made up of the same players from last year. Not being "smart" implies they got lucky last year, and they most certainly did not. You're talking like firing Hendry is something that is a 110% sure thing that needs to be done to make the team better than it has been during his time as GM. That's not a sure thing at all. You lose his strengths as well as his weaknesses. Besides, Hendry has had a reputation in his various positions of being a "smart" baseball guy. If you think he's not smart, then by what standard do you expect him to be replaced by someone "smarter?"

I agree with this basic idea, but at the same time I just don't realistically see anyone available that can truly turn this offense around. I'm hesitant to start doling out prospects for guys that ultimately aren't enough to turn around an offense that will potantially have this many holes for most of the season.

You're a moron. I'm not interested in talk radio anger. Thanks for the reply though. You keep spouting the "radio talk" line at other people but yourself only offer suggestions along the lines of firing Hendry as if that will automatically fix the team. My response to your analogy was because I was surpsised at how simplistic and incorrect it was. Does Hendry have his faults? Of course. Has he made a lot of mistakes? Hell yes. But to compare him with something that does NO good whatsoever is just completely faulty and kneejerk pessimism. In any evaluation of Hendry you have to take the good with the bad: you cannot simply focus on the bad and act like everything else does not exist because that's of course going to make the "anyone else would probably better" line of thinking you seem to be supporting seem like the right move. It's the same perspective you have to take towards this season so far: yes, there are parts of it where Hendry clearly dropped the ball. There are also key aspects of it that are out of the control of any GM. It's not as simple as "Hendry fucked this up and needs to go."

Or who they trade for.

I love people who step on a nail, let the infection creep up their leg, get high fevers and then say "leave the nail in, I'm gonna beat this thing!". Wow.

Please, propose your changes. Do you have anything besides firing Hendry and Lou et al? I'd love to bring even just one gamechanger of a player, but who is out there? Where can they play? First, get rid of the guy who paid Aaron Miles $5 million. Also, this team is such a rats nest of incompetence and NTC's that it would take a genius to repair it. What would really change by firing Hendry? Who is out there to take over that would be so different? Hendry has his share of mistakes, like that contract, but just how bad this offense has been as a whole can't be pinned on him or anyone else besides the players between injuries and guys simply playing like they're in prolonged slumps. The most realitic thing that could have been done differently is still having DeRosa on the team and he is by no means a player who could on his own turn around the offensive struggles. Sure, I'd love to have Ibanez right now, but nobody was predicting he'd have anything like this year so far offensively so there's zero reason to assume a different GM would have signed him instead of Bradley. I love Dunn as a player, but I think in a lineup this weak his flaws would have just been magnified and his offensive output limited to the point that he wouldn't be able to carry the team. They need someone right now who can carry the team, and they simply do not have that player nor are any available. Hendry made his mistakes and could have planned better, but much of this has gone well beyond what he or any other GM could have realistically prepared for.

Please, propose your changes. Do you have anything besides firing Hendry and Lou et al? I'd love to bring even just one gamechanger of a player, but who is out there? Where can they play?