jersey cubs fan

what? My interpretation is preemptive response to people talking about players not being robots or programmable computers.

guy on twitter said fake

idris elba?

I think that's right, and I also think it's not going to be an issue. I can't imagine the Cubs built in some sort of work around that would circumvent the CBA by having him go through the arbitration process but then revert back to being under contract. 2012, 2013 and 2014 are the first three years, and he's probably not going to sniff the big leagues in that time. So actually that would leave him with 6 years left on the deal and 6 years until free agency. Wait, I forgot what year it is. Soler would need to be up for good by Opening Day 2014 to accumulate 6 full seasons worth of time. Right, I switched midstream after realizing the difference.

Only if they wanted the MLBPA breathing down their necks.

http://deadspin.com/5917774/kenyan-schoolchildren-reenact-game-6-of-the-1986-world-series

Yeah, he was never any miracle worker or anything. But he was widely respected and very highly paid so he had to be good.

I think that's right, and I also think it's not going to be an issue. I can't imagine the Cubs built in some sort of work around that would circumvent the CBA by having him go through the arbitration process but then revert back to being under contract. 2012, 2013 and 2014 are the first three years, and he's probably not going to sniff the big leagues in that time. So actually that would leave him with 6 years left on the deal and 6 years until free agency.

I'm not sure why you think they would do that, or why that is true. If there is a mechanism in place for him to opt out of free agency, then he will have then opted out of his contract. You clipped out the context of the conversation that preceded this. My comment was addressing the issue of what happens if Soler reaches the bigs soon enough for his arb years - which he can "opt out" of his contract to head to arbitration - to *not* be the last three years of his nine-year deal. What happens in that ninth year, was the question. And I'm saying I suspect the contract, itself, addresses that possibility explicitly. It could be an "opt out" into free agency, but it could be something else entirely. And if the contract specifies that he somehow gets free agency as soon as he finishes those arb years (if he opts out of his contract and into arbitration at all), why wouldn't the Cubs hold him down to ensure they get that 9th year? It's extremely likely, given that all that it will entail is holding him down until he's like 22 and a half. I didn't clip out anything, I directly quoted what you wrote. And I'm saying I assume they have a 9 year contract in place to spread out the cost of $30m if he winds up a failure, but that if he "makes it" and opts out of the deal early for arbitration, he will be then be out of the contract and thus a free agent after 6 years. If he can opt out, he has opted out. It would go against the rules of the CBA to arbitrarily force him into something like 5 or 6 arbitration rules and have 7 or 8 years of service time before reaching free agency.

You don't need to lose as many games as possible, just 1 more than the next worst team.

And broadly tossing out statements like they can't lose lots of games without the Cubs better players playing poorly and damaging their futures is false.

And the Cubs are pretty much on pace for the high of of the range for losing lots of games, without damaging the future of anybody who matters.

http://www.dodgersnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/111711-Cy.jpg Clayton Kershaw http://www.cinemablend.com/images/news_img/19174/major_league_19174.jpg Charlie Sheen

I'm not sure why you think they would do that, or why that is true. If there is a mechanism in place for him to opt out of free agency, then he will have then opted out of his contract.

http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2011/1118/mag_next02_trout_mike_600.jpg mike trout http://actionallstars.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/the-natural-fc1.jpg robert redford

Well, they did get rid of their best reliever and the guy who could have been their 2nd best reliever before the season started. I had no faith in Wood going into this season. And after that the bullpen was predictably awful. Byrd is a strange case. It was reasonable to expect him to be decent, but he's old, and his career arc was already odd. Going from awful hitter through what should have been his prime to fairly dependable piece through his post-prime years, in retrospect a fall off the cliff shouldn't have been that surprising. Soto's just a kick in the nuts.

Doesn't that mean you don't really care if any of the players end up being good players or not? Especially at a team level, the team playing very poorly over that time would certainly mean a lower expectation from key players in future seasons, which makes it all the move harder to improve to a competitive level. Not at all. The players I care about actually are playing fairly well and the team stinks. And that is something I can see continuing through the rest of the year.

He was given a full no-trade clause but is now covered by 10/5 rights anyway.

My only concern with maintaining this losing pace at this point is Castro becoming some sort of depressed drunkard surrounded by all this incompetence. Well, other than it really sucks balls to follow a baseball team that sucks balls. I don't really buy the "all our good players will have to be bad in order to get there" mindset, since A, that's not true, and B, they are going to be what they are going to be in the future regardless of how they play the next 3.5 months. I'm not afraid of management giving up on some prospect thanks to an itchy trigger finger.

I don't really know what that means.

This. Whether they lose 100 games or 99, they still lose and come in last place more than likely. With a bigger talent pool in the draft next year, I'm quite alright with a 100 loss team. Actually, I kind of hope it happens just to make sure we get the best possible player available. They aren't going to the playoffs one way or the other, so at this point the more games they lose the better it will be for the future development of the team, as far as I'm concerned. So it's better for the future development of the team for guys like Castro, Barney, Clevenger, LaHair, Rizzo, Samardzija, Garza, Wood, etc to play so poorly that the team loses as many games as possible? What the hell does LaHair have to do with it? None of those guys are playing poorly and the team is already well on its way to 100.

Haha! Fooled you. That actually is Wesley Snipes. suckers