jersey cubs fan

Saying they won't isn't the same as saying they shouldn't. Obviously whether or not they get them is up to a lot of outside forces. But it's idiotic to not want them to sign them.

ARod opted out, Sabathia opted out. I don't believe either of them had seven years left on their deal at the time. The amount of time remaining doesn't really matter, what matters is what you could conceivably get as a free agent. If he stays where he should production wise for the next three years there's plenty of reason to think he could sign a bigger than what will remain on his contract. The Yankees, probably won't have the same glut of 1B/DH. Boston will be in a different situation, the LAD and NYM ownership situations probably won't be a horrible mess. There might not be another great 1B on the market to compete with that limited demand. There won't be the perception that his hometown team was going to get him no matter what. The economy should be better. It's a pretty nice carrot to hang out there, and the risk to the team is very little. Florida isn't going to feel pressured to renegotiate, so all they risk is the money they guaranteed him in the first place.

ARod opted out, Sabathia opted out. Who knows how the thing would be structured, but there's plenty of reason why Albert could be seen as a strong opt out candidate in three years. It gives his agent another chance to negotiate a big contract, which he is going to pressure for. The only real risk is if Albert suffers a severe injury the year before the opt out, or if he falls off a cliff. But if they end up paying him something like $80m in the first 3 years of a theoretical 10/220 deal, and he holds steady, all he's looking for is 7/140. So you risk $220m to sign a true franchise guy to sell in the first year of a new stadium with another chance to contend, and you potentially only end up spending $80m while rebuilding your brand.

A) I don't think Pujols is who the Cubs are really after B) At 10 years, the Marlins would be punking themselves I'm perfectly fine with Pujols to the marlins, given the reported terms. 10 years with an opt out after 3 could be a brilliant move for them.

Be really good but not have the faintest idea why? consistency

It was like this for about 6-7 years in the 80's, not forever.

Anyone would because the Braves competed in many WS and actually won one. If they hadn't won that one, would you still pick the Braves? yes because at least you get to see the cubs playing good baseball and in october year in and year out as opposed to watching crap year in and year out Exactly. I'd prefer a consistently competitive team than one that somehow manages to sneak a WS and then vanishes for 5-10 years. Absolutely I'd prefer that, but I'd also take the all in all out type seasons than the garbage the Cubs have done, 2 years decent, 2 years bad, 2 years decent, 2 years bad.

Of course he is. He is under contract for two more seasons. That is a very long time to determine your plan for him going forward as well. A short-term asset is somebody who either has an expiring contract or is old and unlikely to be worth much in the intermediate future. Garza has 2 full seasons under Cubs control and he's young. He's isn't just a short-term asset. You don't control your plan going forward with him. That's up to him as much as it is you. He has two seasons left with the Cubs. Anything else is pure speculation. That makes him a short-term asset. You control an awful lot with 2 full seasons. You have this offseason, next trading deadline, next offseason and the following trading deadline to drum up interest in trades. You have several opportunities to sign him to an extension and plenty of time to do it.

Of course he is. He is under contract for two more seasons. That is a very long time to determine your plan for him going forward as well. A short-term asset is somebody who either has an expiring contract or is old and unlikely to be worth much in the intermediate future. Garza has 2 full seasons under Cubs control and he's young. He's isn't just a short-term asset.

If the Cubs sign Fielder and then trade Garza, that would seem to be a conflict of interest unless they are getting a guaranteed young stud pitcher, which is basically not going to happen. Why? The persistent message of Hoystein is that the Cubs want to make moves that help them both now and in the future, but if they conflict, then the long-term means more. Fielder on a six-year deal fits that description. He's a short-term and long-term asset. Garza, at the moment, is merely a short-term asset. If you have a chance to flip a short-term asset for a long-term asset, you do it. Garza is not just a short-term asset, for the moment or otherwise.

If the Cubs sign Fielder and then trade Garza, that would seem to be a conflict of interest unless they are getting a guaranteed young stud pitcher, which is basically not going to happen. In what bizarro world is that a conflict of interest? The bizarro world where if you sign Fielder or Pujols you have to be an immediate contender, otherwise it's a waste of time. Especially if its Pujols or Fielder on a 5 year contract. Again, how is that a conflict of interest?

Huh? Huh what? An opt-out clause puts them right back out on the market, presumably when the Yankees are beginning to move past some of their DH stockpile, while Boston may need 1B/DH help and while the Cubs would obviously be without a legit 1B. If Florida gets him, that gives them 2-3 years of credibility, excitement and another potential playoff run, and then eliminates long-term cost.

If the Cubs sign Fielder and then trade Garza, that would seem to be a conflict of interest unless they are getting a guaranteed young stud pitcher, which is basically not going to happen. In what bizarro world is that a conflict of interest?

a gaby sanchez bryan lahair platoon at 1B would not make me happy

Seconded but that is in a perfect world. I still don't see the Cards losing Pujols and I suspect the Cubs involvement is just to drive the price up for a division rival (ala the Yanks and Crawford last year). STL going well past the point they are comfortable to keep Pujols and Fielder coming to Chicago would still make me pretty damn happy.

Yea. Some no-name young kid who is praying he's right so that he can attempt to claim that he broke it if it happens. So take it FWIW. Who was the guy who guaranteed a Pujols press conference in STL last month?

Pujols leaving STL and Fielder coming to Chicago would make me very happy.

I'd much rather see Garza retained, but if the return is too good to pass up, so be it. I'd like to see him stay mostly because I like him and think he can help the team long-term, but almost just as much because it's fun to see Peter Gammons be wrong on something he says will happen. If the return is tremendous and they go out and sign big time guys (meaning 2), then it's a parralel front series of moves.

Your answer completely ignores the point. A division winner can make the playoffs in the NFL (just like the NHL and every sport), but in this case 4 teams from each conference are guaranteed to make the playoffs, that's dumb. You play your "conference" all year long, and then play them in the first two rounds of the playoffs, that's dumb. A weak conference will happen probably every year, and possibly a couple times a year, and those weak conferences will not only be able to produce the occasional Seahawks team, but will regularly put weak teams into the semi finals. The fact that the identity of that weak conference might change from year to year is pointless. It will exist. You play 1/2 of the schedule against the conference. It's not like they are playing 60 or 70 games against these same teams. They are playing the same (or less) against these teams than they are against division opponents now. 7 and 8 seeds regularly advance in the NHL playoffs. There's a lot of parity, hot goalies, etc. It's not that big of a deal. And most importantly, the benefits of this new plan far outweigh the possible downsides. The only benefit is cutting down on travel costs. 7 and 8 seeds regularly advance a round or two. But this system will have what would be 9 or 10 seeds advancing, and every year you will have lesser teams making it as far as the semifinals. You are increasing the amount of good teams that won't make it and replacing them with lesser teams who are lucky to play in a weak division. And as for your previous comment about how they did this in the "back in the day", how long did that last, 5 years? It's a bad plan.

Where did you hear this?

Your answer completely ignores the point. A division winner can make the playoffs in the NFL (just like the NHL and every sport), but in this case 4 teams from each conference are guaranteed to make the playoffs, that's dumb. You play your "conference" all year long, and then play them in the first two rounds of the playoffs, that's dumb. A weak conference will happen probably every year, and possibly a couple times a year, and those weak conferences will not only be able to produce the occasional Seahawks team, but will regularly put weak teams into the semi finals. The fact that the identity of that weak conference might change from year to year is pointless. It will exist.

Doesn't Nomar live in LA?

and posts about what this site has become

I'm going to go out on a limb and say Forte plays this Sunday. I'm starting to lean that way too. It's the same injury Julius Peppers has been playing with, and he hasn't missed a game. Granted, Peppers doesn't have to make sharp cuts, but he definitely changes direction a lot. If it wasn't for his contract situation, I would put it as high as 80% that Forte plays this week. Right now, I'd say a little less than 50/50 that he plays, but that's a lot higher than the 0% that most people have assumed. I would gladly sell you both on those odds. I can't see anyway Forte needlessly goes out and risks reinjury this week. I could see it being 1-3 weeks instead of 2-6, but he has very little, if nothing, to gain from playing.

They are re-seeded after the "conference" playoffs, rather than locked into Norris vs. Smythe and Patrick vs. Adams. So there's a possibility that the Hawks and Canucks, for example, could play for the Stanley Cup? That's kind of cool. The crappy thing about this is that there is going to be a lot of unfamiliarity with the majority of the league. Unless you get to the old conference finals round, you will only play the other 22 teams a maximum of 2 times per season. The playoff set-up is a horrible idea. It's all about keeping travel costs down and completely ignores everything else. What's the point of an 82 game season with a heavy emphasis on a 7 team conference schedule and then having to play those same conference foes in the first two rounds of the playoffs. It will create and/or build on already established rivalries (Detroit could play Chicago every year in the playoffs, same with Devils/Rangers or San Jose/Vancouver), but you are making it wide open for lesser teams to advance if they are lucky to be in a weak division that year. Plenty of weaker teams will make it now, since they only have to contend with their 7 or 8 rivals. What is now called conference C could easily be filled with garbage teams.