Jump to content
North Side Baseball

davearm2

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,776

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Joomla Posts 1

Chicago Cubs Videos

Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking

News

2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

Guides & Resources

2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

The Chicago Cubs Players Project

2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by davearm2

  1. davearm2
    How far from unrestricted free agency is Darvish, anyway? IIRC, Japanese players have to accumulate 10 years of service time before they can avoid the posting process. Is that right?
  2. davearm2
    Your capacity to misinterpret what it is I'm saying is truly astonishing.
  3. davearm2
    I'll give you 3 guesses. Not me. I don't fault them for leaving one bit.
  4. davearm2
    You are the one arguing that they did it all for greed, which is pretty much nonsense. That's not what I'm arguing, but more to the point, even if they did, I'd have no problem with it.
  5. davearm2
    And you don't believe that the player/family might display a bit of disappointment that after waiting to finally get paid by the organization they've spent years playing for, they aren't nearly as committed to him as some team down the street is? I can't understand at all why someone would be mad at Albert or his wife that they felt they got the raw end of the deal with St. Louis all these years and now can't wait to leave town. How many discount contracts is the guy supposed to keep signing with St. Louis? Who's mad at Albert or his wife over wanting to leave town? They're completely within their rights to make that choice.
  6. davearm2
    And her explanation is laughable IMO. It's quite apparent to me that some combination of pride and greed drove this decision. And to be clear, I've got no issue with that. As I said, that's what most athletes do. It's her suggestion that they didn't want to leave but the Cardinals left them no other choice that is the issue here. If you don't detect that tone in the article, then I don't know what to tell you. So you work for this company that will only pay you about 2/3 of what you are worth. You've been there a long time. A company down the street sees how good you are at what you do and will pay you more than your long time company sight unseen. Do you stay with the company that has gotten off cheap for years or do you go where they clearly appreciate you much more? For me it was easy to leave my old company when someone offered me more money to do the same exact thing. What part of "I've got no issue with that" are you struggling to grasp?
  7. davearm2
    I don't understand how you can read it that way. It's way more simple than that. The Cardinals got Pujols for dirt cheap in relation to his production for many, many years. As a reward for giving him such a wonderful contract and a couple of World Series rings, it was now time to get paid by the team he has shown his loyalty to for the entirety of his career. When it finally became time to give Pujols true value for his production, they were busy signing guys like Holliday and Berkman instead of paying close attention to the franchise player. For Pujols to accept another "hometown discount" from St. Louis when all he has ever done is outproduce his contract is an absolute slap in his face. He owes nothing to St. Louis. I agree completely that he owes nothing to St. Louis. I don't see where anyone here was suggesting otherwise. The Cardinals based their offer on his expected future production (plus some calculation of his intrinsic value to the franchise), not based on how much they owe him from years of underpaying him on his previous deals. That's just smart business.
  8. davearm2
    And her explanation is laughable IMO. It's quite apparent to me that some combination of pride and greed drove this decision. And to be clear, I've got no issue with that. As I said, that's what most athletes do. It's her suggestion that they didn't want to leave but the Cardinals left them no other choice that is the issue here. If you don't detect that tone in the article, then I don't know what to tell you.
  9. davearm2
    Did I miss some quotes from DeWitt complaining about the situation?
  10. davearm2
    Is that saying he was only on 2nd 12 times when a single was hit. That seems insanely low to me. It looks like he tried scoring on a single while at 2B 12 times. He may have gone from 2B to 3B 20 times on a single (made up number based on that not being posted). That can't be the correct interpretation. Otherwise he's thrown out at home the other 8 times. That clearly isn't right. ??? What's not correct? I was just throwing a number out there, but if he was on 2B 32 times when a single was hit and stopped at 3B 20 of those times, would that not account for the 12 times (or 14 on the edit provided) he tried scoring? And that he was successful 4 of those times he tried to score? Heck, he could have stayed at second 20 times on a single also. Those numbers weren't given, just the number of times he went from 2B to home on a single. How many times did he stop at 3B? How many times did he stay at 2B? The implication that he was thrown out at home on a single 8 times out of 14 is not correct, just like I said. But don't listen to me. A bunch of other folks are trying to help you out here too.
  11. davearm2
    That's not the way I read it. I read it as, "we really wanted to stay, but the Cardinals gave us no choice but to leave." I've got no sympathy for that perspective. In fact I think it's laughable. Pujols followed the money, just like most athletes do. That's perfectly fine. Just don't try and dress it up as something it's not.
  12. davearm2
    Is that saying he was only on 2nd 12 times when a single was hit. That seems insanely low to me. It looks like he tried scoring on a single while at 2B 12 times. He may have gone from 2B to 3B 20 times on a single (made up number based on that not being posted). That can't be the correct interpretation. Otherwise he's thrown out at home the other 8 times. That clearly isn't right.
  13. davearm2
    I don't fault Pujols one bit for being greedy, or selfish, or walking away from the Cardinals over money. Just own it. They're not. These quotes from Mrs. Pujols make it sound as if the Cardinals gave Pujols no other choice but to leave, even though they never intended to and never wanted to. That's utter nonsense. Black & white davearm2 strikes again. You do realize what hyperbole is, right? You understand that she doesn't actually mean they literally had no other choice, yes? Mrs. Pujols wasn't using hyperbole. Her implication was pretty clear.
  14. davearm2
    I don't fault Pujols one bit for being greedy, or selfish, or walking away from the Cardinals over money. Just own it. They're not. These quotes from Mrs. Pujols make it sound as if the Cardinals gave Pujols no other choice but to leave, even though they never intended to and never wanted to. That's utter nonsense.
  15. davearm2
    What's the line that wouldn't be acceptable? Obviously he could do just fine on a 100M contract too. Hell, with all the money he's made in his career, 10/20M would leave him quite comfortable. Would you begrudge the Pujolsi if they complained then? It's not up to you to decide when the Pujolsi can feel disrespected or stressed out by a team and city they've given a hell of a lot to. If the Cardinals were being totally unreasonable, or slinging mud, or trying to cast Pujols in a bad light, then I suppose I would be more sympathetic to their side. I don't have any reason to believe anything like that was going on. They simply couldn't/wouldn't match the offer the Angels laid out. As well they shouldn't.
  16. davearm2
    Nobody here wants that, as best I can tell. It's a figment of your imagination that you keep perpetrating as fact. It's the reality of the situation that the Cubs are in right now. At some point they have to take the plunge and bolster the team through significant FA signings because their farm system ain't producing enough talent right now to either make their team or make enough impact trades to fix things. The problem is also that the forecast of significant offensive FA being available is pretty barren for a while once Fielder is signed. I agree completely with the first two sentences. Where we differ is, the fact that the forecast of significant offensive FA being available is pretty barren for a while doesn't convince me that signing Fielder to a contract I think will be a mistake, and will hurt the team in the long run, is a wise choice.
  17. davearm2
    This would be a much different conversation if the Cubs were in that 85-95 win sweetspot.
  18. davearm2
    I just don't think Prince is THAT good. If he were, I'd have no problem overpaying him. Very, very few players are ever "THAT good." You pay based on what you need (which is different than paying just because they're there a la Soriano). Fielder feels very much like paying just because they're there. You seem to concede the point that Fielder isn't THAT good. So why pay him like he is?
  19. davearm2
    Nobody here wants that, as best I can tell. It's a figment of your imagination that you keep perpetrating as fact.
  20. davearm2
    Mrs. Pujols' message rings awfully hollow since the stress she's describing is completely self-inflicted, and the byproduct of Pujols' own greed and pride. Don't want to uproot your family and leave your community/foundation/restaurant/support network? Then don't. Re-up with STL. It's pretty simple. The Cards would have been thrilled to have him stay, and they gave him ~200M reasons to do so. They chose the most money instead, which nobody is blaming them for. Just don't come at us with this sob story about what a hardship it is. They chose this path; nobody forced it upon them.
  21. davearm2
    I don't think anyone here has a blanket policy of never overpaying for top talent, and everyone seems to grasp the "nature of the beast" concept. I see several people that just don't want to go there with Prince Fielder, specifically, due to his particular risk factors.
  22. davearm2
    This team isn't going to contend until they add several impact players. But the thing is, none of them has to be a 1B. There are openings all over the field, and there's flexibility to move a guy like Castro or Soto to a different position if push comes to shove. I could live with a guy like Fielder as the final piece to the puzzle. I hate him as the first piece to the puzzle, because the risk is too great that he begins to decline before the other pieces are in place. I just don't see his productive window as being very long, despite his age. I know this is not the consensus view.
  23. davearm2
    $200K to make it easier for millions of fans to access our product? Nah, we're good. And WTF to this not being considered and solved way before now.
  24. davearm2
    Complaining about a multi-million dollar contract offer and to act as it was an insult, is dumb on her part. Then to make a comment about it being a stressful situation is incredibly moronic. Perspective is needed on her part. so apparently anyone who has been making multi-million dollars per year and will continue to make that kind of money is not allowed to be upset about the offer, no matter what they're offered. when a couple has lived in one place for 10 years, established a life and a business there, and have a special needs child that has support set up in that city, and they're possibly moving on to another place, believe it or not there might be some stress involved. she didn't say that she was worried about putting food on the table, but yes, it is stressful to human beings when they don't know where they'll be working or living a couple of months from now. the only thing that is incredibly moronic is you thinking that rich people shouldn't feel stress because they're financially secure. They chose to leave. Let's not pretend the Cardinals stood in the way of them staying in STL.
  25. davearm2
    Just stop
×
×
  • Create New...