poppysox

We keep trying to find the best way to express ourselves. Sometimes I confuse myself.?

I am talking about the real deal.

I think RH is very underrated. His ability to get extensions done is the best bar none.

People have used the poker analogy before. The player who goes all-in frequently does well until he gets burned...perhaps even getting knocked out of the game. The player who manages his money prudently stays in the game longer but of course, that system is not foolproof either. Just like at the poker table...both types have their advocates.

The Encarnacion & LaRoche deals were both praised at the time of them being announced. I agree with you that they didn't work out...but for example, if EE would have been 80% of his former self we would have won the Central. Since it didn't work out we cut bait with him and still have a good chance going forward. If you go all-in with let's say Springer and he pulls an Encarnacion...you do catastrophic damage to the rebuild.

Welcome! I think "obliterating their championship window" is a well-put phrase. The Cubs built a great core with last-place finishes and excellent drafts. They certainly didn't have high-level veterans to trade in the Sale, Q, and Eaton mold. Then they overpaid on Q and Gleybar deals... didn't get Bryant extended or traded...start the process over. Theirs is the reason I don't like these all in deals people are hyped for. Both the overpay of so called superstars and the empty the farm type all-in moves. Build a solid core like the Cubs and now the Sox did...use free agency to fill the holes with solid veterans...extend the contracts where possible creating both a solid core and tradable assets. The best organizations seem willing to pay the fair price but do not get all-in on any one deal. I know some will say the Cubs won the WS but I think they would have been better off with very good teams year after year. They quite possibly could have won several WS rings by now and still be winning today.

I agree that we are a contender right now. We are in the enviable position of improving our current good club by making relatively doable moves. Find a reliable SP, a good RP, perhaps a DH. Obviously the better the player the greater the cost. We keep discussing a half-dozen players in each area of need that at a minimum would improve the club further. If we offer Hendriks 14 million for 4 years and sign him...half the forum will scream the FO got screwed. If he signed elsewhere...half the forum scream that we need to get rid of cheap old JR. I want us to make realistic offers for good solid guys to add to an already great team. If Bauer and/or Springer can get the numbers being discussed for them I don't want them. If Hendriks can get 4 years at 15 million...I don't want him. Colome, Q, and Vaughn will get us to the playoffs and beyond. Get us better than those three names...so much the better.

I am more worried about the Dodgers than I am Toronto. Actually...I like our chances.

I hope we are represented. He would obviously help any team if healthy.

I think Orlando is saying that a username or avatar can leave an impression different than intended. Many people consider Tom Cruise an arrogant twit and your avatar kind of fits that image of him. My avatar is a young and smiling Madrigal giving the impression of my being young and good-natured...although that is far from my actual self. Secondly, you address not walking away from an argument. Most of what is talked about here is opinion...not fact. Try discussing a subject rather than winning the argument. Just my opinion that many posters try winning arguments and no one ever seems to change anyone's mind. You are a well-informed dude...don't let so many topics get personnel.

Katz has a chance to really make a name for himself with pupils like Cease & Kopech. Starting to warm to the idea of Schwarber which at first I was dead set against.

I don't disagree with what you say. Just don't let's be on the opposite side of that Q for Eloy equation.

I considered Engel as well. Baseball always seems about the stars but an ordinary guy becoming an important role player on the team is a nice story. He actually is a five-tool guy...just not in the way that term is usually used.

The fact that Adam Dunn and Adam LaRoche were starring with reputations earned against NL pitchers is always in the back of my mind.

Number #4 is where he is on the WS. Certainly, he is not the guy you pencil in for the win when it's his turn. I do agree he gives you the chance to win which is all I ask out of #4 and #5 starters.

I don't mind Gray instead of Q or Richards type. Just think he is that type and would not give up Madrigal to get him.

I join you in the opinion that Gray is just OK. Still living on his Oakland reputation. For me he is a #4 type and Madrigal would be a real screwing. No thanks.

You make a good argument IMO. Especially if Hendriks demands the 4 year contract.

Thirteen different players named in the first few posts. That's a "likeable" team when half the team is worthy of that consideration.

I want to be on record...we have more nice things now than at any time in my memory. Yes, that includes 2005 & 1959.

I've been thinking about who my favorite players are on the team as it now stands. Not the "best" players but my personal favorites. This team is loaded with players that are skilled, likable, and fun to watch play. There is nothing to argue about because everyone can "like" anyone they wish. I will start off with: Abreu...Gio...Madrigal...Eloy...Moncada

I hadn't even thought of him...but not a bad choice.

I agree. With guys like Flowers, Suzuki, Molina, and Avila available...no way should we be trusting Collins with that responsibility. He needs to be catching full time at AAA.

The importance of those 7th and 8th inning guys is immense. 2005 turns into just another year without Neil Cotts and Cliff Politte IMO.

A good reminder that there are more important things in life than baseball. My best wishes for your full recovery.