Author Topic: Pujols to the Cubs?  (Read 4056 times)

Chris27

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17290
Re: Pujols to the Cubs?
« Reply #15 on: May 12, 2011, 08:20:54 pm »
Good grief.

When you get a chance to get an all-time great, you take it.

There's absolutely no reason the Cubs can't build the farm  system with Pujols on the team.

davep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14627
Re: Pujols to the Cubs?
« Reply #16 on: May 12, 2011, 08:31:33 pm »
In that case, we should see if we can sign Pete Rose.

JBN

  • Guest
Re: Pujols to the Cubs?
« Reply #17 on: May 12, 2011, 08:32:52 pm »
Quote
There's absolutely no reason the Cubs can't build the farm  system with Pujols on the team.

Yes there is. His name is Jim Hendry.

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: Pujols to the Cubs?
« Reply #18 on: May 12, 2011, 08:33:03 pm »
Chris, ARod is also an all-time great.  If the Yankees offered to trade him for any five prospects in the system, their pick, would you do it?

Would you take his contract straight up?

Would you have taken it when the Rangers were desperate to unload it?

Chris27

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17290
Re: Pujols to the Cubs?
« Reply #19 on: May 12, 2011, 08:39:03 pm »
A-Rod's 5 years older than Pujols. Allegedly. And Pujols only costs money.

Pujols alone makes you much better. Is he enough? No. But he's a better addition than any other single player. I'd rather take that shot while hoping the system improves than praying this current group can break .500.


Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: Pujols to the Cubs?
« Reply #20 on: May 12, 2011, 08:53:25 pm »
ARod is still an all-time great, which seemed to be the only criteria you mentioned, and I suspect that the Yankees right now would actually let him go without requiring any talent.  ARod for Koyie Hill straight up might well do it.

Chris27

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17290
Re: Pujols to the Cubs?
« Reply #21 on: May 12, 2011, 08:54:45 pm »
A-Rod is not an option. Let's just stick with the one guy we're talking about.

JBN

  • Guest
Re: Pujols to the Cubs?
« Reply #22 on: May 12, 2011, 09:02:24 pm »
Even with Pujols, this team would still suck. They have too many other holes like in LF, SS, 2B, C,  4 starters, a coaching staff, an entire bench.

It would be like 1987 all over again with Andre Dawson.

CurtOne

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24361
Re: Pujols to the Cubs?
« Reply #23 on: May 12, 2011, 09:05:29 pm »
JB, you give them waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much credit.

JBN

  • Guest
Re: Pujols to the Cubs?
« Reply #24 on: May 12, 2011, 09:16:50 pm »
You're probably right. They need some new vendors as well.

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: Pujols to the Cubs?
« Reply #25 on: May 12, 2011, 09:18:14 pm »
A-Rod is not an option. Let's just stick with the one guy we're talking about.

So your "he's an all-time great" criteria really was not one you would actually use.

Chris27

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17290
Re: Pujols to the Cubs?
« Reply #26 on: May 12, 2011, 10:07:21 pm »
Is there nothing you won't parse to the greatest degree possible?

I mean, what's the point of doing so?

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: Pujols to the Cubs?
« Reply #27 on: May 12, 2011, 10:37:42 pm »
Is there any point in insisting that the standard you used is not one you really meant?  Is it "parsing" to point out that you did not really mean what you said?  Or should we simply ignore what you say because you don't mean it?  And how should we distinguish when you do mean it and when you don't?  Or should we simply assume you never mean it?  Instead of being defensive, and trying yourself to parse things, such as "ARod is not an option. Let's just stick with the one guy we're talking about," why not just acknowledge you overstated your position, or clarify what you in fact meant?

I really was not trying to play a game of "gotcha," but instead trying to get you to clarify just what your position was, or what your criteria for supporting such a move might be.... because the one you offered clearly was NOT one you really meant, as Dave also pointed out when he sarcastically suggested that perhaps we should sign Pete Rose (or perhaps Dave wasn't being sarcastic and was simply trying to "parse to the greatest degree possible."

But perhaps it was not really worth the effort on my part to try to determine what your criteria might be in supporting something like signing Pujols.  If you are not able to articulate it, it likely is not going to be very convincing.

Chris27

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17290
Re: Pujols to the Cubs?
« Reply #28 on: May 12, 2011, 11:09:21 pm »
Well, I have my answer even if indirectly.

I'd guess my point was obvious to anyone on planet Earth. Are you with us, Jes? Hello?

Because it's really tough to figure out why someone would want Albert Pujols on their team. A real head-scratcher there.

You set up a straw-man that had nothing to do with Pujols, and when I rightly ignored it, you pretend I didn't back my opinion. Rodriguez and Pujols have nothing to do with one another.




Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: Pujols to the Cubs?
« Reply #29 on: May 13, 2011, 07:48:23 am »
Yes, Chris, ARod and Pujols DO have something to do with each other.  Just as Dave's Rose example does.

All three are "all-time greats."  That was the only criteria you gave.  There is no "straw man" which either Dave or I set up.  We used YOUR criteria to point out that YOUR criteria made little sense and likely does not even reflect your actual thinking.

But instead of clarifying your thinking or acknowledging that you did not really mean what you wrote, you start talking about a "straw-man" and attacking me as not being from "planet Earth" or parsing your comments too much.

Chris, all I am trying to do is to understand what you meant or what your criteria would be for wanting to sign a Pujols.  They obviously are not as you expressed them.